Commons Sitting of 13 April 1885

MINUTES.
PRIVATE BILLS (by Order)—Second Reading—North British Railway; Worcester and Broom Railway (No. 1).*
PUBLIC BILLS—Committee—Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) (re-comm.) [49]—R.P. [Twelfth Night.]
Report—Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 2) * [107]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 3)* [108]; Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Provisional Orders* [100].

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  NORTH BRITISH RAILWAY BILL (by Order.)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir Charles Forster.)
  MR. WADDY,in moving, as an Amendment, that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, said, he did so for reasons which he hoped would receive the support of every dis-
  1444
  interested Member of the House. He had no objection to the Bill so far as it was a Railway Bill, and he had nothing to say against it. His objection was simply with regard to a particular provision of the Bill. The measure provided that the North British Railway Company should become hotel proprietors on a somewhat extensive scale; and if there ever was a case in which such a provision was objectionable it was in the case now under the consideration of the House. It was not an attempt to obtain powers such as were obtained openly in a great many instances, but it was put forward in a very ingenious manner. Many years ago this Railway Company became possessed of certain property for railway purposes. That property had been used in various ways and under various pretexts, and, having had the property so used, the Company now came before Parliament and asked it to sanction that which was done improperly and irregularly a good many years ago. The Company now proposed to open the property they had obtained for the purposes of an hotel. There was not the slightest need for such an hotel, and the Company were simply poaching on the ordinary business of hotel proprietors which had been carried on in the immediate neighbourhood for many years, and which anybody who knew Edinburgh would say had been carried on there successfully and well. One great ground of complaint against the Railway Company was that when they entered into this or any other business, they did not enter into it, as everybody knew, under fair and equal conditions. The hotel proprietors of Edinburgh had no opportunity of opposing the Bill, because it was settled that they had no locus standi before the Select Committee to which the measure would be referred, and they were unable, therefore, to put the House in possession of the real state of the facts. The amount of money already spent in the supply of hotel accommodation to Edinburgh and the immediate neighbourhood was very large; and, apart from the breach of faith in the present case, he could not help thinking it was time that something should be done to put a stop to attempts on the part of Railway Companies to undertake businesses for which they were not fitted, and which they had no right to under-

  1445
  take It might be a desirable thing to establish hotels when there was a lack of enterprize on the part of the people, and the requirements of the public demanded such accommodation. In such cases it was desirable and right that Railway Companies should undertake the duty, and establish such hotels; but there could be no excuse of that kind in this instance. Everybody knew what took place in regard to Glasgow, where a similar kind of business was carried on by the Railway Company. The passengers were besieged by the guards of the North British Railway Company, who were converted into hotel "touts," and telegrams wore despatched to procure beforehand the accommodation required. When the hotel proprietors of Glasgow desired to do the same thing, they were told that they must not send their touts down to the station, because it would be an interference with the business of the Railway Company. That might be so; but the practice did not appear to involve any interference when it was undertaken on behalf of the Company's own hotel, because the moment the train got into the station the passengers were again besieged by touts from the Company's own hotel. The genuine hotel proprietors were consequently subjected to an unfair competition. So long as the business was carried on in a fair manner there might have been no objection; but, unfortunately, it was not conducted fairly, and therefore he begged to move that the Bill be read a second time on that day six months.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Waddy.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  MR. ORR-EWINGsaid, this was one of those important Bills which were known by the name of omnibus Bills, and it proposed to do a great many things besides authorizing the North British Railway Company to enlarge and improve the premises which were at the present moment held by them as an hotel. The hotel in question was an old one, and had been used as an hotel for many years for the convenience and accommodation of passengers by the railway. It had been the property of
  1446
  the North British Railway Company since the year 1865; but the hotel premises at present unlet, and the object of the 24th clause of the present Bill was to enable the Company to enlarge, remodel, and improve their hotel and other property fronting Prince's Street in Edinburgh, so that they might be able to let it as an hotel. The Railway Company had no intention of occupying the hotel themselves; nor, in fact would they have any right to do so, because the Railway Company were not entitled to carry on the business of hotel-keepers. They found themselves obliged, however, to obtain power under a special Act of Parliament to enable them, among other things, to use their capital in this way. All they wanted, in connection with this property, which had now been in their possession for nearly 20 years, was that they should raise money for the purpose of improving it, so that they might be in a position to let it. The hon. and learned Member for the City of Edinburgh (Mr. Waddy), who had moved the rejection of the Bill, said that the hotel-keepers of Edinburgh had no other method of opposing the measure, or of objecting to any portion of it, except by moving the rejection of the whole of it; and he had told the House that if they had petitioned to be heard against it, it would have been declared that they had no locus standi. But the fact of the matter was that they never thought of opposing the Bill until one enterprizing hotel-keeper, who had a large interest in the hotels of Edinburgh, purchased, in the month of February, £300 worth of Stock in order to give him a position to oppose the Bill in public meetings of the Railway Company, and also before the House. If there was any doubt upon the matter whether it was desirable that the Railway Company should obtain this power, it was not a question for the House, but for a Select Committee to consider upstairs. The House could not know anything about the facts of the case, and they had been put in a very prejudiced way by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh. The proper place in which the opponents should submit their views was before the Committee upstairs, who would decide whether the North British Railway Company were entitled to raise money for this purpose or not. It would be monstrous to throw

  1447
  out an important Bill like this upon an insignificant question of this nature. It would, he thought, be an unfortunate abuse of the privileges of that House if a Bill of this kind were to be rejected merely because a mere fragment of it was complained of.
  MR. BUCHANANwished to say a word in support of the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Waddy). The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Orr-Ewing) said that it was a strong argument in favour of allowing the Bill to be considered, that it was an omnibus Bill, and that it would be unfair because they objected to a part of it to attempt to reject the whole Bill. But he (Mr. Buchanan) understood that it had been held that the Petitioners who opposed the Bill would have no locus standi before the Select Committee.
  MR. ORR-EWINGsaid, they had presented no Petition.
  MR. BUCHANANsaid, he understood that unless they obtained the concession they asked for at this stage of the Bill they would find it impossible to obtain it at any other stage. That, he thought, was a strong argument in favour of the proposal of his hon. and learned Friend. As a matter of fact, these premises were originally obtained not for hotel purposes at all, but in order to enlarge the station accommodation of the Railway Company; and the present proposal only showed how ready the Company were to make use of powers granted for one purpose for another and an entirely different purpose. He felt bound to support the proposal of his hon. and learned Friend.
  MR. LEWISbegged to move that this debate be now adjourned for the reason that they were not at that moment favoured with the presence of the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means, and he thought it was important that hon. Members who knew nothing about the matter should have the advantage of the advice and assistance of the right hon. Gentleman. It was certainly strange to hear a strong Protectionist argument from the other side of the House; but when private interests were affected they often saw the cloven-foot of Protection peeping out. The hon. Members for Edinburgh appeared there as the champions and supporters of all the existing hotel-keepers in that City, and they denounced
  1448
  as unrighteous that the Railway Company should have the opportunity of setting up a rival establishment. He thought the proposal of the hon. and learned Member was hardly one that the House was likely to accept. It seemed that his objection was confined to a portion only of one clause in the Bill, and yet he asked the House to throw out the whole measure. If the Amendment were accepted, it appeared to him (Mr. Lewis) that it would reduce the business of Private Bills in that House to perfect chaos, and everything that was really of importance in a Private Bill would hereafter stand a chance of being wrecked. [Sir ARTHUR OTWAY here entered the House.] He now saw the hon. Baronet the Chairman of Ways and Means in his place, and he would not, therefore, press the Motion for the adjournment of the debate; but it was perfectly obvious that the House could not allow a division to take place without having the advantage of the advice of the hon. Gentleman.
  MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member withdraw the Motion?
  MR. LEWIS: Yes.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, he knew nothing himself of the merits of this Bill; but he understood that it was an omnibus Bill, which had been introduced to obtain powers for various purposes, and that, amongst other powers, it proposed to enable the North British Railway Company to raise money for enlarging the building for their proposed hotel in Edinburgh. Now, he thought that the hotels attached to railways were very valuable as far as the convenience of the public were concerned, but only in places where hotels were deficient; but this was not the case in Edinburgh, where hotels were many and good, and therefore the additional hotel was not required; and if objections were raised to the proposal in this instance, he considered that it was only right that the question should be fairly argued before a Committee upstairs. If the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. Orr-Ewing) was correct in the statements he had made, he did not think the objection to the second reading of the Bill should be pressed; but as the Chairman of Ways and Means was there, he would probably inform the House whether the powers asked for were such as ought to be given to the Railway Company.
  SIR ARTHUR OTWAYsaid, he had not paid much attention to this matter, nor had he had the advantage of hearing what had been stated in the House upon it. He merely rose, therefore, for the purpose of saying that the opposition of certain hotel-keepers of Edinburgh to one of the provisions of the Bill was scarcely sufficient to justify the House in refusing to read the Bill a second time. Even if it were true that the hotel-keepers had no locus standi before the Committee in a matter of this kind, he had no doubt that the Committee to whom the Bill would be referred would have their attention directed to the discussion which had now taken place, and would deem it desirable to consider the matter and decide accordingly. But he must confirm the remark of the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) that it was the interest of the House of Commons to preserve some principle in arriving at their decisions in regard to the second reading of Private Bills; and if upon a clause of this sort they were to refuse to read a Bill a second time, he could not help thinking that a considerable amount of injustice might be done. Notice having been taken of the complaint of the hotel-keepers of Edinburgh, he thought the House might safely leave the matter in the hands of the Select Committee, and he hoped the second reading of the Bill would now be passed.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYwould advise his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Waddy) to rest satisfied with the statement of the Chairman of Ways and Means. He had done all that was necessary, he (Mr. J. W. Barclay) thought, to insure that the attention of the Select Committee should be directed to the question he had raised. He did not think his hon. and learned Friend could expect the House to vote against the second reading, because it was a Bill which contained various other important provisions. He felt, therefore, that his hon. and learned Friend would be best consulting the interests of those on whose behalf he was acting if he were now to withdraw his opposition to the Bill on the assurance which had been given by the Chairman of Ways and Means—that the question would be considered by the Select Committee.
  MR. ONSLOWsaid, he had intended to vote with the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, and he could not say that he agreed with the remarks of the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. Orr-Ewing). He did not think that this was a very small question. He thought that sufficient hotel accommodation already existed in Edinburgh, as was shown by the Petitions which had been presented to that House, and it was monstrous that private interests should be invaded by a powerful Railway Company. But as the Petitioners were to have a locus standi before the Committee, or, at all events, their views were to be considered, upon such an assurance he would advise his hon. and learned Friend opposite not to press the Motion to a division.
  MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. and learned Member withdraw the Amendment?
  MR. WADDYsaid, he would not press the matter further; but he desired to say a few words in answer to the observations of the hon. Member for Dumbarton.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. and learned Member is not entitled to address the House again.
  MR. WADDYsaid, that, under those circumstances, he would not consent to withdraw the Amendment.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed.

QUESTIONS.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—CLAIM FOR MALICIOUS BURNING—TRIAL AT WICKLOW ASSIZES.
  MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he will inquire into the circumstances of a claim made by Mr. Gun Cunningham for alleged malicious burning of a house; whether the facts put before the Grand Jury at the late Assizes at Wicklow showed that two emergency men, named Willoughby and Morgan, left the house in the morning of the 13th July, 1884, locked up, and when they returned it was burned down; whether it was sworn by Mr. Keely, P.L.G. for the district, who gave evidence on behalf

  1451
  of the cesspayers, that his attention was called to the fire that morning by a man named John Doyle, when he saw it was raging round the chimney, and could not have been caused from the outside unless the person setting it on fire had a long pole or a ladder; whether Mr. Keely's evidence was fully corroborated by John Doyle; whether Willoughby swore that Morgan disappeared after the fire, and was not available at the inquiry; whether the bailiff on the property, Michael Murray, swore he knew nothing of outrages in the district, and was not prepared to say the burning was malicious; whether, as a matter of fact, the district has all along been free from outrage of any kind; whether Mr. G. P. Brenan, one of the Grand Jurors, left his seat at the Grand Jury table to give evidence in support of the claim; whether his evidence was only an expression of opinion that the house was burned maliciously "through the negligence of the two emergency men;" whether Mr. Brenan is land agent to Mr. Gun Cunningham; and, whether he can indicate how the cesspayers can be relieved from a claim made under such circumstances and passed by a Grand Jury, one of whose members was in Mr. Brenan's position of agent and witness interested in getting the presentment passed?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I have seen reports of this matter, which is not one in which the Government could interfere. If the cesspayers are dissatisfied with the decision of the Grand Jury, I believe it is open to them to appeal to the Judge.
  MR. W. J. CORBET: Will the right hon. Gentleman give any expression of opinion as regards the action of the particular Grand Juror referred to?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I should be going beyond my function to give any opinion on the subject.

  POST OFFICE CLOTHING CONTRACTS.
  MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the Post Office clothing contract is under the control of the War Department; and, if so, whether there is a clause in form of tender providing that all clothing shall be made up at the contractor's factory only, and that no work whatever shall be done at the homes of the workpeople under a penalty of £700; whether he is aware that the firm who have
  1452
  just obtained the contract have sub-let it to a "sweater" at the East end of London, and what steps he will cause to be taken in the matter; and, whether the size roll was withheld from certain manufacturers, and what was the reason for withholding it?
  MR. BRAND: The Post Office clothing contract is under the control of the War Office; but there is no such clause in the form of tender as that indicated in the Question. The firm who have obtained the contract have arranged with another War Office contractor to assist them in carrying it out. The size roll was not withheld from any manufacturer who applied for it.

  NAVY—(SHIPS) BUILDING AND REPAIRS.
  MR. RYLANDSasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, What measures have been adopted, or are intended to be adopted, to carry out the recommendations contained in the Report of the Admiralty Committee on the Building and Repair of Ships?
  SIR THOMAS BRASSEY: Papers showing the action which has been taken are about to be presented to Parliament.

  THE PRINCE AND PRINCESS OF WALES —THE ROYAL VISIT TO IRELAND— OFFENSIVE SPEECHES.
  MR. LEWISasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to a speech, reported in the morning journals of the 8th instant to have been made in Dublin on the 7th, by Mr. W. O'Brien, M.P., in which he is reported to have said (inter alia):—
  "He could not read with patience all the fuss which was being made about the visit of the Prince of Wales to Ireland. They would never have parley with these English rulers until they had driven them and beaten them out of the Country;"
  whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to take any notice of this appeal to physical force against the English Government on the part of a recognised leader of the so-called Nationalist party in Ireland and a Member of this House; and, whether, in view of repeated similar appeals being made to the Irish people, the Government will forthwith announce its decision as to the

  1453
  renewal of the Crimes Act in the present Session?
  MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN: I have seen the speech referred to, and other similar speeches on the same subject. The Government would very promptly deal with anything like a serious appeal to physical force; but the particular passage quoted by the hon. Gentleman reads to me more like an expression of impatience or disappointment than a call to arms. I do not see that there is any connection between the subject of the Royal visit and the question of renewing the Crimes Act, as to which I have nothing to add to the answers already given.
  MR. HEALY: As to this appeal to physical force, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his attention has been called to a speech made by the noble Lord the Member for Liverpool (Lord Claud Hamilton), in which he said that if the Government did not drive "the horde of ruffians, Members of the House," south of the Boyne, he would take the law into his own hands and do so?

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—MR. FLEURY, DISTRICT INSPECTOR OF LISBURN.
  MR. CALLANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Mr. Fleury, District Inspector of Lisburn, is in the habit of appearing on duty at Belfast Quarter Sessions dressed in plain clothes, instead of in his uniform, as directed by the Constabulary Code of Regulations (section 1316); whether he has done so at the last Annual Licensing Sessions held on 1st of November last, when he attended and opposed the application of a widow named Margaret Robinson for a transfer of a licence from her deceased husband; whether he also, on the 20th January last (to which date the application had been adjourned), appeared dressed in a similar manner; whether, in consequence of his being so dressed, when, on stating his opposition, the Chairman asked him who he was, to which he replied that he was the District Inspector; and, whether, on both occasions, he sat beside the Temperance League solicitor, giving him instructions in the opposition to the granting of the transfer; and, if so, whether he was authorised to retain, or instruct, or give information to said
  1454
  solicitor; and, if so, by whom so authorised?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: District Inspector Fleury is not in the habit of attending Quarter Sessions in plain clothes; but he was so dressed on the two occasions referred to, when the application in question, which had been previously repeatedly refused, came on. The Inspector General thinks that as the District Inspector knew he was liable to be called upon, al though not then actually conducting the opposition, he should have been in uniform, and has so informed him. The District Inspector gave some information to the solicitor for the opposition, but he did not retain him professionally.

  CHARGES AGAINST IRISH OFFICIALS— CASE OF JAMES ELLIS FRENCH— COLONEL BRUCE.
  MR. CALLANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, in view of the statement made by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, when Chief Secretary, in this House on the 17th of June 1884, on the Motion for a—
  "Select Committee to inquire into the conduct of the Government with regard to the criminal charges against James Ellis French, County Inspector and Detective Director, and others,"
  to the effect—
  "I think something may be said of the duty of those who are aware of these horrible crimes, or who think they are aware that these horrible crimes have been committed. These crimes are criminal matters deserving of criminal punishment, and when any person has evidence that such crimes have been committed, he should proceed against the persons who have committed them in the way the Law enjoins, that is, to lay information before a magistrate, whether the offenders he Government officials or not,"
  Whether it is a fact that Colonel Bruce, the Inspector General of the Royal Irish Constabulary, held an inquiry in the Castle, Dublin, into certain of the charges against his colleague, James Ellis French, with the result that the said James Ellis French was officially informed by Colonel Bruce that he should "not return to his office till called upon to do so," in other words, that he was suspended from duty; whether the evidence taken at that inquiry was laid before the Law Officers of the Crown for advice and direction, or its nature and effect, and suspension of J. E. French, communicated to His Ex-

  1455
  cellency the Lord Lieutenant or the Chief Secretary; whether Mr. John Mallon, the Chief Superintendent of the Detective Department of the Metropolitan Police, was instructed to prosecute further inquiry into the said charges; whether it is a fact that, at the inquiry so held by Colonel Bruce, District Inspector Maguire, of Limerick, was examined as to French's conduct towards his brother; whether District Inspector Bell, Athenry, in the course of his evidence at said inquiry made a statement with reference to charges made by his clerk against James E. Trench of solicitation to commit a felony; and, if so, whether Colonel Bruce took any and what steps to secure the evidence of the said police clerk; and, whether Colonel Bruce, instead of directing the prosecution of further inquiry into the matters disclosed at said inquiry, arising from which J. E. French was suspended from duty, on the contrary warned the District Inspectors so examined to suppress all mention of the matter, and not to divulge the fact that such an inquiry had been held?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: There are no grounds for any of the insinuations against the conduct of Colonel Bruce implied in this Question. I can only repeat that from first to last Colonel Bruce laid before the Government the result of the inquiries which he made, that the steps which he took were taken with the cognizance and approval of the Government, and that the Government assume the entire responsibility for the conduct of the case.
  MR. CALLAN: Will the Chief Secretary answer this Question—Whether Mr. John Mallon, the Chief Superintendent of the Detective Department of the Metropolitan Police, was instructed to prosecute further into the said charges? Yes or no?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: If the hon. Member will repeat his Question on some future day I will reply to it.
  MR. CALLAN: I have given 10 days' Notice of it, and I have once postponed it on the request conveyed to me by the right hon. Gentleman's Private Secretary.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I certainly am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for putting it off. This is a very particular point in a very long
  1456
  Question, and I have not in my possession accurate information upon it—
  MR. CALLAN: Why have you not?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN: I have given general information in order to save the time of the House.

  GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS (IRELAND).
  MR. LALORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If Government officials in Ireland who may have the appointment of their own assistants, who have no judicial functions, require such assistants to repudiate their legitimate political opinions, as exemplified by the action of Mr. White, county surveyor for Queen's County, in requiring his deputy, Mr. Harrison, to publicly disassociate himself from any connection with the Irish National League; and, if this be so, does the same practice prevail in England in reference to members of political societies, and in reference to the societies of Freemasons and Orangemen in Ireland?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: County Surveyors are the officers of the Grand Juries. With regard to officers under the immediate control of the Government, the practice is to require that they shall not take public or prominent part in any political matters.
  MR. SEXTON: Are not County Surveyors appointed by the Executive?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: They may be appointed by the Executive, but they are the servants of the Grand Juries.

  ARMY—DRESS OF THE ARMY—THE HIGHLAND FEATHER BONNET.
  GENERAL ALEXANDERasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is true that the Seaforth Highlanders, now stationed at Windsor, mount the Castle Guard in forage caps; and, if so, who is responsible for so irregular a practice?
  MR. BRAND: The facts are as stated. Pending the settlement of the question of the retention of the feather bonnet, no provision was made in the Estimates of last year for its issue. Meanwhile, this regiment has, at its own request, been permitted to wear Glengarry caps instead of helmets in full dross. It having, however, been decided to retain the feather bonnet,

  1457
  money has been included in this year's Estimates for the service, and the officer commanding the regiment has been authorized to make the necessary arrangements for its issue to the men.

  COLONIAL DEFENCES—THE COLONIAL NAVAL FORCES.
  MR. GORSTasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether he will state the amount of Naval force kept on foot by the various self-governing Colonies; and, whether there would be any objection to insert the names of the ships of the Colonial Navies, and their officers, in the official Navy List, as the names of the regiments of the Colonial Forces, and their officers, are inserted in the official Army List?
  SIR THOMAS BRASSEY: The Naval Forces of the Colonies not being under the control of the Admiralty, we have not sufficiently accurate reports of their strength to enable me to reply in detail to the Question of my hon. Friend. I may say, however, that the Colony of Victoria possesses an ironclad, the Cerberus; and several of the Australian Colonies have commenced to provide themselves with efficient cruisers, gunboats, and torpedo-boats, and to organize a Naval Reserve. The Admiralty are fully prepared to insert the names of the ships of the Colonial Navies and their officers in the Navy List as soon as the Navy of any Colony is sufficiently organized.

  THE ELECTRIC LIGHTING ACT— LEGISLATION.
  MR. E. STANHOPEasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he proposes to introduce a Bill this year to amend the Electric Lighting Act?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: No, it is not my intention.

  THE EGYPTIAN LOAN—MESSRS. ROTHSCHILD.
  MR. W. H. SMITHasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether Messrs. Rothschild have made or have agreed to make any loan or to continue any advance to the Egyptian Government; whether Her Majesty's Government have joined in any request to the Messrs. Rothschild that such loan or advance should be made or continued;
  1458
  and, on what terms and for what period the arrangement has been made?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): Yes, Sir; Messrs. Rothschild are aware that we regard ourselves pledged to the Bill now before Parliament, and with this knowledge have supplied the temporary necessities of the Egyptian Government. I have no knowledge of the details of the transaction, which have been settled between Messrs. Rothschild and the Egyptian Government.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—INDUSTRIAL SCHOOL OF SAINT JOSEPH, DUNDALK.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Is it a fact that, on the 4th September last, Messrs. R. Cuming and John Monow, magistrates for county Cavan, committed to the Industrial School of Saint Joseph, at Dundalk, a girl named Elizabeth Reilly; whether the grand jury of Cavan have refused to contribute for the girl's support; and, whether, if the facts are as stated, the grand jury of county Cavan can be forced to pay the amount to which they are entitled; and, if not, are there any other means by which they can get paid?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It is optional with Grand Juries to contribute towards the maintenance of children in industrial schools, and there is no power to enforce payment.
  MR. BIGGAR: Are the managers bound to take the children on the order of the magistrates?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am not sure whether that is the law.

  POST OFFICE (CONTRACTS)—THE IRISH MAILS.
  COLONEL NOLANasked the Postmaster General, If he would state what sum the Government have offered the Great Midland and Western Railway of Ireland to carry the mails at an accelerated rate, and also what sum the Midland demands; and, if the difference would be left to the decision of arbitrators?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: In reply to the hon. Member, I may state, as the negotiations are now concluded, that the Midland Great Western offered an accelerated service on their Galway and Sligo branches for a payment of £9,000

  1459
  a-year. The Post Office had offered a payment of £6,000. As the revenue available for this service is under £5,000, I am quite unable to increase my offer, or to refer the matter to arbitration.

  THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION (SUB- COMMISSIONERS)—MR. GREER.
  MR. TOTTENHAMasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that Mr. Greer has again been nominated Chairman of the Sub-Commission for the county of Down; whether he was, on a former occasion, transferred from the county of Down to another district, owing to the fact of his having been a practising solicitor in the said county; whether his late partner (Mr. Mullan), in whose firm he (Mr. Greer) still retains an interest, acts professionally before the county of Down Sub-Commission; and, whether the reasons which caused his transfer on a former occasion do not still exist?
  MR CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN: I am informed Mr. Greer will act as Chairman of the next Sub-Commission for County Down. He has no interest in the business of his late partner. He was on a former occasion transferred from the County Down, but the reason was not stated, and the Land Commissioners do not think it desirable to make public their reasons for appointing Assistant Commissioners to different districts.

  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT, 1884—REGISTRATION OF PARLIAMENTARY ELECTORS (IRELAND).
  MR. HEALYasked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the effect of the extension to Ireland of the enactment conferring the franchise on the occupier of a portion of a dwelling-house when such portion is used as a separate dwelling, even though it may not be separately rated, and to the danger that such provision may in Ireland be rendered nugatory by the difference between the English and Irish Law relating to claims to be rated; whether it is the fact that, owing to the provisions of the 30 and 31 Vic. c. 102, s. 3, subs. 3, it is still necessary for an occupier in such cases to be rated, and that in England he can have himself rated by simply lodging a claim
  1460
  to be rated, whereas in Ireland, owing to the decision in the case of Brangan v. Shaw, a claim to be rated under such circumstances would be quite useless, the Board of Guardians, on whom such claim must be served, having no power to rate the claimant when there is no separate valuation of the portion of the premises occupied by him; whether the result of this state of things is that, notwithstanding the express provision of the Act of Parliament, a separate valuation will be still required in all cases, the necessary steps to have the premises separately valued involving the loss of at least a year, during which the occupier is deprived of the franchise; and, whether it is proposed to provide a remedy for this state of things in the proposed Registration Act for Ireland?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER): The subject referred to in this Question was some time since very carefully considered, and the result of the opinions arrived at was that the difficulty suggested could not arise having regard to the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1884, and the enactments thereby incorporated and extended to Ireland. I do not think that separate rating is now necessary in England in the case put.

  INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS (IRELAND) ACT —FEMALE SCHOOLS.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Irish Government have considered an application made to them by the Catholic Bishop of Achonry, for a certificate to enable his Lordship to establish at Ballaghaderreen, county Mayo, an industrial school for female children, under the 13th section of the Act; whether it is the fact that no school for female children under the 13th section has yet been established in Ireland; whether, with regard to the one industrial school established in Ireland under the 13th section for boys, namely, the Kilmore Probationary School, the last detailed Report of the Inspector certifies that the boys in that institution are "very docile and attentive to all their duties," and are "exceptionally well conducted, honest, and truthful;" whether the Inspector, Sir John Lentargue, in his Annual Report for 1883, refers the decrease in the

  1461
  number of young boys admitted to reformatories to the working of the Kilmore School—
  "The value of which institution is now becoming known, and is fully appreciated by those who understand the subject of penal repression;"
  whether the Government have noted the opinion of the Inspector that the extension of the system adopted at Kilmore would be productive both of greater economy and of better moral results to the children; and, whether, having regard to the fact that the estimate for the current year makes provision for 361 additional children in Irish Industrial Schools, at a cost of £4,693, the Government will issue the certificate applied for by the Catholic Bishop of Achonry?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNEEMAN: There is already at Ballinasloe an industrial school available for the reception of 50 female juvenile offenders committed under the 13th section of the Act from all Ireland; and as I found on inquiry at the end of last year that there were only two inmates of that class in the school, I did not think a case had been made out for the issue of a certificate for another school of that character.
  MR. SEXTON: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider the establishment of an ordinary industrial school?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, that question must stand over until next week, as their present powers were exhausted.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)— CHARGE OF ASSAULT AGAINST GEORGE BARKER (GRANGE PETTY SESSIONS).
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, in a case heard on the 20th ultimo, at Grange (county Sligo) Petty Sessions, before Henry Turner, resident magistrate, Charles Gore Jones, and Jeremiah Eccles, justices, George Barker, gamekeeper, was charged by the Constabulary with having been drunk while in possession of loaded firearms; discharged a revolver on the public road; and assaulting Constable M'Mahon whilst the constable was endeavouring to arrest him; whether the several charges were maintained on oath by three constables and four other
  1462
  witnesses; whether Barker brought a cross-charge of assault against two of the constables; whether this cross-charge was dismissed; whether the magistrates dismissed the charges of drunkenness and discharging the revolver made against Barker, and found him guilty of the assault upon Constable M'Mahon, for which they fined him two pounds; whether the magistrates were unanimous as to the findings and the amount of the fine; whether the Attorney General has caused any steps to be taken to procure further adjudication upon the case; whether copies of reports, informations, and notes of evidence in the case will be laid upon the Table; and, whether the licence to have and carry arms, granted to Barker, will be revoked?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNEEMAN: The facts are substantially as stated. The magistrates, I understand, were influenced in their decision—which was unanimous—by the previous good character borne by Barker, as testified by the police, and they considered the penalty inflicted was sufficient to cover all the charges that were borne out by the evidence. They regarded the discharge of the revolver as accidental, and do not think a case exists for revoking the licence. There were no notes taken of the evidence, and it does not seem necessary to lay any Papers on the Table.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—NORTH DUBLIN BOARD OF GUARDIANS.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If the Irish Local Government Board have withdrawn, or resolved to withdraw, their veto against the resolution of the North Dublin Board of Guardians, appointing the Hibernian Bank their treasurer?
  MR. CAMPBELL - BANNEEMAN: The Local Government Board are still in communication with the Guardians on the subject, and are awaiting a reply to a letter which they sent to them last week.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, he hoped that a decision would be come to before the Vote for the Local Government Board came on for consideration.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, it would be come to, he hoped, during the coming week.

  FISHERIES (IRELAND)—ENCROACHMENT OF FRENCH FISHERMEN.
  MR. KENNYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If the attention of the Irish Government has been called to the continued encroachments of French fishing luggers on the south-west coast of Ireland, and especially on the coast of Clare, within the three-mile limit, as established by the Sea Fisheries Act, 1883, which carries into effect the International Convention concerning fisheries in the North and British Seas; is it a fact that, on or about the 24th of March last, a boat belonging to one of the Inspectors of Irish Fisheries was stolen off the beach at Kilcredane, and that the local coastguardsmen believe it was done by French fishermen, who came on shore and used it for the purpose of getting back to their lugger; and, if the Irish Government will at once send a gunboat or cruiser to those parts of Ireland to enforce the Convention and protect the interests of the Irish fishermen?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: No complaint on this subject has recently reached the Irish Government. I understand one of the Inspectors of Fisheries has received a letter stating that encroachments have been made this year on the coast of Clare; but no case has been made out to necessitate or justify the sending of a gunboat or cruiser to that part of Ireland. The Coastguard reported the disappearance of a canoe, which was nominally the property of one of the Inspectors, and they have since reported that it has been found on the opposite shore.

  LAW AND POLICE (IRELAND) — THE DETECTIVE DEPARTMENT—MR. JENKINSON.
  MR. KENNYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If Mr. Jenkinson, of the Detective Department, in addition to the pay which he receives as a public servant is an Indian pensioner; if so, what is the amount of the pension he receives, and for what length of service he is pensioned?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Mr. Jenkinson is in receipt of a pension of about £950 a-year, after 25 years' service in India. I should explain that pensions of this kind are regarded as annuities—
  1464
  they having been regularly subscribed for by the officers out of their pay—and are not subject to the rules ordinarily affecting the pensions of persons who obtain re-employment in the Public Service.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—LIGONEIL PETTY SESSIONS, CO. ANTRIM.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, since the formation of the Petty Sessions District of Ligoneil, has the Petty Sessions always been held in the Court House, Belfast; and, if so, is the holding of such Petty Sessions out of the Petty Sessions District according to law; and, if, since the public are inconvenienced under the existing arrangement, he will take means of having the Petty Sessions abolished, and the district revert to its former position?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I believe some question has arisen as to the legality of holding Ligoneil Petty Sessions in the Belfast Court House, which is not in the district; but as a case is now pending in which the point is specifically raised, I do not think it would be proper for me to express any opinion on the matter at the present time.

  CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND)— THE CATHOLIC CHAPEL, HILLSBOROUGH, CO. DOWN.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Is he aware that the windows of the Catholic chapel, in Hillsboro', county Down, have been repeatedly maliciously broken; whether any arrests have been made in consequence; and, whether any and what precautions have been taken to prevent such outrages in future?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It is not true that the windows of this chapel have been repeatedly maliciously broken, and there is no cause for any special interference.

  EGYPT (FINANCE, &c.) — EGYPTIAN PREFERENCE AND UNIFIED DEBTS.
  MR. M'COANasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the tax established by Article 12 of the Khedivial decree on the amount of the coupons of

  1465
  the Preference and Unified debts will be deducted from the coupons becoming payable on the 15th of April and the 1st of May; or, whether the deduction will only take place after the several Foreign Legislatures concerned have ratified the guarantee?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): Yes, Sir; arrangements have been made for the deduction of the tax from the coupons about to fall due.

  HIGHWAYS (IRELAND)—PAYMENT OF ROAD CONTRACTORS, CO. GALWAY.
  COLONEL NOLANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If it is legal for the Galway county surveyor to stop the payments of road contractors for two or three half years in succession, still leaving these roads in the hands of the same contractors?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I do not think there is anything illegal in the abstract in the County Surveyor taking the course mentioned in the Question.

  ARMY LIST—OFFICERS OF COLONIAL FORCES.
  MR. GORSTasked the Secretary of State for War, Why, in the Official Army List, the names of Officers of Colonial Forces have not been corrected in the case of Canada since November 1883; of the Cape of Good Hope since December 1883; of New South Wales since January 1884; of New Zealand since February 1884; of Queensland since March 1884; of South Australia since December 1883; of Tasmania since December 1883; and of Victoria since January 1883; and, whether the War Office could obtain and publish more recent information respecting the Colonial Military Forces?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: It is considered sufficient to correct yearly the lists of officers in the Colonial Forces, and the edition of the official quarterly Army List in which the corrected lists appear is in most cases that for April. In the Army List now printing the lists of Colonial officers for most of the Colonies will be corrected to December, 1884; but the Governments of Canada, Queensland, and Victoria have not yet sent in their corrections.

  GIBRALTAR—THE POST OFFICE.
  CAPTAIN AYLMERasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the Post Office at Gibraltar is under the Imperial Government; and, if so, why it has not been placed on the same footing as in other Colonies where the Post Offices are administered by and for account of the Colonial Governments; whether the business of the Post Office at Gibraltar is conducted, and has for years been conducted, by Natives; and, whether the revenue derived from this Post Office is applied to Imperial purposes instead of in aid of Gibraltar finances, which are known to be heavily weighted as compared with those of other Colonies?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: The statements in the hon. Member's Question are substantially correct. There has been a great deal of Correspondence on the subject, and it has not yet been completed. Until it is finished I am not in a position to answer the Question.

  LOCAL TAXATION — MINISTERIAL STATEMENT.
  SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he will make his promised statement as to relief of local taxation before or at the time of the Budget; and, whether, at the same time, he will consider the exemption of personalty from the equivalent of the Land Tax, as well as rates contrary to the intention of the statutes imposing the same, as also the assessment of reality under Schedule A, and houses for House Duty and Property Tax on the gross, without any equitable deduction as allowed for other property?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): In reply to the hon. Baronet I have to say, on behalf of my right hon. Friend and myself, that we cannot now undertake to make any statement as to local taxation in connection with this year's Budget. When the question of local taxation comes before Parliament on any proposal of the Government, they will, of course, have considered the incidence of the land tax as well as of other taxes or rates on real property. The latter part of the hon. Baronet's Question has been twice raised recently by my right hon. Friend the Member for the City (Mr.

  1467
  Hubbard), and I have nothing to add now to what I said on those occasions.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, when the Government considers the matter, they will compare the incidence of local taxation in Ireland with that of local taxation in England?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CRILDERS): Yes, Sir. If we mate any proposal as to Irish local taxation, of course it will be compared with the incidence of such taxation in England.

  LAW AND JUSTICE—THE OFFICE OF SHERIFF.
  SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If he can state the number of persons requesting to be excused serving the office of Sheriff at the last appointment; and, whether, in view of charging part of the cost of public prosecution on the owners of one description of property, the Government will consider the propriety of either making the office optional, like the office of Mayor, or else of paying the cost out of the "Crown's Nominee Account," as would appear to be the original intention?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): In reply to the first Question of the hon. Baronet, which my right hon. Friend has asked me to answer, I have to say that 33 persons out of 147 nominees at the last appointment requested to be excused serving the office of Sheriff. Of these, 13 founded their request on the ground of insufficient income. I cannot at the present time undertake on behalf of the Government to consider proposals either to make the office optional or to pay its expenses from any public fund.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—THE REVISED CODE, 1885.
  MR. E. H. PAGETsaid, he wished to make an appeal to the Prime Minister in regard to the Business of that evening. He observed that the first Notice of Motion on the Paper referred to an important question dealing with the Elementary Education Revised Code, 1885. There were no fewer than four Motions on that question. The last day before which this Statute became law expired on Thursday
  1468
  next, and unless a discussion upon it took place that evening, he was afraid it would be impossible to find another opportunity. He hoped the Prime Minister would arrange that whatever Business was before the House would be suspended at 11 o'clock in order that the discussion might be taken.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he thought there was a good deal of force in what had been said by the hon. Member; but he was afraid sufficient attention had not been given to the difficulty in which the Government stood. If the Government had absolute control of the Business of the evening, they would have asked the House at half-past 11 o'clock, when he hoped and expected they would be in Committee on the Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) Bill, to report Progress and allow his hon. Friend the Member for Oxford University to bring forward his Motion. But there were no fewer than six Private Bills, over which the Government had no control whatever; and unless these were got rid of, he could not see how it would be possible for the Government to facilitate the discussion.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE — CHINESE DUTIES ON TEA—THE "LI-KIN DUES."
  MR. HOPWOODasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is the fact, as currently stated, that the Chinese Government has imposed an additional tax of three and a-half taels per cent., or other amount, on tea, under the name of "Li-kin dues?"
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Her Majesty's Charge d'Affaires at Pekin telegraphs that no such dues have been imposed.

  EGYPT—SEIZURE OF THE "BOSPHORE EGYPTIEN."
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the French Government has protested against the suppression of The Bosphore Egyptien; and, whether that newspaper will be allowed to re-appear?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: No official representations have been made to Her Majesty's Government on the subject; but they are aware that the French Government regard the act

  1469
  of the Egyptian Government as illegal. In reply to the second portion of the hon. Member's Question, we have no information as to the future.

  VENEZUELA—REVOLUTIONARY EXPEDITION AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT.
  MR. KENNYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If it has come to his knowledge that certain persons in this Country have, for some time past, been conspiring to equip an expedition to overthrow the Government of the United States of Venezuela; and, if one of the persons concerned has recently been an accredited Minister Plenipotentiary to the Court of Saint James; and, if so, whether Her Majesty's Government propose to take steps to expel from England persons plotting against a friendly Government, as has recently been done in a somewhat similar case by the Government of France?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the Question had nothing whatever to do with the Home Office.
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: No such information has reached the Foreign Office; but care will be taken to prevent any proceedings in violation of the terms of the Foreign Enlistment Act.

  CENTRAL ASIA—RUSSIA AND AFGHANISTAN—RUSSIAN ATTACK ON THE AFGHANS AT PENJDEH—THE NEGOTIATIONS.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If Her Majesty's Government have demanded of the Russian Government the withdrawal of General Komaroff from his command an account of his attack upon the troops of the Amir of Afghanistan, our ally, and the evacuation of the Afghan positions occupied by the Russian forces in consequence of that attack?
  MR. O'KELLYasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is true that the Afghan Forces, before the battle of Penjdeh, crossed the River Kushk, and threw up entrenchments at a point on the river between the position occupied by the main Russian Force and its advanced post at Puli-Khisti, thus menacing the Russian Forces in debateable territory?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am sorry to say that I am not able to give an answer
  1470
  to the Question of the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett), nor am I able to give an answer to the Question of the hon. Member for Roscommon (Mr. O'Kelly). The fact is this—that a deplorable incident has taken place of the gravest importance at a distance involving communications with a foreign capital. It has been our duty, of course, to institute, without a moment's delay, the best inquiry we can. That inquiry is going forward, and I hope for a full and complete elucidation of the facts; but pending that proceeding I think there would be no advantage whatever in my referring to any particular portion of this question, as is suggested by the Question of the hon. Member for Eos-common, and still less in announcing, in answer to the hon. Member for Eye, the general conclusions at which the Government have arrived. It would be most injurious to the public interests that we should enter on any such course. The hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. E. Clarke) desires to know whether the Correspondence between the British and the Russian Governments will soon be laid on the Table. I have no doubt that Parliament will in due time be seised of that Correspondence. But unquestionably the moment for such a proceeding on our part has not yet arrived, and no good, I think, would arise from it. I rather gather probably that the right hon. Gentleman opposite has intended to ask me Questions on the same subject and to the same effect as those which he put on previous days. Indeed, one I anticipated would be a repetition of a Question that he himself, no doubt, felt to be of great importance, and which he put to me before, but which I was not able to answer at the time. The right hon. Gentleman asked me, I think, twice as to the communications which we had received from the Viceroy of India. I understand the right hon. Gentleman to mean with respect to other communications that might have passed between the Viceroy and the Ameer of Afghanistan, with regard to whom we must all feel that the greatest consideration is due to him under the circumstances. We have now had what I may call a full report of the detailed communications that have been held by Lord Dufferin with the Ameer, especially, of course, in relation to the recent conflict, of which the Ameer is

  1471
  fully aware, and also to the other questions now at issue. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will not expect me to enter into any details at this time; but I can comprise the whole of them in saying that the communications of Lord Dufferin with the Ameer have been both full and entirely satisfactory. Probably the right hon. Gentleman might likewise wish to know— and the House would wish to know—what the Government have to say on the subject of a paragraph which, I believe, appeared in yesterday's papers, purporting to be the report of General Komaroff in answer to the Russian Government, and containing what I presume is the justification of his proceedings. With regard to that report, I only have to say that it has been at once referred to Sir Peter Lumsden. The reports thus far—speaking of that matter exclusively—from the respective officers of the Russian and the British Governments have differed in substance and in effect, and an inquiry is proceeding which we shall do everything in our power to render thorough and complete.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I should like to know, if the right hon. Gentleman could tell us, within what limits of time the Government can communicate with Sir Peter Lumsden, and also what communications they have received from him with regard to these proceedings; and, further, whether the Government have now received all the communications they expect from the Russian Government, or whether they are still awaiting further answers?
  MR. GLADSTONE: About the time I would rather that my noble Friend the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs answered. I do not know whether he can give an exact reply; but I think he can reply more exactly than I can at the present moment. But one thing I will say—that the right hon. Gentleman, no doubt, is aware that the communication on this important event at Pul-i-Khisti was abnormally delayed through the accidental breaking of the telegraph wire on this side of Meshed, and that, therefore, was no test of the regular time for communication with Sir Peter Lumsden. With regard to the second part of the right hon. Gentleman's Question, I should undoubtedly anticipate a further communication from the Russian
  1472
  Government, because I do not think there has yet been time for us to have received in full the answers to the material parts of the representations originally made to the Russian Government on the part of Her Majesty's Government.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: The right hon. Gentleman will understand that, although there have been various communications, we have not yet had a full account of them, and we do not know from Her Majesty's Government their view of what has taken place. I therefore asked whether they were expecting further information both from Sir Peter Lumsden and from the Russian Government. It was not so much a question exactly of days and hours, but whether they were in direct communication with Sir Peter Lumsden, and expected soon to receive his version of what had taken place, and when we might reasonably expect to receive a communication from Her Majesty's Government of their view as to what has actually happened?
  MR. GLADSTONE: If it were a mere question of obtaining a reply on undisputed facts, it would be possible for us to indicate the time when we should be able to give a full answer. But, as I have already said, the reports of the officers of the Russian and the British Governments are, in some respects, at variance both in substance and in general effect, and it would be rash on my part to undertake at the present moment to fix a day by which I hoped that those differences would be cleared up.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Government have received any confirmation of the statement in The Standard of this morning from it Correspondent with Sir Peter Lumsden's Commission that the Russian Forces are advancing southwards along the line of the Murghab River? I also wish to know with reference to the statements which have appeared in the Russian organ in this country, which seriously impugn the character and conduct of Captain Yate and members of the English Commission, whether the Government have any reason to discredit the account sent to this country from Captain Yate, or to believe that he was in any way the cause of the recent deplorable conflict?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I stated on Thursday the substance of the communications we have received from the British officers, and that we thought it our duty to give credence to them. As to the report referred to by the hon. Member for Eye, we have not received intelligence to the effect described by the hon. Member; but a report of that character has reached us.
  MR. E. STANHOPE: Have Her Majesty's Government received any information from the British Ambassador at St. Petersburg as to the statement which has been widely circulated that the Rus-sian Government has already distributed rewards and decorations to their officers commanding the Force on the frontier of Afghanistan?
  MR. GLADSTONE: No; we have received no intelligence to that effect.
  MR. ONSLOW: I beg to ask, whether, without detriment to the Public Service, all the Correspondence previous to Sir Peter Lumsden's leaving this country could be produced; and whether the Government have considered the propriety of prosecuting without delay the construction of the railway between Quetta and Candahar?
  MR. GLADSTONE: As to the first Question, I cannot give a pledge; but if the hon. Member will put it down, I will inquire how the matter stands. As to the railway, also, I cannot make any statement without Notice of the Question.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he would state the time taken to communicate with Sir Peter Lumsden; also, where that officer is now located; and whether the statement which appeared in the newspapers from General Komaroff has been officially communicated to Her Majesty's Government by the Russian Government as to the official explanation of the action of Russia?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I informed the House the other day that the telegraph wire was unfortunately broken near Meshed. Communications with Sir Peter Lumsden took from three to four days; but since that the time has been considerably longer. Messages from Gulran, where Sir Peter Lumsden was till quite recently, apparently take about seven days. The message which the Prime Minister quoted the other day
  1474
  in making his statement was despatched some time on the 1st, and arrived at the Foreign Office late on the evening of the 7th. As a considerable part of the distance has to be accomplished by messengers, the time must vary according to the speed of the particular means employed. Sir Peter Lumsden has now left Gulran, and is at a place further south called Tirpul.
  MR. O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether, if it takes something like a week to communicate with Sir Peter Lumsden, it is the case that there is easy communication between the Government of St. Petersburg and the Russian advanced posts — namely, 24 hours at the outside, by ordinary Russian courier post; and whether a message from St. Petersburg to General Komaroff has not habitually taken less than 24 hours?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I do not think it is within my power to give an opinion on the details of the communication between St. Petersburg and General Komaroff. The Prime Minister stated the other day the facts so far as they are known to us. It does not appear to be certain up to what exact point the Russian telegraph is complete, nor as to what exact point the field telegraph has been laid down. Undoubtedly there is a telegraph to Aska-bad, and, of course, if it were completed to Merv, it would be nearer the point where General Komaroff is. But it is not a matter on which the Foreign Office is exactly informed.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMS: Has the telegraph wire by which communications were forwarded to Sir Peter Lumsden been mended?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I have no doubt that every effort has been made to do so; but I have no information of its having been restored.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BAETLETTinquired whether General Komaroff's explanation of the attack on the Afghans had been officially communicated to Her Majesty's Government as the Russian official reply to Her Majesty's Government from the Russian Government, or whether it was merely a report?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I told the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition that we expected further information.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Then it is not their reply?
  MR. GLADSTONE: No.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Are we to understand—[Cries of "Oh, oh!"] I am sorry to press the right hon. Gentleman; but the Question is one of vital importance, as to whether General Komaroff's explanation of the attack on the Afghans has been simply transmitted to Her Majesty's Government by the Russian Government as their General's report, or whether it is also the Russian official explanation of what occurred?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: What the Prime Minister said was that it had been communicated, but that further explanations were expected.
  MR. GRAY: The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister was asked a Question a moment ago as to a statement in The Standard with respect to the advance of the Russians. He replied, as I understood, that he had not received any official intimation of that advance, but had received a rumour to that effect. Can he see his way to explain this, and say whether the rumour was from an official source?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I think the hon. Member had better put that Question on the Paper. cries of "Oh, oh!"] I have no objection to repeat what fell from the Prime Minister, which was that no intelligence—that was the word—had been received, but that a rumour had been received. That is to say, intelligence from a source which would make it certain has not been received. Undoubtedly a rumour stating this belief has been received.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am responsible for asking my noble Friend that Notice should be given of this Question. I stated that we had no intelligence, but that a rumour had reached us. That appeared to be satisfactory to the right hon. Gentleman who put the Question; but, as the hon. Member now appears to require nicer information than I can give from memory, I requested my noble Friend to ask that Notice should be given. I must confess that I lament, both in the interests of the present and of the future, that the Questions which of all others are most evidently within the competence and discretion of the Executive Government to answer or not are so frequently put without Notice,
  1476
  and that the request for Notice should be received with derision.
  MR. GRAY: A number of Questions have been put to the right hon. Gentleman without Notice, and I imagined that I had an equal right with any Englishman.
  MR. HEALY: But you are not an Englishman.
  MR. GRAY: I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether I was in Order? I did not intend to interfere in any improper way.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have not found the smallest fault with the hon. Member, nor had I the slightest intention of doing so. The hon. Member, so far as I know, is always courteous in his proceedings.

  EGYPT (FINANCE, &c.)—DEDUCTIONS FROM THE COUPONS.
  MR. M'COANasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the Khedive would sign or had signed the decree under which the deductions from the coupons had been made before the various foreign Parliaments concerned had agreed to the Convention?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): I am not in a position to answer that Question except in general terms. The Question asked by the hon. Member earlier in the Sitting was whether the deduction was to be made from the coupons? The details are not received in my Department; but I have made inquiries at the Foreign Office, and I have ascertained that the necessary decree for this purpose has been issued by the Khedive, and is accepted by the Caisse.

  ADMIRALTY RETIREMENT.
  MR. STUART-WORTLEYasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is true that an Admiralty Memorandum of May 1882 greatly restricted the then-existing discretion of that Department to dispense with the rule of compulsory retirement at sixty years of age of all ranks with forty years of service; whether the effect of such Memorandum is to increase the non-effective charge for the Admiralty staff, and to lose to the Country the services of officials of valuable experience and faculties as yet unimpaired by age; and, whether this Memorandum has received the consent either of Parliament or the Treasury?
  MR. HIBBERT: My hon. and learned Friend has been misinformed as to the effect of the Memorandum to which he refers. So far from restricting, it enlarged the discretion of the Admiralty in dispensing with compulsory retirement at the regular age and service; and it therefore tends to diminish, not to increase, the non-effective charge. The provisions of the Memorandum do not require the consent of Parliament or the Treasury, being within the competence of the heads of a Department.

  EGYPT (THE EXPEDITION UP THE NILE)—SIR CHARLES WILSON'S VOYAGE FROM METEMNEH TO KHARTOUM.
  MR. CALLANasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is true, as stated in the Press, that—
  "Guku, the Greek to whom General Gordon entrusted his diaries, and who accompanied Nousri Pasha (just arrived here), complains bitterly of Sir Charles Wilson's unnecessary five days' delay at Metemneh before starting for Khartoum. He states that he daily urged Sir Charles, but in vain, not to lose a moment, as every hour was of inestimable importance. Guku, who accompanied Sir Charles Wilson's expedition to Khartoum, declares that if it had started at once upon reaching Metemneh it would have arrived in time to save General Gordon;"
  and, if so, whether Sir Charles Wilson has offered or has been asked for a satisfactory explanation of the cause of his delay at Metemneh; and, if so, what is the nature of the explanation of the Officer in question?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTTNGTON: I have no knowledge of the Greek Guku, or of his statement; but I may, perhaps, say that as Sir Charles Wilson's despatch did not enter fully into his reasons for not starting for Khartoum earlier than he did, I asked some time since for a further statement. I do not understand why five days' delay is assumed. The steamers only arrived on the 21st, and Sir Charles Wilson left on the morning of the 24th, leaving two days to be accounted for. Some of the steamers went to Shendy on the 22nd, and Lord Charles Beresford only reported those selected to proceed to Khartoum as repaired and ready to start at 3 P.M. on that day. The 23rd, Sir Charles Wilson, in the despatch I have referred to, reports, was occupied in changing crews and making arrangements for the start. This is all
  1478
  I can say till the further accounts arrive.

  ARMY — NON-COMMISSIONED OFFICERS' PENSIONS.
  MR. STEWART MACLIVERasked the Secretary of State for War, If his attention has been called to the working of Article 1,033 of the Royal Warrant, 1884, by which three classes of Noncommissioned Officers, after completing twenty-one years' service, may lose three pence per day pension, owing to the triennial mode of reckoning periods to the very letter; and, whether he could either substitute annual periods, or allow Non-Commissioned Officers to remain serving with the colours beyond the twenty-one years required to complete the triennial period?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: The scale of pensions referred to, which has been in operation for nearly four years, was decided on after the fullest consideration; and I am not prepared to make any alteration in it in the direction suggested by the hon. Member.

ORDERS OF TEE DAY.
  ARMY AND MILITIA RESERVE FORCES.

    CONSIDERATION OF HER MAJESTY'S MESSAGE.
    Her Majesty's Most Gracious Message considered.
    Message again read.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: The formal Resolution which I have to move, that Her Majesty's Gracious Message be considered, will only make it necessary for me to make a short statement to the House. I had hoped, when at my request the consideration of Her Majesty's Message was postponed, that to-day I should have been able to make a full statement of the measures proposed to be taken in consequence of the Proclamation which Her Majesty has been advised to issue. Since that date, however, as the House is aware, events of very considerable importance have occurred—events which have, to a certain extent, qualified the views of the Indian Government as to the amount, character, and time of the reinforcements they desire to be sent or to be prepared, either immediately or within a short period. We are in constant communication with the Government of

    1479
    India, but we are not yet in full possession of their views on these points; and it would not be possible for me to enter into any detailed statement of the measures which we propose to take under the Proclamation. I do not, therefore, think that it would be convenient to make a partial statement on the subject. I think I may also add that it would probably not be desirable at the present time that the measures recommended by the Government of India, and proposed to be adopted by the Government, should be fully stated until there is an absolute necessity for such statements, and until we are in a position to take action upon them. An opportunity for making such a statement possibly will not long be delayed. It has already been announced that the Budget Statement is to be made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Thursday week; and it has been promised that the Vote of Credit which the operations in the Soudan will make necessary, and which will also be necessary with relation to the preparations being made in regard to India, will be in the hands of the House before that date. That Vote of Credit will, I believe, also be laid on the Table on Monday or Tuesday next. An opportunity will be taken of making a statement in connection with it. That probably will be the most convenient time for making a more general explanation of the intentions of the Government and the measures proposed to be taken than on the occasion of the present formal Motion. I have examined the recent precedents on the subject, and I find that the course we shall take is entirely in accordance with them. The Reserves were called out on the advice of the late Government in 1878. The right hon. Gentleman opposite, in moving the Address, made no statement whatever as to the measures proposed to be taken under it. It is true that the right hon. Gentleman did on that occasion make a statement of the policy of the Government, which, in their opinion, made necessary the calling out of the Reserves; but the circumstances were, I think, different. In the opinion of the Government of that day explanations of that kind were required, in order to prevent misconception as to the object with which the Reserves were to be called out. On the present occasion no one, I think, will doubt that the state of affairs is such as to make it obviously
    1480
    desirable that the military resources of the country should be somewhat increased, in view of any eventuality that may occur. On the second occasion, in 1882, the Motion which I am now making was made as a purely formal one, without any statement whatever, and the measures to be taken by the Government were stated and discussed upon the Vote of Credit, which is the course I am now recommending the House to take. Therefore, I trust the House will agree with the course proposed, which is in accordance with precedent, and which will, I think, be most convenient, and will enable the Government to make a fuller statement than they are now able to make, and as full a statement as the circumstances of the case will admit of, at no very distant day. The only further statement it is desirable I should make is, that as it is probable it will be necessary to call out a very considerable portion of the Reserves, the present intention of the War Department is to call out those Reserves regimentally, and not by classes of years. That course possesses very great military advantages. The objection to it is that it bears with a certain amount of inequality upon the Reserve, even pressing somewhat hardly upon the older classes of the Reserve. If it were a question of calling out only a very small portion of the Reserves it would probably be desirable to call them out by classes corresponding to the particular years. But when there is a probability that the services of a large proportion of the Reserves may be necessary there is great military advantage, which I shall be able to explain more in detail on a future occasion, in calling them out regimentally. Under these circumstances, I trust that, inasmuch as the present Vote is of a perfectly formal character, and does not pledge the House to any opinion of policy whatever, and as an opportunity will shortly be given for making a fuller statement of the measures the Government propose to take, the House will be content to take this matter formally, and to postpone any fuller discussion until a more convenient occasion. In conclusion, I beg to move the Resolution which stands in my name.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, thanking Her Majesty for Her Most Gracious Message communicating to this House that Her Majesty was about to cause Her

    1481
    Reserve Force, and Her Militia Reserve Force, or such part thereof, as Her Majesty shall, from time to time, think necessary, to be called out for permanent Service."—(The Marquess of Hartington.)
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I agree with the noble Lord that, under the circumstances, there is reason for postponing a full discussion of this question; but I think he is hardly justified in apparently assuming that when we are informed so important a step as the calling out of the Reserves is to be taken we should not call upon Her Majesty's Government to state the policy which renders such a step necessary. Although we were perfectly prepared to hear that the Government would require a large force, and that it would be necessary to have recourse to this method of increasing those Forces, we ought to have had—especially having regard to the Egyptian Force—some statement of a more full and detailed character, which would show us the policy of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the employment of our troops. There is much that we require to know, and it would have been quite reasonable to have taken this opportunity of affording a full discussion on the subject. The noble Lord has, however, pointed out that we may expect, in the course of the next week, the presentation of a Vote of Credit, and when that is presented we shall have a full opportunity of discussion. Under those circumstances, I do not myself intend opening up questions which naturally suggest themselves at the present moment, but rather reserve them till that opportunity shall arise. I understand there is no doubt we shall have the Vote of Credit before the Budget, that we shall have an opportunity of discussing it before the Budget, and that that opportunity will occur in the beginning of next week. That being so, I will not offer any opposition to the Motion, or ask for further explanations.
    MR. GLADSTONE: In reference to what has fallen from the right hon. Baronet there is one slight explanation which I wish to make. The right hon. Baronet says, and says truly, that next week, before the Budget, it will be our duty to present to the House the Vote upon which the whole policy of Her Majesty's Government will appear, and which, of course, will have to be duly explained and defended. The only ex-
    1482
    planation I wish to make is this—I do not assume that the actual moment when the Vote is laid upon the Table will be the moment when the House would wish to discuss it at large. I should think it more probable that the House would wish to take some early day for the discussion; and it would, undoubtedly, be the duty of Her Majesty's Government to promote and facilitate that object by all the means in their power. The Budget will be brought forward on Thursday next week. The Government have assumed that the actual debate on the Vote of Credit would follow the Budget; but should there be any strong or decisive opinion to the effect that it should have precedence, there would be nothing to prevent the raising of that question, and the Government, of course, would give it full and respectful consideration. Whether the discussion is taken before or after the Budget, I hardly think that the House would wish to go fully into the matter at the very moment when my noble Friend states the effect of the Vote of Credit to the House.
    COLONEL NOLANasked the Judge Advocate General whether there had been any alteration in the law which enabled Her Majesty's Government to call out the Reserves regimentally instead of by classes? The system adopted afforded great opportunities for favouritism and undue pressure on the part of the permanent officials at the War Office, and would enable the greater number to be called from Ireland. If the men were called out in classes the whole Kingdom would be necessarily treated alike.
    CAPTAIN AYLMERsaid, he hoped, when the further statement came to be made, the noble Lord the Secretary of State for War would be able to assure them that the stores and armaments supplied to the men would be sufficient and efficient. It was understood that there were a great many arms in the Ordnance Department of the War Office which were not actually efficient; and had they not a recent example of swords being supplied to Cavalry one-half of which were unfit for service? He asked the noble Lord to satisfy the country that the armaments were sufficient and of proper quality. He was assured also by officers of great military experience that the number of officers

    1483
    and non-commissioned officers at the depôts were wholly insufficient to cope with the great impending influx of recruits and Reserve men. He hoped, therefore, the noble Lord would be able to make a statement on that point as well as with regard to the arms.
    THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL (Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN)said, that as the Secretary of State for War could not speak again, he might, perhaps, be allowed to answer the question of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan). The hon. and gallant Member laboured under a mistake. The recent Army (Annual) Bill did not give Her Majesty any such powers in regard to the calling out of the Reserves; in fact, it dealt with an entirely different subject—the prolongation of Army service. Her Majesty had already power under the Army Act, 1881, and the Reserve Forces Act, 1882, to call out the Reserves as she thought proper, and under this power they were now acting. At the proper time the reasons why the present course had been adopted would, no doubt, be stated.
    EARL PERCYasked whether it was in contemplation to call out the Militia Reserves?
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: It is probable that every regiment of Militia will be embodied whose two battalions of the Line are abroad.
    EARL PERCYasked whether all the Militia Reserves would be called out?
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, this was not at present contemplated.
    MR. LABOUCHERE,in rising to move, as an Amendment to the Address, to add the following words:—
    "And at the same time expressing a hope that the available Forces of Her Majesty will be speedily strengthened by the prompt withdrawal of the troops from the Soudan,"
    said, this was a matter which exercised the minds and consciences, he believed, of the majority of the intelligent people of this country. Large meetings had been held in the Metropolis, and demands loud and strong had been made that the Radical Members of the House should bring pressure to bear on Her Majesty's Government to withdraw the troops. How was it they came to send this Expedition to the Soudan? They got into it when General Gordon was shut up in Khartoum; but it was dis-
    1484
    tinctly understood then that there was to be no occupation of the Soudan. Then came the unfortunate news of the death of General Gordon; and Lord Wolseley, on applying for instructions, was told to advance. The Lord Privy Seal (the Earl of Rosebery) in his recent speech went through the usual reasons for that advance, and it struck him that the Lord Privy Seal gave these reasons rather contemptuously. The Lord Privy Seal stated, however, that in the then public feeling of the country the Government could do nothing else but tell Lord Wolseley to advance. But public opinion had very much changed since then. There was then a very great deal of excitement and passion. The newspapers wrote advocating revenge. The newspapers were supposed to represent public opinion. But that was not his view. He thought if they wanted to know what was not the public opinion of the country they ought to go to the London newspapers. He believed if the Government remained in power they would not go to Khartoum. But accidents might happen, and if Gentlemen opposite came into power they would go to Khartoum, and they would annex it to Egypt. ["Oh!"] That was the policy of Lord Salisbury. [An hon. MEMBER: Quote.] What was the present position? Lord Wolseley's troops had retreated nearly to Wady Haifa. There were military operations going on in the neighbourhood of Suakin. They seemed mainly to consist of advancing one day and slaughtering, coming back the next, then another advance and another slaughter, then another withdrawal. The Lord Privy Seal had told them when the railway between Suakin and Berber was made, it was to be handed over to a Company, something like the North Borneo Company. He did not suppose that this was any part of the business of this country, even if the Arabs were in favour of the railway; but they were opposed to it, and they were ready to sacrifice their lives that this railroad should be stopped. The fact seemed to be that the Government did not like to wipe off a bad debt; they made a mistake when they went to Egypt, but now, after wasting many English lives, and destroying the lives of countless Arabs, they did not like to retire, and thereby admit they were in the wrong all along. The Government wanted this miserable little railway to

    1485
    show against the large sacrifice they had made in the Soudan. The latest news was that Osman Digna was retiring; but Osman Digna had a habit of coming back, and then the whole thing began over again. We had spent a very large amount of money in Egypt, and we had not much to show for it. We were now going to keep a garrison in that country at an expense of some £400,000 or £500,000 per annum; and what were we to gain by it? We were also committed to the policy of defending Egypt from all foreign aggression. But why, in addition to all this, should we incur a further expense in the Soudan—why should we throw good money after bad? By remaining in the Soudan we should gain nothing for ourselves, and we should certainly gain nothing for the Soudanese. The only proper course for us to pursue, therefore, was to withdraw our troops from that country as soon as possible. A large number of people in this country took a wider view of this question than the mere money one; they looked upon the matter as one of conscience, because they objected to unnecessary slaughter. At the last General Election the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had raised his voice against the warlike policy of right hon. Gentlemen opposite; but it was impossible to describe the present policy of Her Majesty's Government as anything else than a "Jingo" policy. He believed that such a policy was altogether opposed to the principles held by the Prime Minister; and therefore it was that he begged to move his Amendment, the object of which was not adverse to the Government, but to strengthen the good intentions of the right hon. Gentleman for the future. He was not going to carp about the money which had been thrown away in the past; but what he wanted to obtain from the right hon. Gentleman was a declaration of the intention to withdraw our Forces from the Soudan as soon as possible, and not to interfere further with those independent men who the Prime Minister himself had stated were rightly struggling to be free. He begged to move his Amendment.
    Amendment proposed,
    To add, at the end of the Question, the words' and at the same time expressing a hope that the available forces of Her Majesty will be speedily strengthened by the prompt with-
    1486
    drawal of the troops from the Soudan."—(Mr. Lahouchere.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    MR. GLADSTONE: I think that the House in general will be disposed to agree that it will be convenient to limit this discussion to those provisional matters—the Constitutional question not having been raised—which may call for remark, and to postpone, until an occasion which will very soon arise, the discussion of the policy of Her Majesty's Government at large with regard to the restricted use in the Soudan of the Military Forces of the Crown. That is a subject which I cannot disguise is of importance, and is one which may be properly discussed at a convenient season. With regard to that subject, the senior Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) has exercised a great deal of self-denial, but not quite enough. The hon. Member has not made the speech which he intended to make, because he has not dealt with this question with that incisiveness and force which usually characterize his utterances when discussing interesting topics such as he has just now merely glanced at, or, perhaps, I should rather say, has skimmed over. I have often observed that much injury is done by attempting partially to anticipate a discussion, and I venture to hope that hon. Members will see that it would be impossible to deal effectively with this question now. With regard to the speech which we have just heard I wish to maintain an absolute reserve, neither admitting nor denying anything it contains, nor expressing approval or censure of the statements it contains. At the same time I must enter a caveat against any disposition to interfere with the right of any hon. Member to draw any inferences he may think fit from it. Having said that, I must assert the absolute responsibility of Her Majesty's Government for both what we have done and for what we intend to do in the Soudan; but I hope that it will be understood that it is not open to us to enter partially into a discussion of the subject. If we enter into it at all we must go through with it and declare our whole intention, and must give the House and the country the clearest view of our policy in Egypt that it is in our power to convey. At present there is

    1487
    no course open to us but to remain silent, and to ask for a short postponement of the discussion. I hope we shall be excused if we retain within our own breasts all that we have to say on this subject until next week, when it will become our duty to place before the House in a form perfectly intelligible our views upon the question, so as to enable the House to deal with it in any manner they may think fit, according to the recognized rule with respect to the responsibility of Ministers in Office.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, that it appeared to him that the attitude taken up by Her Majesty's Government upon this question would, under any circumstances, be an unusual one. He imagined that when the Government of the country made a demand upon Parliament for a large increase of our Military Forces, if no statement of policy had been made to the House before, it was the invariable rule that the statement should be made when such an increase of our Forces was asked for. But even if that were not so the Government should not endeavour to put pressure upon the House to prevent hon. Members from expressing their opinions with regard to the question before them. If the attitude of the Government would be unusual at any time he certainly thought it was especially unusual when the position of Her Majesty's Government at the present time was considered, because it must be recollected that Her Majesty's Government no longer occupied the position of a powerful Government commanding an immense majority in that House and possessing the confidence of the country. ["Oh, oh!"and Opposition cheers.] He could only judge upon that point from absolute recorded events. It was beyond dispute that it was only by a majority of 14 upon this very question of the Soudan that Hoi-Majesty's Government had been able to retain the Offices which they now held. He hoped that this fact would be regarded as some excuse for his not altogether yielding to the demand of the Prime Minister that no discussion should be raised with respect to this question at this particular moment. The Prime Minister had said that it was not necessary to discuss this question now, because the House would have an excellent opportunity of discussing it when the Vote of Credit came before it. On this point
    1488
    he must remark that although the Vote of Credit was to be laid upon the Table of the House on Monday or Tuesday next, the Prime Minister had intimated that the discussion with regard to it would come on more conveniently after the debate upon the Budget had been taken. Such a course would allow of very considerable delay before the House could discuss the question of the Soudan, and the question was not one which permitted of long delay, it being a vital and a pressing one. In these circumstances he felt bound to run the risk of doing what the Prime Minister had said might be done—namely, of doing injury by partially discussing this question. The Message now before the House was given Notice of in connection with the campaign in the Soudan, and he desired to make a few remarks with regard to the policy of that campaign. The policy of our large military operations in the Soudan had never yet been debated in that House. The matters that had been discussed related exclusively to the past conduct of the Government, and not to their future policy in that country. Although he was in India at the time, he was aware that the death of General Gordon had created a profound and an unparalleled expression of opinion in this country; and not only was the country deeply moved at the failure of the Military Expedition for his relief, but the country was justifiably and legitimately alarmed as to what might be the course of conduct pursued by the victorious Mahdi. He could easily understand how the House, under the influence of such feelings, had readily acquiesced in the despatch of a large Military Force to the Soudan; but the first blush of that great popular excitement having passed away it might be that the House might now be inclined to reconsider with greater judgment and deliberation the policy of committing the country to a large military expenditure in that part of the world. The House was aware that the original policy of the Government at the time of the defeat of General Hicks was the evacuation of the Soudan; and that was pressed, in fact forced, upon the Egyptian Government. He did not know that the policy of the evacuation of the Soudan had ever been condemned by any Party in Parliament, though he understood that the policy which led to

    1489
    that step being taken, and the manner in which it was to be carried out, were condemned. But, whether that policy had been condemned or not, that was undoubtedly the policy of the Government, and it was accepted and ratified by Parliament. General Gordon was thereupon despatched to Khartoum, and expeditions despatched for the relief of Sinkat and Tokar; but the garrisons were not rescued, and the House was now face to face with the fact that the rescue of the garrisons had not been accomplished, and could not now be accomplished. He thought that sometimes the greatest disaster arose to individuals in private life, and also to nations in their public life, by an obstinate refusal to recognize what might be called a fait accompli. He would have thought that, however great might be the popular excitement at the fall of Khartoum, it would be the duty of Ministers at such a time to take a calm view of the situation, and instead of yielding blindly to popular impulse, to determine what was most in the interest of the country. He had himself the most profound conviction that the despatch of a large Military Force to Suakin was an immense error. He believed that it was not too late to remedy the error, and he believed that no special or particular blame would attach to Her Majesty's Government if they chose to reconsider the policy of the Expedition to the Soudan. But he maintained it was the duty of any Member of Parliament who did happen to think strongly on the point to take the earliest opportunity of endeavouring to arrive in some way or other at the opinion of the House upon the point. He was glad the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) had moved his Amendment; and if he took the sense of the House upon it he should support him. The Military Force now being maintained at Suakin consisted of the flower of the British Army. There were three battalions of British Guards, and two or more first-class regiments of British Cavalry; and the Government must be aware that the climate was perfectly deadly to a British constitution. That was why he pressed these matters on the House, because the health of the Army was deteriorating, and must deteriorate every hour. When he was on his way to India he visited the encampment of the Marines at Suez, which was
    1490
    called a sanatorium for invalided soldiers from India When there he ascertained from an officer who had just returned from Suakin—an officer who was in every way calculated to give a sound opinion, but whose name he would not give, for the Military Authorities had a strange way of repressing the giving of information by officers—that since April last, when General Graham evacuated the Soudan, up to the month of December, Suakin had been held by a Force of Marines, averaging from 700 to 900 strong; and the effect of thus holding Suakin had been that for all military purposes two entire regiments of Marines had been wiped out of the Army List, the men having been invalided from Suakin at the rate of 100 a month. The same officer had told him that, in his opinion, no Englishman under the age of 40 had a chance of preserving his health there after a very short residence. So great, in fact, had been the drain upon the Marines that there were no reliefs to send out; and the Force at Suakin had to be reinforced by Regular Infantry. But the public did not know all this, though Her Majesty's Government knew it quite well; and he wished to know how, with their knowledge of the effect of the climate upon the Marines, who were all seasoned soldiers, they ever sent the flower of the British Army to Suakin and were keeping them there? If the Army were kept at Suakin, the loss by sickness would, perhaps, amount to a decimation of the Force. He did not think it was at all inappropriate to consider the desirability of not in any way weakening at the present moment the Military Forces of the country; but if these troops were maintained at Suakin, they would be weakened, and desperately weakened, and the day might come when the Government would be prepared to sacrifice anything almost to have these troops by them. If there were any large armies threatening to join the Mahdi at Khartoum and to pour down on Egypt, then, perhaps, something might be said as to the operations now being carried on at Suakin; but, though he could understand there was at one time a fear of the Mahdi pouring down on Egypt, there was absolutely now no fear. From all reliable accounts the Mahdi was at Khartoum, or occupied in settling some differences with some little spurious

    1491
    Mahdi who had arisen in the rear. Then, again, where was Osman Digna? Heaven only knew. If he was near Suakin, he had no great army with him, and the Government were keeping a force of 10,000 men there to keep at bay a mere fugitive vagabond chief, of whom all reliable rumours said that he was not surrounded by an army. Then the Government said they were going to make a railway. He was surprised that so much importance was attached to the construction of such a railway. He had had an opportunity of acquiring information as to the purposes for which the railway might be useful; and he could inform the House that for all commercial purposes, for civilizing purposes, for purposes of profit, it was absolutely useless. It was quite true, too, that the Arab tribes were opposed to it, for they depended for their living upon carrying on their camels the slender trade that existed between Suakin and Berber; neither was the railway of any use from a military point of view. For it could not advance at any but a snail-like speed, and could not be ready by the autumn for an advance on Berber. Seeing, therefore, that there was no enemy in the neighbourhood of Suakin, that there was no intention of making an immediate advance on Berber, and that when it was made it must be in the nature of a dash, and seeing that the conquest of the Soudan was undoubtedly a policy that would never be sanctioned, he asked the Government for what purpose they were retaining that force at Suakin, and whether the Message from the Crown represented an intention on their part of maintaining that force there for any considerable time? If that was their intention, then he should vote with the hon. Member for Northampton; but if that was not their intention, he could not see why Her Majesty's Government should not announce to the House their minds on the subject, and say that they would take the question of the Soudan into their immediate consideration, and would be prepared to place these troops in such positions of climate and locality as would enable them when the moment came to be effectually utilized for the defence of the country. He did not mean to speak about another subject which he felt it was dangerous almost for anybody to discuss at the present moment; but they
    1492
    knew that matters were now at issue between the great Russian Empire and the British Government which had reached a very critical stage. He did not believe that there was a man in the House who did not hope from the bottom of his heart that peace might be preserved. But if they wanted peace to be preserved, their best chance of that would be in their strength from a military point of view; and if the Russian Government observed that with the sanction of Parliament the British Government was obstinately dissipating the best of its military resources in the centre of Africa, it would be more than human if it did not take advantage of that fact, and if it did not press with greater pertinacity claims of which it would, under other circumstances, be likely to take a more reasonable view. Unless the House was given a more satisfactory statement than it had yet had from the Government, he should support the hon. Member for Northampton if he went to a division; and he hoped that the hon. Member would receive a considerable amount of support, at any rate, from the independent sections of the House.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLadmitted this was hot the time to discuss the policy of Her Majesty's Government in the Soudan; but he thought the noble Lord opposite was quite justified in calling attention to the Suakin Expedition. Every hour and day was important, for at the present moment the Crown and flower of the British Army was carrying on this miserable bush war in the Soudan, and that circumstance itself appeared a sign of weakness. Up to the present the health of the troops had been good; but as the summer advanced we must be prepared for long lists of invalids. A growing mistrust of General Graham now prevailed among many officers in Suakin; in their opinion the troops were being moved unnecessarily, and he was glad to hear that Lord Wolseley was going there. He earnestly hoped that in the grave circumstances in which this country was now placed the Government would not leave its splendid troops in the Soudan.
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, he thought the Prime Minister had dealt with the subject with undue levity. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Northampton deserved something better than the frivolous remarks of the

    1493
    right hon. Gentleman. He had on several occasions asked the Government to declare their policy in the Soudan; but they had over and over again refused. He should like the noble Lord the Secretary of State for War to state what was the object of the Government in extending the Suakin-Berber railway. Summer was rapidly approaching, when the heat would be very great, and when the number of invalids would be very many. Did the Government intend to remain in the Soudan, and to erect any kind of Government in Khartoum? He hoped that some Member of the Government would answer the question, and that the right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench would not remain silent. He hoped the Leaders of the Opposition would tell the House what they were going to do, and whether hon. Members below the Gangway on that side of the House should follow the hon. Member for Northampton, or troop into the Lobby under the guidance of the noble Lords (Lord Richard Grosvenor and Lord Kensington).
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I do not rise to attempt to answer the questions put to me by the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down; but I desire to point out that the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock fell not unnaturally into an error from his absence from the House when he said the measures now under the consideration of the House wore connected with the operations of the Government in the Soudan. That is not the case. The measures that were necessary for the present operations which are in progress at Suakin and on the Nile were explained in this House some time ago; and the House, by voting the Supplementary Estimates which were laid on the Table at that time, sanctioned the continuation of those operations. The Forces at the disposal of Lord Wolseley and General Graham are at present sufficient, in our opinion, for all they have to do for the present. The Reserves were not called upon for the purpose of undertaking these operations — they were called upon only to a limited extent. In addition to calling upon certain Militia regiments, the Reserves were called upon to this extent—that the transfer of men from the Colours to the Reserves was checked during the continuation of the operations, and a certain
    1494
    number of Reserve men were also permitted to volunteer from the Reserves to the Colours. The measures that were taken in connection with the Soudan operations did not go beyond this, and there was no intention of calling out the Reserves for the purpose of the Soudan operations. The Proclamation of Her Majesty, which appeared a short time ago, was in connection with a subject of quite a different character, as the House is aware, and had reference to military operations, the necessity for which is perfectly well understood. We are, therefore, in this position — that the House has already discussed, at great length, and has sanctioned, all the measures which are required for the present operations in the Soudan. We are in the further position that it is impossible that those operations, to which the noble Lord and the hon. Member for Northampton object, can be prosecuted without the Government calling upon the House to afford the means, and a Vote of Credit will accordingly be laid on the Table in a short time. It is upon that occasion that the House will have a perfectly legitimate opportunity of learning what the views of the Government are in regard to these operations in the Soudan, and of expressing the sense of the House as to the wisdom or unwisdom of those operations. The question of the policy of the Government in the Soudan is only very remotely connected with the measure now under the consideration of the House. The House is not asked to express any opinion on the policy of the Government in the Soudan. That has, up to a certain time, received the approval of the House, and another opportunity will be shortly afforded. The noble Lord called on us to consider our position, not only in the Soudan, but in relation to other affairs in other parts of the world. I need scarcely say that that is a subject that has been constantly engaging the most anxious attention and consideration of the Government. My right hon. Friend has stated that it would not be expedient to make any statement on that subject at present; but he has promised that it shall be made on the earliest legitimate opportunity.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: It seems to me that we are in a position which rather reverses what was said by the hon Member for Portsmouth (Sir

    1495
    H. Drummond Wolff) just now. He spoke of the Government treating this matter with levity; but I am afraid if we were hastily to tack on, in answer to the Gracious Message from Her Majesty, the words proposed by the hon. Member for Northampton we should expose ourselves, and the House would expose itself, to the charge of levity in dealing with matters of such great and such immense importance as those which are involved in this question. With regard to the particular measures that have to be taken in the circumstances of the country, we observe that they divide themselves into two classes. There are the steps that are taken on Her Majesty's responsibility, by Her Majesty's command, and which are communicated to this House with regard to the calling out of the Reserves, and there is the request which Her Majesty will address to Her Ministers through Parliament to provide the funds which are necessary for the purpose for which those men are to be used. Unquestionably it is far more expedient that the House should discuss these questions upon the demand which has to be made for the money over which we have control, rather than upon an Amendment of any kind in answer to Her Majesty's Message. I think anything in the nature of a discussion upon the answer to Her Majesty's Gracious Message is much to be deprecated. I think it would produce a false impression as to the want of heart or unity in this House with regard to that which we are told is the principle and main object for which the Reserves are to be called out. I think it would be undesirable to let it go abroad that there was any difference of opinion on such a point as this. I shall be told that the Motion made by the hon. Member does not come within that category, and that it does not expose him or the House to any such charge, because he deals with a matter of a different kind. No doubt the matters are different; but the Amendment raises without Notice the great question of what the course of the Government should be in the Soudan and Egypt, and on a question of a proposal to add words to the Address does not seem to me to do justice to the importance of the question itself. Everyone must feel the weight of those words which fell from the noble Lord the
    1496
    Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill). He has not had the opportunity of taking part in these debates this Session, and it is not to be wondered at that he has taken an early opportunity of expressing an opinion on the matter, and in such a manner as to cause the House, I am sure, to feel thankful to him for the assistance he has given it. But I think it would be a great misfortune if we now attempt to come to a decision which must be preceded by a full discussion of the whole question of the Egyptian policy of the Government; and when we know that we shall have before us next week, or the week after, the opportunity of a full and careful discussion of the matter with power in our hands to give effect to the decision we may arrive at. We must bear in mind that if we make feeble and ineffective attacks on the Government we only strengthen their hands—we give an appearance of large majorities when really there are no authorities in their favour. I do not think it is expedient as a question of tactics to raise this question on such an occasion as this. I think when we have a full explanation of what the Government policy is that explanation will require to be very carefully sifted and very carefully examined, and the House must come to a careful conclusion upon it; but I am not of opinion that it is desirable that anything in the nature of the words mentioned by the hon. Member for Northampton in response to Her Majesty's Message should be added.
    MR. ILLINGWORTHsaid, he was one of those who, in the last debate on the Vote of Censure, ventured to express an opinion that the Soudan Expedition, from first to last, was a mistake, and that it was the true business of this country to withdraw from this unfortunate enterprize. The noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill), who had contributed very materially to this debate, had come on the scene some two months later than other Members were obliged to do, and had had longer time to make up his mind on the Soudan question. While the noble Lord was speaking what he believed to be sound sense on that question, he was curious to observe what support he might got on the other side of the House; and he was bound to say

    1497
    there was very small response from Gentlemen above the Gangway on the Conservative side; but before they came to the genuine discussion, possibly what the noble Lord had stated that night might influence those right hon. and hon. Gentlemen; and he was quite sure that if, besides the expression of opinion given by many Radical Members as to the policy of the Soudan Expedition, they could only have a confirmation of the noble Lord's views on the other side of the House, the course of the Government would be very clear. [Ironical laughter from the Opposition.] He expected there would be some laughter at his remark; but he did not disguise the fact, nor did the people of this country disguise it, that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House wielded the military spirit of the country, and that, whatever Government was in power, when a question had arrived at a certain critical stage, it was they, and not the Liberals, who were really able to dictate the policy. He did not think that would be so long; but he confessed, and was humiliated by the fact, that whereas on the Liberal side of the House they represented the great majority of the people of the country, Gentlemen on the other side, representing small, influential, and select classes, were omnipotent on such an occasion. He did not wonder that the noble Lord on the Treasury Bench (the Marquess of Hartington) was candid enough to say that the calling out of the Reserves had no direct relation with any additional Forces wanted in the Soudan. Compared with a foreign war we might be called upon to engage in, the Soudan business was only child's play; but he was glad to hear the expression of opinion of the noble Lord opposite (Lord Randolph Churchill), than whom no other man on the Conservative side of the House was more competent to offer an opinion which would be valued by Parliament, because he had been disentangled from the earlier stages of the controversy during this Session, and he believed that right hon. Gentlemen opposite would find it to be politic to support the view expressed by Radical Members, that the sooner we escaped from the entanglements of the Soudan business the better. If we wished to
    1498
    impress either Russia or any other Power with our determination, the wisest thing we could do was to call away the flower of our troops from the Soudan, and not have them destroyed in that pestilential climate. He was afraid that when this Soudan chapter of our history came to be written, it would be said that, from first to last, it was a mistake and a discredit to the Empire. Whatever might have been the advice given by Lord Wolseley when Khartoum fell, the Government and the people of the country must now, at all events, see there was no excuse for the continuance of this conflict. There was no foe to fight; and as to our remaining at Suakin in order to make a railway, he agreed with the noble Lord that there was nothing about that which would make the House of Commons for one moment hesitate in coming to a decision. He might add a word as to the graver question which was now troubling them. It had been intimated, on a previous evening, that Parliament and the country were united as to the necessity of our supporting the Ameer, and so forth. He only wished to say, at this moment, that many of his hon. Friends would like to give expression to their views, so that no misunderstanding might arise as to that supposed unanimity. He would not go into the question as to whose side the fault lay on; but he said it would be a melancholy thing if in this country, through the military spirit which pervaded certain quarters, the Government found itself in as helpless a position as the Russian Government seemed to be. They were told, on all hands, that the Russian Government was dominated by the military power. He hoped this country, at any rate, would keep its head cool, and would not be driven by rash councils, or even by a London Press, to any extreme course. If things arrived at such an acute point as to render hostilities almost certain, he hoped that even then, depending on the righteousness of our position and our cause, we should have the moral courage to appeal to an independent Power, in order that this conflict between two great Empires might, by some means or other, be avoided.
    SIR WILLIAM HART DYKEsaid, that hon. Gentlemen opposite were always declaring that the Conservative

    1499
    Party was never satisfied unless it was feasting on bloodshed. He could not but repudiate, in the strongest manner, the language used by the hon. Member who had just sat down. The vast majority of the Members of that House had been horrified by the proceedings of Her Majesty's Government in Egypt since the first shot was fired; and to assert that hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side of the House approved of those proceedings was to assert that which could not be supported by facts. There was a great deal in the speech of his noble Friend with which he most heartily concurred. At all events, he ventured to say that no Tory Government could have done as the present Government had done—namely, keep a large British Force in the Soudan without giving a single sketch of its policy as regarded the future. Her Majesty's Government had done that up till now, and whether they would continue to do so or not would depend on the votes of hon. Members opposite. They had had opportunity after opportunity of deciding whether this was a right course or not; but in every case they had been content with accusing the Conservative Party of bloodshed, and then had invariably supported the Government. He thought it would be well if the hon. Member (Mr. Labouchere) were content with this discussion. He could not support the Amendment, much as he was horrified with the proceedings of Her Majesty's Government in the Soudan; and for this reason—that if it were passed it would place the House in the ridiculous position of directing the Government to close a campaign after a debate so brief that the Secretary of State for War was not even allowed to communicate with his Department.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 39; Noes 148: Majority 109.—(Div. List, No. 95.)
    Main Question put, and agreed to.
    Resolved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, thanking Her Majesty for Her Most Gracious Message communicating to this House that Her Majesty was about to cause Her Reserve Force, and Her Militia Reserve Force, or such part thereof, as Her Majesty shall, from time to time, think necessary, to be called out for permanent Service.
    To be presented by Privy Councillors.

  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (REDISTRIBUTION) (re-committed) BILL.— [BILL 49.]
  (Mr. Gladstone, The Marquess of Hartington, Sir Charles W. Dilke, Mr. Attorney General, The Lord Advocate, Mr. Campbell-Bannerman.)
  COMMITTEE. [Progress 10th April.]
  [TWELFTH NIGHT.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  SEVENTH SCHEDULE.
    COUNTIES AT LARGE.
    NUMBER OF MEMBERS AND NAMES AND CONTENTS OF DIVISIONS.
  PART I.

    ENGLAND.
    MR. WARTONsaid, the first Amendment which stood in his name was to omit in page 43, line 3, the words "of Members and." His object was to follow the course which had already been taken in regard to the Sixth Schedule. The Sixth Schedule was described as containing the Number, Names, Contents, and Boundaries of Divisions; whereas the Seventh Schedule purported to give the Number of Members and Names and Contents of Divisions. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had been good enough to accept the Amendment he (Mr. Warton) had moved in the title of the Sixth Schedule, which Amendment altered the word "name" to "names." But there still remained a curious difference between the titles of the Schedules. He (Mr.Warton) thought it showed how carelessly the Bill had been drawn, and that no regard had been paid to symmetry. He might be told that there was no harm in that, as the Bill was capable of amendment. No doubt, there was no harm in it; but it occasioned inconvenience and waste of time; and he maintained that the objects mentioned in the title to the Sixth Schedule should also be the objects mentioned in the Seventh, or the objects mentioned in the Seventh should have been equally provided for in the Sixth. The proposal in the Sixth Schedule was to divide the boroughs, and under the present Schedule it was to divide the counties. He did not know what view the right hon. Baronet would take of the matter; but he proposed to omit

    1501
    the words "of Members and," as the first step towards making the Schedule similar in its terms to the one which had already been passed. He might be told that this was not a similar case, and if the right hon. Gentleman could show that there was any distinction he would be perfectly satisfied.
    Amendment proposed, in page 43, line 3, to leave out "of Members and."—(Mr. Warton.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. Warton) was quite right in stating that there was a difference between the Sixth and Seventh Schedules in regard to the point to which he had alluded. But there was necessarily a difference, because if the hon. and learned Member looked at Clause 9 of the Bill he would find that it enacted that each of the counties at large named in the Seventh Schedule should return the number of Members named in the said Schedule; whereas, if he turned back to the 6th clause, which dealt with the division of Parliamentary boroughs, he would not find that that was the case. The reason was, that the number of divisions in the boroughs was very small, whereas in the counties it was very large, and provision was made in other Schedules for the altered representation of boroughs. In fact, from the way in which some of the counties were divided, it was necessary to give all the details as to the divisions in the Seventh Schedule. All the counties in England, with the exception of Rutland, and some of those in Wales, were divided, whereas a good many of the boroughs remained in their present position. That was the reason why the title of this Schedule had been varied from that affixed to the Sixth Schedule. It was considered that that was the most convenient form in which to arrange the matter.
    MR. WARTONsaid, that after the explanation of the right hon. Baronet he would withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he proposed in the next Amendment to leave out the second word "and" for the purpose of subsequently inserting the words "and
    1502
    boundaries." He did not know any reason why they should not have the boundaries of the divisions inserted in the title in connection with the counties as well as in the boroughs. He saw no necessity whatever for a difference, and it was strictly in accordance with the 8th and 9th clauses of the Bill, each of which, in the 2nd sub-section, specified the boundaries. If the two clauses had been differently drawn for any special reason he could see the force of an objection similar to that which the right hon. Gentleman had raised in connection with the last case. He admitted the full force of what the right hon. Gentleman had said there; but the same ground did not apply to the boundaries which were specially mentioned in both clauses.
    Amendment proposed, in page 43, line 3, leave out the second "and."—(Mr. Warton.)
    Question proposed, "That the second 'and' stand part of the Schedule."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the boundaries were not, technically speaking, described either in regard to the boroughs or counties either in the previous Reform Act, or the later Act relating to boundaries. The description was rather in the nature of contents than boundaries, and included Petty Sessional divisions, and so on. Therefore, he thought the phrase "contents" in the Bill was the better phrase, although there was certainly no very serious objection to the insertion of the word "boundaries."
    MR. WARTONsaid, he quite admitted that a question as to contents might arise; but his only object was to make the Schedules consistent with the clauses of the Bill. There was certainly a number of cases in which the description contained in the Schedule might be looked upon as contents of divisions rather than boundaries. For instance, this phrase was frequently employed—"Including certain parishes." But if the right hon. Gentleman would look at the borough divisions specified in the Sixth Schedule, he would find that precisely the same circumstance arose; and yet the term "boundaries" was contained in the title, and no mention whatever was made of the line being drawn at the contents of the divisions. He did not, however, wish to press the

    1503
    Amendment against the objection of the right hon. Baronet. He would only ask the right hon. Gentleman to turn his attention to the previous Schedule, where he would find a great number of boroughs in the same condition as the county divisions, in regard to which the word "boundaries" was made to apply.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he would prefer the phraseology of the Bill as it stood.
    MR. HICKSsaid, he would suggest to the right hon. Baronet a reason why he should accept the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Warton). By the Bill, as drawn, the counties were divided into Petty Sessional divisions, and he took it for granted that it was the intention of the Government that all the parishes included in those Petty Sessional divisions should remain as parts of the several divisions of the county as long as the Bill remained an Act. But as the Schedule was now drawn without the addition of the words proposed to be inserted by his hon. and learned Friend, he (Mr. Hicks) thought they might find themselves involved in this difficulty—that a Petty Sessional division might be altered, and by that means the boundary of the division, so far as the county was concerned, might be changed also. He did not know whether that was so; but it struck him it was possible that a difficulty might arise hereafter which would be prevented by the insertion of the word "boundaries."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that no difficulty of that kind would arise. The future boundaries of each division were provided for by the Bill. As to the second point raised by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Hicks), if that were not so, the insertion of the word "boundaries" alone would not cure the evil.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. WARTONsaid, the next Amendment was consequential, and, therefore, he would not move it.
    MR. RAIKES,in moving, as an Amendment, in page 43, line 8, after the word "The," to insert "Northern or," the object of which was to provide that the first division of the county of Bedford, instead of being designated "The Biggleswade Division" should be
    1504
    named "The Northern or Biggleswade Division," said, the Amendment which stood in his name at that particular stage of the Bill was the first of many, the object of which was to restore the former nomenclature of the constituencies to something rather more closely approximate to what had hitherto been the case, according to the custom of the country, at least since the Act of 1832. That Act dealt with the divisions of counties, and in every case it attached to the different divisions names in accordance with the points of the compass—for instance, North Lancashire, South Leicestershire, or any other practical division, by which a positive idea was conveyed to the minds of hon. Members of that House, and enabled them at once to realize the fact that an hon. Member who was alluded to under that designation was the Representative of a constituency which in past times returned such and such men who had been more or less distinguished. By the Instructions given to the Boundary Commissioners, and given, he thought, in consequence of the pledge which had been made by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board in regard to the county divisions, they were particularly requested to take into consideration the claim of any borough disfranchised under the Bill, and merged in another constituency, in order to see whether the rude blow inflicted upon that borough might not be in some degree softened by introducing its name into the county division of which it was henceforth to form part. He had nothing at all to say to the course taken by the right hon. Gentleman in framing the Schedules of the Bill, because it certainly was in accordance with the statement which he had made in that House. Still less had he any fault to find with the course taken by the Boundary Commissioners in carrying out their Instructions; but he thought there was this noteworthy fact to be considered in connection with the subject—that in Scotland and Ireland, where these particular Instructions had not been given to the Boundary Commissioners, they had, in almost every case, adopted the points of the compass as the best means of designating the boundaries to which the new divisions applied. Whenever it was left to their own unassisted judgment, or to the advice taken on the spot,

    1505
    the Commissioners had followed that course, and had proposed to constitute the divisions of the Scotch and Irish counties exactly in accordance with the ancient practice in regard to the English counties in connection with the representation of the people. That being so, he ventured to ask whether this was not the time for the Committee to consider how far it was desirable to depart from that ancient practice in regard to England and Wales? They were to have the North Donegal Division in Ireland, and the Eastern Division of the county of Perth in Scotland; and nearly all the other divisions in the case of Scotland and Ireland were to be named in accordance with the points of the compass. Why, then, should not the same rule be followed in regard to the English counties, and instead of having, in this case, the Biggleswade Division and the Luton Division, why not have North Bedfordshire and South Bedfordshire, so that they might carry out the system with which all of them were familiar? There was another point which deserved consideration in connection with this question, and it was this—they had been constantly told by the Government that this was not a Bill for the purpose of establishing electoral districts, and that, whatever other objects the Bill had, it did not aim at the establishment of electoral districts. The Prime Minister himself had laid considerable stress upon that point in one of his earlier speeches, either upon this Bill or the Franchise Bill. Then, if this was not a Bill to establish electoral districts, he (Mr. Raikes) thought it was desirable that the fact should be marked by the adoption of a particular sort of nomenclature which would show that they were dealing with a county in the one case and with a borough in the other, and that they were not naming a constituency in a way that would lead to endless confusion between the counties and boroughs hereafter. He did not wish, in any way, to criticize the work which had been done by the Boundary Commissioners. He thought that, on the whole, they had performed a difficult task with signal success; but he was bound to say that the names which had recommended themselves, or which had been recommended to the Commissioners, seemed almost to be a
    1506
    burlesque upon our system of Parliamentary representation. He did not know whether hon. Members had made this question a study; but it was worth while to point out how, in the future, Members who rose to address the House might be designated. He had ventured to make a list of a few of the remarkable examples of nomenclature adopted in this Schedule. If any hon. Member happened to be at a distance from England in the course of next year or the year after, and were to take up a newspaper, he might find that an animated discussion had taken place on the Motion of the hon. Member for Ramsey, seconded by the hon. Member for Eddisbury; that an acrimonious speech was delivered by the hon. Member for Brixworth, supported by an equally strong harangue from the hon. Member for Morley; that a judicial summing-up was delivered by the Representative of St. Clears, and suggestions made by the hon. Member for Pudsey. The person who for the first time heard of these designations would imagine that he was rather dealing with one of Dean Swift's interesting attempts to represent the usages of this country when transferred to another planet than the state of public opinion in a great and historic country like this. If he (Mr. Raikes) were to attempt to examine hon. Members of that House as to where these places were to be found, he undertook to say that, in the majority of cases, no hon. Member, unless he happened to belong to the particular county in which the place referred to was situated, would be able to give an answer. He would like to know whether any hon. Member not belonging to the actual county in which it was situated could say where the division of Bromfield was to be found? Was there any hon. Member, who did not possess exceptional geographical attainments, who could say where the division of Barkston Ash was to be found? He thought there were a good many hon. Gentlemen who would be content to remain in ignorance as to where Llandilo, Eivion, Thornbury, Bedwelty, Wansbeck, Rushcliffe, Pirehill, Buckrose, Colne Valley, King-swinford, and Osgoldcross were to be found. When they had long had before them an ancient and a well-known system for the sub-division of counties,

    1507
    according to the points of the compass, he could not help thinking that the Government would do well to consult the natural sentiments of the House in dealing with the matter. However highly they ought to esteem the opinions of others, even Members of Parliament had some feeling and some right to be considered in a question like this. He was quite sure that if it were left to hon. Members now representing the counties, they would, by a great majority, prefer to continue to represent a constituency bearing the name of the county, rather than a local division, as proposed by the Bill. He believed that that feeling was not at all confined to either side of the House. He had no wish to detain the Committee by speaking at any greater length upon the question; and he would, therefore, simply move the first of the Amendments which stood in his name. At the same time, he did not think that the question would be necessarily concluded by any decision which the Committee might arrive at on this particular Amendment, because there were special circumstances in almost every county which might require further consideration when they came to deal with it in its turn. If, however, the Government were at the present time prepared to consult what he thought was the evident sense of the Committee, he would be extremely happy to leave to the right hon. Baronet the task of revising the Amendments he (Mr. Raikes) had placed upon the Paper, with a view of seeing whether, although he might not agree absolutely with the particular geographical designations he (Mr. Raikes) hard endeavoured to allot to particular constituencies, he would, at any rate, accept the principle of these Amendments. If the right hon. Baronet would do that, he thought he would greatly accelerate the progress of the Bill through Committee; and he trusted that the great good sense and moderation which had characterized the action of the right hon. Baronet in dealing with the Bill throughout its progress in Committee, up to the present moment, would again be exemplified by his acceptance of a principle which he (Mr. Raikes) believed would be acceptable to the Committee, and not very likely to be objected to, or made a subject of dispute outside the walls of Parliament. He begged to move the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed, in page 43, line 8, after the word "The," insert the words "Northern or."—(Mr. Raikes.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the right hon. Gentleman was quite right in stating that the Government were under a pledge in this matter as regarded the merged boroughs; but no similar pledge had been given with regard to other places.
    MR. RAIKESsaid, he had not stated that the Government were under a positive pledge, but rather a less definite engagement.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, there was a pledge by the Prime Minister in answer to a distinct inquiry. But although there was a pledge as regarded the merged boroughs, there was no similar pledge with regard to other places. It was true that in Scotland and Ireland the Boundary Commissioners had followed a different rule from that which they had pursued in England; but it had not been universally followed, although it was followed generally. The reason why they had selected the points of the compass as the names for the divisions of counties in those two countries was that in many cases in Scotland and Ireland there were no towns or well-known places in the divisions from which to name them. In England there were in nearly all the divisions of the different counties either merged boroughs, or municipal boroughs, or local government districts, or localities, commonly known as hundreds, or Petty Sessional divisions, or Poor Law Unions, from which to name them. That was the ease, indeed, in regard to the first division in the Schedule—the Biggleswade Division of the county of Bedford. It was the name both of a Poor Law Union and of a Petty Sessional division, and was, therefore, well known in the county. Then, if the Government were now to change the system of the nomenclature of the divisions, and were to alter in that House the names which appeared in the Bill, even if the alterations met with the general assent of hon. Members, they might expose themselves to a very general attack from persons outside the House. It would be said that if there had been the slightest idea that any change was to be made from

    1509
    the proposals of the Bill, great protests against such change would have been made; and he was bound to say that a general assent to the change on the part of the House might have very little effect. He believed that the names given to the divisions by the Commissioners had been pretty well received in the counties—perhaps better received in the counties than in the House of Commons, and he thought there had been more opposition or resistance to names within the House than throughout the counties themselves. Generally speaking, throughout the country the names appeared to have been well received. ["No, no!"] That, at all events, was his impression, and he had had a good opportunity of judging the matter, having received a good many communications upon the subject. He was bound to say that any change would occasion much disappointment to a great number of persons throughout the country. The right hon. Gentleman proposed the much milder course of applying to the new divisions names signified by the points of the compass. Now, there would be some difficulty in applying the points of the compass as names for divisions, because it would introduce confusion between the new, and the old, and well-known divisions of the counties—for instance, a voter would say—"I am an East Sussex voter;" but he would not know whether he was speaking of the old division or the new division of the county, and by that means a considerable amount of confusion might be created if they continued to use the name for a county division which was altogether and completely different from that to which the name formerly applied. As to the use of the alternative, he thought they would run the risk of creating a considerable amount of confusion by adopting that plan, in addition to which there would be a risk of error occasioned by having double names, and much additional trouble. In practice, two names were not likely to be used, and one or other would very soon be suppressed; while, at the same time, it would be necessary to use the whole of the name in all legal documents. If the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman were carried, in each case the legal name would be the whole name, and in the "Writ the division would have to be called the Northern or Biggleswade Di-
    1510
    vision. That might occasion confusion, trouble, and difficulty, and it certainly would entail the risk of error. Having stated these views to the Committee, he had no wish to express himself strongly upon the matter, either one way or the other. His own view was that it was not important by what name the division was known, inasmuch as hon. Members were likely to be called by the name of the county, one of the Members of which they were, rather than by the name of the division of the county for which they sat. He had already stated that opinion in the course of the debates upon the Bill. In many cases it was clear that the names of the divisions could not be taken from the points of the compass, because the county divisions were too numerous to allow that to be possible. In Lancashire and Yorkshire, as well as some other counties, there were so many divisions, and the counties were so largo, that it would be absolutely necessary to give the divisions distinguishing names. If, therefore, they were to give distinguishing names in some instances, and in others to call divisions after the points of the compass, the Bill would have a certain patchiness which would be undesirable. It was perfectly true that that argument was to a great extent met by the fact that patchiness, to a certain extent, existed as between Scotland, Ireland, and England. The whole question was, however, one of convenience; and if any general feeling was shown by the Committee on this matter of alternative names, he would reconsider the question before the Report. There would be certain other difficulties in the adoption of the points of the compass, arising from artificial distinctions, which had been established by the Boundary Commissioners themselves. There was more than one case on the Paper already in which it was proposed to give different names for one and the same division; and there would be considerable liability to confuse the arrangements if any alteration were made in the names selected by the Commissioners. When they named a county division after a district, town, or place they ran no risk whatever; but in many counties there would be great difficulty, even if the county were only small, in designating one or other of the artificially shaped divisions by a compass name. The right

    1511
    hon. Gentleman himself admitted that it was desirable to have certain differences of treatment in regard to the matter, because he had not only inserted borough names, but in some cases he had left in the name proposed by the Bill, while in others he proposed to substitute an alternative name, showing that he had himself followed some of the considerations which he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had endeavoured to place before the Committee. He would repeat that if there was any general or strong opinion upon the subject, he would reconsider the matter before the Report stage of the Bill; but, as at present advised in regard to the feeling of the Committee, and still more from what had reached him from correspondents in the country, he felt disposed, on the whole, to adhere to the scheme of the Boundary Commissioners.
    MR. JAMES HOWARD,as Member for the constituency affected by the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Raikes), said, he rose to say that he entirely concurred in the views which the right hon. Gentleman had expressed. He was strongly of opinion that geographical divisions would be much more advantageous and more appropriate than the designations contained in the Bill. In this particular instance nothing could be more inappropriate than to turn the Northern Division of the county of Bedford into the Biggleswade Division. The town was in the extreme east of Bedfordshire, on the confines of Cambridgeshire. Then, again, he preferred the geographical division, because it followed the established practice. Hitherto every county in England which had been divided had been subjected to designations in accordance with the points of the compass; and why there should have been any reason for departure from that established practice he failed to understand. Considerable feeling was manifested in favour of geographical divisions when the Boundary Commissioners visited Bedfordshire. The sitting Members, however, by previous arrangement, abstained from taking part in the proceedings before the Commissioners. He should certainly, but for that understanding, have supported the application for geographical divisions. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had suggested
    1512
    that the course pursued in the Bill was generally popular; but he (Mr. Howard) was persuaded that geographical divisions would have been more popular.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he agreed very much in what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman opposite; but, at the same time, he was bound to say that he had himself received a considerable number of communications from different parts of the country with regard to the Bill, and there was considerable difference of opinion among his correspondents upon this particular point. While some expressed an opinion in favour of retaining the names proposed by the Boundary Commissioners in preference to geographical divisions, for one letter he had received in that sense he had received three or four in the opposite sense. If they were to go through, all the names which had been suggested by the Boundary Commissioners, he was afraid they would find themselves engaged in a good deal of discussion, in the course of which there would probably be some heated expression of opinion in regard to the claims of one place over another. He felt that the proposal of his right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Raikes) ought not to be made absolute in every case. It might be that taking the points of the compass would not always be the most convenient plan. There were certain counties in which, as the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had truly said, such a mode of division would not conveniently apply, and he should have felt that a serious difficulty, if it were not that his right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge proposed an ingenious method of meeting the difficulty, by giving an alternative. It seemed to him that, on the whole, to give an alternative was the best way of dealing with the matter. No doubt it involved the inconvenience of giving a long title; but, after all, it was only seldom that it would be necessary to make use of that title. It would generally be the case, as the right hon. Baronet had pointed out, that in speaking of one another they would use the name of the county which was represented. For instance, one Member would be spoken of as the Member for Bedfordshire, and others for whatever county they happened to represent. It would

    1513
    only be occasionally that any necessity for being more particular would arise, or that it would be necessary to refer to the particular division of the county for which the Member sat. He did not feel very strongly upon the subject himself; but he was inclined to think that, as far as the evidence went, there was a balance of testimony in favour of the alternative proposal.
    MR. WALTERsaid, that, as his county (Berkshire) was affected by the Amendment of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Raikes), he merely rose to say that he was glad the subject had been brought under the consideration of the Committee. At the same time, as far as his own observation went, he felt bound to say that while he had received no expression of opinion in favour of the plan adopted by the Government of giving the names of towns instead of the points of the compass to the divisions of counties, he had received a good many expressions of opinion of an opposite character. Although he quite admitted the impossibility of attempting to apply the rule universally of what sailors called "boxing the compass," especially in the case of large counties, yet where it was practically easy, in counties like Bedfordshire or Berkshire, to take the compass points it would be preferable to do so, instead of taking the names from some unimportant towns. He thought the geographical was the better plan, and that was certainly the case in his own county. He would, therefore, support the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman.
    MR. FLOYERthanked his right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Raikes) for the able manner in which he had brought the matter forward. Although it was not of vital importance, it was still a matter which was considered to be of some little importance to the counties; and in discussing the Amendment he thought that hon. Members might have a little more latitude than in ordinary circumstances, and that they might be allowed to go a little beyond the point they would be strictly confined to in the case of an ordinary Amendment, seeing that it was an Amendment which applied not to one particular case, but to a whole series of cases. His right hon. Friend had raised the whole question of county divisions, in bringing this Amendment
    1514
    before the Committee; and, therefore, hon. Members ought not to be considered bound to confine themselves strictly to the consideration of the case of the county of Bedford, when they were really dealing with a much larger question. It would possibly save a good deal of time if, upon the present Amendment, the Committee were allowed to discuss the way in which the counties generally were affected in the matter. The right hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had stated that all the representations, or a great majority of them, which had been made to him, had been rather in the direction of keeping the designations proposed by the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman said that, as far as he knew, there was no great objection to these designations, and that the particular occasion for discussing all these points in connection with the recommendations of the Boundary Commissioners was when the Commissioners paid their visits to the different counties. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to think that that was the proper time for those who took a particular view to express their opinion, and that they ought to have gone before the Commissioners. As a matter of fact, they had gone before the Commissioners, and when they had stated their views they were met by the statement that the Commissioners had been instructed to adopt the nomenclature from the extinguished boroughs. In his own case, in regard to the county he had the honour to represent (Dorsetshire) there was this little difficulty. The Bill of the Government, unfortunately, had been so very destructive in the West, and the boroughs had been so largely extinguished, that when they came to consider the necessity of fixing a name from that of some extinguished borough, they found that there were two or three deceased boroughs, or boroughs in the process of dying out; and, consequently, they had two or three boroughs competing for the honour of designating the new division of the county. What was the consequence? So far from everything being harmonious, and so far from everybody being agreed, as the right hon. Gentleman seemed to think, in the new nomenclature, each borough naturally wished to perpetuate its existence, as far as it could, in the nomenclature

    1515
    of the new division. Each borough was anxious to get its name attached to the division. No doubt the Commissioners carried out their work with the greatest urbanity, and expressed a wish to please all parties. In his county they proposed to give a sort of double name to the division. In the first instance it was proposed by the Commissioners, although the scheme had since been altered—he presumed by the right hon. Baronet—that the division in which he (Mr. Floyer) had the honour to live should be called the Dorchester and Weymouth Division. It would seem that the right hon. Baronet had demurred to that, not wishing to have a long title of that kind. Then, again, with regard to the Wareham Division, it was originally proposed to designate it as the Poole and Wareham Division. What was the consequence? When the Bill came to be examined, they found that in some cases the right hon. Baronet had retained the name of one borough, while that of the other had altogether disappeared. That course had given rise to great dissatisfaction; and the only way in which they could now remedy the grievance was, he humbly submitted, to support cordially the proposition of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Raikes). Certainly, the only way in his own county of dealing with this little difficulty was to adopt the points of the compass. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote), whose lead they were happy to follow on that side of the House, had said very truly that they could not have a fixed rule for all counties. But, at all events, in Dorsetshire they were better situated than some other counties in regard to this question. He did not think that the youngest scholar in one of the elementary schools would be at any loss in dividing the county, seeing that there was only one part of it naturally North, another naturally South, a third part naturally East, and a fourth naturally West. The county, therefore, would easily be divided; there was no geographical difficulty whatever; and, under all the circumstances, without losing sight of what his right hon. Friend had so happily put before the Committee, he thought the old traditions of that
    1516
    side of the House—and the traditions of the counties were not the least of England's great traditions — should be preserved. He, therefore, sincerely trusted that the old names of the counties would be preserved; and, although he was afraid that "the knight of the shire" would hardly appear again in that House, still some of the descendants of those who had enjoyed that title might in future years represent divisions of the old county under the old county name, without the county being absorbed in the name of some extinguished borough, however important that borough might be. He therefore cordially supported the proposition of his right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge; and he hoped that the evident sense of the Committee, which had already been distinctly shown, would induce the President of the Local Government Board to accept the proposal.
    SIR HUSSEY VIVIANsaid, he had also to thank his right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Raikes) for having brought this matter so clearly and forcibly before the Committee. The county of Glamorganshire, which he (Sir Hussey Vivian) represented, could be very easily divided by the four points of the compass, seeing that it lent itself geographically to such a division. He thought he might safely say that there was a general consensus of opinion in that county in favour of the points of the compass being adopted instead of the names now proposed in the Bill, which did not in any way represent the divisions to which they were to be attached. The names were those of very small places, and did not strictly or accurately, in any way, represent the divisions to which they were supposed to be applied; whereas, on the other hand, the points of the compass would strictly and accurately represent those divisions. There was a very strong-feeling on the subject in Glamorganshire. They had not the least desire to lose their old name, of which they felt very proud. He had a letter in his pocket from the Chairman of the Quarter Sessions—a gentleman who did not agree with him in politics, but on this point he was very strong—and he said that he was himself decidedly of opinion that they ought to sail under the old flag. He (Sir Hussey Vivian) certainly could not understand why these fancy

    1517
    names should have been introduced into the Bill contrary to the feeling of the counties. Surely the county feeling ought to prevail in matters of this kind. There was nothing depending on the name in a political sense, and all political Parties were agreed as far as his county was concerned. He therefore trusted that the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) would give way in the matter, and that he would not postpone the question until the Report. Why should it be postponed until the Report? He (Sir Hussey Vivian) had already expressed a strong opinion before the Commissioners, and he had received many intimations from persons who belonged to the county that there was a general desire to adopt the points of the compass; whereas, on the other hand, he had not received a single communication in opposition to that plan. Under such circumstances, why should the consideration of the matter be postponed until the Report? Why should they not settle the question now? If they made any mistake they could easily rectify that mistake hereafter. Surely the Committee stage was the proper stage for dealing with a question of this kind. The object of the Report was to enable the House to set right any mistake which might have been made in Committee, or for reconsideration of any point. Under all the circumstances, he trusted—and he would urge it very strongly upon his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board—that he would allow the Committee to adopt, in the case of the counties, geographical designations.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that after the appeal which had been made to him by the hon. Baronet who had just spoken (Sir Hussey Vivian), as well as by the right hon. Baronet the Leader of the Opposition and others, he felt bound to give way. He hoped that hon. Members would help him in bearing the brunt of the disappointed localities. He proposed to adopt the alternative names in certain cases—in such cases, in fact, as were contemplated in the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment.
    MR. DODDSsaid, he was extremely glad that his right hon. Friend in charge of the Bill (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had yielded to the evident sense of the Committee; but he trusted that no arbitrary rule would be applied to every case, but
    1518
    that each case would be dealt with as it arose upon its own merits. For instance, in his (Mr. Dodd's) own county of Durham, there were three or four special names which might be preferred to the points of the compass. If each case was dealt with as it arose, he thought that no practical difficulty would be found; and, under the circumstances, he was glad to support the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman opposite.
    MR. DUCKHAMsaid, he wished to say a word in support of the Amendment which had been moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Raikes). In the county which he represented (Herefordshire) there had been a great deal of correspondence in the county papers respecting the coming Election; but nobody ever dreamt of calling the divisions by the names selected by the Commissioners. The designations "North" and "South" were invariably preferred; and he was satisfied that the Amendment suggested by the right hon. Gentleman would be entirely acceptable in his county.
    MR. FREMANTLEsaid, he was also in favour of the Amendment. There was a strong feeling that the county he represented should be known by geographical names — such as North and South Bucks, rather than as the Buckingham, Aylesbury, and Wycombe Division. That opinion was almost universal. A Memorial of some importance and weight was presented to the Commissioner in favour of that course when he visited the town of Aylesbury; but, of course, the Commissioner was obliged to abide by his instructions. The divisions would go by the names of North, Mid, and South Bucks, whether those were the official names or not. He (Mr. Fremantle) sincerely trusted that the county of Buckingham, as well as others, would have the benefit of the alternative suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University.
    SIR HUSSEY VIVIANsaid, he wished to guard himself against its being taken as satisfactory by himself and other Members of the House that the points of compass should only be alternative names. Many thought the names originally proposed should be omitted, and that the points of the compass should be adopted per se. When

    1519
    the proper time came he should be ready to move an Amdndment to that effect as far as his own county was concerned.
    MR. RAIKESsaid, he was sure the House was much indebted to the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Charles W. Dilke) for having so speedily caught the evident sense of the Committee. He (Mr. Raikes) wished merely to ask the right hon. Gentleman what course he proposed now to adopt in regard to the Amendments? He (Mr. Raikes) had placed a large number of Amendments on the Paper which the right hon. Gentleman was now good enough to say that he would accept, in the main, very much as they stood. He wished to know if the right hon. Gentleman desired that he (Mr. Raikes) should postpone them for the present, or was he prepared to go into them at once? It appeared to him that it would be the most convenient course to take them as they were arrived at on the Paper.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he had already stated that he would accept the principal part of the Amendments; therefore the best course would be to proceed with them at once. He had already proposed to deal with the matter on the Report; but he gathered it to be the evident sense of the Committee that the matter should be dealt with now.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he wished to make a very small suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Charles W. Dilke), who had displayed his usual wisdom in accepting at once the evident sense of the Committee. His suggestion had reference to the mode in which they were to deal with the points of the compass—whether they were to use the terms "North," "South," "East," and "West," or "Northern," "Southern," "Eastern," and "Western." He did not know whether it was necessary to have any Amendment upon that point; but he would like the right hon. Gentleman who had moved the present Amendment (Mr. Raikes) and the right hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill to consider the matter. All through the Sixth Schedule, wherever they had to deal with the points of the compass, they used the words "North," South," "East," and "West;" and he wished to know whether the right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Raikes) and the right hon. Baronet would prefer in regard to the counties
    1520
    the terms "Northern," "Southern," &c.?
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, the Amendment, as he understood his right hon. Friend (Mr. Raikes), was as alternative proposal. He (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) quite agreed with the hon. Baronet the Member for Glamorganshire (Sir Hussey Vivian) that there should be no alternative at all, but that the names attached to the divisions should be in accordance with the points of the compass, and that the names of the local towns should be omitted altogether. In that case it would be necessary to leave out the word "or," and he would therefore propose to amend the Amendment by omitting the word "or."
    Amendment proposed to said proposed Amendment, to leave out the word "or."—(Sir Michael Hicks-Beach.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'or' stand part of the said proposed Amendment."
    MR. RAIKESsaid, he objected to the proposed alteration. In including the word. "or," he had done so because it was necessary to fit his Amendment to the county divisions as proposed by the Bill. He understood there were a great many hon. Members who were prepared to accept the alternative proposal, but who would not go so far as to obliterate altogether the particular names of certain localities inserted by the Government in the Bill. His own view was strongly in favour of the points of the compass, and he was grateful to those hon. Members who had been good enough to come there to support his proposition. But if he were now to go further than the original proposition he had submitted to the Committee he might be accused of a breach of faith. He would, therefore, be glad if his right hon. Friend the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) would be content to leave the Amendment as he (Mr. Raikes) had proposed it, and allow any further matter to remain over for consideration upon the Report.
    MR. P. A. MUNTZsaid, the Committee were, very much indebted to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Raikes) for having brought the question forward. Although he (Mr. Muntz) had no connection with Biggleswade, he had placed an Amendment on the Paper in reference to the county which he had the

    1521
    honour to represent. He was, however, quite prepared to accept the right hon. Gentleman's alternative Amendment, although he should not be prepared to accept an additional Amendment which proposed to leave out the alternative, and merely to give the points of the compass. He saw no objection to the suggestion of the right hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill (Sir Charles W. Dilke), that they should take these alternative Amendments now. But he thought there might be a grave objection made in various counties if they were to leave out the designation of the names of towns merely in favour of adopting the points of the compass. The manner in which the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman had been supported by the Committee conclusively proved that the geographical knowledge of hon. Members was not sufficiently extensive to enable them to know the localities in which all the small boroughs whose names were mentioned in the Bill might be situated.
    MR. JAMES HOWARDsaid, he hoped that the alternative proposal would not be disturbed. For instance, in the Southern Division of the county of Bedford there was a very important town and a very important industry associated with that town. He referred to the town of Luton, and he knew that the people of Luton held strongly to the view that the name of their town should not be entirely got rid of. He would, therefore, prefer the alternative proposed by the right hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Raikes).
    MR. FLOWERsaid, he fully concurred with what had fallen from his hon. Friend (Mr. James Howard), and he accepted the alternative proposed by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Raikes) with the same pleasure with which he believed the people of Luton were ready to accept it. He admitted the desirability of attaching the points of the compass to the county divisions; but, at the same time, it would be advantageous to abide by the alternative contained in the Bill, which gave the distinct designation of different localities.
    MR. WHITBREADsaid, that he also supported the view which had been expressed by his hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire (Mr. James Howard). He quite thought that it would give rise to a good deal of disappointment if the
    1522
    alternative name was not adhered to. He supported with pleasure the Amendment which had been made for inserting the points of the compass; but he hoped the other alternative names would also be allowed to stand. In so doing no injustice would be done to anybody.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACHsaid, he really did not wish to put the Committee to the trouble of a division, or to raise any lengthened debate on the subject. After the concession which had already been made by the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) he was quite willing, as far as he was personally concerned, to leave any further matter over until the Report.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that in reference the observations which had fallen from the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) he might state what the principle adopted in the first Reform Bill was in regard to the use of the term "North" or "Northern." In the Act of 1832 the words were "Northern" or "Southern," and so forth; but in the Reform Act of 1867, and in the Boundary Act of 1868, although the counties were divided into North, South, West, and East, the West Riding was divided into the Northern, Southern, and Eastern Divisions. In other cases, such as Lancashire for instance, the divisions were North, North-East, South-East, and South-West.
    MR. RAIKESsaid, they were always in that House in the habit of speaking of hon. Members as, for instance, the hon. Member for North Norfolk, South Norfolk, or West Norfolk; yet he believed that the proper designation in the issue of a Writ was the Northern, Southern, or Western Division. He believed that was the practice created by the Reform Bill of 1832, and it was a practice quite in agreement with grammar, as well as geography; and he, therefore, in moving his Amendments, proposed to adhere to it.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he thought that the words "Northern" and "Southern" were certainly better than "North" and "South." It was not necessary to go back to the first Reform Bill, when in the 6th Schedule of the present Bill they had inserted throughout the words "North" and "South," although, for himself, he preferred "Northern" and "Southern." What he wished to guard

    1523
    against was the mixing up of the two terms.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEremarked that in the Acts of 1867 and 1868 both terms were used. It was not, however, a matter of any very great importance.
    Amendment to said proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Question, "That the words 'Northern or' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    MR. WARTON,in moving as an Amendment, in page 43, line 11, to leave out the word "and," and at the end of line 12 to add the words "in the Sessional Division of Ampthill," said, the paragraph in the Schedule would then provide that the Northern or Biggleswade Division should consist of the Sessional Divisions of Bedford, Biggleswade, and Sharnbrook, the parishes of Ampthill, Claphill, Cranfield, Hawnes, Houghton Conquest, Lidlington, Marston Mortaine, Moulden, and Millbrook, in the Sessional Division of Ampthill, and the municipal borough of Bedford.
    Amendment proposed, in page 43, line 11, to leave out the word "and."—{Mr. Warton.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'and' stand part of the Schedule."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the first of the two Amendments of the hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. War-ton) was undoubtedly right. The second was right to a certain extent; but it was proposed to be inserted in the wrong place. He agreed to the first Amendment.
    Question put, and agreed to; word left out accordingly.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that before the hon. and learned Member moved the next Amendment, he wished to point out that the right place for it was before that in which it was proposed to insert it—namely, in line 11, before the word "parishes." He would propose to amend the Amendment by inserting the words "in the Sessional Division of Ampthill" at the commencement of line 11.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he would accept the proposed Amendment.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 43, line 11, before the word "the," to insert the words "in the Sessional Division of Ampthill."—{Sir Charles W. Bilks.)
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to; words inserted accordingly.
    On the Motion of Mr. RAIKES, the following Amendment made:—In page 43, line 14, after "The," insert "Southern or."
    MR. WARTON,in moving, as an Amendment, in page 43, line 16, to insert "and Luton," said, this was a verbal correction rendered necessary by the extraordinary way in which the Bill had been printed. It would appear that the Sessional Divisions were intended to comprise Luton; but that was not perfectly clear owing to the way in which the Bill had been drafted. He would, therefore, move an Amendment to correct the error.
    Amendment proposed, in page 43, line 16, after the word "Woburn," to insert the words "and Luton."—{Mr. Warton.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he presumed the objection of the hon. and learned Member was to the three columns, instead of two, which appeared in connection with this division.
    MR. WARTONreplied in the affirmative.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he was not responsible for that; but he was afraid that if they were to attempt to amend the Schedule in that respect they would run the risk of creating some inconvenience. He hoped the hon. and learned Member would accept his apology, and would not press the Amendment.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, he understood that it was quite unusual to alter the printing of a Bill, except for the purposes of amending it. The Bill had been committed to the House for the purposes of amendment; and it was not the custom, in amending it, to alter the mode in which it had been printed.
    MR. WARTONsaid, the explanation was quite satisfactory, and he would not press the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. WARTONsaid, there was another Amendment which was not on the Paper. In the last column were the words—

    1525
    "So much of the Sessional Division of Ampthill as is not comprised in Division No. 1 as herein described."
    He proposed to omit those words in order to insert the names of the different localities from the map. His object in moving the Amendment was to call attention to what seemed to him to be an error in the mode in which the divisions were described.
    "So much of the Sessional Division of Ampthill as is not comprised in Division No. 1 as herein described"
    was certainly a very clumsy way of avoiding the difficulty that might be involved in giving part of a sessional division in one portion of the Schedule, and the remaining part in another portion. In using the words "so much of a particular Sessional Division" as was not already contained elsewhere, what might happen was this—that after the parishes comprised in one part had been gone through, it was quite possible that some parish or other would find its way into the division of the county in which it was not intended to be placed. He maintained that in regard to both divisions there ought to be an exact statement of the parishes comprised within it. They had already inserted the names of the parishes contained in the Northern Division, and he thought they ought to take a similar course in regard to the Southern Division. He should like to know from the right hon. Baronet if this was the form in which the division was set out by the Boundary Commissioners, and whether they had put down carefully in each case what the districts were? If that were so, and he believed it was, he could not understand why the Bill had not been drafted in the same manner. The only object in putting down
    "So much of the Sessional Division of Ampthill as is not comprised in Division No. 1 as herein described"
    could have been to save trouble. He thought it was of great importance, in order to prevent mistakes, that this Amendment should be made, because, if it should so happen that someplace or other was omitted in a particular division, it was quite possible for it to be placed in a wrong division altogether.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 43, line 16, to leave out the words "so much of the Sessional Division of Ampthill
    1526
    as is not comprised in Division No. 1 as herein described."—(Mr. Warton.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, this Amendment raised the same question they had discussed upon a former occasion. He could not answer the question of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Warton) as to the form in which the recommendation was received from the Boundary Commissioners, or whether it had been changed in the drafting of the Bill. As a matter of fact, the boundaries were set out in accordance with the Ordnance Survey. All the Petty Sessional divisions had been gone through and settled before the draftsman drew up the Schedule; but what the actual points were that were agreed to between the Commissioners and the draftsman he was unable to say. He understood, however, that they were quite satisfied with the way in which the Schedules had been drawn up.
    MR. WARTONasked if the Schedules were submitted to the Boundary Commissioners after the Bill had been drafted?
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the Commissioners told him they were of opinion that the Bill had been properly drawn up.
    MR. WARTONsaid, that under those circumstances he would not press the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. RALKESmoved an Amendment in page 43, line 24, to describe the Abingdon "Division as the" Northern or Abingdon Division."
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 43, line 24, after the word "The," insert the words "Northern or."—(Mr. Raikes.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, it was right he should point out to the Committee that the case for the use of the word "Abingdon" was stronger than that in the previous instances, seeing that Abingdon was the name of an extinguished borough.
    MR. CREEMER CLARKEsaid, that the Government had accepted the prin-

    1527
    ciple of the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman, and he must submit. Had it proposed to leave out all reference to Abingdon he should have been compelled to have opposed the Amendment.
    Question put, and agreed to; words inserted accordingly.
    MR. RAIKESmoved an Amendment in line 1, page 44, to describe the Newbury Division as the "Southern or Newbury Division."
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 44, line 1, after the word "The," to insert the words "Southern or."—(Mr. Raikes.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEasked the right hon. Gentleman whether, in regard to this Amendment, he thought the word "Southern" was better than the word "Mid?"
    MR. RAIKESsaid, that was a question entirely for the consideration of geographers; but, judging from the map, he thought that in this case the most accurate designation was to describe the division as "Southern." He had no objection, however, to call it "Mid," or "Western." Perhaps the most convenient course for the right hon. Gentleman would be to accept it in the form in which the Amendment now stood upon the Paper; and if he subsequently thought proper to vary the description, the alteration might be made on the Report.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he certainly could not call this the "Western Division," because it did not contain the most westerly portion of the county. The most westerly portions were in the Northern Division. In order, however, to save time, he would accept the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman.
    Question put, and agreed to; words inserted accordingly.
    MR. RAIKESsaid, he had one more Amendment with regard to the Berkshire Division—namely, in page 44, line 10, to describe the Wokingham Division as the "Eastern or Wokingham Division."
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 44, line 10, after the word "The," to insert the words "Eastern or."—(Mr. Raikes.)
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    On the Motion of Mr. FREMANTLE, the following Amendments made:—In page 44, line 21, after "The, "insert "Northern or;" in line 27, after "The," insert "Mid or;" and in line 35, after "The," insert "Southern or."
    MR. RAIKESsaid, that the next Amendment he had to move was one which raised a rather peculiar question. It was not merely an Amendment intended to introduce the points of the compass, but to change absolutely the name which the Commissioners had assigned to a particular division. The Commissioners had divided the county of Cambridge, to which this Amendment related, into three divisions, which they had named respectively the Wisbech Division, the Chesterton Division, and the Newmarket Division. Now, Newmarket was a place of some notoriety; but Wisbech and Chesterton were hardly equally well known. The division which it was proposed to name after the town of Wisbech—he wished no disrespect to Wisbech, for he believed it was a thriving and a rising town—contained a part of England which was famous in English history—namely, the Isle of Ely. The boundaries of the division were not, it was true, absolutely coterminous with the Isle of Ely; but he believed there was an Amendment on the Paper intended to bring them into closer uniformity with that particular district. At all events, the more important part of North Cambridgeshire would be the Isle of Ely; and he had reason to believe, from what he had been able to gather in the county, that there was a very strong feeling in favour of retaining the name of the Isle of Ely. The Commissioners had decided to adopt the name of the Isle of Thanet as a designation of an electoral district; and he could not see why the Isle of Ely, which contained rather more than the population required to form one of the new county constituencies, should not be entitled to retain that name. He did not speak as a Representative of Cambridgeshire, but as one who had considerable opportunity of learning what was the feeling of the people in that county; and he was bound to say he had found a unanimous feeling on the part of everybody connected with the county whom he had

    1529
    seen in favour of the name of the Isle of Ely being given to this division of Cambridgeshire. He hoped the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) would be willing to accept the Amendment as it stood. He was obliged to the right hon. Baronet for the intimation of his willingness to accept the first part of the Amendment—namely, the words "Northern or." He would move the Amendment as it stood on the Paper, and hoped to hear from the right hon. Baronet that he was willing to alter the name of the Wisbech Division to the "Northern or Isle of Ely."
    Amendment proposed, in page 45, line 4, after "The," leave out "Wisbech" and insert "Northern or Isle of Ely."—(Mr. Raikes.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'Wisbech' stand part of the Schedule."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that perhaps the more convenient course would be for the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Raikes) to move the insertion of the words "Northern or," because by the Amendment, as it now stood, they were really raising two questions.
    MR. RAIKESsaid, he would be happy to accept the suggestion of the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke), and withdraw the Amendment as it stood on the Paper, and confine himself to moving the insertion of the words "Northern or."
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed, in page 45, line 4, after the word "The," to insert the words "Northern or."—(Mr. Raikes.)
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    MR. RAIKESsaid, he would now move, after the word "or" to leave out the word "Wisbech," in order to insert the words "Isle of Ely." He did not wish to delay the Committee in coming to a decision upon this question. It was quite true that the division, as proposed by the Commissioners, did not include the Palace or the Cathedral of the Bishops of Ely; but it did include the town of Ely. A very trifling rectification of frontier might enable the division to include also the heart of the City of Ely, in which case they would have the whole of the Isle of Ely in-
    1530
    cluded within the limits of the new division. He did not intend to raise the question of the rectification of frontier; it would be better spoken to by his hon. Friends the Members for the county. He could not help thinking, however, that it would be a great pity if they were to miss the opportunity, when they were making these new divisions, of giving to the Northern Division of Cambridgeshire, which consisted in so large a part of the Isle of Ely—which had its own jurisdiction and its own custos rotulorum; and which was, to many intents and purposes, a separate county—it was extremely to be desired that this new division should have given to it a local name—a name which was familiar, historical, and respected. As he had previously said, he meant no disrespect to Wisbech; but Wisbech had not hitherto played the same part in the history of England as the Isle of Ely. He presumed the intention of the Government was to give some indication of something with which a Member could be associated; and he imagined that the Representative of the division would much prefer to be known as the Member for the Isle of Ely rather than as the Representative of the Wisbech Division of the county of Cambridgeshire. He therefore begged to move that "Isle of Ely" be substituted for "Wisbech."
    Amendment proposed, in page 45, line 4, to leave out the word "Wisbech," in order to insert the words "Isle of Ely,"—(Mr. Raikes,)—instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the word 'Wisbech' stand part of the Schedule."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, his own personal feeling at first was rather with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Raikes); but he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) would put before the Committee the considerations which weighed very strongly with the Boundary Commissioners in this matter. He had had a conversation with one of the Commissioners, from which he was led to take their view—a view which was contrary to that of the right hon. Gentleman. As the right hon. Gentleman had said, the City of Ely itself was not in the Wisbech Division, and therefore the division could hardly be called by the name of the Isle of Ely without making an alteration of the boundaries—

    1531
    a course which he thought the Committee would hardly like to take. Now, this was not a case which stood by itself. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of the Commissioners having called one of the new constituencies the Isle of Thanet. In that division the whole of the Isle of Thanet was included; but this was a case of a very different kind. The Commissioners felt themselves forced, in order to effect an equalization of the population, to disregard the boundaries of the Isle of Ely. Now, he repeated that this was not a case which stood by itself. There were a great many cases of divisions of counties—statutory divisions of counties—which were sub-divided. There was the case of the Liberty of Peterborough—of the Liberty of Havering-atte-Bower in Essex—of the Liberty of Ripon—and of another Liberty in Yorkshire; and there were cases in Lincolnshire—and there were statutory divisions in the county of Sussex—all these were similar cases to the Isle of Ely. The Commissioners had thought that the disparity of population which would be created if the Isle of Ely were made one division would be greater than the intention of Parliament appeared to authorize. The Isle of Ely would be a division of between 63,000 and 64,000 people; and the other two divisions of the county would have an average population of 40,000. [Mr. BULWER: 44,000 and 42,000.] He had worked out the figures which would result from the Amendment which appeared in the name of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Hicks), and the distribution would be as follows:—The Isle of Ely would have 63,328 inhabitants, the Western Division would have 42,451 inhabitants, and the Eastern Division would have 38,937 inhabitants — that being a very low population indeed for one division, as compared with the 63,328 for the Isle of Ely. Now, the local feeling upon this subject was by no means so unanimous as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge seemed to imagine. At the local inquiry which was held by the Commissioners a very strong opinion was expressed in favour of the divisions as now proposed, and since that time the opinion had been re-expressed. That being the case, he did not like to accede to the wish of the
    1532
    right hon. Gentleman. He thought that upon the whole they would do well to retain the divisions of the county as proposed by the Commissioners; and if they retained the divisions they must retain also the names fixed upon by the Commissioners.
    MR. BULWERsaid, he differed from the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Charles W. Dilke) in some respects with reference to statistics. He made the population of the Isle of Ely 63,323; of the Western Division, 42,290; and of the Eastern Division. 44,600.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he thought the hon. and learned Member would find that his total for the whole county was wrong; his numbers were certainly not correct, for the Isle of Ely, according to the last Census.
    MR. BULWERsaid, that as to the action of the Boundary Commissioners, they, no doubt, felt that the population of the several divisions should be equalized as far as practicable. But the object of the Bill was not to introduce equal electoral districts. In the directions to the Commissioners it was laid down that each division should be laid out, if possible, according to its geographical position, and based on existing areas. The case of the Isle of Ely was unique—there was not another like it in the Kingdom. He had inquired as to what took place before the Commissioners; and he was told that there had only been one person who raised any protest against the suggestion made on behalf of those who were in favour of the retention of the Isle of Ely as a separate division. He (Mr. Bulwer) had had an opportunity of ascertaining the views of those interested in the county; and he found there were a large proportion in favour of the retention of the Isle of Ely. There were others who were indifferent; but he had not met a single person who had raised any objection to the proposal. As to the feeling of the other two divisions, the population within them was, so far as he could ascertain, in favour of the retention of the Isle of Ely as a separate division. The only thing that could be said of the division made by the Boundary Commissioners was that it equalized the population, upon which the right hon. Baronet had laid such great stress. Well, he (Mr. Bulwer) would not trouble the

    1533
    Committee by going into the different divisions of the whole Kingdom; but he would take, by way of illustration, the two adjoining counties. One, Bedfordshire, was to have two Members, and the population was 129,940—that was, 64,970 for each Member. That was a larger population than it was proposed to give to the Isle of Ely. The other, Huntingdonshire, was to have two Members for a population of 57,220, or one Member to each 28,610. There was no single division in Cambridgeshire, supposing the population of the Isle of Ely to be taken out, that would have a population anything like so low as 28,610. With regard to the Isle of Ely, he had in his hand two Petitions that had been presented to the House, one from the magistrates, who he believed were unanimous on the subject, and the other—which had only reached 'him that afternoon—from the inhabitants of the Isle of Ely, with the approval of the Bishop and Canons, who were all interested in the retention of the City of Ely as a portion of the Isle of Ely. Without going very deeply into Parliamentary history, he might say that the Isle of Ely was, for all practical purposes, a distinct county. Ely was formerly a county palatine. As was well known in history, it was the last stronghold in the country that stood out against the invasion of William the Conqueror; it had a special custos rotulorum in the person of the Duke of Bedford, who was appointed by the Crown; it had a separate Commission of the Peace and a separate Quarter Sessions, and formerly a Chief Justice; a separate county rate and separate Coroners; and Sheriffs were chosen alternately from Cambridgeshire, Huntingdonshire, and the Isle of Ely. Physically and geographically, the Isle of Ely was distinct from the county of Cambridge. There were, no doubt, in the Committee hon. Members who had been to Newmarket and knew the distinction between Newmarket Heath and the Fen land of the Isle of Ely. And some might also understand the feelings of the Bishop and clergy of Ely at the prospect of being added to Newmarket. But he would point out to the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) that the magistrates of the county of Cambridge had no jurisdiction in the Isle of Ely, and that the magistrates in the
    1534
    Isle of Ely had no jurisdiction in the county of Cambridge. What, then, would happen under the proposal of the Bill? They were going to divide the Isle of Ely into three portions. To take a simple practical question—who was to appoint the polling places in those portions of the Isle which were to form parts of the Newmarket and Chesterton Divisions? The magistrates of the county of Cambridge would not be able to do it, because they had no jurisdiction in the Isle of Ely; and if the magistrates of the Isle were to do it, they would be acting in a matter which no longer concerned them. In addition to that, he might say that on many important questions there would be likely to be great diversity of opinion between these districts. Take the great question which was before the House in the last Parliament—namely, the drainage question. That which was to the interest of those residing in the uplands, or the Newmarket Division, was diametrically opposed to that which was to the interest of the inhabitants of the Isle of Ely or the Fen country. He thought, therefore, there was a very good case to be made out why "the Isle of Ely" should be retained a so complete division by itself; and he hoped, that, as the right hon. Baronet had stated that, primâ facie, he was inclined to agree to the Amendment, the proposal would not be rejected. He (Mr. Bulwer), in this matter, was speaking against his own personal interest—because a great addition would be made to the new constituency which he aspired to represent, and he need not point out to the Committee what that would entail.
    MR. HICKSsaid, he wished to say a word or two upon the Amendment really before the Committee, the attention of hon. Members having been lately directed to that which was practically the second Amendment, which was of a different character. The question was simply as to a name, and he would submit that as the division or district named in the Bill was entirely the Isle of Ely, and as he knew, from his own communication with the inhabitants of the place, that they wished that name to be kept up, he thought there should be no difficulty whatever in accepting the Amendment of his right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cam-

    1535
    bridge (Mr. Raikes) to leave out the name "Wisbech" in favour of "the Isle of Ely." The acceptance of that Amendment would not, he thought, in any way prejudice an Amendment of a very different character which stood on the Paper in his (Mr. Hicks's) own name. If the right hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill (Sir Charles W. Dilke) would accept the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge, he (Mr. Hicks) could assure him that he would not look upon it as in any way strengthening his position. He certainly thought that, taking into consideration the historical value of the name "the Isle of Ely," it would be merely an act of grace on the part of the Committee to retain it as the name of a division.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he thought that even the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Charles W. Dilke) must be very much impressed by the number of reasons—solid and substantial reasons—adduced by the hon. and learned Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Bulwer) in support of the retention of the old name of "the Isle of Ely." He (Mr. Warton) was not going to repeat those arguments, because he was sure they could not be better expressed than they had already been by the hon. and learned Member; but he wished to call the attention of the right hon. Baronet to what appeared to him to be an inconsistency, if he might say so, on his part in fighting as he had done a short time ago—though, at last, he gracefully gave way—for the retention in the county of Bedford of such a name as Biggleswade. The attention of the Committee should be drawn to the fact that the Biggleswade area did not represent more than a fourth part of the county division, and yet it was proposed that that place should give its name to the division. Wisbech would really be composed for the greater part of the Isle of Ely; therefore, when the right hon. Gentleman had fought for the retention of the name of Biggleswade, it was straining at a gnat and swallowing the camel.
    MR. PELLsaid, that a great many reasons had been advanced by his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Bulwer) for making this change in the name of the division; but, amongst other reasons, there was one which the hon. and learned Member omitted to mention—
    1536
    namely, that the Isle of Ely had been represented in Parliament in 1654, when it sent two Members to that House as a separate county division. He did not know whether that would have any weight in the right hon. Gentleman's (Sir Charles W. Dilke's) mind; but he thought it ought to have. Beyond that, there had been arguments advanced by Members of the county which were very substantial ones. He himself had some knowledge of the district, and was aware of the fact that there was a very strong feeling—not a political one, but, nevertheless, a strong feeling—in favour of making the Isle of Ely a distinct electoral division. He was quite aware of the difficulty of acceding to that request from the point of view of numbers; but he believed that the statistics that had been laid before the Committee had been over-stated. What would constitute the new Isle of Ely? He had worked the figures out very carefully; and, supposing the Amendment were accepted, the result he had arrived at was that there would be 62,540 in the Isle of Ely, whilst one division of the county would have 43,222, and the other 39,900, or not above 3,000 one way or the other. The character of that part of the county was so marked that he had thought this proposal would have had more influence than it seemed to have had on the mind of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill. The limits of it were extremely well defined, both by the river and other boundaries; whereas the district of Newmarket was extremely irregular, taking in three parishes of Ely, and running up into a point. The proposal of the Boundary Commissioners and of the Government really had regard to population alone. He was satisfied that that proposal had been made in ignorance of the real state of things that existed in the district in question; and he hoped, therefore, that having heard the arguments, the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider his decision upon the point.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he felt bound to point out to his hon. Friends that there was another principle to sustain in the discussion of these matters—one which he thought they ought to pay great attention to. The question was not only as to the position of the county of Cambridge, but as to how far they were to maintain or depart

    1537
    from the decision of the Boundary Commissioners. That, he must represent to his hon. Friends, was a very important point. The whole of their scheme rested very much upon this—that having established the principles upon which the divisions were to be made, it was necessary to leave the mode in which the divisions were to be fixed to the gentlemen, appointed from their known capacity and impartiality, to go down into the localities as Commissioners., and devise a proper scheme of distribution. So far as the evidence before the Committee went it showed that these gentlemen had in all cases exhibited great fairness and anxiety to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion. Of course, they might have been wrong in certain cases. There might be cases in which it was desirable that they should reconsider their decision; but he thought the Committee ought to be very slow indeed to make alterations, and to have a very strong case before they departed from the decision at which the Commissioners had arrived. If they once let go that stronghold, if they once went back upon that arrangement, they might find themselves in a very awkward position in regard to other cases that might be brought before them in the future. As a matter of name, they would, of course, all regret very much that so famous a name as the Isle of Ely should be passed over, and it might be well worthy of conderation whether that name might not be retained without altering the boundaries of the division as fixed by the Commissioners. He would ask the Committee, in the first instance, to decide the question of the boundary. On the whole, he thought it would be better for the Amendment to be withdrawn for the present, and leave the question of the name of the new division to be settled on Report.
    MR. HICKSsaid, the Amendment before the Committee was simply as to the question of name, and the few remarks he had ventured to trouble the Committee with had been confined entirely to that question. It was perfectly distinct from the other matter, and if it were the pleasure of the Committee and of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Raikes) that the proposal should be withdrawn for a time, and the other Amendment standing in his (Mr. Hicks') name proceeded with, he should be prepared to bring
    1538
    forward the more serious Amendment which he bad placed on the Paper.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that with regard to the name he must point out to the Committee that a very serious difficulty would arise. As the Commissioners had divided the county, the city of Ely, which was the most ancient part of the division of the Isle of Ely, would not be in the district which would take the name of the Isle. Therefore, there could not be very much force in the argument as to the name.
    MR. RAIKESsaid, there seemed to be some misapprehension as to the Amendment which was really before them. As had been pointed out, the Amendment had nothing to do with boundaries except incidentally; it had entirely to do with the question of the name. He felt, however, there was some inconvenience in discussing the question of name before they had decided the question of boundary; and he, therefore, thought it would be a more convenient course if the Committee would allow him to withdraw the Amendment, and so enable the question of boundaries to be taken up. If that question should be settled so as to create a district more clearly coinciding with the ancient boundaries of the Isle of Ely, the question of name could be brought on at a more convenient time.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. HICKSsaid, he now begged to move the Amendment which stood in his name. As the Bill was drawn, certain parts of the Isle of Ely were taken away and added to the Western Division, and other parts were taken away and added to the Newmarket Division. The Amendment he proposed was simply to retain these places in the Isle of Ely, and constitute the Isle an independent division of the county. There were one or two misprints in the Amendment, but he thought they would be easily corrected. The Isle of Ely had been an independent district for centuries, and it had great historical associations connected with it, and it was not right, at the mere caprice of three Commissioners, that it should be cut into pieces. Surely, the Committee was free to entertain a question of this kind, affecting, as it did, the feelings of a large number of electors, without being tied within the four

    1539
    corners of a rule of proportion. At an earlier part of the Sitting, he (Mr. Hicks) had had the honour to present a Petition from Ely, praying that the division might be kept as a distinct one. As had been remarked by his hon. and learned Colleague (Mr. Bulwer), the Isle of Ely had for centuries had an independent jurisdiction. It had not only had a separate custos rotulorum and magistrates, but even a Judge of its own. Prisoners of the Isle of Ely were tried by the Chief Justice of the Isle of Ely, and not by the ordinary Judges. That had continued until the year 1836; but to this day the place retained its own magistrates and coroner. It was, to all intents and purposes, a distinct county; and, to a very great extent, its interests were different to those of the rest of Cambridge. It was true that there were parts of the county which were under different drainage rates. He trusted the Committee would consider this matter seriously, and would not, for the simple object of making the numbers of the inhabitants in the three districts as equal as possible, go counter to the feelings of the mass of the population. Allusion had been made to the operations of the Commissioners generally, and to the satisfaction which their work had given, not only in this district, but all over Cambridgeshire. Well, there was no objection to the decision of the Commissioners on any political ground whatever. If the county was to be divided in regard to population, he did not know a better way of effecting the object; but the question was whether it should be divided accordig to population, seeing that in order to do that it would involve the sacrifices that had been described. The Prime Minister had spoken of the unity of municipal life. Surely, the right hon. Baronet would also respect the unity of county life; and he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would be able to accede to the reasonable prayer of the inhabitants of the whole of the Isle of Ely.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 43, line 8, at end, to insert the words "and the parishes of Granby Fen, Haddenham, Mepal. Stretham, Sutton, Wentworth, Wilburton, Wilcham, Wilchford, Ely College, Ely Holy Trinity, and Ely Paint Mary."—(Mr. Hicks.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he had nothing to add to what he had said before in regard to the argument which had been placed before the Committee by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. He had then very frankly admitted to the Committee that if he had had to divide the county he might not, perhaps, have adopted the same plan. But the Boundary Commissioners had the question brought before them in various memorials, and they came to the conclusion that the proposal was not one which they could accept. In this, as in other cases, he felt bound to adhere to the decision of the Commissioners. He himself was quite willing, at the recommendation of the Boundary Commissioners, to introduce changes where they were generally assented to; but he knew that the change, in this instance, did not receive general assent in the county of Cambridge. Although the majority were in favour of the alteration proposed in the Amendment moved by the hon. Member (Mr. Hicks) there was a large minority who did not take that view; and, that being so, he felt bound to adhere to the decision of the Commissioners. Another objection to the Amendment was that the population of the Isle of Ely, by itself, was about 63,000, which would be above the limit settled by the Commissioners; and the population of the division, as it was set forth in the Bill, was only 40,000. There was, consequently, a very great disparity in the figures.
    MR. BULWERsaid, he did not think the right hon. Baronet would find a single case, throughout the whole of the United Kingdom, which was on all fours with that of the Isle of Ely; and as to the great disproportion in the population pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman, there was a greater disparity in the case of the divisions in Bedfordshire, where the population of one of the divisions was much larger than that of the Isle of Ely, if the proposal of his hon. Friend (Mr. Hicks) were accepted. He had heard no answer to one difficulty which had been raised, and which he considered to be a very serious one—namely, that all the arrangements for elections must be carried out by the county authorities and magistrates in Quarter Sessions; and the magistrates of the county of Cambridge

    1541
    had no jurisdiction in the Isle of Ely any more than those of the Isle of Ely had in Cambridgshire.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEremarked that the Bill would not increase that difficulty.
    MR. BULWERsaid, that it would increase it, because the right hon. Gentleman must be aware that the register of voters for the Isle of Ely, although each elector voted at present for the three Members for Cambridgeshire, was a distinct register, compiled by a different set of officers, and sanctioned by a different tribunal—the magistrates of the Isle of Ely sanctioned one list of voters, and the magistrates of the county of Cambridge another. There would, therefore, be a confusion of jurisdiction, which he did not think they would be able to get over without the passing of a special clause. He was quite ready to admit that if the object was simply to treat the Isle of Ely and the county of Cambridge as one county, the numbers and proportion of the divisions proposed by the Bill would be perfectly fair. He would, however, call the attention of the right hon. Baronet the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote) to the fact that although this was to be one of the considerations, it was, nevertheless, subject to this important rule—that the division was to be as compact as possible, and based upon well-known areas, such as Petty Sessional Divisions, Poor Law Unions, and parishes. In some instances it had been found necessary to extend a boundary; but it was laid down as essential that the additional boundary should never be allowed to intersect a parish. In this case, as a matter of fact, they were not intersecting a parish, but were destroying a county; and all the traditions of public life which had hitherto prevailed in the Isle of Ely would be blotted out. Under these circumstances, he hoped the Government would still be able to see their way to accede to the proposal contained in the Amendment.
    MR. PELLsaid, he wished to point out another matter which he thought the right hon. Baronet ought to consider in reference to the question of population. The parishes which had been quoted in the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Hicks), Wilchford, &c, were declining in a very remarkable manner. Upon looking at
    1542
    the Census Returns of 1881, he found that not only had the population of these particular parishes declined, but that there had been a decrease of nearly 1,000 in the population of the Isle of Ely between 1880 and 1881. If the decrease was to go on at the same rate for the next 15 years or more, the number would be reduced to that which the Boundary Commissioners appeared to think it was desirable to fix as the limit.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 26; Noes 06: Majority 70.—(Div. List, No. 96.)
    MR. RAIKESsaid, the next Amendment stood upon the Paper in his name, and it was a proposal, in line 9, page 15, to leave out the word "Chesterton," in order that the division might simply be described as the "Western" Division of the county of Cambridge. But after what had already passed, he thought he would best consult the views of the Committee if he ventured to move the Amendment in the same terms as previous Amendments. He would therefore retain the word "Chesterton," and insert the words "Western or," which would describe the division as the "Western or Chesterton Division."
    Amendment proposed, in page 45, line 9, after the word "The," insert "Western or."—(Mr. Raikes.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he had no objection to the Amendment.
    Question put, and agreed to; words inserted accordingly.
    MR. RAIKESsaid, his concluding Amendment with regard to the county of Cambridge was in the same way to retain the word "Newmarket," and to insert the words "Eastern or," by which means the division would become "the Eastern or Newmarket Division."
    Amendment proposed, in page 45, line 15, after the word "The," insert "Eastern or."—(Mr. Raikes.)
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to; words inserted accordingly.
    MR. BULWERsaid, he wished to call the attention of the right hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill to the fact

    1543
    that the parish of Thetford, with a population of 242, was altogether omitted from any of the divisions.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEintimated that if the hon. and learned Member would put him in possession of the facts, he would refer them to the draftsman of the Bill.
    MR. RAIKESsaid, the Committee had now arrived at the county of Carmarthen, in regard to which he had proposed to amend Division No. 1, by omitting "Llandeilo," and describing the division as the "Eastern Division." Perhaps it might be found convenient, in the case of Welsh divisions which did not contain any considerable town which was not already included in a group of boroughs, to have simply the points of the compass attached to them in order to distinguish one division from another; but following the same rule which had been adopted in the case of the English counties, he proposed to retain the word "Llandeilo," and to prefix to it the words "Eastern or," which would describe it as the "Eastern or Llandeilo" division.
    Amendment proposed, in page 45, line 22, after "The," insert "Eastern or."—(Mr. Rallies.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. WARTONsaid, he was sorry to hear the decision which his right hon. Friend (Mr. Raikes) had arrived at, because it seemed to him (Mr. Warton) to have too much the appearance of postponing a good many of these questions to the Report. When the Report was brought on, it would be found that there were many important questions to attend to; the Government would be anxious to push on with the Bill, and everything would be hurriedly disposed of in order to arrive at other important matters which had nothing to do with redistribution at all. He was therefore sorry that, in the case of the Welsh counties, his right hon. Friend proposed to give an alternative name, and had not moved at once to strike out all the local names.
    MR. RAIKESsaid, he quite felt the force of what his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Warton) said; but he did not think it was a matter of sufficient importance to sacrifice the time of the Committee in discussing it.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he thought the right hon. Gentleman was acting wisely in taking this course. In the case of Llandeilo, it was something more than a small village. It had the rank of a county town, and was, in addition, a large Poor Law Union and a Petty Sessional Division.
    MR. WARTONsaid, that in regard to the argument which had just been made use of by the right hon. Baronet, it was quite true that Llandeilo was part of a Petty Sessional division; but there was only one part of that division in this county. Llandovery also constituted part of the St. Clears Division, and the only Petty Sessional division which appeared to be completely within this division was that of Llanelly, which the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Sir John Jenkins) proposed, in an Amendment to be moved later on, to substitute for that of Llandeilo. He could not help thinking that the Committee were asked to shirk the matter altogether; and he would like to know from the Chairman, whether, as a question of Order, if the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman were adopted, and the words "Eastern or" were inserted, the Committee would be bound by the word "or," or whether it would be competent for him (Mr. Warton) to move the omission of the words "or Llandeilo?"
    THE CHAIRMAN: If the Committee decide to insert the words "Eastern or" in the Schedule, it would not be competent for the hon. and learned Member to move the omission of the word "or" for the purpose of moving another Amendment.
    Question put, and agreed to; words inserted accordingly.
    MR. RAIKESmoved, in the 2nd division of the county of Carmarthen, an Amendment to alter the name of the St. Clears Division to "the Western or St. Clears Division."
    Amendment proposed, in page 45, line 29, after "The," insert "Western or."—(Mr. Raikes.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. GREGORYhoped the Government would consider the full effect of all these alternative names. By inserting the words "Western or," or some

    1545
    other name, they must materially affect the register. Every voter would have to be registered in this instance in an alternative way—namely, for "the Western" or "the St. Clears Division."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEremarked that his hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Gregory) had now made precisely the same speech which he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had made at the beginning of the evening. He found, however, that the sense of the Committee was against him, and therefore he had accepted the position.
    Question put, and agreed to; words inserted accordingly.
    MR. JONES-PARRYmoved, as an Amendment, to change the name of the Eivion Division of Carnarvonshire to that of "South Carnarvonshire." The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Raikes) appeared to have placed a similar Amendment upon the Paper; but each had acted without the knowledge of the other. His proposal was, in page 46, line 4, to leave out "Eivion," and insert "South Carnarvonshire;" and if that Amendment were accepted, he proposed, in line 11, to omit "Arvon." and substitute "North Carnarvonshire." The reason why he desired to make this alteration was simply that these two names—Eivion and Arvon—were misleading, and really did not geographically represent the districts which from time immemorial had been called so in the county of Carnarvon. On the contrary, Eivion would include another district larger than itself, called Lleyn, and more than one-half of the northern district which it was proposed to call "Arvon" had nothing to do with Arvon. He might add that when the Boundary Commissioner, Major Tulloch, held a local inquiry at Carnarvon, a number of representatives of all shades of politics, and from all all parts of the county, north and south, attended, and a wish was unanimously expressed that the two divisions should be called North and South Carnarvonshire. The Commissioner said that, according to his instructions, he was not able to give effect to that wish, but that he would make a note of it. The two names proposed to be given by the Bill were not only misleading, but clumsy names; and, although they might sound somewhat singular and romantic, they were not
    1546
    easily pronounceable by strangers. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill would accede to the wishes of the inhabitants, who had unanimously expressed their feeling through the delegates they had sent to the Carnarvon meeting, to which feeling Major Tulloch, the Commissioner, saw no objection whatever. The Commissioner simply said that he was bound by his Instructions to accept nothing except territorial designations.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 46, line 4, to leave out the word "Eivion," in order to insert the words "South Carnarvonshire,"—(Mr. Jones-Parry,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the word 'Eivion' stand part of the Schedule."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he had no objection to the alternative names being given to the divisions of Carnarvonshire.
    MR. JONES-PARRYsaid, he was willing to accept the alternative names.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he did not think there was a greater instance in the Bill of the absurdity of the names given to divisions. These names Eivion, and Arvon, did not correctly represent the districts they purported to represent. They had only an archaeological significance, and conveyed no idea to the minds of anybody out of Wales. He should have thought that the Committee would have seen their way to accept the Amendment outright.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he did not wish to adhere to the proposal in the Bill too hardly. If the Committee generally, and the local Members in particular, were agreed upon the ad-visibility of the Amendment, he would raise no objection.
    Question put, and agreed to; words substituted accordingly.
    On the Motion of Mr. RAIKES, the following Amendment made:—In page 46, line 11, after "The," leave out "Arvon," and insert "Northern."
    MR. WARTONsaid, that before they came to the county of Cheshire, he begged to move an Amendment in line 14 of page 46. The Amendment was one exactly similar to that which the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) accepted in the case of the county of Bedford, for it had reference to cer-

    1547
    tain parishes and sessional divisions. He desired to leave out the word "parishes," and insert "sessional divisions of Carnarvon."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he would suggest that the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Warton) should bring up his Amendment on Report. Before accepting it, he would like to look into it. By accepting Amendments hastily, mistakes were sometimes introduced.
    MR. WARTONsaid, that a similar Amendment, having reference to Bedfordshire, had been accepted. No great exercise of mind was required to conceive the importance of the point raised by the Amendment. As the Amendment had been accepted in the case of county of Bedford, there was no reason why it should not be accepted here. The right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) would find that in the case of Bedfordshire he (Mr. Warton) proposed to insert the words "sessional division of Ampthill."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEthought the hon. and learned Member was right.
    MR. WARTON: I am right.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he fancied the hon. and learned Member was right. One, of course, got rather confused with the many Amendments which were proposed. [Mr. WARTON: No, no!] He did not mean that the hon. and learned Gentleman got confused, but that he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) sometimes did. If the hon. and learned Gentleman did not mind, he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) would prefer to have it put down for the Report, so that he might consider the matter carefully.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he was willing to attend to the suggestion of the right hon. Baronet.
    MR. RAIKESsaid, that they now came to the consideration of the Bill as it related to the county of Cheshire, and the first Amendment he had now to propose was to change the name of one of the eight divisions into which Cheshire was divided. He had tried very hard to divide Cheshire according to the points of the compass, but he confessed he had failed to do so. He could not find a satisfactory redistribution of Cheshire, according to the Commissioners' scheme, in accordance with the points of the compass; and, therefore, he had not proposed the adoption of
    1548
    any of the points of the compass with regard to any of the divisions of that county. But, as he happened to know something of the county, and something of the particular district to which his Amendment referred, he ventured to put his proposition upon the Paper. The county of Cheshire had, as hon. Members generally might be aware, a speciality in the shape of salt manufacture. The River Weaver was the main artery of the county by which the salt trade was carried on, and which conveyed the manufactured salt down to the Mersey, and so abroad. The division contained two towns of secondary importance—namely, Northwich and Runcorn. Northwich was a manufacturing centre, and Runcorn was a port. There was a certain amount of jealousy between the two towns. In a small way, they were like Manchester and Liverpool, and had their grievances against each other, and it was almost impossible to put forward either of them as the head of the district without causing considerable heartburning. It appeared to him that by giving to the district the name of Weaver, they would be giving to it the name of that which was the main highway of its commerce, and they would be following the example of the great county of Kent, in which there was a Medway Division, named after the River Medway. If this division were named Northwich, there would be a certain risk of confounding it with Norwich. He could not help thinking that the name of Weaver was certainly a better name for the district than the name which was proposed by the Commissioners; but he was quite content to leave the matter in the hands of the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke), who, he thought, was quite able to appreciate the consideration which he (Mr. Raikes) had ventured to put forward. He begged to move the Amendment which stood in his name.
    Amendment proposed, in page 47, line 10, after "The," leave out the word "Northwich," and insert the word "Weaver."—(Mr. Raikes.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'Northwich' stand part of the Schedule."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he feared he could not agree to the suggestion the right hon. Gentleman (Mr.

    1549
    Raikes) had made. If the right hon. Gentleman left the matter to him, as he very kindly suggested, he would feel himself obliged to return a negative answer. The Commissioners were of opinion that the adoption of the name Weaver would be unpopular in the district. The town of Northwich was the centre of the salt industry, and there appeared to be a pretty general feeling in the division that the name of the central town should be given to the division. The town of Northwich had between 12,000 and 13,000 inhabitants, so it was itself a considerable place.
    MR. RAIKES: Runcorn has far more inhabitants.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that Runcorn, no doubt, was the port of the salt industry. The understanding arrived at, at the local inquiry, was decidedly in favour of Northwich, and there was a sort of general feeling in favour of that name. He had every reason to suppose that the proposed change would be generally unpopular.
    MR. RAIKESsaid, that after what the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had said, he begged to ask leave to withdraw' the Amendment.
    MR. H. TOLLEMACHEsaid, that perhaps he knew a great deal more about the neighbourhood covered by the Amendment than either of the right hon. Gentlemen who had just spoken. The adoption of the Amendment would be extremely unpopular. He had communicated with the Chairmen of the Local Boards of the three principal towns—Northwich, Winsford, and Middlewich—and they all told him that the proposed Amendment would be most objectionable and very unpopular indeed. Besides, the River Weaver ran through no less than three districts in Cheshire; therefore, they might as well call the Eddisbury district, which he hoped to have the honour of contesting at the next General Election, the Weaver Division. He thought it necessary also to point out that the town of Runcorn had nothing whatever to do with the shipping of salt. Runcorn—unless the scheme with which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Raikes) was connected—namely, the Runcorne Brine scheme, succeeded—would have nothing whatever in the future to do with the salt trade of the district.
    SIR E. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that perhaps he knew as much of Northwich as anybody in the House, for he had lived close to it for a very long time. He entirely agreed with what had fallen from his hon. Friend the Member for West Cheshire (Mr. H. Tollemache) and he wondered that his right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Raikes), who had taken so much pains about this Bill, did not use the really only strong argument he could have said in favour of his Amendment—namely, that the town of Northwich was so rapidly sinking, owing to the salt manufacture carried on, that it would very shortly altogether disappear.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, he had now to move the first of a series of Amendments, intended to apply the principle introduced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Raikes), to the county of Cornwall. He (Mr. Courtney) thought that the names he had to propose for the new divisions of Cornwall were suitable, and that they would commend themselves to the Committee at large. He thought, also, that they would be found to be supported by the Representatives of Cornwall in the House. His first Amendment was to insert, on page 48, line 17, after the word "The," "Western or," so that the line would then read "The Western or St. Ives Division." Perhaps he might be allowed to mention the names he proposed to give to the other divisions of the county, in order that the Committee might see the scheme as a whole. He proposed to call No. 2 Division, on line 21,"The North-Western or Camborne Division. "That division ran along the coast of Cornwall, and was quite correctly described as the North-Western Division. No. 3 Division, on line 25, he proposed to call "the Southern or Truro Division." That division included the Lizard and the more southerly part of the county. Then, he proposed to call No. 4 Division, on line 33, "the Mid or St. Austell Division." That division ran right across the county, and divided it nearly in half. The 5th Division, on line 37, he proposed to call "the South-Eastern or Bodmin Division." That division was correctly de-

    1551
    scribed as regarded the points of the compass. And the 6th Division he proposed to call "the North-Eastern or Launceston Division"—a description which was perfectly correct. The alterations commended themselves to the minds of the Members for the county, and he thought they were acceptable to the people of the county generally. He apprehended there would be no difficulty in the acceptance of them, and he therefore begged to move to insert, on line 17, after "The," "Western or."
    Amendment proposed, in page 48, line 17, after "The," to insert the words "Western or."—(Mr. Courtney.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he had no objection to the first Amendment, though he could conceive some objection to the second and third Amendments.
    Question put, and agreed, to; words inserted accordingly.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, that, as a matter of Order, he desired to point out that his hon. Friend (Mr. Borlase) proposed to make a considerable alteration in the No. 2 Division of the county of Cornwall, and the hon. Gentleman proposed to describe the division as the Helston Division. Perhaps it would be well that his hon. Friend should propose to insert the word "Helston," so that the whole question might be raised.
    MR. BORLASEsaid, he would propose to substitute the word "Helston" for "Camborne." Perhaps it was well, however, that the position of matters should be made clear. He understood that, in moving that the word "Helston" be there inserted, he was only following out what it would be necessary to do in order that his hon. Friend's (Mr. Courtney's) Amendment might be taken. His (Mr. Borlase's) Amendment was of an altogether different kind to that they bad just adopted.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, he understood the hon. Gentleman was about to move that the word "Helston" be inserted instead of "Camborne."
    MR. COURTNEYasked if he might be allowed to explain the position of matters? His hon. Friend (Mr. Borlase) proposed to alter No. 2 Division, by calling it the Helston Division, instead of
    1552
    the Camborne Division, and then he proposed to make some subsequent change in the division. He (Mr. Courtney) proposed to alter No. 2 Division, by inserting, after the word "the," "North-Western or." Of course, if "North-Western or" be inserted, the Amendment would not agree with the alteration his hon. Friend (Mr. Borlase) proposed to make. It would, therefore, be most convenient, as a mere technical form, that his hon. Friend should move to insert "Helston" simply. If that word be rejected, he (Mr. Courtney) would then be able to move his Amendment.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Will the hon. Member adopt the suggestion?
    MR. BORLASEsaid, that the Amendment which he had the honour to move was, as he had just stated, different in character from the ones they had just been considering. It was one which affected the county as a whole, and that more than in a name. He wished at once to state what the effect of the Amendment would be. Its effect would be, not to define any new boundaries, but simply to return to those boundaries which were represented by the original scheme of the Commissioners. Now, the reasons for doing that were three. The first one was, "because"—to quote the words of the Instructions to the Commissioners—"the alteration produced in one of the two districts"—namely, the Helston and Truro one—"grave inconvenience, and involved boundaries of a very irregular and objectionable kind." The second reason was, that the notion of forming a so-called mining constituency, whose Member should be the Representative of mining in the whole of Cornwall and Devon, would be in distinct opposition to the best interests of that industry, and would be contrary also to the wishes of the mining population both within and without the proposed district. The third reason was, that the evidence produced before the Commissioners at Bodmin was unauthorized by those who were most deeply interested in the subject, and was in itself inadequate. Now, in the first place, he would consider the matter from a geographical point of view. Cornwall was a county which, considered as a geographical whole, presented a very striking contrast to its inhabitants in the rugged-ness of its exterior and physical characteristics. So extremely irregular was the

    1553
    natural outline of the county of Cornwall, that it was to be supposed that the Commissioners, when they came to deal with any artificial system of internal boundaries, would have endeavoured to make those boundaries as regular, as simple, and as comprehensive as they could possibly be. The original scheme which was submitted by the Commissioners was as regular, simple, and comprehensive as it could possibly be; but it was altered after evidence had been taken before one of the Commissioners, Mr. Pelham, who sat at Bodmin. Now, he (Mr. Borlase) was afraid that, for a moment, he must weary the Committee by saying something about what the size of these respective districts was, in order to contrast the old scheme with the one which had now been proposed. The size of the proposed Helston District, in the original scheme, by which the town of Camborne was joined to the town of Helston, was 15 miles from cast to west, and 23 miles from north to south. The size of the Truro Division, in the same scheme, would be 15 miles from east to west, and 14 miles from north to south. Now, the towns, as grouped under it, were completely accessible by railway. Redruth and Truro were already joined by railway, and, as his hon. Friend the Member for Helston (Mr. St. Aubyn) knew very well, there was already a scheme, which had progressed some way, and which, no doubt, would be carried out, for connecting by rail the towns of Helston and Camborne. Redruth and Truro were eminently fitted to be joined together, since they had many interests in common, as anyone who travelled by rail between the two places could see, particularly on market days, and when there was any mining interest or market business to be attended to. He did not wish to enter into any political matter, but he might remark that the divisions, as they were originally proposed by the Commissioners, were eminently fair from that point of view. The Helston District, at the present moment, returned a Conservative Member to the House. Helston was the centre of a large Conservative district. The Camborne District was Liberal. The city of Truro, on the other hand, returned his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir James M'Grarel-Hogg), who was a Conservative, and that city was to be joined to the Liberal town of Redruth;
    1554
    so that politically everything might be said to be just and proper. Now, he asked them to contrast these divisions as they were first of all proposed with what the Commissioners had since caused to be done. In the present scheme, the Camborne District was to be a very small district indeed; it was to be 13 miles by 10 miles, and was to contain nine parishes. The object of making this little district was that there should be a mining division; but out of the nine parishes, three were purely agricultural. Now he came to the question of this mining district, which had been formed in order to give the miners what was supposed to be an inestimable blessing, but one which, in reality, they themselves did not want. The part of the county on both sides of Truro had absolutely been cut into ribbons in order to attain this result. The new constituency of Truro, instead of containing nine parishes, was to contain 35. It was to be 31 miles long; in the centre it was only to be two miles wide, expanding to 10 miles wide on the north, and 12 miles wide on the south. It was like a wasp in shape, or figure of 8, with a small and narrow connecting centre and two broad ends. From an electioneering point of view the constituency would be unworkable, for the reason that the ends were almost inaccessible to each other, having no railway communication. The two parts were utterly unknown to each other, and were cut in two by a creek. A candidate starting from Truro, to go over the district westward, would have to proceed down the line 21 miles into a totally different division, and then drive eight or nine miles. Similar difficulty would have to be encountered in order to get to some of the eastern parts of the division. From Truro, a candidate would have to go 10 miles by rail into the borough of Penryn, and to drive 18 or 20 miles. Again, the arrangement would be unfair to the agricultural parishes of Gwythian, Grwinear, and Phillack, in the mining division, whose inhabitants had recently held a meeting at Hayle, and unanimously passed a resolution which they had transmitted to him, saying that if their Member was to be supposed to devote his attention entirely to mining, they would be utterly unrepresented. It would be unfair to the parish of St. Agnes, which

    1555
    had everything in common with Truro, and whose overseers had sent him a Petition against it from their Vestry, on the ground that they had always been identified with Truro, which Petition he had, unfortunately, not been able to present, owing to a technical flaw in it, but which conveyed their meaning none the less for that. He came now to the second reason — namely, the mining reason. It was said that the arrangement had been effected in order to create a mining division, and because the miners wished it themselves. He denied that the miners wished it. On the contrary, they were utterly opposed to it. Why was it that they did not wish it? Why, because mining, being co-extensive with the boundaries of the Stannaries, extended all over Cornwall and into Devonshire, as everyone should know, and as certainly the Boundary Commissioners ought to have known. The Western mining interests of England had hitherto been represented by 15 Members. Every one of the Members for Cornwall had considered himself, and had been considered by his constituents, a Representative of mining, and not only had that been the case with the 13 Cornish Members, but the two Members for Devon within the Stannaries had also been Representatives of mining. And there was another reason why no small division could ever be made a mining centre in Cornwall, and that was because there Was no industry in England so fluctuating as Cornish mining. At one time one place was the centre, and at another time another. There were at least six districts of Cornwall in which copper and tin mining was pursued, and each of which had at one time been the mining centre. Evidence had been given before the Boundary Commissioners sitting at Bodmin by a gentle-man named Chilcott in favour of the adoption of this mining district, which was, indeed, his (Mr. Chilcott's) own conception. This gentleman had advocated the adoption of this place as the mining centre, because, he said, it had been such for centuries. Would Mr. Chilcott be surprised to hear that a quarter of a century ago, a local landowner, who had left behind her an honoured name (Lady Basset), maintained the principal mines of the district in question at her own expense? Would he be sur-
    1556
    prised to hear that 10 years ago, this particular district was not the centre of Cornish mining, and that, in all probability, 10 years to come, it would not be? There were at present in Cornwall and Devonshire—or, rather, there were at the end of 1883, for, unfortunately, the statistics for last year had not been published—103 tin mines at work, within the limits of the Stannaries, of which 62 were out of the proposed district, whilst only 41 were in it. In 1883 there were raised out of that district nearly 4,000 tons of tin—namely, 3,667 tons—valued at £192,000. Were the interests of all the miners employed in these works to be represented by one who lived at a distance, in some cases, of 60 or more miles from them? As to copper mining, he was sorry to say there was very little of that now; but in 1855 the copper raised out of the district was of the value of £559,000. Last year the amount raised was, in one district, of the value of £59,546, and in another, £26,940. If that was the case, it might well be asked what induced the Commissioners to come to the decision they did arrive at? It was because of the evidence taken at Bodmin. The evidence in favour of this mining constituency was given by two gentlemen, one of whom had no connection with mining whatever, and the other of whom lived far out of the district, and had nothing to do with it— who, in fact, lived down in the St. Ives district. Mr. Chilcott was asked by the Commissioner—
    "Are you making these proposals on your own behalf, or who do you represent?
    Mr. CHILCOTT: I suppose I may claim to be a Cornishman.
    The COMMISSIONER: I simply wish to know whether you are representing anyone?
    Mr. CHILCOTT: I represent the Conservative Association of West Cornwall."
    Now, he (Mr. Borlase) ventured to protest against that kind of evidence, whether it came from a political agent of the Ministerial or the Opposition side of the House. Mr. Chilcott, as he had said, was a man wholly unconnected with mining—the paid agent of a Party. He did not mean to say that the evidence of such persons should not have been heard by the Commissioner; but what he did contend was that their evidence should be taken with the same reserve as that with which, when they sat on Committees upstairs, hon. Mem-

    1557
    bers wore wont to receive the evidence of specialist witnesses. Such men should have very little weight in enabling a man to form a judgment of a question of this sort—a man who, like the Commissioner, had no personal knowledge whatever of the district with which he was dealing. In common with the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Raikes) he gave all credit to the Boundary Commissioners for the work they had done in so short a time. But the time had been short. They had only been able to give one day to Dorsetshire, another to Devonshire, and another to Cornwall. In the latter case, they had had to mark out their boundaries in a less number of hours than there were districts to be adjusted. It might be asked how the Commissioners had come to arrive at the conclusion to which such strong exception was taken on the spot, and how it was that so little conflicting testimony was brought before them? Well, it was owing to a mistake. Some of the gentlemen who had given evidence had to travel some 50 miles. A telegram was sent by a body of gentlemen to Bodmin, asking that this particular district should be postponed until a later period in the day, when they would be able to arrive in the town. That telegram was never handed to the Commissioner; the case was closed, and it was only on sufferance that, later in the day, the Commissioner was good enough to hear the evidence of these gentlemen. Well, in the evidence the Commissioner then received, Captain Josiah Thomas said that he was the manager of the largest mine in the county. He had never heard any wish expressed by the mining community to be represented by a special Member; neither had the matter been mentioned in connection with the Mining Institute of Cornwall—an Institution which watched over the mining interests of the county. The mining industry was pursued in all parts of the county, and, if the scheme as laid down by the Commissioners was adhered to, it would still be represented by the whole of the Members. Evidence came from several other gentlemen directly connected with mining. Mr. Lanyon, for instance, complained that—
    "In the absence of himself and other gentlemen who had previously spoken, the proposal to create a mining constituency had been brought forward by a gentleman who did not
    1558
    represent the mining interest at all. As one largely interested in the mining industry, and a member of the Mining Institute, he was prepared to state that the matter had never been broached to the mine managers or adventurers, and had not, therefore, received their approval. He again asserted that the proposal had been brought forward by those who had no interest whatever in mining, and added that it had only received the support of one gentleman, who was an intruder, for a gentleman belonging to the Penzance Division had no right to interfere with those of Helston and Truro."
    Since that time this question had been opposed by every mine manager, and every miner in the county, and in particular by those in the very two towns mostly affected—namely, Redruth and Camborne. In both of those towns meetings, which were by no means Party meetings, but meetings of the inhabitants, had been held to consider this subject. The oldest and most experienced miners in the county had attended these meetings. They had come together to protest against the present scheme. At Redruth, a resolution to that effect was passed almost unanimously—that was to say, only one hand was held up against it; and at the Camborne meeting a similar resolution was passed absolutely unanimously. A unanimous meeting had similarly been held at Helston. At Truro there had been three to one in favour of an alteration of the scheme, showing that this was a county matter, and in no way a political question. In 11 other places, affected by the proposal, unanimous meetings of the inhabitants had been held. This being so, he had ventured to approach the right hon. Baronet the Leader of the Opposition (Sir Stafford Northcote) and the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill (Sir Charles W. Dilke), to see whether it could not be arranged that the county of Cornwall should be represented as it ought to be. In both instances they had given him to understand that he had a good case; and he now appealed to them once more, as to the two judges who had to decide the question, sitting on the Front Benches in the House, to set the matter right. If they could not do so now, he would ask thorn to give him a promise that, in consideration of the merits of the case he had made out, they would request the Commissioner to reconsider his decision before Report, since the matter was one, as he thought he had clearly

    1559
    shown, which deeply affected the interests of the greatest industry in the West of England, and the convenience of the inhabitants of the county.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 48, leave out lines 21 to 32, both inclusive, and insert,—
    "No. 2.—The Helston Division.
    The Sessional Divisions of Kerrier West and Kerrier East (except the parish of Gwennap).
    The Municipal Boroughs of Helston, Penryn, and Falmouth; and the parishes of Camborne, Crowan, Gwinear, Gwithian, and Phillack.
    No. 3.—The Truro Division.
    The Sessional Division of Powder West (except the parish of Ladock).
    The Municipal Borough of Truro; and the parishes of Gwennap, Illogan, and Redruth."—(Mr. Borlase.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'Helston' stand part of the Schedule."
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, that as there was another Amendment by which it was proposed to alter the name of the division, he had put the Question, "That 'Helston' remain part of the Schedule," so that the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) might have the opportunity he sought.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he thought that this proposal was practically to revert to the original scheme of the Boundary Commissioners—that was to say, the scheme prepared before they had made their local inquiry. He need hardly point out to the Committee that the original schemes were drawn up in London, before there had been any opportunity of consulting local feeling, and before the Commissioners had had an opportunity of looking thoroughly into the question, and gauging it as it appeared after local inquiry, to see whether it came under the terms of their Instructions that changes could be made in the original scheme. In some cases parts of the original scheme might have told in one direction in a Party sense, and other parts in another direction. The present instance was one in which it was believed by the local leaders of the Liberal Party that the change would be detrimental to their interests, and which should be reversed. He knew that feeling generally prevailed amongst Cornish Liberals. But surely, when an impartial body of Commissioners, representing both sides of
    1560
    politics, went into a district entirely unknown to them, and consulted with persons of both political Parties of whom they knew nothing, and came unanimously to a conclusion, after local investigation, that it was desirable to create a division of a certain kind, it would be monstrous for the Committee to reverse that decision. It would be monstrous, he contended, for the Committee now modelling the Bill to reverse the view of such a Commission, on the strength, not of a general opinion in favour of such reversal, but only of a feeling in the county on one side. It must be borne in mind that the final scheme was not proposed in accordance with the Report of those who had made the local inquiry, but after repeated reconsideration of the matter. The Commissioners had changed their provisional scheme after repeated consideration of the Report of the Visiting Commissioner by the whole Commission, and each time they had confirmed their previous decision. He knew that the whole of the Commission had considered this case in that way, as well as the case of Cheshire and one of the Scotch cases. They had been aware that there was great opposition to the scheme, and were familiar with the line of argument that was adopted in the locality on the one side and on the other; and, therefore, as he had said, they had considered and reconsidered the matter, and had adhered to their original decision. Under the circumstances, it was clear that he had no alternative but to ask the Committee to support the decision of the Commissioners. The argument which had weighed with the Commissioners was this—that, on the whole, the arrangement they proposed would have the effect of grouping together persons of similar pursuits, both in this mining district and in the neighbouring district, which was mainly agricultural. The Commissioners were aware that there were large mining interests scattered through the whole of Cornwall, and conceived it to be impossible to throw the whole mining population into one division. There were mines all over the county. The Commissioners had effected this—they had created a division, mainly mining, and had constituted by the side of it a division mainly agricultural, and they believed that in so doing they had strictly adhered to their Instructions. The pro-

    1561
    visional scheme would have drawn a line between Redruth and Camborne, and would have cut in two what was virtually one town; because the Camborne and Redruth people worked together, were associated in their pursuits, and had common interests and wants. This was so, notwithstanding that many of the miners had to travel considerable distances to their work. [A laugh.] The hon. Member (Mr. Borlase) laughed at that; but he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) was as familiar with the case of Redruth as anyone in that House. He had happened to be a Member of a Royal Commission whose duty it had been to examine witnesses from that district upon these subjects, and in the course of their investigation the Commission had elicited from local witnesses in detail the fact of the distances they had to travel to their work.
    MR. BORLASEsaid, he should like to explain why he laughed. "When the right hon. Baronet had referred to Redruth and Camborne being so identical as to be almost one town, he (Mr. Borlase) had remembered that there were no two places in the Kingdom which worked so badly together. The Redruth and Camborne people were too close neighbours to be good friends.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that, as he had stated, these places were virtually one town. The line drawn by the provisional scheme would have severed that which, for mining purposes, must be considered as one community. Therefore, for all these reasons he would ask the Committee to reject the Amendment; and he had no doubt that the Committee would feel that, where the whole Boundary Commission had been unanimous on the point, it was the duty of those in charge of the Bill to maintain the opinion of the Commission.
    MR. C. ROSSsaid, that he should like to address a few words to the Committee on this occasion, as the subject was one with which he was somewhat familiar. In the first place, he would venture to thank the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) for the speech he had just made. He (Mr. Ross) could assure the right hon. Baronet that by a large number of people in the county his words would be read to-morrow with sincere pleasure. The right hon. Baronet had disposed of the main points of the speech of the hon. Member (Mr.
    1562
    Borlase). However, he did not think that that hon. Member's speech ought to be allowed to go out of the House without having a few points in it flatly contradicted. He (Mr. Ross) did not propose to inflict a lengthy effort of oratory upon the Committee such as the hon. Member (Mr. Borlase) had just uttered; but he had taken a few notes of the remarks which had fallen from the hon. Member in the course of his remarkable speech, and these, with the permission of the Committee, he would now go over. As he saw the junior Member for West Cornwall (Mr. A. Vivian) in his place, he might say that, whatever the hon. Member who spoke last might say about the strong feeling existing in the county in regard to this mining division, there was at least one Comishman in the House who did not agree with him; for no sooner was the final scheme of the Commissioners brought before the country than the junior Member for West Cornwall had seized the opportunity to hurl an address at the heads of what he hoped to be his future constituents. He did not know whether or not the hon. Member (Mr. A. Vivian) now agreed with the hon. Member for East Cornwall (Mr. Borlase), and, if so, the Committee would be at a loss to know what had made him change his mind. Possibly he had found another constituency, or had discovered, for some other reason, that he did not want to represent this constituency. Possibly the hon. Member had discovered what he (Mr. Ross) was afraid was a more likely thing—namely, that the proposed new constituency did not want him. The hon. Member for East Cornwall had said that one of the strong objections to the new revision was that it was, from a geographical point of view, very badly laid out; but he (Mr. Ross) could only say that the hon. Member must know as well as he that the new district of Launceston was a verymuch more inconveniently mapped district than the new district of Truro. One point to which the hon. Member had referred was as to the evidence given before the Commissioner. He (Mr. Ross) should just like to remind the Committee of what had taken place at the inquiry before the Commissioner. The Committee would remember that, according to the old scheme, the mining division was to be cut in two. When

    1563
    the Commissioner came down to Bodmin, two gentlemen representing the Conservative interest addressed him, and laid the facts of the case before him. They showed him how the formation of this mining district would be distinctly carrying out, both in the letter and in the spirit, the Instructions given to the Commissioners. The Commissioner was very much impressed with what these gentlemen said. Later on, he was addressed by no less than seven Liberal gentlemen, all of whom inveighed against the new scheme; and yet, so cogent were the arguments of the two Conservatives as against the arguments of the seven Liberals, that the result was the formation of the new district, which everybody except those who were extremely violent partizans believed would work excellently in Cornwall. He (Mr. Ross) had it on very good authority that a well-known gentleman very much interested in this question on the Liberal side had declared that the mining district it was proposed to form would be a very good one, although he was afraid it might give the Conservatives a chance of winning a seat. No doubt, that very accurately described the attitude of the Liberal Party with regard to this matter in Cornwall. He thanked the Committee for having given such patient attention to his remarks; and he could only express the hope that in the division which would take place the Committee would support the right hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill, and would see the fairness of giving the miners of Cornwall one district in the county which really depended upon the mining industry—would see that it was only fair, when a district like this could be so easily mapped out, that those who were so largely interested in the industry should have a special Representative.
    Question put, and negatived.
    MR. COURTNEY: I beg to move that "North" Western "be inserted in the place of "Helston."
    MR. BORLASE: I rise to Order. I wish to know whether now is not the time to take my Amendment? It was, "Schedule 7, page 48, leave out lines 21 to 32, both inclusive, and insert, No. 2. The Helston Division, &c."
    THE CHAIRMAN: I explained some time ago to the hon. Member that the
    1564
    Question put would be that the word "Helston" stand part of the Schedule, because it was necessary to give the hon. Member for Liskeard an opportunity of moving his Amendment. The word "Helston" has now been negatived, so that the hon. Member for Liskeard has the opportunity he seeks to bring forward his proposal for a geographical division.
    MR. COURTNEY: I propose to insert the words "North Western or," in place of "Helston."
    Amendment proposed, in page 48, line 21, after the word "The," to insert the words "North Western or."—(Mr. Courtney.)
    Question proposed, "That the words 'North Western or' be there inserted."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he presumed that this Amendment had the approval of the Committee, the hon. Member's wish being to insert this description of the Helston Division as corresponding to the description of the Camborne Division.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, that in page 48, line 25, after the word "The," he wished to insert the words "Southern or."
    Amendment proposed, in page 48, line 25, after the word "The," to insert the words "Southern or."—(Mr. Courtney.)
    Question proposed, "That the words 'Southern or' be there inserted."
    MR. EDWARD CLARKEsaid, that he thought that the course the hon. Member had taken would very likely lead to some inconvenience and some discussion upon this question on Report. There was no county in England which it was more difficult to divide according to the points of the compass than the county of Cornwall. There was no reason in the world why this division should be spoken of as the Southern Division.
    MR. BORLASEsaid, that the hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. E. Clarke) should have raised this question earlier.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that the first division was at the extreme West of Cornwall, and the division they were now discussing contained the ex-

    1565
    treme South, though it was true it might run up to the North.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 47; Noes 154: Majority 107.—(Div. List, No. 97.)
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, he thought there would be no objection to the three remaining Amendments he had to move, the first of which was to insert before the words "St. Austell Division" the words "Mid or."
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 48, line 33, after the word "The," to insert the words "Mid or."—(Mr. Courtney.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. EDWARD CLARKEsaid, if there was any strong opinion in favour of the term "Mid Division," he would not divide against it; but he thought the title would be better left alone, remaining as the St. Austell Division. From the configuration of the county, Cornwall was not suitable to such modes of division. For the "Western Division" something, perhaps, might be said; but in no sense could the arguments be used in favour of a Mid Division.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, as the Committee had inserted the "Western Division," he thought they had better put in the distinction "Mid."
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 48, line 37, between the words "The" and "Bodmin," to insert the words "South Eastern or."—(Mr. Courtney.)
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 49, line 1, between the words "The" and "Launceston," to insert the words "North Eastern or."—(Mr. Courtney.)
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. RAIKESsaid, it would be more convenient to the Committee if he moved his Amendments following the addition of the words "Northern," "Western," and so on, as Amendments to the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he was willing to move his Amendment with the addition suggested by the right
    1566
    hon. Gentleman, after "The," in line 9, to add the words "Northern or."
    MR. AINSWORTHsaid, he should not object to those words; but he should object to the words following, because they would not really describe the district. The Eskdale, best known, was in what would be called the "Southern" Division, the valley of the River "Esk." The omission of "Eskdale," and other Amendments he had put down, were proposed in consequence of an universally expressed wish of persons in the county to have as far as possible a geographical definition. At the meeting of the Boundary Commissioners at Carlisle both political Parties were represented, and the Lord Lieutenant of the county took the opportunity of drawing the attention of the Commissioners to the desirability of having the true geographical names, and the names suggested by his Amendment were those approved at the meeting. The description "Cockermouth Division" was approved; no alternative geographical name was suggested. At present he should object to the Amendment proposed; not that he objected to the word "Northern," but he wished to have "Eskdale" left out.
    Amendment proposed, in page 49, line 9, to insert the words "Northern or."—(Sir Charles W. Dilke.)
    Amendment agreed to.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, his Amendment would then run on in form, substituting the names now proposed for those in the Bill. The Clerk of the Peace for the county gave the names in a Return furnished last August; but it appeared now the names were not correct, and so the Clerk had sent the legal names, which he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) proposed by his Amendment to substitute for those given in the Schedule. It seemed that in the county of Cumberland one set of names was used by custom, but another set was used in all legal forms.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 49, line 10, to leave out from the word "of" to the word "Carlisle," in line 14.—(Sir Charles W. Dilke.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
    MR. WAUGHsaid, he must object to the word "Eskdale Ward;" it was a misnomer. Up to the year 1841 it was quite right; but since then Eskdale Ward had been divided into the two divisions "Brampton" and "Long-town," and all processes were issued out of the Brampton Division, not "Eskdale." Allerdale Ward below Derwent, also, would be in three divisions. It must lead to a good deal of difficulty to give the names as proposed. The Clerk of the Peace had given the names as they existed up to 1841, not taking into account the alterations made since. There could be no doubt the right names for the divisions were "Brampton" and "Longtown."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the hon. Member assumed that the names had been altered since 1841, but he was wrong; custom had brought about a change of names; but if the Clerk of the Peace was right, the names in use in 1841 were the legal names known at Quarter Sessions.
    MR. PERCY WYNDHAMsaid, he was conversant with Quarter Session proceedings, and the only names known there were "Brampton" and "Long-ton;" he had never heard of the "Eskdale" Division.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, in practice no doubt such was the case; but a most careful examination had been made by the Clerk of the Peace, who was distinctly of opinion that no order of the Court had changed the names. If the Clerk of the Peace could be shown to be in error, he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) would be glad to have an alteration made on Report.
    SIR. E. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he supposed it might be taken for granted that by the Amendment no alternative would be made in the boundaries; as shown on the map of the Commissioners, it was simply a change in description.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that was so.
    MR. WARTONsaid, it seemed to him, from what he had gathered from Cumberland Members, that there had been some division of Eskdale Ward, whether legally or not he did not know, and Eskdale seemed to contain "Brampton" and "Longtown." It seemed to him curious that in stating the divisions "Eskdale" and "Longtown" should both be mentioned, and not "Bramp-
    1568
    ton." Were both these parts of what was called "Eskdale," whether that was a legal definition or not? Why had they the whole inserted, and also one of the two parts of which the whole consisted? Why was the word "Brampton" omitted?
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the name did not occur in that division.
    MR. WAUGHsaid, he had no doubt whatever that the names were altered by the order of Sessions.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the Clerk of the Peace had written saying that the Boundary Commissioners in their letter asked him to give them the legal names of the several Quarter Sessions and Petty Sessional districts; he did so, and also searched the records of the Quarter Sessions, and sent a copy of the Order of June 29, 1841. He could find no Order altering the names. He (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had nothing to do with the practice of Petty Sessions in the matter; he wished he had, and must repeat that the Clerk had put down the names as settled at Quarter Sessions.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Amendment proposed,
    After the word "Division," to insert the words—
    "The Sessional Divisions of,—
    Eskdale Ward,
    Cumberland Ward,
    Longtown, and
    Allerdale Ward below Derwent (except so much as is comprised in Division No. 2 as herein described);
    and the Municipal Borough of Carlisle."
    —(Sir Charles W. Dilke.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. WAUGHsaid, the Allerdale Ward below Derwent extended into three other new divisions. The name of "Allerdale below Derwent" without "Ward," was its proper designation.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, on this Amendment perhaps he might be allowed to say that he knew nothing of the matter, and was not in a position to speak, except so far as he could judge from the letter of the Clerk of the Peace. He was bound to take the view of the Clerk of the Peace; but if his hon. Friend was clear that that gentleman was wrong, and could induce others to take that view, and produce a general impression in that direction, he would

    1569
    reconsider the matter on the Report stage.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    MR. RAIKESproposed to add, after "The," in page 49, line 15, the words "Eastern or," so that the line would read the "Eastern or" Penrith Division.
    Amendment proposed, in page 49, line 15, after the word "The," to insert the words "Eastern or."—(Mr. Raikes.)
    Question proposed, "That the words 'Eastern or' be there inserted."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEremarked that this was another example of the difficulty of naming constituencies after points of the compass. The right hon. Gentleman proposed to call the division "Eastern," while another hon. Gentleman preferred "North Eastern."
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes G2; Noes 130: Majority 68.—(Div. List, No. 98.)
    Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

MOTION.
  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION, REVISED CODE, 1885.

    MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
    MR. J. G. TALBOT: In the first place, I must apologize to the House for bringing a matter of this importance forward at this inconvenient hour (11.45). For that, however, I think I may ask the admission from the House that I am not personally responsible. The Easter Holidays took away a considerable portion of the time during which we were at liberty to consider the Code; and I must own that I did hesitate about telling my Friends with any certainty that I could bring forward this Motion to-night, knowing that the Government had possession of the night, and not knowing that I should really have an opportunity of introducing my Motion. I have to thank the Government, however, for allowing me to intervene at this late hour; and I promise the House that I will not detain them long. The Motion I have to make is in effect to ask Her Majesty to with-
    1570
    hold Her consent to the Education Act in respect of a certain Article, with a view of providing that a larger proportion of the grant now given to public elementary schools should be allotted in the form of a fixed payment on average attendance. At the outset I should like to remove a preliminary objection to my Motion. I have been asked—"Do I want more money out of the Public Exchequer?" and I say—"No; I do not." It must, of course, be admitted that as the number of the children to be educated increases, as the schools increase, so the grants will be larger, and the demands upon the Public Funds will be greater; but in asking the House to agree to this Motion I do not ask for more money, but simply for a fixed grant, whatever that grant may be, at a particular time, to be distributed in a particular way. Having removed this objection, let me say I recognize the alterations the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mundella) has from time to time made in the Code, as intended to meet the complaints made by both teachers and managers as to over-pressure both upon the teachers and the children. I feel that the right hon. Gentleman is sincere in his desire to remove this overpressure grievance; and if he will go a little further in the same line, I am sure he would attain more effectually the end which he and we all desire. Let me once more say, what I think I have already said in this House on previous educational debates, that whilst the intentions of the right hon. Gentleman and the Department are excellent; whilst they desire to remove overpressure, much is still left to the discretion of individual Inspectors, some of whom, I cannot help feeling, have rather exaggerated views as to the acquirements of children. Another objection raised to my Motion is that this is what is called a retrograde movement. I have seen it stated in the public prints that it is the duty of all true friends of education to rally their forces against this retrograde step. ["Hear, hear!"] I hear a sympathetic cheer from the opposite Benches. It has also been stated that such a Motion came from those who are really opposed to education. ["Hear!"] There, again, I hear one faint sympathetic cheer. It is not necessary for me to say anything about

    1571
    my past career. I think I have spent as much time, and attention, and perhaps other things, in support of education as most other men. I am not an anti-Educationist in any sense of the word. What I desire is that the education shall be of a sensible and practical kind. I am afraid it must be said that a great deal of our elementary education is not of that kind which we should really desire. What we ought to desire is that the children we seek to educate should be fit for the position in life in which they are placed; giving opportunities for those who are really qualified of rising above the position they originally occupied. But, at the same time, I do think a great error is made on the part of those who call themselves educationists in under-valuing the proper position of manual labour. There is a tendency to extol the labour of the head at the expense of the labour of the hand. That I think is a great mistake; and what I feel convinced of is that we ought, so far as we possibly can, to assist the children to take their proper position in the state of life in which they were placed, and in which they have an honourable calling, and, at the same time, so to arrange our educational system that the physical energies of children shall not be over-pressed, but that as the children grow up they shall be able to discharge the duties for which a strong physical frame is essentially desirable. Well now, Sir, having said this, let me describe the position in which we now stand. It is understood that I represent the Church of England schools. Certainly I know more about them than about other schools, and they are no insignificant part of our educational system, for I think they still form very nearly one-half of the whole school accommodation of the country. As I am the champion, therefore, of one-half of the whole elementary school accommodation of the country, it cannot be said that I am occupying an insignificant position. The total grants to elementary schools in the last Return were £1,380,572, of which it was stated on page 29 of the Return that £1,275,358 was paid for average attendance. But that average attendance, so-called, was not what we understand by average attendance—I mean it does not represent the payment for the number of children. It repre-
    1572
    sents a great many things besides, and though I know we must except the grants to the infant schools—of which I shall say a word hereafter, because a great part of my case rests on infant schools — making all the deductions which I think I am right in making, £855,000 still remains as earned by results. Therefore I say that a very large proportion of the grants to these elementary schools is earned by what may be technically called results. This I say is much too large a proportion, and for the reason I shall endeavour very briefly to lay before the House. What does payment by result mean? It means payment calculated by the examination of the children who are found in the school on the day of the Inspector's visit. It does not take into account all the work of the school during the past year, except so far as that work can be tested by the examination at the time. Now, I want to know, is that a rational way of examining schools? Is it a way in which we should be content to examine those schools in which our own children are educated? Of course, we feel a good deal about the result of the particular examination at the end of the particular school time; but should we be satisfied that those who inquire into our public schools should say, "We do not care how your children get on at other times; we judge them simply by the way they pass examinations on a particular day?" I say that this is not a rational or a considerate way of testing education, and it leads, I think, inevitably to over-pressure, not only to overpressure of the children, but, which is equally important, also to over-pressure of the teachers. This is, perhaps, the strongest argument upon which I shall ask the House to agree to my Motion. Well now, Sir, I ask, though of course I admit there must be a certain amount of payment by result, why is my request unreasonable? Why is it unreasonable to ask, as I do, that the larger proportion of the grants now given to public elementary schools should be allotted in the form of fixed payments on average attendance? I am fortified in my opinion that this is not an unreasonable request by some very strong testimony. I think I hinted just now that it was considered that I came forward here as a reactionary and an antagonist of liberal education; but I am going to

    1573
    quote the opinions of some people who certainly cannot be called reactionary. The National Union of Elementary Teachers, which is composed of the teachers of all sorts of schools, and not only of schools in which I am chiefly interested, and for which I am pleased to be chiefly speaking to-night—though I do not think the subject is one which affects only voluntary schools—the National Union of Elementary Teachers is an unsectarian body, and at their meeting at Leicester last year they resolved—
    "In the opinion of this Conference, the system of payment by results and classification by Standards, as applied to the elementary schools under the conditions of the Education Code, is unsound in principle, is injurious to education, and productive of much over-pressure upon scholars and teachers; and a Code based upon this system cannot be deemed wholly satisfactory."
    That was their opinion last year. Well, now, Sir, I have the latest utterances of this Union of Teachers. Only last week they had a large meeting at Norwich, and their President, who is a teacher in a London School Board school, and, therefore, cannot be said to have any reactionary or clerical proclivities, said—
    "The Union has consistently and persistently maintained that over-pressure is an inevitable consequence of the system of payment by results; indeed, long before the Union was founded the effects of the system were confidently predicted; and I think we should be wanting in our duty if we failed to continue to point out the fundamental error of our present system. And though, when doing so, we are met by the evasive reply that payment by results is practically universal in all professions, or, on further insistance, are told that to change the system is impossible, we cannot forbear to repeat that, granting the difficulty of retracing our steps, yet it is absolutely impossible that the education of the country can be what all true friends would like to see it until it is administered in an educational spirit; now it is almost wholly pecuniary. It is, practically, not an Educational Code, but a system for distributing grants, and is drawn up and administered in that light, and from that arises the evils we so much deplore."
    Now, Sir, I say that these two statements, if I were to rest upon them alone—if I had no other argument—would be a pretty strong argument in favour of what I have been endeavouring to put before the House. They show that, in the opinion of men and women—because a lady followed the President, and spoke even more strongly than he did—they showed that, in the opinion of men and women engaged in the daily work of
    1574
    education under the conditions that the Government imposes, and engaged, some in voluntary schools, some under the School Board system — under all these qualifications the deliberate judgment arrived at year after year—last year at Leicester, this year at Norwich—was that the system of payment by results, as now administered, is a most fruitful source of that over-pressure which we all deplore. I am not standing alone in this matter, therefore; nor can this, in any sense, be called a Party question. In that sense, I am sorry that I am the spokesman on the present occasion. We are all known to belong to Parties in this House, and I am supposed to be a strong Party man; but I would ask hon. Members to divest themselves of all personality as regards myself on this occasion, and to look upon the matter from its own standpoint, and not from the point of view of the person who advocates it. If hon. Members will do that, I think they will find that there are strong arguments in favour of my proposal. If payment by results be as I describe it, it is clear that it leads teachers to think chiefly of the results of the examination day, and not so much as they ought of the general well-being of the school, and of the children committed to their charge. And this really affects board schools, and schools of that kind, just as it does schools most intimately connected with the Religious Bodies. I pray in aid, as the lawyers say—the Government themselves—because I say that they themselves, by the way they deal with the infant schools, admit the principle for which I am contending. In regard to the infant schools, they do precisely what I ask thorn to do in regard to all schools—that is to say, they examine the schools when the Inspector goes round; and they say—"We will give you a grant for every infant here present," if they were in a satisfactory condition. That is what I ask them to do for every child presented, because, in that way, they would be encouraging the general well-being of the schools. The Government are not pressing upon little children now in the same way that they are pressing upon older boys and girls, because they conceive it to be necessary that they should be brought up to a certain standard of education on a certain day of examination. I go a step further than that even; and I ask

    1575
    the House to consider whether it is not a strong argument in our case that in every foreign country the system of payment by results is unknown? [Mr. MUNDELLA: Hear, hear!] The right hon. Gentleman admits that. Then, if that be so, the request I make cannot be an unreasonable one. It may be said—"Oh! but the genius of the English people demands this special stimulus—Englishmen and Englishwomen cannot be brought up to the sticking point unless you put this tremendous screw upon them"—of making everything depend upon the examination of a day. That statement is unsupported, and I do not think it is one that is likely to be maintained. I think that our system is a system that is condemned by educationists, and it is also condemned—or, at least, partly allowed to be defective—by the Government themselves. It is condemned by the practice of foreign countries; and I maintain that I have made out a very strong case in support of the matter being taken into the favourable consideration of the Government, though, of course, I am not sanguine enough to believe that I can persuade the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council (Mr. Mundella) by a single speech. I hope, at least, that, if I do nothing more, I may succeed in getting this matter considered a little more in the future than it is at the present time; and that, if we do not get any redress now, we may get it at some future time. I shall ask the House to listen to another quotation. I would give the opinion of a gentleman who, I am sure, is known to the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council as one of the ablest and most intelligent of the Church Educationists—I mean Canon Daniel, of the Battersea Training College. In a speech made last year he said—
    "The ultimate causes of over-pressure are to be mainly sought for in the abuse of the principle which underlies the Code—the principle of payment by results—a very good principle so long as we are dealing with results embodied in brute matter, but a most dangerous principle when indiscriminately applied to results produced in living children for the benefit of others than the children themselves. Pay a brickmaker for his tale of bricks, and you will not do much harm; bricks have no organization, physical or mental, to injure. Pay a body of managers, or a teacher, for a tale of passes, and there is a risk that in the process some of the children operated upon may suffer irreparable injury of
    1576
    body and mind. I am far from thinking that the principle is inapplicable to elementary education in State-aided schools. Indeed, I do not see how public grants of money could otherwise he made to such schools at all."
    I quite admit that. I am not asking for the abolition of payment by results, but for a limitation of it, and I call upon Canon Daniel as an authority to support me, because he is not an out-and-out opponent of payment by results, but a moderate man who takes the thing fairly all round. He goes on to say—
    "The business-minded British public will never be content to spend its money without being assured that it gets a satisfactory equivalent. But it is evident that the principle should be applied with the greatest care, both by the Department and by managers and teachers. By all means let payment be regulated by results; but let us be sure that the results required from each individual child are not unreasonable, that educational results are not purchased at the expense of health and life, and that children are not ruthlessly exploited for the sake of large grants. I do not at all believe that the requirements of the Code are excessive for the large majority of children, and I should be extremely sorry to see the general standard of elementary education lowered; but I am satisfied that the Code demands and teachers teach a great deal more than certain classes of children can safely learn."
    That, I think, is a very moderate statement of the view I wish to put before the House. I should be content to leave that statement of the case—so much better expressed than I myself could express it—for the consideration of the House. I would conclude as I began by stating that I am not an opponent of education in any sense; that I am not an opponent even of the present system, taken as a whole; but that what I am in favour of is the adaptation of the Code to the capacities of children and of teachers, so that it will not bear hardly or injuriously upon either the teacher or the taught. I am desirous that it should be such as to attain the results we all profess to desire, and I trust all do desire — namely, the bringing up of children in the soundest way as regards both body and mind, and in the manner best suited to fit them for their future careers. In conclusion, I move the Resolution which stands in my name.
    MR. E. H. PAGETsaid, that he rose to second the Motion. He himself had had a Notice on this subject on the Paper as follows:—

    1577
    "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty that She will be graciously pleased to direct that the Elementary Education Code, as now laid upon the Table, be so amended as to afford adequate security against the continuance of over-pressure on children and teachers."
    At that hour of the night it was quite hopeless to expect anything like a separate discussion upon that individual Motion; and therefore he begged now to second the Motion of the hon. Member who had preceded him. At the outset he wished to say that he was one of those who were entirely in favour of a complete system of elementary education. He had read with the greatest satisfaction the Annual Report; and he gladly recognized, from the figures sot before the House, the steady progress in elementary education. He was desirous of seeing the efficiency of the elementary education of the country increased; and this particular Motion had been brought before the House, not with a view of hindering or obstructing education, but rather with a view of improving it, and freeing it from some of the unnecessary restrictions and features which, in his estimation, served now to hamper its action. The system of payment by results had been condemned in moderate and effective language by the hon. Member who had moved the present Motion. It seemed to him (Mr. Paget) that the system as it stood was one which contained all the objectionable features of the Dual Control. It was, so to speak, a Dual Control of the Education Department and of the Chancellor of the Exchequer with the Treasury. They might have a most enlightened Minister of Education, anxious to spend more money and to attain higher results; but he was constantly restrained and hampered by the Treasury. If he (Mr. Paget) were in the secrets of the Office over which the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council so ably presided, probably he should find from time to time anxious inquiries from the Treasury to this effect—"How comes it that you are spending so much money? How is it that your Estimates this year are £250,000 higher than they were last year? Do you not think that if your examinations were more difficult, if some little hint were given to your Inspectors in the matter, something or other could be done to decrease your
    1578
    Estimates, so that we might not be called upon to find so much money for you?" He did not know whether he got an absolute assent from the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President upon this point; but he thought there was a great deal in what he was putting before the House, and that the right hon. Gentleman would not venture to express a decided dissent from that proposition. If not, why was it that the recent additions to this Instrument with which they were presented from year to year had seemed to offer to all schools an opportunity of earning larger grants under the merit grant system; and yet, when he came to examine the application of this system, it was found that, so far from increasing the grant, it gave with one hand and took away with the other? The schools that suffered most under this system were not those where the school pence could be obtained in fourpences and sixpences, and larger sums, but the poorest of all poor schools, and in the poorest places of all poor places, where the system, if it was to be efficient at all, should offer the largest donations where education was mostly required. In places where the children came of the poorest parentage, and where the educational requirements were the strongest, and where the parents could not afford the least possible help for education, what did the Education Department do? Why, they offered a merit grant, which said—"If you can obtain a standard of 'good' or 'excellent,' the result will be paid you in £ s. d.—you will get your pound of flesh." But mark what happened. Simultaneously with the offer of the merit grant, the Department stepped in with Article 214, which was known only too well to those interested in education, and came down on schools that might have arrived at the highest pitch of excellence it was possible to arrive at and curtailed the grant, simply and solely because it had been too economically earned. If the school accounts of the year could have proved that the expenditure had been a little higher, the grant might not have been cut down; but there was an absolute penalty upon efficiency which was imposed upon schools of the poorest class, and on which it fell with the greatest severity. He knew that in answer to this argument he might be told that this

    1579
    was an evil which, if it was to be remedied at all, could only be remedied by legislation. He was quite aware of that; but he merely gave this as an illustration of the system of payment by results of which the hon. Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Talbot) had, to his mind, so rightly complained. They did not desire that the system of payment by results should be entirely abrogated; it was too deeply engrained in their educational system to give way at once to a single attack. Hon. Members were not there to ask that the Government should entirely destroy and upset the system; but what they did ask, and asked with reason in the interest of education itself, and in the interest of the parents, of the teachers, and of the children, and of all who were connected with or interested in education, was that there should be a modification—a reasonable modification—of this system of payment by results. They were of opinion that it had been proved, to a sufficient extent at any rate, that overpressure existed in their elementary educational establishments. It had been denied, but it had been re-asserted, and he thought it would be generally recognized, that the first Report which appeared on the subject from Dr. Crichton Browne, although containing some statements with which hon. Members might not be disposed to agree, yet had not been without some substantial foundation in fact. What was going on at that moment? They were told that an investigation into the matter was taking place at the instance of the London School Board. The right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council had not himself thought fit to have a general investigation into the matter, and had left it to the London School Board to take the initiative. Until their Report was received of course the House would not know what view the London School Board would take; but it was well known that that Body had already made some substantial modification in their system of education. They knew that opportunity had been allowed by the London School Board to parents to refuse to permit their children to have home lessons if they thought fit. What was that but a distinct concession? Previous to this action on the part of the London School Board home lessons were often insisted upon. It would be found,
    1580
    too, he thought, that from time to time additional school hours had been insisted upon. There was great straining for results to be obtained by the system of examination on which the whole principle of the grant hung. The system was one which must of necessity impose a great strain on all who were connected with elementary schools at the moment of examination. The prospect of the teacher in life, as well as his reputation for the time, depended upon the result of the examination; because if an insufficient grant was earned a reflection was cast upon him. The very revised system of the present year was an admission to some extent of that, because it contained a power to the managers of schools to withhold certain children from examination if they thought fit.
    MR. MUNDELLA: The hon. Member means the Revised Code of last year.
    MR. R. H. PAGET: Yes; of last year. This was often referred to by the Education Department. They declared that the teachers now were free, and could withhold children from examination, and that in that way they could get rid of this over-pressure. But what was the action of that Department? What took place was really this. If a teacher attempted to withdraw anything like a substantial number, say from 3 to 4 per cent of children from the examination, the Inspector would make an adverse Report, and the reputation of the teacher was injured, and suffered, and the grant to the school suffered also. This plan of withholding children from examination, of which so much had been made by the Department, was a plan which the teachers themselves would tell them was more of a sham than a reality. The system of payment by results was responsible for most of their difficulties, and anything that would tend to mitigate its effect would be beneficial to the real interest of education. It led to a system of constant cram for examination. Everything that one could do to mitigate its effects he believed would be for the benefit of education, for the benefit of the children, and for the benefit of the teachers, and would insure a satisfactory state of things. There was one other remark he wished to make. This system of examination, which was such a constant cause of worry, trouble, and axiety to the teachers,

    1581
    was not equally harassing to the teachers of all schools. That worry and anxiety did not arise so much in the case of the board schools, in regard to which the financial question did not arise. They had the inexhaustible rate to fall back upon. Possibly the aggrieved ratepayers, particularly the ratepayers of London, began to see the objectionable side of this arrangement, as the rates were mounting up 1d. by 1d. until they became 8d. or 9d. in one year. But the unfortunate ratepayer's voice was not much heard. The board school would go on, however much the grant was reduced; but the case was different in regard to the voluntary schools, whose very existence depended upon their receiving such an amount of the grant as would enable them to pay their way, and the teachers of which were, therefore, much more harassed than the teachers in the board schools were. The very existence of those schools was rendered a matter of difficulty. He contended that they had no right to have to meet a difficulty such as that. Voluntary schools, it should never be forgotten, were in existence and doing a great deal of good work when there were no other schools in the country. That work had been well and thoroughly recognized by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) in his Act of 1870. They were told that the system of more complete education was to supplement, and not to supplant, those voluntary schools; and they had a right to ask, not for an exhibition of favour or affection for those voluntary schools, but that they might have some reasonable chance of existence, as was promised to them from the first, in consideration of their long services in the past. He hoped that that which they had a right to demand now would not be denied them. The system which at present existed required modification. All the children having passed the infant stage were usually bound to advance from Standard to Standard year by year. Otherwise the grants were reduced, and the efficiency of the school was held to be failing, and the teachers were liable to be under some kind of slur. Once the infant stage had been passed there was little possibility of classification left for the teacher. It was thought that in that respect modification should be made. They thought that amongst the children of the poor it
    1582
    was impossible, any more than among the children of other classes, that they should find the same capacity of advancing from Standard to Standard at the same rate of progress. [Mr. MUNDELLA dissented.] The right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council dissented. But within the very small limits of variation permitted by the Department it was impossible. He thought that the limits of variation the Department permitted were entirely insufficient to meet the innumerable cases of difference of intellect and capacity amongst the children who had to pass through the schools. He did not desire to detain the House at that late hour. The one remark he should like to make was this. They had a system to which they were used; but the evil effects of which they were beginning to-day more completely and thoroughly to recognize. This system was an English system, which was to be found in no other country in the world. It was absolutely unique. He was told that one of the teachers in one of the London schools had recently made a most able Report on this matter. And what did he say? That gentleman, Mr. "Wild, had visited a great many schools in Europe, and had come back with a great deal of information. He said—
    "The whole system abroad is purely educational, not in the slightest degree pecuniary. Nowhere did I find one single 1d. depending on any examination. Nowhere did I find anything like our system of individual examination. Nowhere did I find any but adult trained teachers. Nowhere did I find any striving after percentages, or after that miraculous accuracy, to attain which costs English teachers and scholars so much weariness and painfulness. Nowhere did I find any signs of worry and anxiety."
    If those schools could be maintained elsewhere without the anxiety and trouble which existed in this country, why should they not modify their system so as to get rid of those anxieties and worries? It was because he believed that the Motion of the hon. Member for the University of Oxford would tend to effect that by providing that a larger proportion of the grant now given to public elementary schools should be allotted in the form of fixed payment on the average attendance that he was prepared to support it. They did not ask the whole grant to be given in that way; but they asked that a larger proportion of it should be given in order that the worry and

    1583
    anxiety might be diminished. They could not expect at the present moment entirely to got rid of it; but they hoped to diminish it, and in diminishing it they hoped they would get greater efficiency of education. They had acquired for the children of the country proper school accommodation, well ventilated, lighted, warmed, and adequately supplied with all kinds of educational apparatus, and with efficient teachers, who had proved by examination that they were perfectly able thoroughly to undertake the duties confided to them. Why, then, should they not believe that they possessed the means that would give good results, by increasing the grant in the form of fixed payments on average attendance, and so getting rid of this unnecessary worry, harassment, and over-pressure on children and teachers, which was one of the crying defects of the present system acknowledged by everyone outside those walls, and which it was the hope of those who made this Motion to mitigate?
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty that She will be graciously pleased to withhold Her consent from the Education Code in respect of Article 109 (a), with a view of providing that a larger proportion of the grant now given to public elementary schools should be allotted in the form of a fixed payment on average attendance."—(Mr. J. G. Talbot.)
    SIR LYON PLAYFAIRsaid, that the hon. Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. J. G. Talbot) had deprecated the impression that he might be considered a reactionary in educational progress. No one could believe that of a University Member, who had so much interest to raise the level of education. But the question was—what would be the real effect of his Motion? It was an extremely vague Motion; the hon. Member had given them no figures, and he had spoken not of anything new in this Code, but of a provision which had existed for many years. At the present moment, out of 17 s., the average grant, 4s. 6d. was for attendance. How much did the hon. Member propose to raise it? In the time of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) it had been 6s., and then it had been reduced to 4s. by Viscount Sandon, being finally raised by the present Government to 4s. 6d. The
    1584
    hon. Member did not say to what sum he proposed it should be raised; but he would presume that the hon. Member wished it to be raised to 10 s., as had been recommended by the teachers themselves. At present, 4s. 6d. was given for average attendance, and 12 s. 6d. for educational effort throughout the country. If the sum for mechanical attendance were raised to 10 s., it would represent nearly two-thirds of the whole, while only one-third would represent educational effort. That was the way in which an hon. Member for a University proposed to improve the education of the country. The effect of the proposal would be greatly to increase the remuneration of bad schools, and largely to decrease the remuneration of good schools. ["No!" and" Hear!"] That was obvious, because with only one-third for educational effort there would be much less for good schools to win, while the bad schools would have two-thirds already secured. In Scotland, where national education had been much longer established and was of a higher kind than in England, and where there was also more educational effort, who ever heard of over-pressure? Some 84,000 school children died every year. Out of that number he should expect to find that 200 or 300 died from over-pressure. But only 20 or 30 were alleged to have died from that cause; and when the facts were inquired into, the allegation, except in four or five cases, completely failed. There was from 32 to 33 per cent less mortality in schools now than in 1870, when his right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford got his Education Act passed. Undoubtedly there were weaklings and diseased children to whom any amount of school work would be injurious; and it would always be a duty of managers of schools to take advantage of the provisions of the Code and prevent them being taxed beyond their strength. A Code, as long as it existed, must provide for the capacities of the great bulk of children, while it also protected individuals who were exceptionally incapable of any mental exertion. To legislate for those exceptions to the detriment of the vast bulk of school children was an extraordinary policy. The House must recollect that it had provided Standards of education before children were allowed to enter labour;

    1585
    and if they diminished the ability to pass these at an early age they would dislocate the whole conditions of labour in the country. He objected to the Motion, because it would depress educational effort and substitute mere mechanical conditions for that healthy independence which now induced school authorities to bring their schools to a high standard of efficiency.
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Lyon Playfair) had made a very strong speech against the Motion of the hon. Member for the University of Oxford, and had it not been for that speech he should probably not have intervened in the discussion. He thought the right hon. Gentleman had much overstated the practical effect of the proposal of his hon. Friend; and it appeared to him that he had contrived to misunderstand what were the objections which many on that side of the House, himself among the number, entertained to this rigid system of payment by results. This system, which was established by Viscount Sherbrooke, was never intended, and he never wished it to be applied in the manner it was now applied in elementary schools. It was a system for testing the acquirements of children in reading, writing, and arithmetic in elementary schools. He admitted that the right hon. Gentleman opposite had done a good deal of good, and he thought that the tendency of the alterations made in the Code had unquestionably gone in the direction of the proposal contained in the Amendment of his hon. Friend. But there was a widespread feeling amongst teachers and others that this system of payment by results was neither fair to the teachers nor to the children themselves. He had heard it said that the system of payment by results gave each locality more or less the opportunity of selecting subjects which could be best taught in that locality. But he would point out that the locality had nothing to do with it, because every subject was prescribed by the Education Department, and the only choice which the teacher had was to select one or two class subjects. The question they had to consider was, whether those who took an interest in education were thoroughly satisfied with the present system. He did not think that many were quite aware of what
    1586
    payment by results implied. Let the Committee consider for one moment that there were millions of children in the schools — infants and otherwise, for whom payment by results was obtained in proportion to the number of subjects in which they were examined. That meant that there were millions of children for whom 10 to 15 payments might be gained in reference to the different subjects in which they were examined; and the Committee would be able from that fact to realize something of the amount of trouble that resulted to the teachers and children, as well as to the Education Department, in checking the claims. It was too late to argue the question at that hour (12.50) at any length; but when the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Lyon Playfair) stated that elementary education in Scotland was in a most satisfactory state, he should remember that it was not arrived at by payment by results, which had been engrafted on the system of education in that country, and was not originally part of it. Again, in his opinion, many of the best Scotch teachers did not at all approve of the system. Since the time at which the system of payment by results was established, a very great improvement had taken place in the social status of elementary school teachers. If those teachers were subjected to a most severe test before they could obtain certificates of competency, could not the Department be assured that the outcome of their work was more or less good? But, having tested them by that severe examination, the Education Department proceeded to test every individual child which those teachers taught. He thought there might be some modification of that practice; indeed, he should like to see the system of payment by results swept away, and something in the nature of a capitation rate, to be regulated according to the efficiency of the school by inspection, substituted in its place. And he believed it would come to that, because the present system was so unpopular, and entailed such an enormous amount of trouble on the Education Department, that sooner or later some alteration must be made. He had come in contact, perhaps as much as had the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, with elementary school teachers, and he

    1587
    thought that all must be struck with the manner in which they performed their duties. There were, of course, some exceptions; but he thought that the great mass of them might safely be allowed some latitude in the matter of teaching. Under the present system, every child in a class was examined, and there was no regulation requiring that the child should have been in that class for a certain period—number of months. He always felt that they subjected the children of the poor to a test which they did not like their own. children to be subjected to. No doubt the over-pressure existing in elementary schools was to some extent exaggerated; but he thought that everyone knew in the case of their own children, and in the case of the children of their friends, that their little brains were easily overworked, and that it was necessary to remedy that—a thing easily done by taking them away from school or getting them change of air. But the poor could not do that; and that fact alone ought to make them very careful not to over-press the children in their schools. Although he believed that something might be done to mitigate their condition by the supply of cheap and wholesome food, yet he did not think that the House ought to turn a deaf ear to the allegations made with regard to over-pressure. He quite admitted that the right hon. Gentleman had made some alterations in the Code, which were both generous and impartial, and he could quite understand his opposing or not giving his assent to a suggestion like that. He was bound to say that he could not indicate the precise remedy to be applied to the evils in question. It was no easy matter to do so in the face of the many complicated details involved; still he thought that they would be forced sooner or later in the direction pointed to in the Motion of his hon. Friend. He did not believe that, as long as they continued steadily to improve the social status of the teachers, and to subject them to a severe test, any such proposal as that of his hon. Friend would at all tend to the deterioration of their system of education. If he did, he would not give even a qualified support to his hon. Friend's Motion; and had it not been that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Edinburgh had cast
    1588
    upon hon. Gentlemen upon those Benches the charge of wishing to retard instead of advance the education of the people, he should not have intervened in this discussion.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the noble Lord who had just spoken had stated that they subjected children of the class which attended the elementary schools to an examination to which their own children were not submitted. He was not quite sure of that. In his own class he knew that the examinations to which children were subjected were much of the same character. But it was most important that hon. Members should bear in mind that they had not yet got education in this country into such a position that they could say that they had arrived at the point at which the teaching of reading, writing, and arithmetic was secured to the general body of the population; and unless they secured by the payment of Government money that these should be taught, reading, writing, and arithmetic, he feared, would not be learned. When they had the same scale of education as they had in Germany, it might be possible to dispense with examination in elementary subjects; but if they got rid of it now, he believed they would soon return to that state of things which was in existence before Viscount Sherbrooke made his Code, when, although many in the elementary schools were well instructed, many were neglected, and the final result was that the elementary subjects wore, by very many children, not learned. He did not believe that they could get rid of individual examination, which he had always regarded as an evil to which they were compelled to submit, inasmuch as the advantages overbalanced the disadvantages of the system. He had, by moving an Amendment at the time, endeavoured to modify to some extent Viscount Sherbrooke's proposal; but he was convinced that examination could not be got rid of, and that, so far as he could gather, was very much the object of the present Motion. At all events that was the general impression, because an educationist in his own district with whom he was acquainted had asked him to go down to the House and "vote for Mr. Talbot's Motion for the abolition of payment by results." That was the light in which the present Motion was

    1589
    regarded. But he had another objection to urge—namely, that if they were able to make the change, and he was not sure that in a few years hence they might not be able to do so, he should certainly not be in favour of making it in the form which the hon. Member for Oxford University proposed—namely,
    "That a larger proportion of the grant now given to public elementary schools should be allotted in the form of a fixed payment on average attendance."
    That, he ventured to think, would not be the right mode of proceeding. If there were to be a change, it should be a change from individual examination to an estimate arrived at in the best manner possible of the general character of the school and the general result of the teaching. And on that account he was exceedingly glad that his successors had found themselves able to introduce a merit grant. It was in that direction, he thought, that in the future they might be able to make changes. Although he might appear to be rather contradicting himself, he must make one further remark before he sat down, and it was this. Although he had looked forward to that being the future mode by which they should find out what they got for their money, he thought it would be well that for some time they should let the Code alone. He thought that the vexation and the uncertainty of these constant changes of Code were evils which were not compensated for by any little improvement that was obtained; and he hoped his right hon. Friend (Mr. Mundella), if he remained in his Office—and he trusted the right hon. Gentleman might do so, for if they searched through the country they could not find anyone more earnest or more capable of doing his duty—he would turn a deaf ear to the little improvements and little reforms, and let managers have some notion of the stability of the Code for two or three years' time.
    MR. J. A. CAMPBELLasked the indulgence of the House while he explained very briefly how it was that with much regret he was unable to support the Motion of his hon. Friend (Mr. Talbot). It appeared to him that in the course of the discussion the question had become somewhat involved. Much had been said about the evils of overpressure, and, of course, he felt that
    1590
    those evils were not small. And they had heard of objections to the present system of payment by results. He did not deny that in some respects the present system was most unsatisfactory; but, at the same time, the question now before the House was whether in future they were to give a greater grant for mere attendance, and a smaller grant for what he might call ascertained efficiency. The modes adopted for ascertaining efficiency might be open to question; indeed, it was with regard to those modes that the difficulties to which reference had been made arose. In his opinion, the Motion rather suggested that less attention in future should be paid to ascertaining the efficiency of the schools receiving grants, and that more attention should be paid to the simple fact that there were schools to give grants to. He thought that if the Motion were adopted, there would be a danger of taking away from school managers a great stimulus to make their schools efficient. On that account he was unable to support the Motion.
    MR. MUNDELLA: I cannot help but be satisfied with the tone which has prevailed in this debate, and I am very grateful to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House for the very fair manner in which they have recognized my desire to relieve the teachers and the children from anything like worry, strain, and over-pressure. I must at the outset, however, say to my noble Friend (Lord George Hamilton) that he must have been looking at a Code of his own, and not at mine, when he said the teachers have no choice of curriculum. As a matter of fact, there are no obligatory subjects now except reading, writing, and arithmetic. These are the only subjects that are compulsory in any school, except that the girls must be taught needlework. It is said that a teacher has absolutely no choice. Well, drawing has been added to the Code; but I think no Member of this House will quarrel with the necessity of taking in what I may call industrial drawing, and that is the drawing which we have now before us. It is not ornamental drawing, it is not drawing introduced with a view of making artists, but with a view of enabling the scholars to make accurate calculations so that the eye and hand may work together, and that our working classes may draw and

    1591
    appreciate with greater accuracy the manual labour in which they are engaged. But when my noble Friend says—"If you have tested the teacher's certificate what more do you want?" I can only ask my noble Friend to refer to the Duke of Newcastle's Commission, and he will find that in some of the schools where there were the best children there was the worst teaching, because there was no proper test of the result. There must be a test of results, and, after all, the best test of results was an examination. I believe that the annual examination is the very essence of our system, and I do not care what system you have; it will fail if there is not a particle of examination. The American system is mainly defective on that account, and so are many other systems. But at this time of the morning it is quite impossible to answer a tithe of the arguments that have been advanced, and I hope the House will bear with me a few moments while I just refer to the main points brought forward. I may say at once that the Code on the Table is no new departure; there is no change of principle whatever, and there is none in detail. I quite agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) when he said—"Let the Code alone as far as possible; when you have got a good working Code keep it steady, and do not disturb it any more than you can help." Now, there is no change in the Code of to-day, even of detail, except this—a recognition that small school teachers may group their children into three grades for teaching purposes, as much for their convenience as the children's, and that in all schools we have got the consent of the Treasury—a consent for which I cannot be too thankful—that we may teach drawing as a class subject from one end of the school to the other. Now, I say, no Code was ever so threshed out as the Code we are now working; it was laid on the Table a year in advance; it had the full consideration of this House and the country; it was considered and debated by everybody interested in it; it was brought in in one Session, and in the next it was sanctioned without a single condition of it undergoing the slightest change or modification, so there can be no complaint that the Code has not been well and thoroughly considered. Now,
    1592
    whatever may be the defects of the pro-sent Code I may say this for it—that better work has been done under it, better attendance has been secured, better grants have been earned under it, than under any previous Code we have had in this country. All the Motions which appeared on the Paper of tonight respecting the Code were meant as attacks and assaults upon the system of payment by results. That principle has been adopted now for a quarter of a century. It was adopted after the system of capitation grants; practically capitation grants in aid were proved to be an absolute failure. If hon. Members would only turn to the evidence of the Bishop of Manchester given before the Royal Commission, they would find there the statement that out of 300 schools examined, less than 100 did their work properly, and that only one-ninth of the children turned out of those schools were as fairly educated as could be desired. That statement alone was sufficient to show what was the success of the antecedent of the system of payment by results Whatever may be the merits or demerits of the system of payment by results, it has given a very powerful stimulus to education in this country; it has secured an honest equivalent for the vast expenditure of the State; it has enabled the Education Department to give to all schools, whether under private management or public control, pecuniary aid proportionate to the efficiency of the school. We are told that that principle is not in operation on the Continent. That is quite true; but why is that so? The conditions on the Continent are altogether different to the conditions in this country. There is no other country that I am aware of in which the State stands in the same relation to education that it does in this country. Payments are not measured by results on the Continent, because, as a rule, the State makes no payments. The payments are in the great majority of cases made from local sources to Local Authorities. Wherever grants in aid are made in France they are made exclusively to Public Authorities, and those Public Authorities work under State supervision and central control. In most Continental States there is a bureau of education, and the bureau of education lays down regulations to be enforced in all schools;

    1593
    it prescribes the methods to be pursued, it prescribes what the time table shall be, and it has a large share in the appointment, in the dismissing, and in the payment of the teachers. Its members are very often ex officios of the Local Governing Bodies, and its control is one of the most severe and minute that can possibly be devised. I am quite sure that Englishmen would not submit to such a centralized system as that which prevails in France and other countries on the Continent. We have an illustration of it in the story that the Minister of Education in France could take out his watch and say at any given moment what so many millions of children were then engaged in. We are told, too, that the Minister of Education in Prussia has recently issued a list of 3,000 words assigning the orthography in the Prussian schools, dropping all the superfluous letters. I should be very sorry, as an English Minister, to have to send out such a list, Americanizing, so to speak, the English language. I am sure that any attempt on the part of an English Minister to require our language to be taught phonetically would not meet with any approval in the country. In Prussia the whole cost of education is paid by local taxation; but in this country the Education Department is charged with distributing a large amount of grant to aid local effort, and to secure the most efficient education possible for the mass of the population. You can only do that by laying down certain conditions, and those conditions take the form of a Code. No one can dispute that the money paid is paid very largely to private persons. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. G. Talbot) has admitted that one-half of the sum paid by the Treasury goes to the managers of the Church of England schools, who are, after all, private gentlemen, and who are not under any supervision whatever, and are only subjected strictly to the conditions laid down by the Act. Well, surely a vast expenditure such as is made upon education in this country must be subjected to some condition to secure that it is properly applied, and that there is no abuse of it. We are not dealing with a small sum of money. In 1860, when the Revised Code was introduced, the amount was something between £500,000 and £600,000 a-year. But what is the amount now paid for educa-
    1594
    tion in Great Britain, paid actually upon the system of payment by results? Including, of course, the South Kensington grant, it is over £4,000,000 a-year, and, with the payment to Ireland, it will be very little short of £5,000,000 a-year. In 10 years hence I believe it will be more than £7,000,000 a-year. Surely we must insure that a vast sum of money like that should be properly applied, and only be meted out for the purpose of good and successful education. We have endeavoured to distribute the fund so as to secure the greatest benefit to the children with the least possible strain on the teacher. I can say that, for my part, I have done everything I could to secure the teacher immunity from any unnecessary labour; I believe I have relieved them from every unnecessary Return—every Return that could possibly be dispensed with I have dispensed with. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. G. Talbot) says the present system stimulates too highly, and that, notwithstanding the relaxations we have made, there is too much left to the discretion of the Inspectors—young Inspectors. Now, so far as I am concerned, there has been no patronage exercised during the whole time we have been in Office. I believe that during the five years we have been in Office we have only appointed two Inspectors, and both of them have been most experienced men. We have opened the door to the teachers, we have taken the most capable and the most experienced men from the ranks of the teachers and made them Sub-Inspectors. We have thrown the door open to the whole teachers of the country to enable them to come in on their merits as Inspectors' assistants, with a chance of rising to the higher grade. We have not appointed, since we have been in Office, a single inexperienced man to inspect schools, and I think we have done the best we could to secure the teachers immunity from persons utterly untried and without any knowledge of the work of teaching, and without any sympathy with child life and the position and work of the teachers. The hon. Gentleman says that if we raise the fixed grant we will diminish over-pressure. Well, how does that appear? What statement has he made to support that proposition? I know what will be the result of raising the fixed grant. As my right hon.

    1595
    Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) has said, the more you raise the fixed grant the less you have to distribute to schools for good educational results. The fact would be that if you raise the fixed grant to 10 s., instead of having a larger sum to pay to encourage good educational results, you will only have less than half the sum; and as a result the poor schools—and by poor schools I mean, of course, poorly taught schools—would get more money, and the good schools would get less. I have taken 10 s. as a basis of the fixed grant, and worked it out so that the whole grant should be what it is to-day. I have applied this test to a number of voluntary schools, omitting altogether board schools. I have taken some that are below fair and some that are fair, good, and excellent. Now, those below fair ought not to exist. There are too many of that class, and there are too many that rank as fair that are not by any means fair, and our children ought not to be compelled to attend such schools. Now the schools below fair will get an advanced grant of something like 10 per cent, and the best schools will get a diminished grant. You bring the two classes of schools so near to an approximation that there would be a great temptation to voluntary school managers all over the country, who are not thorough educationalists, to have poor staffs, poorly paid teachers, poor schools, and small voluntary subscriptions. Now, I put it to the hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. G. Talbot), is that the result he wants? I do not believe that such a result would be to the interest of the voluntary schools. I know there are voluntary schools in all parts of the Kingdom that are as good as schools can be made. Because voluntary school managers make great sacrifices and spend a large sum of money per head on the children, it would be hardly right to deprive them of the grant they got in favour of the miserable schools in the country of which there are too many. We want to encourage better attendance; we want to require from the children a longer attendance, and to require from the managers of schools that the schools shall be better staffed than at present. It is all very well to tell us that payment by result does not exist on the Continent. There are some other things that do not exist on the Conti-
    1596
    nent; there are no pupil teachers on the Continent. Mr. Wild told me the other day that he had been all through Europe and had not seen a pupil teacher. He said that in some schools he had found an adult, a fully certificated teacher, at the head of every class. I do not think that we exactly wish to come to that state of things in this country. I hope the voluntary school managers will see the necessity of keeping a better staff; and the effect of the present Code is to reward their staff properly. Is it desirable that we should take away the stimulus, or diminish it in the least degree? Well, now as to the fixed grant. Mr. Lowe's fixed grant was 4s.; my right hon. Friend (Mr. W. E. Forster) raised it to 6s.; and when Viscount Sandon came into Office he reduced it from 6s. to 5s., and then from 5s. to 4s. What have we done? We have done exactly what the teachers asked from us. The teachers, in a Memorial which they presented to me soon after I took Office, said—
    "Tour Memorialists are of opinion that by abolishing the payment per pass, and by substituting a payment on the average attendance according to the success at the annual examination, a great evil of the present system will be reduced, while, at the same time, the area of good instruction will be extended. Your Memorialists are also of opinion that while abolishing the payment per pass, the individual examination of scholars and the return of the Examination Schedule should be maintained in order to secure thoroughness of instruction and inspection, and to preserve a record of the result."
    That is exactly what we have adopted in the Code; we based our own Code on average attendance; and I should like the House, for a moment, to consider what has been the result. The result has been that during the present year I have had to come down to the House—so rapid has been the rise of average attendance—for an increase of the grant by nearly £200,000; and I shall have to ask the House, when I bring in the Educational Estimates, for an additional £300,000. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Somerset (Mr. E. H. Paget) said that what we were doing was not fair to the voluntary schools. He maintained that payment by results worked with extraordinary hardship upon voluntary schools. I really cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman in that respect, and I would like to show exactly what was the position of the voluntary schools when

    1597
    Viscount Sandon's Act was passed in 1876. I will not go back to 1870, because that would make the contrast infinitely greater; but I will show what is the contrast between 1876 and the present day. In 1876 there were 12,677 voluntary schools, whilst in 1884, last year, there were 14,580, so that they had increased by over 2,000, and the average attendance had increased by 400,000. But while that increase has been going on, the voluntary subscriptions have decreased by £30,000 or £40,000. That is a remarkable fact. Whilst the number of schools has increased by 2,000, and the attendances by 400,000, the voluntary subscriptions have absolutely decreased by that large amount. And what has been the consequence? Why, whilst in 1876 each child cost £1 13 s. 5¼d., in 1884 the cost was £1 15 s. 2d., or an increase of 1s. 8¾d. In 1876 the voluntary subscriptions were 8s. 8½d., whereas in 1884 they were 6s. 8½d., and they were 4½d. less at the present moment. According to last year's estimate the voluntary subscriptions had diminished 23 per cent per child; and while that reduction has been going on the annual grants have risen from 13s. 0¾d. to 16 s. 4¾d., the cost now being 16s. 9d.—or an increase of 23½ per cent; so that whilst there has been a diminution in the cost of 23 per cent, there has been an increase of grant of 23½ per cent during the past eight years. With these facts before us, how can my hon. Friend (Mr. J. G. Talbot) make this appeal for voluntary schools, which he says have suffered through the system of payment by results? To say that they have, suffered by that system is contrary to experience. My experience is that these schools are daily growing, and the need for subscriptions is daily growing less. I am perfectly satisfied that the voluntary schools will, in the future, earn more and cost less to voluntary subscribers. With respect to the over-pressure question, I could deluge the House with evidence which I think would drive it outside the doors of this Chamber. My right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Edinburgh (Sir Lyon Playfair) has spoken of Scotch experience. How strange it is that Scotch experience should be so different to English experience, and the hon. Member opposite says it is. They have the same system of payment by results in Scotland
    1598
    that we have in this country; and why is it, then, that there is not the same cry of over-pressure? The matter has been considered in Scotland, and Dr. Tuke, of Edinburgh, an authority far higher than Dr. Crichton Browne, has examined the schools in the Scotch capital, and I should like hon. Members to take the trouble to read his reply to Dr. Browne's Report. He speaks of it as like reading a chapter in Mark Twain, and that there is nothing in common sense or reason to justify his statements. We are told there is no freedom of classification, and we are told that although, according to our Minutes, it is possible to withdraw children from a day examination, yet, by other Regulations, we render it impossible for the teachers to avail themselves of that power. But let me tell the hon. Member opposite that during the past year 150,000 children have been withdrawn, and have been paid for, because it has been found that they were not fit to attend the examination. Nearly 6 per cent have been withdrawn—5·60 per cent of the whole number of children. As a matter of fact, instead of there being a cry of overpressure, I am beginning, at the Education Department, to experience an exactly opposite complaint—a cry of under-pressure. Parents are continually saying that the teachers pass over their children. They say—"We want our children to pass the Standards in order that we may have their services—so that we may avail ourselves of their labour." Seldom a week passes that I have not a complaint from one or other of our Inspectors—something like this—"If you do not look very carefully into this you will have a cry of under pressure from the parents of the children." Let me read the hon. Member a letter which I have received on this subject. This document has come to me since this Motion has been on the Paper—
    "National Union of Elementary Teachers,
    "New Courts Chambers,
    "57 and 68 Chancery Lane, W.C.
    "March 25, 1885.
    "To the Rt. Hon. A. J. Mundella, M.P.
    "SIR,
    "At the last meeting of the Executive of the National Union of Elementary Teachers the following Resolution was unanimously adopted:—
    "'That the best thanks of this Executive he, and they are hereby, given to the Rt. Hon. A. J. Mundella, M.P., for the abolition of the Age

    1599
    Clause and the Examination Schedule in Infant Schools.'
    "I was instructed to forward a copy to you, which I do with much pleasure. No single step previously taken by the Department will do more to diminish the over-pressure on dull, delicate, and backward children.
    "I am, Sir,
    "Your obedient servant,
    "THOMAS E. HELLER,
    "Secretary."
    MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the Circular of the 8th of April?
    MR MUNDELLA: Yes; I have seen that, and I know exactly how to estimate it. I never quarrel with a little strong language that is used occasionally by teachers, because I know exactly how difficult it is for them on all occasions to appreciate the arrangements that are made, and besides I have been accustomed to dealing with large classes of employés for 25 years. I take it, on the whole, the teachers are a class worthy of all respect; and however little they may know it or appreciate it, I have done my best to secure them against the grievances that induced them to use that language. I am sorry to have intruded upon the House for so long; but the fact of the matter is there is so much to be said on this matter that I have been hardly able, consistently with coherence, to compress my observations into the small space of time at my disposal. If we have another opportunity of taking this discussion we shall be able to debate the subject with the Estimates before us, and we shall have a much better opportunity than we have now of going through all the details.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 53; Noes 117: Majority 64.—(Div. List, No. 99.)
    House adjourned at a quarter before Two o'clock.