Commons Sitting of 17 April 1885

MINUTES.
PRIVATE BILL (by Order)—Second Reading —Felixstow, Ipswich, and Midlands Railway.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—Medical Act (1858) Amendment.
First Reading—Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Labourers' Act) (No. 1)*[128].
Second Reading—Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders*[123].
Committee —Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) (re- comm.)[49]—R.P.[Sixteenth Night.]
Committee—Report—Local Authorities (Expenses of Conferences) [88–129].
Third Reading—Egyptian Loan [122]; Royal Irish Constabulary Redistribution* [105], and passed.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  FELIXSTOW, IPSWICH, AND MIDLANDS RAILWAY BILL (by Order).

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir Charles Forster.)
    MR. BRYCEsaid, that in withdrawing his opposition to the Bill, he wished to explain his reason. The Bill was provided for the purpose of constructing a railway in the Eastern Counties, and it was originally proposed to take an acre and a-half of certain common land near Cambridge for the purposes of the railway. It had appeared to those who were interested in the maintenance of open spaces in the neighbourhood of populous towns, that such a proposal would have been most injurious; and, therefore, it had been determined to offer a strenuous opposition to the Bill. Representations had been made to the Railway Company of the state of the matter, and the desirability of reserving this plot as open land. It was only fair to say that the Railway Company had met the objections in a very proper spirit, and had expressed a desire to do all that they could to remedy the evil complained of. In consequence of the communications which had taken place, an arrangement had been made by which the Company undertook to introduce a clause into the Bill in Committee, binding themselves not to take more than an acre and a-half of land, and to purchase and add to the common the same quantity and the same value of other land adjacent, and also, in the interests of the inhabitants, to make proper communications between the parts of the common which were to be severed. In that way they had removed all the ground for objection; and, under the circumstances, and realizing the fact that the public would not suffer, but would get back as much land as the Railway Company took away from them, he did not propose to persevere with his opposition to the Bill.
    MR. HICKSsaid, he was very sorry that he felt himself called upon to move the rejection of the Bill, because he had hoped that the reasonable Amendment or Instruction which he had intended to
    6
    move for the purpose of limiting the powers of the Company to the construction of a railway between Ipswich and Six Mile Bottom, would have been accepted by the promoters, and in that case he, for one, would not have offered any further opposition. At the same time, he was not prepared to admit that there was really any necessity for this railway. There were at present two lines of railway from Cambridge to Ipswich, one by way of Shelford, going away to the South, and the other by way of Newmarket and Bury to the North. The projected line proposed to take a middle course; but, as far as the locality was concerned, he could not see that there was any great necessity for an additional railway, or that it would be of very much value when constructed. There were no persons on the Cambridge portion of the line between the town of Cambridge and the borders of Suffolk who were more than four or four and a-half miles distant from a railway; and he did not think that in this country four or four and a-half miles was a very great distance for any person to be away from a railway station. If it were deemed necessary to have a railway station within a mile or a mile and a-half of every district, the whole country would be cut up into railways. He certainly' did not think that any extra accommodation in the shape of railway communication was at present required between Cambridge and Ipswich. He would not, however, raise that question now, but would prefer to wait until he heard what arguments the promoters brought forward in support of their case. There was, however, one thing touching this point to which he wished he draw the attention of the House, and it was this. From information he had received, it did not appear that Petitions or Memorials had been presented to the Great Eastern Railway Company, who were in possession of this district, asking them to afford this accommodation or anything approaching to it; and he thought it would only be right and fair, before allowing a new Company to enter into a district which had been well served for many years, at great loss by a particular Company, which Company had been striving during all those years to improve their service, which was now serving the district in a way that equalled the service of any of the great Companies, and

    7
    yet was only paying a very small dividend, amounting to something like l½or 2 per cent on its capital—under such circumstances he thought it would be very unjust to allow a great Company like the Midland to come in and try to tap the traffic which naturally belonged to the Great Eastern Company. And the traffic, even when so tapped, would not be better accommodated in the district as far as London was concerned, but only in a Northern direction. All those who were acquainted with railway matters knew that a distance of five or six miles in the carriage of goods was not really of any serious importance. He had been sorry to trouble the House at this length in regard to the main line; but he would now leave that matter in order to come to the real point, so far as his opposition to the Bill was concerned. There was an Amendment standing in his name upon the Paper which, in the event of the Bill being read a second time, he proposed ultimately to move as an Instruction to the Committee. He had been in hopes that that Instruction would have been accepted by the promoters of the Bill. There was at the present moment a railway from Cambridge to Ipswich, by way of Newmarket and Bury. The distance on that line from Six Mile Bottom to Cambridge was, as nearly as possible, nine miles, or about one-fifth of the main line of the proposed railway, and it passed through a strictly agricultural population in a district which possessed a very small population, and which consequently had very little local traffic. This Company proposed to make the new railway alongside the existing railway for no less a distance than nine miles, only going through one parish or village which was not already served by the existing line, and a village containing only something like 300 inhabitants, which village was itself, at the present moment, within a mile and a-half or two miles of two other railways. Therefore, as far as these nine miles were concerned, there was really no necessity for the construction of the present line; but while there was no necessity for it, there was this very great objection—that it would interfere with the comfort of the inhabitants of the district. It would cut up the land into narrow slips; and, without affording the slightest benefit, it would do serious and permanent in-
    8
    jury to those who lived in the district and occupied the line. His proposal was that an Instruction should be given to the Committee to strike out those nine miles of railway, and to confine the powers of the Company to the construction of a line between Ipswich and Six Mile Bottom. If that were done, it would have this effect. There had been a Petition presented to the House by Mr. Hall, a large landowner in the neighbourhood of Six Mile Bottom, complaining of the way in which his land would be cut up, and the comfort of his residence and of his family interfered with by the projected railway. It was proposed to carry the line close to Mr. Hall's premises, and the embankment which it was proposed to construct would be a very serious annoyance to him and to the residents of his house. If the proposal he ventured to make to the Committee were carried out, instead of running over the present line of the Newmarket and Bury line, the Company would require to form a junction with that line, and they would then be able to go further away from Mr. Hall's house, and with very little trouble to make a much better line through his property, instead of proceeding in a serpentine fashion and crossing his hedges backwards and forwards for a distance of three or three and a-half miles, and that, too, in a country which was not an enclosed country where there were fields of various shapes and of very small size, but in a district where the fields were of very large area. In addition, the fields would be, in the most part, cut at right angles. If his proposal were accepted, the Railway Company, perhaps by spending a little more money in filling up a hole here and a hole there over a distance of some three miles, would be able to proceed in a straight line much more easy for themselves than the meandering route they now proposed to take. That was the reason why he thought the Amendment might have been accepted by the Railway Company, and why they should allow his Instruction to be sent to the Committee. If that had been done, the Company, instead of crossing the existing line, would have formed a junction with it, and would have been able to alter their gradients in a satisfactory manner. He would now draw attention to some of the provisions of the Bill. In one in-

    9
    stance, there was to be a level crossing, and there were various other crossings of the line with gradients as steep as 1 in 16, and in one instance as 1 in 10. He thought the House would agree with him that any gradient over a railway bridge ought not to be more than 1 in 20. He presumed that the object of this Bill was to benefit those who were engaged in agricultural pursuits; and if the agricultural interests were to be consulted, if the gradients over any part of a road were increased by the Railway Company to such an extent that the same horse-power which would take a load now along a road would hereafter have to be increased, it would really be a very serious injury to every occupier of land who would have to cart his produce over the line. He was told by a very good authority that a gradient of 1 in 20 was equal to about 1 cwt. on the horse's back over and above a ton when drawn in a cart, and if they increased the gradients from 1 in 20 to 1 in 10 the extra load upon the horse's back must be proportionately increased, and therefore its power of carrying a load up a hill would be very much diminished. He thought that was another reason why the House should not allow the measure to go forward in its present shape, but that there should be an Instruction to the Committee to provide that the inclinations of the roads should in no case be steeper than 1 in 20, and that no bridge carrying the railway over the road should be of a less span than 25 feet. On looking at the provisions of the Bill, he found that in three instances the gradients had been increased from 1 in 10, and in several others from 1 in 14, 1 in 15, and 1 in 16. There was also a further objection to the Bill—namely, that it increased the tolls upon artificial manures. That question had been brought before the House several times during the course of the last two or three years, and last year the House came to a compromise upon it, by which they allowed the Companies to charge l½d. per ton instead of 1d., which was the toll under which all the great railways of the country had been established. This Bill proposed, previously, to benefit the agriculturists in the district, and yet it would raise the tolls paid by the occupiers of land for the conveyance of artificial manures to a much higher rate than they had hitherto
    10
    been in the habit of paying. Therefore, instead of being of benefit to the agricultural interest, it would be really injurious to that interest. He would not trouble the House further; but as the promoters had not thought proper to accept what he believed to be a very moderate proposal, which would have confined the line to the first 36 miles—from Six Mile Bottom to Bury—he would move that the Bill be road a second time on that day six months.
    MR. BIRKBECKsaid, he rose to second the Motion of the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Hicks), and he did so for this reason—the proposal was simply to construct a line of an alternative character, 52 miles in length, which would cost over £1,000,000, and the prospect which the shareholders who invested their money in the undertaking had of realizing a dividend must be poor in the extreme. The Great Eastern Railway Company had experienced considerable difficulty in obtaining any dividend at all, and, at the present moment, the accommodation of the district, traversed by the proposed line, was amply met by the existing Railway Company. The through traffic between Cambridge and Ely and Ipswich was fully accommodated, and not only did this Company ask to supplement the existing accommodation, but they further sought to obtain running powers over the Great Eastern Railway. In the interests of the county of Norfolk, he strongly objected to such running powers being granted. The Great Eastern Railway Company had given an admirable train service to Norwich, and to all that district, by placing on their line as good express trains as were to be found upon any other line from London; and if these running powers were conferred upon this new Railway Company, the traffic would most certainly be interfered with, and the county of Norfolk, instead of being benefited by the line, would find its traffic seriously impeded. He trusted that the House would not allow the Bill to go upstairs to a Select Committee, but would refuse to read it a second time. He had no interest whatever, either as a shareholder or in any other way, in the Great Eastern Railway, and he simply opposed the projected line, because he was of opinion that it was not wanted, and that it would do a great injury to the Great Eastern Company. He

    11
    had not heard a single person say a word in favour of the proposed railway, and, therefore, he begged to second the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire 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. Hicks.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    MR. BIDDELLsaid, he only intended to make a few remarks in support of the Bill. He had a very different opinion of this line to that which was entertained by his hon. Friends. It was a line which was proposed to be constructed through a part of the county of Suffolk which he had the honour to represent. His hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Birkbeck) said that that county had an admirable train service already for the whole of its traffic, and his hon. Friend seemed to infer that that was also the case in reference to Suffolk. He (Mr. Biddell) would call the attention of the House to the facts of the case in reference to the place in which he lived. The town of Laverham had a population of nearly 2,000, and within a radius of six and a-half miles there was a population of 33,000. Ipswich was its natural port. It was only 18 miles distant; but by the Great Eastern Railway it was necessary to travel a distance of 42 miles in order to reach it in one way, and 36½ miles by another route. Under those circumstances, he did not think that the Great Eastern Railway provided proper accommodation for the district.
    MR. HICKSsaid, that he had said nothing whatever as to the merits of the line in regard to the county of Suffolk. He had merely confined his remarks to that part of the line which affected the district with which he was intimately connected.
    MR. BIDDELLsaid, the inhabitants of the locality had for years past asked the Great Eastern Company to give them facilities for getting to their natural port—namely, Ipswich; but the Company had not done so, and there was, therefore, no reason why they should now come forward and endeavour to prevent other people from doing that which they declined to do them-
    12
    selves. The inhabitants had now induced another Company to undertake to make a line, and he could not see what ground the Great Eastern Company had for opposing the Bill, seeing that they had, in the first instance, refused to do the work themselves. When the dock accommodation was fully developed in the Eastern Counties, he thought there would be a large increase in the heavy traffic, and that in the end no loss would be sustained by anybody in consequence of the construction of this railway. The hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Hicks) said that for a considerable distance the proposed line would run parallel with the existing line. So it would, he believed, for about seven or eight miles, but not for so long a distance as nine miles.
    MR. HICKSsaid, the distance it would run parallel with the existing line was fully nine miles.
    MR. BIDDELLsaid, he believed that, if that was the case, any hon. Member who was acquainted with the town of Cambridge must know that there was an unusual pressure on the station there, and it would be of great advantage rather than otherwise to relieve the traffic at that station. He did not think there had ever been a line devised which had met with more approbation from the locality through which it passed than this line. Several meetings had been held where resolutions had been unanimously passed in support of the line, and he maintained that the hon. Members for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Hicks) and for North Norfolk (Mr. Birkbeck) had not raised a single point against the Bill which could not be dealt with in Committee. Surely, the proper place to fight the question of gradients, of which his hon. Friend (Mr. Hicks) spoke, was not on the floor of that House, but in a Committee upstairs? It was quite clear that the Company would not be able to make steeper gradients on the public roads than they were permitted to make by the General Acts of Parliament. And with regard to the increase of tolls, no increase could be maintained. If it were proposed to increase the tolls at present levied, he, as an agriculturist, would be one of the first to object. But even that was a case for the Committee, and he hoped the Committee would be allowed to decide these matters. The hon. Member for

    13
    Cambridgeshire said that the line would cut up Mr. Hall's estate, and injure it. Was there an hon. Member in that House who over heard of a railway that did not cut up somebody's land? It was proposed, by the construction of this line, to effect a great public good, and if, in carrying out that public good, the property of any individual sustained injury, the Company would have to pay in the shape of compensation for the injury inflicted. He could not believe, for an instant, that the House would refuse to allow the Bill to go upstairs. As to level crossings, he was told by the solicitor of the Bill that there was not a single public level crossing upon it, and, therefore, in that respect it was a much better measure than those of many other Railway Companies. As an agriculturist, he asked the House to consider the matter seriously, and to bear in mind that, at the present moment, the agriculturists of the district to which he had referred had to pay rates for the conveyance of manures from Ipswich either for 36 or 42 miles, although they were only 18 miles away. He thought that fact alone afforded a clear case in substantiation of the want of railway communication. As he had already stated, the Great Eastern Railway Company had been asked, over and over again, to give facilities for the construction of a line to serve this district, and they had always refused to do so. Therefore, they could not come before the House with any grace whatever to oppose the present scheme. He submitted, with confidence, that the House would not allow themselves to be persuaded by the remarks of his hon. Friends the Member for Cambridgeshire and the Member for North Norfolk, but that they would allow the Bill to go before a Committee, where all the objections which might be urged against it might be fairly met. He sincerely trusted that the House would not make this Bill an exception to the general course pursued in the case of private Bills, but that they would allow all these matters to be inquired into and decided by a Select Committee, who would consider the whole of them fairly and impartially. He, therefore, left the matter, with confidence, to the House.
    MR. DILLWYNsaid, he had listened to the speeches of the hon. Members for Cambridgeshire Mr. Hicks) and North
    14
    Norfolk (Mr. Birkbeck), expecting to hear some reason why the House was asked to depart from the ordinary course of sending a Bill of this kind to the Committee upstairs. The House generally required a very good reason before taking that course; but he (Mr. Dillwyn) confessed that in this case he failed to see the slightest ground for taking the Bill away from the jurisdiction of a Select Committee. He did not see how the House could be expected to come to any decision upon the merits of the Bill from the discussion they had just heard. He, therefore, hoped the House would take the ordinary course and send the Bill to a Committee upstairs. He had no personal interest whatever in the matter, except that he objected to see the public time wasted; and, in the interests of the public, he felt bound to suggest that no case had been made out for taking the Bill out of the ordinary category of Private Railway Bills."
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time and committed.
    MR. HICKSsaid, he presumed that he would now be in Order in moving the Instruction to the Committee which had been placed upon the Paper. He would, however, ask whether, as a point of Order, the Instruction ought to be moved now or postponed until another day?
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member can move it now.
    MR. HICKS, in moving—
    "That it he an Instruction to the Committee to limit the powers of the Company to the construction of a Railway between Ipswich and Six Mile Bottom, and provide that the inclinations of roads shall in no case he steeper than 1 in 20, and that no bridge carrying a Railway over a road shall be of a less span than twenty-five feet,"
    said, he would not trouble the House with a word, in addition to what he had already said, in pointing out the absolute absurdity of making a railway for nine miles parallel with a railway already existing. There was not a single village or inhabitant proposed to be accommodated by the projected line who was not accommodated already.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That it be an Instruction to the Committee to limit the powers of the Company to the construction of a Railway between Ipswich and

    15
    Six Mile Bottom, and provide that the inclinations of roads shall in no case be steeper than 1 in 20, and that no bridge carrying a Railway over a road shall be of a less span than twenty-five feet."—(Mr. Hicks.)
    MR. BIDDELLsaid, he certainly thought the question of gradients was clearly a matter for the Committee, and he did not think that the House ought to saddle them with such an Instruction as that proposed by his hon. Friend (Mr. Hicks). The House had already heard arguments on both sides in regard to the other part of the Instruction, and if the the people of Six Mile Bottom had any locus standi before the Committee, and did not desire to have the Bill, they would have their objections heard. He did not think any case had been made out for giving any exceptional Instruction to the Committee.
    SIR HENRY HOLLANDthought it would be unwise, in the absence of any knowledge as to the merits of the case, for the House to pass this Instruction. The Committee would have the whole matter before them, and it would be unreasonable for the House to declare that, under no circumstances, should the Committee consent to a gradient over a road that was steeper than 1 in 20, and that no bridge should be less than a certain span. These were mere matters of detail. So far as he was concerned, he thought this was a most unusual Instruction to give to any Committee.
    MR. HICKSsaid, that after this expression of opinion by the House, he would not press the Amendment. He thought the object he had in view would be answered by the Committee having their attention drawn to the discussion which had taken place. He would, therefore, withdraw the Motion.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

QUESTIONS.

  REGISTRATION (OCCUPATION VOTERS) BILL—REGISTRATION EXPENSES.
  SIR MASSEY LOPESasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government that the increased charges in respect of the remuneration and expenses of clerks of the peace and overseers, arising out of the Registra-
  16
  tion (Occupation Voters) Bill now before Parliament, are to be defrayed by the local rates, or whether it is proposed to provide out of moneys voted by Parliament relief from the obligation to bear increased liabilities for a matter of National interest?
  THE ATTOENEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES), in reply, said, such expenses were always defrayed out of local rates, and there was no intention of making any change in this respect.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—ROBERT GRAHAM , CLERK OF COOTEHILL UNION.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What decision the Local Government Board has come to relative to Robert Graham, clerk of Cootehill Union?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The Guardians, by a large majority, have expressed unabated confidence in Mr. Graham as their clerk; and having regard to this fact and to Mr. Graham's statement in his explanation that he answered Mr. Mattheson's question truthfully according to his recollection, and that if he interpreted the Local Government Board's letter wrongly he is very sorry for it, the Board have decided not to interfere on the present occasion with the Guardians' wish to retain Mr. Graham.
  MR. BIGGARgave Notice that he would call attention to the action of the Local Government Board in this matter in Committee of Supply.
  MR. HEALY: If Boards of Guardians exonerate an officer, is that sufficient for the Local Government Board?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: No; I mentioned there were other circumstances as well as the vote of the Guardians, which was very large—two to one.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—ELECTION OF GUARDIANS—ARMAGH DIVISION OF ATHLONE.
  MR. JUSTIN HUNTLY M'CARTHYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the attention of the Government has been called to the interference of Mr. Hynds, rate collector, in the recent Poor Law election, in the Armagh Division of Ath-

  17
  lone; whether it is usual for officials to interfere in a Poor Law election as he did; and, whether any rule exists governing the conduct of the officials in such circumstances; and, if not, whether the Government will frame such a rule?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I understand that two charges have been made against Mr. IIynds—(1) that he nominated a candidate at this Poor Law election, and (2) that he used intimidation and undue influence in connection with it. As regards the first charge, the Local Government Board are satisfied with Mr. Hynds's explanation of his reason for seeking to have a person nominated. As regards the second charge, if the person who brings it will adduce any particular cases in support of it, which he has not done hitherto, it may become necessary to make further inquiry.

  NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND)— SCHOOL TEACHERS—AGE FOR PENSIONS.
  MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that National School teachers who are past their work, some of whom have served nearly forty years, but have not yet reached the age of sixty-five, to entitle them to the maximum pension, are holding on because of the small amount they can claim if they retire; whether he can state what progress the actuaries have made with the calculations concerning the proposed pension scheme; and, whether he would, in the interests of education, recommend the Lords of the Treasury to reduce the limit of age, so that it would be optional for male teachers to resign at sixty on full pension, and females at fifty-five?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The powers of the Commissioners of Education enable them to deal with any such cases of inefficiency as those referred to in this Question. The valuation of the pension fund will not be finished for some weeks to come, and it would be premature to consider any alteration of the present scheme until the valuation is completed.

  IRELAND—THE PHŒNIX PARK, DUBLIN—THE POLO GROUND.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland,
  18
  By what right the officers of the Dublin Garrison have caused warnings to be erected requesting riders to keep off what they call "the Polo Ground" in the Phoenix Park, who made this plot a Polo Ground, how many acres does it contain, who allowed it to be railed off as such, is it not one of the finest levels in the entire Park, how much is now railed off in inclosures for the use of cricketers and polo players in the Phoenix Park, and are there any such privileges accorded to cricket and polo clubs in Hyde Park and Regent's Park?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am unable to answer the last query of the hon. Member, and the entire Question is one which should properly have been addressed to my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasuary, the control of the Phoenix Park being vested in the Commissioners of Public Works. However, I have ascertained from the Commissioners that the ground on which the game of polo is played is about seven acres in extent. It is not enclosed, but the Commissioners have permitted barriers to be erected which consists of posts and handrails on two sides of the ground, to protect from accident the public who assemble there in large numbers to see the game played. These barriers are so constructed as to admit of removal if necessary when the game is not being played. The notice to which the hon. Member refers is not a warning but a request, and the Commissioners have not, therefore, objected to it. There are five cricket grounds in the Park—some, I believe, for working men's clubs—containing about 15 acres altogether.
  MR. HEALY: I beg to give Notice that when the Vote in reference to Phoenix Park comes on in Committee of Supply I shall call attention to the continual encroachments on public property by the snobs and swells of Dublin Garrison. [Cries of "Order, order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is quite out of Order. The hon. Member must withdraw that expression. It is not a proper or Parliamentary expression to be used in this House.
  MR. HEALYmade no reply.
  MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member withdraw the expression?
  MR. HEALYtook off his hat and bowed.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—SCALE OF EXPENSES IN CROWN CASES.
  MR. PATRICK MARTINasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Has his attention been called to the severe comments and observations of the Judges of Assize in Ireland on and in respect to the Circular issued by the Attorney General, varying and reducing the scale of expenses to be allowed in Crown cases in Ireland; is the decision as to the amount actually to be paid by Law vested in the Judges, and must not the sums so awarded by them, notwithstanding such Circular, be paid in the first instance by the treasurers for the several counties out of the county rates, and in case the allowances so awarded by the Judges exceed the sums mentioned in the Circular, has it been stated, on behalf of the Treasury, that they will not in future reimburse such extra allowances to the county rates; is it the intention of the Government to now insist that such extra allowances, when sanctioned by the presiding Judge of Assize, shall not in future be reimbursed to the county treasurer, and can he state the reasons which have led to the imposition of this increased charge and burden on the county rates; and, will he have any objection to lay upon the Table of the House Copies of the present Circular and the one issued in the year 1880?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I believe some of the Judges have disapproved of the Circular referred to. It must be borne in mind that the Treasury are not liable for any of the expenses of witnesses or prosecutors in Ireland, which, under the law, are chargeable to the counties. The Treasury, however, have been in the habit of recouping to the counties the amount so paid; but in assuming this responsibility they have never divested themselves of the right to fix the amount they will contribute, and Circulars with this object have been issued from time to time. In a Circular issued in 1880 a minimum and a maximum scale were laid down, and, so far as I am aware, no objection was made to this. The effect of the Circular recently issued has been to restrict the amount to be paid to the minimum allowed by the Circular of 1880, unless special reasons exist for exceeding it. I consider the amount so
  20
  fixed to be fair and reasonable; and if in any special case a larger sum be paid—the right of the Judge to order this not being controverted—the burden thrown on the counties will be insignificant. I have no objection to lay Copies of these two Circulars on the Table. It is the intention of the Government to adhere to the course they have laid down.

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION—(SUB-COMMISSIONERS) —MR. EDWARD GREEK.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Mr. Edward Greer, Sub-Commissioner, was, until his appointment, partner with Mr. E. A. Mullan, Solicitor, Newry; whether on the door the words "Greer and Mullan, Solicitors," still appears, and cheques are still issued on the Newry Branch of the Bank of Ireland in the names of Greer and Mullan; and, whether there is an agreement between these gentlemen that on the cessation of Mr. Greer's employment as a Commissioner he is to resume his place in the firm?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I must ask for longer Notice of this Question, which obviously involves local inquiries, and which only appeared yesterday.

  EGYPT (MILITARY EXPEDITION)— HEALTH OF THE TROOPS.
  MR. JOSEPH COWENasked the Financial Secretary for the War Department, What are the last reports as to the health of the troops in the Soudan?
  SIR ARTHUR HAYTER: The troops on the Nile are so scattered that it is difficult to make up from the Returns any percentage of sick on a given date, but it may be said generally that the health is good. At Suakin the latest report states there is a little over 4 per cent. of sick.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Can the hon. Gentleman say how many men have been invalided home from the Red Sea?
  SIR ARTHUR HAYTER: I cannot say.

  POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—THE KINSALE MAILS.
  MR. DEASYasked the Postmaster General, Whether the Post Office autho-

  21
  rities intend to make the alterations in the mail service to and from Kinsale which the Town Commissioners have suggested to them?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREregretted to say that he had not yet come to a decision on this matter.
  MR DEASY: I beg to remind the right hon. Gentleman that he undertook four months ago to look into this matter.

  PRISONS (IRELAND) ACT, 1877—ILLEGAL LEVY ON CO. CORK REPAYMENT.
  MR DEASYasked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Whether the Government will refund the sums declared by the Court of Queen's Bench in 1882 to have been illegally levied on the county of Cork under The Prisons (Ireland) Act, 1877?"
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER): This subject is engaging the attention of the Irish Government, and if the hon. Member will repeat the Question on a future date I will answer it.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—THE TUBBERCURRY CASE—PAYMENT OF COSTS OF ACCUSED, &c. IN DEFENCE.
  MR. SEXTONasked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, With regard to his undertaking to inquire, during the Easter Recess, into the question of the delay in paying the costs of the accused, and witnesses summoned for the defence, in the Tubbercurry (county Sligo) cases, whether those costs have yet been paid?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, that the witnesses' expenses in this ease had been settled.
  MR SEXTON: When will they be paid?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)was understood to say immediately.

  POST OFFICE, DUBLIN—PROMOTION.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Postmaster General, If it is a fact that a Dublin Post Office Telegraphist, of twenty-two years' service, is intended to be passed over in making the promotions now about to be made in the Dublin Depart-
  22
  ment; if so, for what reason; and, whether it is an accepted principle that seniority should be recognised in the matter of promotion unless when cause is shown to the contrary?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that all promotions in the Post Office Service were made by the Postmaster General alone, and as those to which the hon. Member referred had not yet come before him, he was unable to answer his Question. He might state, however, that neither in this nor any other case would anyone be passed over without his claims and qualifications being fully considered. In making promotions seniority certainly formed an element for consideration.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—THE PURCHASE CLAUSES.
  MR. PATRICK MARTINasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Have any suggestions been made by the Irish Land Commissioners to the Irish Executive in respect to the complete dead lock which has taken place in the operation of the Purchase Clauses in the Land Act of 1881; has any draft Bill which proposes to remove the obstacles which prevent the efficient working of the Purchase Clauses been prepared by one of the Land Commissioners and submitted for the consideration of the Irish Government, and has any Correspondence taken place between any members of the Irish Government and any member of the Land Commission in respect to the preparation of a Bill of this character; and, will he have any objection to lay Copies of such suggestions or Correspondence upon the Table of the House?
  MR CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Communications have passed between the Land Commissioners and the Irish Government on the subject of the Purchase Clauses of the Land Act, and proposals in reference thereto have been made by the Commissioners; but such communications and proposals are essentially of a confidential nature, and not such as should be laid on the Table.

  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) ACTS —FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE— OUTBREAK AT HAMBURG.
  MR. BIRKBECKasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Whether

  23
  there are at the present time any cases of foot and mouth disease at, or in the neighbourhood of, Bremen, Geestemünde, or any of the other German cattle exporting ports; and, if so, whether he will forthwith impose the necessary restrictions on the importation of live animals from such ports?
  MR. TREVELYAN: No cases of foot-and-mouth disease are known to exist at or in the neighbourhood of any German ports from which animals are sent to this country. Information has been received from the Consul at Hamburg that two cattle were found to be affected and were slaughtered at once on the 11th instant. All the sound animals in the infected place were likewise slaughtered, and the export of animals to England from Hamburg was at once prohibited by the German Government. We have requested the German Government to communicate with us before they propose to re-open the port of Hamburg.

  GIBRALTAR—ORDINANCE—ZEBEHR PASHA.
  MR. GORSTasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the Ordinance authorising the detention in custody of Zebehr Pasha was made in consequence of instructions from the Colonial Office in London; when those instructions were given; whether they can be laid upon the Table of the House; whether the General Officer who commands the garrison exercises by himself all the functions of legislation at Gibraltar; whether the Ordinance in question was first promulgated or made known publicly some hours after Zebehr Pasha had been landed by being affixed to the Exchange Buildings, by leave of the Exchange Committee and Chamber of Commerce, at the request of the Colonial Secretary; and, whether any Ordinance was ever published in this way before?
  MR EVELYN ASHLEY: Yes, Sir. On the 25th of March telegraphic instructions were sent to the Governor of Gibraltar instructing him to pass the necessary Ordinance. There will be no objection to lay on the Table of the House the despatch which followed, and which was the extender of the contents of the telegram. The General Officer commanding, who is also the Governor, is the sole legislative authority. Whether the Ordinance was published by
  24
  being affixed to the Exchange Buildings or not I do not know; but it duly appeared in The Gibraltar Chronicle of the 30th of March, the day on which Zebehr landed, and this is the usual mode of promulgating Ordinances in Gibraltar.

  ARMY—GARRISON RATIONS.
  SIR HARRY VERNEYasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he will direct that in weighing the rations of meat for soldiers of the British Army the weight of bones and gristle shall be omitted?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: No change is contemplated in the garrison ration. In the field, where soldiers are much exposed, the meat ration is largely increased, so that the soldier obtains more than a pound, exclusive of bone. The General commanding has always authority in the field to vary or increase the ration to meet the requirements of climate, work, &c.

  EGYPT (EVENTS IN THE SOUDAN)—DIARIES OF COLONEL STEWART.
  SIR ROBERT PEELasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he can give any information respecting the Journals or Diary of events (known to have been written both in English and in Arabic and of which General Gordon speaks in the highest terms) kept by the late lamented Colonel Donald Stewart, C.M.G., Chief of the Staff of General Gordon at Khartoum, who was subsequently wrecked and murdered near Merawi; and, whether he will undertake to hand over whatever papers there may be of the nature referred to, to that Gallant Officer's family, which anxiously desires to possess them?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: The only papers belonging to the late Colonel Stewart which have been recovered are some pages of a rough pencil note-book of daily events kept by him. These are evidently not part of the diary referred to in the right hon. Gentleman's Question. All that have been recovered have been handed over to his brother.
  MR. RITCHIE: In handing over the notes, were any conditions made as to the non-publication of certain portions of them?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: No, Sir; I am not aware of any.

  ARMY (INDIA)—HORSE AND FIELD ARTILLERY.
  LORD ALGERNON PERCYasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the Horse and Field Artillery in India are armed with 9-pounder M. L. guns of 6 cwt. and 8 cwt. respectively; whether the batteries in England are not armed with 13-pounder B. L. guns; and, whether any steps are being taken to arm the Indian batteries with the more perfect weapon?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: The batteries of Horse and Field Artillery are armed as stated in the Question. Some of the Horse Artillery batteries at home are armed with 13-pounder muzzle-loading guns, and the remainder with 9-pounder muzzle-loading guns; but none with breech-loading guns. No application on the subject has been received from the Government of India.

  ARMY—SALE OF MILITARY CLOTHING.
  MR. ONSLOWasked the Surveyor General of the Ordnance, Whether it is a fact that the usual practice has this year been departed from of inviting tenders for the purchase of military condemned clothing, and an offer from a buyer accepted without competition; and, if so, for what reason has the usual course been departed from?
  MR. BRAND: The results obtained in advertising these sales led me to the conclusion that it would be better to adopt the principle of limiting competition in this particular business.

  ARMY—ORDNANCE DEPARTMENT— MILITARY SWORDS.
  SIR FREDERICK MILNERasked the Surveyor General of Ordnance, Whether it is a fact that, as the result of recently testing the swords of the 2nd Dragoon Guards and 7th Hussars at Aldershot, fully one-half have been found unfit for use, even for recruits' drill, and whether the majority of the swords for the Commissariat and Transport Corps were also found to be unserviceable; whether it has been known for some time past that a number of the swords and bayonets supplied to our troops are of an unserviceable nature; if he will inform the House by whom these inferior weapons were manufactured; and, whether he will take care
  26
  for the future that the lives of our gallant soldiers shall not be imperilled by false notions of economy?
  MR. BRAND: I would ask the hon. and gallant Member whether he really thinks it will advance the public interest to reply to this Question? If so, I will reply. Then, Sir, the facts are these. For some time past it has been known that the pattern of sword adopted by the Military Authorities in 1882 was too light to stand severe strain. Upon the failure of certain swords of this pattern in the Soudan in 1884, a Committee was appointed under the Presidency of Sir Drury Lowe, and they recommended that the tests should be increased in severity. This has been carried out, and the whole of the swords in store and in possession of the troops have either been re-tested, or shortly will be put through that process. Care will be taken that all swords in possession of the troops are serviceable. The bayonets are perfectly serviceable. The last two Questions are argumentative, and, in reply, I have to say that the swords of which complaint has been made were strictly according to the pattern of 1882, and passed tests. Considerations of cost have not in any way influenced the question of the pattern of the swords.

  NAVAL EXPENDITURE—APLICATION OF VOTES.
  SIR ROBERT PEEL, who had the following Question on the Paper:—To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, with reference to a statement made by the Member for Cardiff, in a speech at Portsmouth on the 18th March, to the effect that much of the money voted for shipbuilding purposes had been used to meet expenditure in other Departments, whether such a misapplication of the funds voted by Parliament would not constitute a flagrant violation of the pledges given to Parliament in voting Estimates for a specific purpose; and, whether, if such alleged diversion has taken place, he can inform the House how much of the money voted for shipbuilding purposes, during the past four years, has been thus diverted from its legitimate channel to meet expenditure in other Departments? said: Since putting this Question on the Paper, I have received a letter from the hon. Member for Cardiff (Sir Edward Reed), in which he informs me that the re-

  27
  porter failed to catch the sense of his remarks. The speech of the hon. Member appeared in all the Liberal newspapers of the day, and therefore I copied the statement from that source.
  "I did not intend to imply," the hon. Member says, that the funds voted by Parliament were differently applied, although that was sometimes the case."
  I shall, therefore, leave out the reference to the hon. Member, and ask the second part of the Question only.
  SIR THOMAS BRASSEY: I can only say that, within the period for which the present Board of Admiralty is responsible, money voted for shipbuilding purposes has not been vised to meet expenditure in other Departments.

  CENTRAL ASIA—RUSSIA AND AFGHANISTAN—REPORTED RETIREMENT OF AFGHAN TROOPS TO HERAT.
  MR. ASHMEAD BARTLETTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Afghan troops have retired from Meruchak and other positions to Herat, leaving the valleys of the Murghab and the Khusk Rivers open to Herat; and, whether Captain Yate's account of the attack of the Russian Commander upon the Afghans on March 31st has been confirmed by Sir Peter Lumsden?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: The latest information received from Sir Peter Lumsden is to the effect that the Afghan Forces retreating from Penjdehwere, on the 10th instant, partly at Kaleh Nan and partly at Kushk. In reply to the second part of the Question, I believe a similar inquiry is likely to be made by the right hon. Gentleman opposite of the Prime Minister.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Will the noble Lord state, in reply to the third line of the Question, whether this retirement of the Afghan Forces, "leaving the valleys of the Murghab and the Kushk rivers open to Herat," has been completed? I understand Kushk is close to Herat. Is that so?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I understand that this is a matter of military opinion, on which I am not competent to pronounce.

  CENTRAL ASIA—THE RUSSO-AFGHAN FRONTIER—DELIMITATION.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT, who had given Notice to ask the First Lord
  28
  of the Treasury, Whether the Russian Government have yet consented to send their Commission to delimitate the Afghan frontier; whether the Russian Government have asked that the debatable zone shall be extended southwards some sixty miles to the line of the Parapronisus and the Murghab; and, whether Her Majesty's Ministers have offered to give up to Russia Penj-deh, Ak-Tepe, Zulfagar, and the salt lakes of Er Oilan, or any of these positions, which have all been occupied by Russia since the appointment of the Boundary Commission '? said: Before I put this Question. perhaps, it would be better to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he wishes to reply to the Leader of the Opposition should he wish to ask him any Questions?
  MR. GLADSTONE: The right hon. Gentleman will probably do so, and I was about to say that I am not able to enter on the matters touched by the hon. Member in his Question.

  CENTRAL ASIA—RUSSIA AND AFGHANISTAN—THE AGREEMENT OF MAR. 17, AND ACTION OF MAR. 30, &c—REPORTED OCCUPATION BY RUSSIA OF PENJDEH.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I think it would be convenient to the House that Questions should be asked, whether we are able to get any further information or not, in order that we may know where we stand. The Question I am particularly anxious to ask the Government is whether they are yet in possession of a full account, or a sufficiently full account, of the proceedings of the 30th of March and the days following? A'considerable time has now elapsed, and we should like to know whether the Government are now, and, if not, when they expect to be in possession of a full account?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have no difficulty in saying that we are in possession of no full account of those proceedings, nor of anything approaching to a full account. But a request, which I think I signified before, was addressed to Sir Peter Lumsden to ask for a full and consecutive account; and my noble Friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs informs me that a telegram has arrived, and is now in course of being deciphered, which may contain that full account. I cannot say whether it does or not; but, of course, the right hon.

  29
  Gentleman will see that it would be necessary to have it compared with the accounts which may be received elsewhere before we should be in a position to give a definite or conclusive judgment to the House upon the matter. We have, however, an independent telegram from Sir Peter Lumsden which clears up an important point. The House will, I have no doubt, remember that—because I recollect that it naturally produced a considerable sensation in the House—on the first occasion of referring to this question of the engagement on the 30th of March I used, I believe, these words—that Captain Yate had met the Chief of the Russian Staff by appointment, and the Chief of the Russian Staff informed him that no such arrangement as that referred to in our telegram of the 17th of March as to the non-advance of the Russians had been received. The House will, I am sure, recollect those words. There was no date attached to that meeting between Captain Yate and the Chief of the Russian Staff. It must, of course, have been before the 29th, and we now see that it must have been two or three days before the 29th, because we have received to-day a telegram from Sir Peter Lumsden containing an account of some further communications of Captain Yate with the Chief of the Russian Staff. Writing on the 28th of March, the Chief of the Russian Staff says that—
  "He has received a notification from our side respecting the account which Lord Granville had given of the arrangement made;"
  and he goes on to say that—
  "what was stated by Lord Granville was in accordance with the orders received by us"
  —namely, the Russian officers, and consequently, on the 28th of March, the Russian officers were in possession of the orders given by the Russian Government in conformity with the arrangement of the 17th. The question whether they had acted on these orders remained a matter for future consideration, and therefore the point of the communication of these orders is so far disposed of. I am bound to say that, putting together the dates as best we can, I am inclined to think that probably that was about as soon as the Russian officers upon the spot could have received the orders sent from
  30
  St. Petersburg in conformity with the arrangement of the 17th of March. There is nothing else of a conclusive character in the telegram which Sir Peter Lumsden writes, nor is there anything of an unfavourable character as to the communications which are still going on.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Is there any truth in the report that Penjdeh has been occupied by the Russians, and that Her Majesty's Government have assented to that occupation?
  MR. GLADSTONE: No, Sir; we know nothing more on the subject of Penjdeh than we knew yesterday. What we were informed of yesterday was that an administration had been established in Penjdeh. There is no intimation whatever of a military occupation of Penjdeh. I had better not undertake to explain what the administration is. The explanation was given in the newspapers yesterday; but whether that be authentic or not I cannot undertake to say, because we are not officially informed.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: In regard to the present position of Sir Peter Lumsden, can the noble Lord tell us whether Tirpul, where he is now, is in Persian or in Afghan territory?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: It is in Afghan territory, but it is not far from the Persian Frontier. It is marked on nearly all the maps which are now arriving.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: In regard to the despatch which is now being deciphered at the Foreign Office, I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in the event of its not being injurious to the public interest, he will undertake to make its contents known to the House before its rising?
  MR. GLADSTONE: That must depend upon what they are. If anything of great importance or interest should arise we will, undoubtedly, take the earliest opportunity of making it known.
  MR. LEWISasked the date of the telegram just read by the Prime Minister?
  MR. GLADSTONE: It is dated Tirpul, April 13.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: The Prime Minister has given the 17th of March as the date of this agreement, under which neither the Russian nor the

  31
  Afghan Forces should advance. I would ask him if it is not a fact that the real date on which that agreement was first announced to this House was the 13th of March, and not the 17th, and that we were informed it really dated from the 2nd of March? And are we to understand that the responsibility for the attack on the Afghans is now shifted from General Komaroff to the Government of St. Petersburg; and, if so, whether, the Government of St. Petersburg have offered any reparation to our Allies, the Afghans, and have they offered to restore a considerable number of guns taken from the Afghans on that occasion? I should like to know also if the noble Lord can tell us how far the town of Kushk, not the river, is from Herat; and whether we are to understand from his answer that not only have the Afghans retired to Kushk, but that the Russians are free to follow them to the point?
  MR. GLADSTONE: With regard to the question of dates, I am not aware of having been inaccurate; but there were several statements made to the House, and it would be better that I should ascertain exactly what those statements were.
  MR. CHAPLIN: As to the administration which we are informed has been established as Penjdeh, I should like to ask the Prime Minister this Question—whether the administration has the sanction and consent of Her Majesty's Government, and whether Her Majesty's Government have made any communications with regard to it to the Russian Government?
  MR. GLADSTONE: We have made no communication on the subject. We have nothing before us except the fact that there is an administration, and the explanation of it placing it on the ground of necessity for the maintenance of peace, which I have seen in the newspapers. I cannot say whether it is authentic or not. But I am bound to say, taking the facts as they appear, there is a fair presumption attending the case which would make us desirous of having fuller information on the matter before we made it the subject of official representations.
  MR. ONSLOWasked whether it was Sir Peter Lumsden's intention to remain at Tirpul, or whether, if the Russians advanced thither, he would be driven to
  32
  any other portion of Afghan or Persian territory?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I must ask the hon. Gentleman for Notice of this Question.
  MR. LEWISasked the date of the long message which was now being deciphered?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I cannot state. It only arrived at the Foreign Office a short time before I left the Office.
  MR. LEWIS: Is it from Tirpul?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I presume it is undoubtedly from Tirpul.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to give Notice that, on Monday, I will ask the Government what is the exact position of the Russians in their advance towards Herat, and whether Her Majesty's Government have received any assurance from the Russian Government that they will not seize Herat itself?

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. GLADSTONE: It may be convenient to the House that I should now say a few words as to the course of Business for next week. We hope to close the Committee on the Seats Bill tonight; but if that should not be the case, we propose to go on with that Bill on Monday. It will be my duty on Monday or Tuesday to lay the Vote of Credit on the Table; and probably it will be convenient to the House that in laying it on the Table I should make a short statement to enable the House to understand what the demand is and for what purpose the Vote is to be applied. I presume that no appreciable time will be occupied with the Vote of Credit on that occasion. We shall proceed on Monday with Supply, taking the Navy Estimates, provided that we finish the Committee on the Seats Bill. If the Committee on the Bill is not concluded to-night, then we shall go on with it on Monday. Then it will have to be considered whether the Seats Bill cannot be taken on Report on Tuesday. ["Oh!"] That, I say, is a matter for consideration, and in any case I do not think it need call forth any strong manifestation of emotion. On Thursday, of course, it is understood that, whatever may be the progress made with the Seats Bill, my

  33
  right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will make his Financial Statement.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: The right hon. Gentleman has stated that the Vote of Credit will be taken on Monday or Tuesday. I would point out that, supposing the Seats Bill is not taken on Tuesday, the ordinary Rules of the House would give precedence to Notices of Motion, and the Vote of Credit could not come on until the Notices of Motion have been disposed of.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Yes; it could be presented and laid on the Table, accompanied by some such explanation as is necessary to make it intelligible to the House, but without entering into any argument.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURinquired whether, in the event of the Navy Estimates not being taken on Monday, they would be taken on Tuesday?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am afraid I cannot say.
  In reply to Mr. LEWIS,
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that of course the Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) Bill must be reprinted before the Report stage, and there must be, at least, a day for putting down Amendments.
  MR. LEWISthought that an interval of not less than a week ought to be given between the closing of the Committee on the Bill and the Report stage.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLasked the Prime Minister whether the House was to understand that it would be competent for a Minister to make a statement on the Vote of Credit, but that it would not be competent for Members of the House to debate that statement?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, it was a very common thing for Ministers, if it were required, to make an explanation for the convenience of the House in such cases. The statement would not, in the slightest degree, enter into argumentative matter, but would be confined to making the Vote intelligible.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLasked the Speaker whether, when a Minister presented Papers to the House, and made a statement with reference to them, the Motion would not be made that the Papers lie on the Table?
  MR. SPEAKER: The Motion would be to refer the Vote to Committee of Supply.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: And on that a debate would arise?
  MR. SPEAKER: Yes.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: Will it take precedence of Notices of Motion on Tuesday?
  MR. SPEAKER: Yes; it would take precedence.
  In reply to Lord JOHN MANNERS,
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that he proposed to take the first opportunity, but not that evening, of bringing on the second reading of the Telegraph Acts Amendment Bill at a reasonable hour.
  MR. HEALYsaid, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, with respect to his statement as to the course of Public Business, what facilities would be given by the Government for the Irish Registration Bill? There would be 700,000 new voters in Ireland who would be incapacitated from getting on the roll unless the Bill were passed. He also wished to know whether the Prime Minister was aware of what had taken place last night in the House, when an attempt had been made to bring on the Bill at 12 o'clock, and a number of Gentlemen, Privy Councillors and others, had wasted time in order to bring up the time to half-past 12 o'clook?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I cannot answer the contentious part of the Question of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Monaghan; but I think I had better confine myself to saying that I am not in a position at present to depart from the rule of doing one thing at a time; and I think it is best, as far as the Bill is concerned, for the interest of all parties and of legislation, that we should direct our attention steadily to the remaining important stages of the Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) Bill. We deem it quite essential to proceed with the Irish Registration Bill, and we feel it to be our bounden duty to make provision at the earliest time we can for proceeding with it.
  MR. HEALY: Then I give Notice that, in consequence of the way in which the Irish Party were treated last night, when the English Registration Bill comes down from Committee I shall block it.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  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 16th April.]

  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (REDISTRIBUTION) [re-committed) BILL.— [BILL 49.]

    SIXTEENTH NIGHT.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)

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

      IRELAND.
      MR. HEALY, in moving an Amendment on the Paper to leave out from line 15 to line 8, in page 92, and insert—
      No. 1.—North. Armagh Division.

      "Barony of O'Neiland East.

      "Barony of O'Neiland West (except parishes of Armagh, Grange, Kildarton, and Mullaghbrack).

      No. 2.—Mid-Armagh Division.

      "Barony of Armagh.

      "Barony of Fews Lower.

      "Barony of Tiranny.

      "Barony of Fews Upper (parish of Lisnadil).

      "Barony of O'Neiland West (parishes of Armagh, Grange, Kildarton, and Mullaghbrack).

      No. 3.—South Armagh Division.

      "Barony of Orior Lower.

      "Barony of Orior Upper.

      "Barony of Fews Upper (except parish of Lisnadil),"

      said, he proposed to move the three parts into which it was divided separately, because it would not suit his purpose to move them altogether. He would point out that it was necessary, before moving the Amendments, to settle the names of the Armagh Divisions; and, therefore, it would be necessary to move the Amendments relating to the divisions separately. He had intended, after the name of North Armagh, which was assigned to this division, to move the additional name of "O'Neiland;" but his hon. Friends thought it would be better to have no alternative names whatever. If he were not allowed to have his way on that
      36
      point, and names were afterwards inserted in connection with other counties, he should feel himself at liberty to move alternative names in regard to Armagh on the Report; but he hoped the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) would give an assurance that in no other county would alternative names be given. He would now simply move a verbal Amendment.
      Amendment proposed, in page 91, line 14, to leave out the word "The," in order to insert the word "North,"—(Mr. Mealy,)—instead thereof.
      Question proposed, "That the word 'The' stand part of the Schedule."
      SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that, as far as he was personally concerned, he should prefer that Ireland was treated in the same manner as England. There were, however, one or two cases in which local names were extremely popular in the district interested; and he doubted, therefore, whether he could bind the Committee as to anything like a distinct course in regard to every county.
      MR. SEXTONsaid, that, in reply to the remarks of the right hon. Baronet, he wished to say that, as far as his memory served him, there was only one case in which there would be anything like a strong feeling in favour of including an alternative name in the division. He was not, however, aware that in that case there was any strong opinion that an alternative name was required; and he was not aware that there were on the Paper any proposals for an alternative name, except in the instance of the county of Galway, where it was proposed to call the divisions by the name of the county instead of Connemara, &c. The divisions of the Irish counties would be few enough to allow the introduction of the compass points; and there was no necessity, therefore, to introduce alternative names. The Commissioners had reported that the general feeling was in favour of the names of the counties; and he believed that the most brief and simple way of naming the divisions was to give the compass points.
      MR. CALLANsaid, the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Charles W. Dilke), in the case of the English counties, had made an exception in favour of merged boroughs. He (Mr. Callan) wished to know if the right hon. Gentleman intended, in Ireland, to extinguish the

      37
      name of any county in favour of a merged borough?
      SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he did not; but it was possible that some Representative of a merged borough might desire to retain the name, and he should not stand in the way, if such a proposal were made, after the course the Committee had taken in connection with the English counties.
      MR. HEALYsaid, there was a strong opinion among the Irish Members in favour of leaving the county names as they stood in the Bill.
      Amendment agreed to.
      MR. HEALY MR. HEALY moved an Amendment in the same line to omit the word "Division," which would have the effect of describing the first division in the county of Armagh as "North Armagh," instead of "the North Armagh Division."
      Amendment agreed to.
      MR. HEALYsaid, he now came to the Amendments he had placed upon the Paper in regard to the constitution of the Armagh Divisions—namely, North Armagh, Mid Armagh, and South Armagh. He would, however, take the discussion upon the first proposal, which was that the North Armagh Division should consist of the "barony of O'Nei-land East, barony of O'Neiland West (except parishes of Armagh, Grange, Kildarton, and Mullaghbrack." He presumed that it would be necessary, in the first instance, to move the omission of the words of the Schedule from line 15 to line 23, inclusive. It must be borne in mind that the county of Armagh was the only three-Membered constituency in Ireland, and he thought the Irish Members had good reason to complain of the fact that the county was to receive an undue number of Representatives when the Committee bore in mind the way in which Dublin was treated. The county of Armagh was to have three Representatives; while the county of Dublin, a much more important constituency, was to be deprived of its proper weight in the House of Commons by receiving only two. The county of Dublin, according to its population, was only 12,000 lower than the county of Armagh, and that was simply because the township of Pembroke had been taken out of it and
      38
      included in the City of Dublin. If it were included in the county, as it ought to be, unless the other townships were also included in the City of Dublin, the county of Dublin would have a far larger population than the county of Armagh. Therefore, Dublin absolutely suffered not only relatively by the jerrymandering which the constituencies had undergone, but also in a double sense, because the intrusion of the township of Pembroke within the municipal limits of the City of Dublin prevented the county from having a sufficient population to entitle it to three Members. Dublin was, therefore, not only cheated by the way in which the proposed extension of the city had been treated by the Boundary Commissioners, but the county was also deprived of the additional Member it would have been entitled to if the county boundaries had been properly arranged. This was the first of the Ulster counties which had been brought under the notice of the Committee; but what was to be said of the jerrymandering of one county might be said of all, so far as Ireland was concerned. Whatever course had been pursued in regard to any one of them was much the same as had been taken in regard to the rest. By the first scheme which was proposed by the Commissioners for the county of Armagh, the Nationalists would have carried two divisions of the county. He fully admitted that in the original scheme proposed by the Commissioners a slight error had been committed in regard to the population. He referred to that fact because the Amendments he was now proposing were very much in the direction of the original scheme of the Commissioners, and he preferred to revert to that scheme rather than lay himself open to any charge of jerrymandering the county for Nationalist purposes. He had, therefore, simply put down on the Paper the scheme of the Commissioners as already proposed before the minds of the Commissioners were affected by listening to the arguments brought forward by the Tory Representatives. It was an extraordinary circumstance that, with one exception, the scheme of the Bill was the scheme of the Tory Party. He referred to the case of Tiranny, which barony the Commissioners had adopted in favour of the Nationalists; but they had not adopted as much of it as was

      39
      necessary to prevent the Nationalist votes from being swamped. To use a catch word, there had not been too much jerrymandering, but just jerrymandering enough; and the result of it was to cheat the Nationalists out of two votes. The way in which the matter stood was this—three Members were given; the North of Ulster was, undoubtedly, Conservative; but the South was overwhelmingly Nationalist. The entire question was, therefore, how to arrange the Mid Division of the county so as to throw in a sufficient number of Orangemen from the North, and exclude a sufficient number of Nationalists of the South, the Southern end of the county being, at the present moment, overwhelmingly Nationalist. The Southern Division would be Nationalist under any circumstances; but by the scheme of the Commissioners it was made so prepon-deratingly Nationalist, that they would have a majority of between 5,000 or 6,000 at least. That had been done, as anybody would see, who referred to the statement contained in a Paper issued by the right hon. Baronet, dated March 17th, and prepared by Major Macpher-son, the gentleman who conducted the local inquiry on behalf of the Commissioners. It was somewhat extraordinary that wherever Major Macphorson had gone, with the sole exception of the county of Down, where he had made a small concession to the Nationalists, which, however, they could have done without—wherever Major Macpherson had gone a seat had been taken away from the Nationalists. He was really at a loss to know what promotion Major Macpherson was to get in return for the great services he had rendered to the Tory Party. He presumed that whenever the Tory Party came into Office Major Macpherson would be promoted to, at least, the dignity of a Major General. Hon. Members could read Major Macpherson's own notes, and would know exactly what it was that was proposed by the Tory Party in reference to this constituency. Mr. Peel, a solicitor of Armagh, put forward the Tory scheme, and Mr. Peel was a gentleman who would be a candidate for the representation of the Central Division of Armagh. He was a local Coroner, and Grand Master of an Orange Society. He was a gentleman who, on a recent occasion, had advised the Orangemen to bring in their
      40
      pockets not only a copy of Sankey's hymns, but a Colt's revolver. Mr. Peel's proposal was opposed by everybody on the popular side; and it was a remarkable fact that the division of the county corresponded with the original scheme of the Commissioners, so far as the barony of Orior was concerned. The Commissioners had now cut that barony into two, and, to suit their own purposes, they had thrown the upper and Orange end of the county into the Central Division in order to make weight. The Committee had heard a good deal about the necessity of adhering to strict geographical lines, and about compactness, and the desirability of maintaining well-marked boundaries; but the moment it suited the purposes of the Tory Party this gentleman had no hesitation whatever in departing from any principle of that kind; and, as a matter of fact, in the Northern Division he had abolished all the old baronies and other well-known boundary lines hitherto adopted for the purpose of compactness; whereas in other cases, when he had been asked to take a similar course, in order to secure compactness, his answer was—"No; I must adhere to the old barony lines." This striking high and low was afterwards resorted to for the purpose of jerrymandering the counties in order to assist the Tory Party. Major Macpherson's excuse for his conduct was certainly a pretty piece of official writing. In the county of Armagh more baronies were broken up than in any other Irish county, and so much was that the case that the Commissioner had found it necessary to say something in his own defence. He, therefore, said that some of the baronies were very irregular in shape, and he considered that an excellent reason for lopping so much off of a Conservative district as it was considered necessary to fill up the Central Division. For instance, the barony of O'Neiland West was included partly in North Armagh and partly in Mid Armagh; and a piece of land, forming a narrow projection something like a wen on a man's head, had been conveniently cut off. In the barony of Pews a piece of land projecting northward was also got rid of, and the land in the barony was distributed between the Mid Armagh and the South Armagh Divisions. Major Macpherson said that he had found it impossible to avoid in any new

      41
      arrangements the getting rid of the old boundaries. What was the use, then, of the Lord Lieutenant issuing Instructions to the Commissioners to respect the natural boundaries, if the Commissioners were to take a carte blanche, and act upon it just as they pleased, with the notion that whatever satisfied the Tory Party would satisfy the Government, and whatever the Boundary Commissioners agreed to the Government would force through the House of Commons? It virtually amounted to this—"If you say it would be better to have these separations, we (the Government) will use the Front Opposition Bench and the Treasury Bench as the two blades of a pair of scissors, in order to lop off any proposals that may be brought forward against your action." The Commissioners, therefore, went into the operation with a full knowledge that in whatever way they exercised their discretion they would be backed up by the Government, and by the Leaders of the Opposition in the House of Commons. He must say that no previous Commission had ever been sent out to discharge important duties with such an assurance as that. At the very least, when the Government gave the Boundary Commissioners the extraordinary powers possessed by this Commission, the first thing they should have had placed before their minds was the drag of the "rod in pickle" of public opinion. That drag had been entirely removed from them by the knowledge that any agreement come to between the Marquess of Salisbury and the Government would afterwards be ratified in the Act of Parliament; and not only had they that knowledge, but their minds were further affected by the extraordinary intimidatory address of the Marquess of Salisbury, who told the Orangemen, when they complained of the way in which the Bill might operate against them, to be of good cheer, and not to be in the least alarmed, because very much would depend on the spirit in which the Commissioners carried out their Instructions. They had now seen the manner in which the Commissioners had carried out their Instructions. They had taken out this long narrow strip from the barony of O'Neiland West, and this projection from Upper Fews, and by that means they had rendered the division practically impervious to the
      42
      Nationalists; whereas, as it originally stood, the Nationalists had a fair chance of carrying the county. This gentleman, Major Macpherson, put forward similar excuses for his operations in the barony of Tiranny and the barony of Orior; but all his precious excuses were simply so much "bosh." The evident object of Major Macpherson was to make such a boundary as would give the Tory Party an additional seat. He would like to tell the right hon. Baronet that this was a more serious matter for the peace of the North of Ireland than he seemed to think. There would be more heads broken over these jerrymandering schemes, more lives would ultimately be lost in election fights, and there would be more danger and difficulty in preserving the peace of Ireland, than by any modern invention of Her Majesty's Government. And why? Because in several counties—Donegal, Tyrone, Armagh, and Derry, the constituencies in more than one instance had been so manipulated as to make the balance of Parties pretty nearly equal. Future elections, therefore, would be scenes of the most frightful tumult; passions on each side would be strung up to the highest pitch of intensity; the Orange Lodges would issue their mandates, and the other side would be equally energetic, so that when the election come both Parties would be strung up to an extraordinary pitch of excitement, and it was highly probable that when the two Parties were running neck and neck some most deplorable occurrence would take place. It was much to be regretted that the Government should have placed this blister upon the North of Ireland. He did not complain, in the least degree, of the Tory Party getting their due proportion of seats in Ulster. They were certain to have had that under ordinary circumstances. They would have had their due proportion of seats under the original scheme of the Boundary Commissioners; but now they would have at least three or four seats they would otherwise never have been entitled to. The Catholic population of Armagh amounted to 47 per cent; and to give the Orangemen two seats out of three, under those circumstances, was to give a tremendous preponderance to the Tory Party. No doubt the Tory Party considered themselves extremely clever in having brought about these arrange-

      43
      ments; but it still remained to be seen which Party in Ulster would be allowed to derive most benefit from them. It was certain that whenever the Nationalists felt themselves aggrieved, they would still be able to sway the balance of power as regarded Liberal and Tory; and they would take good care to use it to the best advantage to themselves, and against the other side, whichever it might be. He had made this protest not with the hope of inducing the Government to assent to the Amendment he proposed to submit. He knew that they had sworn to the Marquess of Salisbury that those divisions should be constituted as they were set forth in the Bill; but he believed that it would be found necessary, in a few years, to pass another Bill for the purpose of arranging those divisions, and the Irish Members, therefore, intended to place their protest against the present measure on record, so that it should not be said that, as far as they were concerned, those divisions had been allowed to go by default. As a matter of fact, Her Majesty's Government had only extended the franchise to one set of people, because their electoral arrangements would be such that it would be quite impossible for the National and popular Party in Ulster to obtain the number of Members they were justly entitled to. The consequence would be that in future they would only have a bogus representation of Ulster opinion in the House of Commons. Perhaps he might be told by the right hon. Baronet that the Tory Party were extremely indignant at some of the divisions recommended by the Commissioners; but he should like to know what they had to be indignant at? He would like to know what they could propose which would make things worse than they were for the Nationalists, or better for themselves? Could they suggest any division of Armagh, or of any other county, which would give them greater advantage than they would obtain under the provisions of the present Bill? He would defy the Tory Party to produce out of any county in Ulster better provisions for themselves than were to be found in the present Bill. They knew very well that the Whig and Tory Party had held a conference in that House. They had met for the purpose of putting pressure upon the Government in order to make
      44
      the provisions better for themselves; but having met and considered the matter, they found that it was physically impossible to suggest any division of Ulster which would give them a single seat beyond what the present Bill gave them. He would freely make the Tory Party a present of any division of the Province of Ulster which they could make for their own purposes in a better way than the divisions already laid out for them. He could only say that the experience they had now gained of Major Macpherson, and of the other gentlemen upon the Commission who had been appointed to see fair play between the two Parties, completely proved to them that the Catholics and Nationalists of Ireland, and especially in Ulster, could place no reliance whatever on the bona fides of the Government, and that the Commissioners, like the agents appointed under the Land Act, were simply the nominees of the Orange Lodges in Ireland?
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 91, line 16, to leave out from the word "and," to the word "Tullymore," in line 23, inclusive, and insert the words "The barony of O'Neiland" West (except parishes of Armagh, Grange, Kildarton, and Mullaghhrack."—(Mr. Healy.)
      Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
      SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that, as the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy), in introducing the case of Armagh, had touched upon the religious question in that county between the Catholics and Protestants, it would be as well that, in answer to the remarks of the hon. and learned Member, he should place the exact figures upon that subject before the Committee. The total population of the county was 157,000, of whom 72,000 were Catholics and 85,000 almost exclusively Protestants. Now, the Northern portion of the county was predominantly Protestant, and the Southern predominantly Catholic. The hon. and learned Member was right in his supposition that that was, to some extent, a matter which had guided the arrangement of the county divisions. It was only natural to find that there would be a majority of Protestants in the Northern Division, and a majority of Catholics in the Southern Division;

      45
      and no doubt the Committee would expect to find that the numbers were pretty equally divided in the Mid Division. As a matter of fact, there were in the Mid Division 22,000 Catholics, and 21,000 who were exclusively Protestants. He, therefore, did not think that any conclusion could be drawn from the figures in regard to Catholics versus Protestants, to which the hon. and learned Member had referred. There was another point to which it was necessary to refer before he came to the main argument of the hon. and learned Member. The hon. and learned Member had spoken of Armagh being unduly favoured in its number of Members. It would have three Members, and it stood exactly in the middle of the list of counties having three Members, so far as its population was concerned—among those counties being Buckinghamshire, Berkshire, Warwickshire, and the East Biding of Yorkshire. Therefore, there was not much in that point. The hon. and learned Member complained that Dublin was only allowed two Members. But there was no special grievance in that respect in Ireland, because throughout the whole country hardships had been inflicted in that way, which were quite as patent as in Ireland. Putting that matter aside, and adverting to the main argument of the hon. and learned Member, this Amendment was to restore the original proposal of the Boundary Commissioners. Of course, it was rather tempting to the Committee, at first sight, to be reminded of the original proposal of the Commissioners; but when that proposal first came out, it was bitterly attacked as having been proposed, to use the words of The Freeman's Journal, "in utter ignorance." To a great extent, he admitted that that was the fact. The map did not show the actual configuration of the country, and, therefore, did not convey the necessary information.
      MR. HEALYremarked that the original proposal—the only portion attacked—was the scheme for the county of Donegal.
      SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that very little turned upon the precise application of the words he had referred to; but he would remind the Committee that in the case of the original schemes of the Boundary Commissioners in England there was hardly an instance in
      46
      which they had been rigidly adhered to. In some cases they had created as much feeling as appeared to have been produced in Ireland. For instance, the other night the hon. Member for Perthshire (Sir Donald Currie) made a somewhat plaintive appeal in regard to the division of Perthshire, on the ground that the manner in which the county had been divided would jeopardize the interests of the Liberal Party. But that was not the real matter for the Committee to consider, although similar objections had been put forward in connection with Cornwall and other places, as well as Perthshire, and large additions had been made to the original scheme of the Commissioners. The case of Staffordshire, also, was a very strong case; and there were others in which the original schemes had been subjected to what some persons considered an improvement, whereas, in the opinion of others, they had been rendered worse. The question of Armagh turned entirely upon the constitution of the Mid Division of the county, and upon whether Tanderagee should be included. If any hon. Member would look at the map, he would see that the proposed Mid Armagh Division was a much more natural and simple-looking division than the division originally proposed. It commended itself more to the eye; and he was also informed, by the proceedings at the local inquiry, that the Commissioners, having the map before them, came to an impartial conclusion. To have turned Tanderagee into the Eastern Division would have been a very artificial arrangement. The Commissioners, in their original scheme, were, no doubt, guided by some Return in reference to population, to which the hon. and learned Member had fairly and frankly referred, but which turned out to be erroneous. There was an important mistake made, the result of which was to give a discrepancy in the population of the Northern Division, so that it became necessary to include part of the district in the Mid Division. That had been done by transferring certain parishes, both from the North and South, to the Mid Division. No doubt, the Conservative Party, when before the Commissioners, applied for certain things to be done which had been done; but there were other things for which they asked which had not been conceded:

      47
      and, among other things, they urged that the district of O'Neiland should be put in the Southern Division. They further wanted to transfer two other districts to the Mid Division, which the Commissioners also refused. The Commissioners were of opinion that the amended scheme, besides being larger in population, provided in a better way for the pursuits of the population; but the equalization of the population was certainly the main reason why it was put forward. Throughout Ireland the Commissioners had endeavoured to make the county divisions equal, as far as possible, in respect of population. They certainly would have been charged with unfairness in their distribution of the population if they had not endeavoured to make each division as equal in population as possible. In England the Commissioners had endeavoured to accomplish the same object; and, no doubt, in some cases, where they had tried to equalize the population, there had been strong opposition on the part of hon. Members to the proposals put forward. He might instance the county of Cambridge in reference to the Isle of Ely, and also Lincolnshire.
      MR. HEALYsaid, there was no parallel between those cases and that of Armagh.
      SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the population of Lincolnshire and Cambridgeshire was very similar in its pursuits to that of Armagh. The Commissioners had endeavoured to pay deference to local sentiment; and, for all the reasons he had mentioned, he did not think it was desirable to disturb the arrangement as set forth in the Bill.
      COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, there was one point in connection with this subject on which he desired to express his opinion. The hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) took upon himself to assume that the whole of the Catholic population of Armagh would vote for the Nationalist Party, and that a large proportion of the members of other denominations would also vote for them. Now, he begged to repudiate in the strongest terms that idea of the hon. and learned Member. He believed that there was amongst the Catholic population of Ireland a very large body of loyal men, thoroughly devoted to the Union with this country, and thoroughly devoted to
      48
      law and order. He wanted the Committee to understand, speaking with knowledge on the subject, that there was not the slightest ground for supposing that the Roman Catholics would go with the Party represented by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) and by the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy)—the Party which was seeking for separation from this country.
      MR. SEXTONsaid, he would only observe, with reference to the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member who had just spoken, that the interests of political Parties and the unity desired by some hon. Gentlemen in respect of different parts of the Empire was not likely to be served by attempts to cheat any section of the people. Political unity could be best preserved by showing the people of all grades that they were fairly treated by that House, and that no question of creed would be permitted to exclude them from their just share in the politics of the nation. He held that the scheme of the Bill in the present case did not do that; it excluded them from their fair share of political influence. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who had just spoken had come to the conclusion that the Catholics in Ireland would vote in a solid mass as against the Nationalists, who, he implied, would not have a single Catholic vote behind them. The hon. and gallant Gentleman had had some experience—he made the remark in no invidious sense—but he would suggest to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that his political expulsion from the county of Sligo in 1880 was due to the fact that he had not a solid majority behind him. [Colonel KING-HARMAN: I had the Protestant vote behind me.] The Protestant vote was broken up into two portions. His (Mr. Sexton's) view of the question of creed in reference to the county of Armagh was that the National Party would have behind them a solid Catholic vote—and not only that, but also that of an intelligent section of the Protestants in Ireland. The right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had spoken of the Mid Armagh Division, and had described the division now proposed as being more symmetrical than that which appeared in the first scheme of the Commissioners. He (Mr. Sexton) said that the first scheme had

      49
      this recommendation—that it observed the instruction to have regard to the boundaries of Unions in existing areas. The original scheme of the Commissioners for the County of Armagh proposed to preserve the integrity of the barony boundaries—the North Division was composed of three baronies, with four parishes taken out; the Mid Division of several baronies, with five parishes added; and the Southern Division of three baronies, with one parish taken out. Therefore, the scheme should be acceptable from the point of view of those who wished to save expense in the revision of the electoral rolls, and who wished to give the public the convenience of well-known areas. But the final scheme of the Commissioners which the Government sought to press upon them was very different in character, and went against the instruction as to well-known areas. The list before him showed that the North Division was composed of one-half of a barony and part of another; in the case of the second division, not only were baronies cut up, but there was a string of names in one barony so long and complicated that it would be folly to endeavour to convoy to the Committee by any reference to those complicated areas any idea of the merits or demerits of the scheme adopted by the Commissioners. The right hon. Baronet had referred to the question of creed, and said that in the Mid Division of Armagh there were 23,000 Catholics and 28,000 Protestants there. He (Mr. Sexton) should not mention the name of Catholic or Protestant in this debate, because he held that future political action in Ireland would not be governed or found to be materially influenced by any difference of creed. The plea taken up by the Tory Party was that Protestants, as such, were entitled to have separate representation in Ireland, and he emphasized that plea, which he (Mr. Sexton) rejected, as having no reference to the question. The Commissioners found there would be no use in jerrymandering the Northern Division of Armagh, where the Catholic majority was 20,000, or the Southern Division, where the Catholic majority was 12,000. Now, in the Mid Division the Catholics and Protestants under the original scheme were about equally divided, and there was a chance at first that the Nationalists would have
      50
      what the Americans called "a fair show" in that division without running to extremes. The right hon. Baronet said that when the first scheme was devised the Commissioners had no local knowledge. But he hold, on the contrary, that the first scheme of the Commissioners was more suited than their final scheme to the natural features of the county, because by the final scheme they had taken from Mid Armagh a great part of the barony of Lower Fews, and by so doing they had not only violated the instruction which directed them to have regard to the boundaries of well-known areas, but had also overlapped the great natural boundary of the division, and thrown the electors of Fews into a division with which they had no kind of interest. What was the result? The Commissioners, by disregarding the practical considerations which ought to have guided them, had produced a district which contained 25,000 Catholics and 28,000 Protestants; and they had done it by a treble operation. It was all nonsense to tell them that the Commissioners had made that change out of any regard for their Instructions. No question as to the pursuits of the people arose in reference to the county of Armagh, except in a part of the Northern Division. There were some small manufactories in Newry and in the Northern Division; but they were of so trifling a character as to be unworthy of observation. The pursuits of the people were for all practical purposes agricultural, and the fraction of them engaged in manufactures of any kind outside the town of Newry was so small as not to be appreciable, and such as certainly did not entitle them to consideration on an occasion like the present. Now, what was the character of the treble operation he had referred to? First, half of the barony of Lower Fews had been put away from the Mid Division. That was to say, the Catholic people of Lower Fews were not allowed to remain in the division of Mid Armagh, where they would have produced that equality of population which, in their opinion, would have given them a fair chance at an election. Therefore they were cut off from the Mid Division, not because there was any difference in the pursuits of the two portions of the barony—not because any considerations of boundary

      51
      made it necessary, and not because the arrangement was dictated by the natural features of the country—for the pursuits of the people were identical—the boundaries had to be broken to meet the exigencies of the scheme, and for the same reason mountains had been overleaped. What were the other alterations to be made? Two districts of opposite composition were taken—the one from the South, the other from the North—and thrown into the Mid Division of Armagh. Thus, where the Catholics had a chance they were cut off from their natural division of the county. And when he saw that one alteration threw out a large body of the Catholic people, and that the other brought in two Protestant populations—when he saw that the Catholics had been brought down to 25,000, and the Protestants left in a majority of 28,000—then, he said, it was apparent that Major Macpherson, in spite of the plausible plea in his Report, was influenced by no other motive than that of gratifying the desire of the agents of the landlord class who appeared before him, to give to them not only the North but also the Mid Division of the county of Armagh. The hon. and learned Gentleman who opened this debate invited the Committee to consider what would be the political effect of this at the next General Election. Well, the people of Armagh would probably remember then the two schemes of the Commissioners, and that the first scheme was not an unfair one—the scheme which the Commissioners drew while they were impartial, when they were in Dublin and consulted the maps of the county, and the barony boundaries, and the Census Returns, and before they came to consider the question of creeds; and the Catholic people would remember what occurred when the Commissioners went down to the county—that an Orange attorney, a Grand Master of an Orange Lodge, who would himself be a candidate at the next election in Armagh, appeared before the Commissioners and dictated to them a scheme the essential parts of which they accepted. The Catholic people would remember that at the dictation of this Orange attorney a great body of Catholic electors were thrown out of the division with which their rights and their interests were connected. The whole effect and purpose of this elaborate farce called
      52
      an inquiry was simply to throw dust into the eyes of the people. He was convinced that its result would be the production of feelings destructive of the harmony which ought to exist amongst people of different creeds; that the change made from the original scheme of the Commissioners which Irish Members desired to maintain would not have the effect which the Government intended, and that the Nationalist Party at the next General Election would be able to say to them that they had tried to be dishonest and failed.
      MR. KENNYsaid, the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke), in his argument against the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy), had stated that the Catholic voters in South Armagh outnumbered the Protestant voters as largely as the Protestant voters in the North Division of the county. But the case was the very reverse of what he had stated, and it followed that a serious injustice would be done to the people of the county of Armagh. The Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monaghan was one which, in his judgment, ought to commend itself to the Committee, because it simplified the scheme of the Commissioners. In the scheme of the Commissioners which had been submitted to Parliament and adopted by the Government a number of divisions were proposed with boundaries never before known outside the localities. They proposed to divide localities and towns; and under this scheme it would be a most perplexing and difficult thing for persons resident in the county of Armagh to know in which division of the county they would be registered as voters. He observed that in the North Division of Armagh it was proposed to divide six parishes and about 20 towns, a course which he thought would be most inconvenient and perplexing in its effect. He contended that the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend would be infinitely superior to the scheme of the Commissioners which the Government had adopted, inasmuch as it proposed to adhere to the old boundaries known in the county for hundreds of years. Again, his hon. and learned Friend's scheme, as against that of the Government in respect of the Northern Division, was much more advantageous, because the scheme of the

      53
      Commissioners was more complex in respect of North Armagh than South Armagh. The Commissioners had adopted baronial lines only in two instances, whereas they proposed to divide parishes and town-lands in 50 cases at least. Now, his hon. and learned Friend proposed to follow the baronial lines all through, except in one instance. He felt confident that if the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General (Mr. Shaw Lefevre), or whichever Member of the Government remained in charge of the Bill, would consider the remarks he had made, and compare the relative merits of the two schemes, he would be forced to admit that the scheme of his hon. and learned Friend had advantages which were apparent. He could not understand how it was that the Commissioners had departed so very much from the original scheme which they put forward, and which was almost identical with the scheme now proposed. He did not intend to make any remarks upon the relative strength of population in the three divisions; but he would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill from a geographical stand-point, and say, that whatever the result might be this scheme of the Commissioners was bad in itself, and ought not, therefore, to be accepted by the Committee.
      MR. TREVELYANadmitted that hon. Gentlemen had argued the case very quietly and fairly, though the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton), warming to the subject, had said that by the scheme of the Commissioners an injustice was done which would be remembered by the electors of Armagh for generations to come. He thought, however, that the arguments with which the hon. Member supported that view would hardly have produced that amount of lasting indignation in the minds of the inhabitants of Armagh. The hon. Gentleman had said that in one of the divisions of Armagh the Protestants—he (Mr. Trevelyan) was bound to use that division of the population as it had been used throughout—had an overwhelming majority, that in another division the Catholics had an overwhelming majority, and that the balance of Parties was in the Central Division. He said, also, that two additions were made by the Commissioners in their revised scheme to the Central Division, both of them consisting of an infusion of Pro-
      54
      testants, and that there was one deduction from the division which was notoriously one of the Catholic population. The hon. Member spoke of the three operations as being all equally unacceptable from his point of view; but the hon. Member himself must allow that it was necessary to make an addition to Mid Armagh. The Commissioners had, in their original scheme, made an incorrect calculation to the extent of 6,000—the population of Mid Armagh was short by 6,000, and the population of North Armagh was excessive by 6,000. In order to bring up the population of Mid Armagh to its proper level it was evidently necessary to take the excess population from North Armagh. The hon. Member could not deny that, and that at once accounted for the great effusions of Protestants to which the hon. Member objected. That brought them to the question of the inclusion of Kildarton on the one hand, and the exclusion of Lower Fews on the other. The hon. Member for Ennis (Mr. Kenny), speaking of the North and South Divisions, had said that there was a considerable majority of Protestants in the one and of Catholics in the other; and, speaking of the third division, he had said Protestants and Catholics were in about equal proportion. The statement of the hon. Gentleman must not be taken too literally, because the proportion of Catholics to Protestants in the South was as two to one, whereas in the North the proportion of Protestants to Catholics was as 12 to 5. As to the inclusion of Kildarton in Mid Armagh, it must be borne in mind that the Commissioners were governed by two things—they were governed to a certain extent by the wishes of the population, and to a very much greater extent by the pursuits of the people. On that point they spoke very decidedly. They stated that the Northern Division included considerable industrial towns, and that in the central part of the county there were considerable though smaller industrial populations. In their description of Mid Armagh they stated that there were many flax mills, and that the district they had included in the North was more identical with the pursuits of the Northern than the Southern part of the county. The Southern part of the county, they said, was entirely agricultural. The determination of the Com-

      55
      missioners was suggested by the pursuits of the population. Now, as to the indignation which this arrangement would create in Armagh or elsewhere, he must say he thought the inhabitants of Armagh would admit, when they came to consider the matter coolly, that the general result of the arrangement would be to give fair and proportional representation to the county, though a slight advantage might be given to the Protestants. Turning from the question of population, he thought that anyone who looked at the map would acknowledge that no county was more naturally and sensibly divided than Armagh. North Armagh consisted of the genuine Northern part of the county; Mid Armagh was the middle of the county, and South Armagh was not only the Southern part of the county, but it was the Southern part of the county which, from its physical appearance, bore the marks of being homogeneous. He had studied very carefully the statistics of the relative populations—Catholic and Protestant—in the different counties of Ireland; and he was certainly very much struck by the manner in which the probable electoral advantages would be distributed between those counties. He believed that result had been attained by the Commissioners following the admirably clear and perfectly impartial Instructions which were laid down in their charter of appointment. He was satisfied that any slight advantage which the Protestants might have obtained in Armagh would be compensated for in other counties; and he could "not but believe that the expressions of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) about the action of the Commissioners would, on the whole, be found to be as exaggerated as the counter charges brought against Catholics in other divisions.
      MR. HEALYsaid, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Trevelyan) had referred to counter charges. Who brought them?
      MR. TREVELYANsaid, he referred to other counties in which complaints were made.
      MR. HEALYsaid, that, unfortunately for the contention of the right hon. Gentleman, the only case in which it was proposed to change a division of Ulster was that of Fermanagh. The noble Viscount the Member for Fermanagh (Viscount Crichton) was the only person.
      56
      of distinction in the Conservative Party who proposed to make a change in a division. The hon. Baronet the Member for Coleraine (Sir Hervey Bruce) attempted to get another Member for Derry; but that was another matter. The noble Viscount was the only person who had any fault to find with any division in Ulster. But in Fermanagh there were 55 per cent of Catholics; therefore the noble Viscount's proposal was absurd. When the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Trevelyan) attempted to ride off on the pretence that some of the Tory Party objected to this scheme, he could not have examined the Amendments which had been put upon the Paper. The right hon. Gentleman said that the divisions had been arrived at because the Commissioners followed the admirable, clear, and impartial Instructions of the Lord Lieutenant. Why, the complaint of the Irish Members was that the Commissioners had not followed the Lord Lieutenant's Instructions; and in no county were there more glaring or more bare-faced instances of a disregard of those Instructions than in Armagh. One of the Instructions of His Excellency was—
      "Subject to this important rule, each division shall be as compact as possible with respect to geographical position, and shall be based upon well-known existing areas such as baronies, townlands," &c.
      In the original scheme regard was had to well-known existing areas; but in the scheme adopted parishes and town-lands had been split up. Armagh afforded a very gross case. In some eases where jerrymandering had been resorted to something like decency had been observed; but there were more gross cases of splitting up baronies and even parishes in Armagh than in any other county in Ireland. It would have been bad enough if the Commissioners had split up baronies; but they had not been content with that, for they had split up parishes, a thing which had only been done in one other county—namely, Tyrone. If that was such a fine and delicate matter, he would like to know why it was, if Mid Armagh was short originally, it was now 2,000 plus—the population of Mid Armagh was now 2,000 more than that of South Armagh, and 1,000 more than that of North Armagh? It was this 2,000 which made all the difference; for there were in

      57
      the district exactly 2,000 more Protestants than Catholics. The arrangement was so beautiful that it was to be admired. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Trevelyan) had said the Commissioners had had regard to the pursuits of the population. The Irish Members did not believe it. The right hon. Gentleman made his remarks, of course, in good faith; but he had had nothing to do with the arrangement of the divisions. He (Mr. Healy) could understand the Government saying—"We appointed as Commissioners men of character and of the greatest ability; we entrusted them with plenary powers; and we promised the Marquess of Salisbury we would stick to everything they did. "That was the defence one Minister had made. But another Minister had said that in the arrangement of the boundaries the Commissioners had had regard to the pursuits of the population, while a third Minister had said—"Oh, this barony had too much, and this had too little." It was appalling to think the Irish Members had been treated in this manner, night after night, under the pretence of fairness. When the Government insisted upon adding hypocrisy to their other sins, it was a little more than he and his hon. Friends could stand. Reference had been made by an hon. and gallant Gentleman above the Gangway that the Party led by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) relied on the Catholics, but could not rely on the Protestants. Why, he (Mr. Healy) would not be in the House if he had not received many Protestant votes. The Catholics of Monaghan did not command a majority on the electoral roll when he was elected; but he was elected by a majority of 365 votes. It was nonsense to talk about religious denominations. It was like the Pyrenees—it no longer divided the people, and the Government would find that out before long. The Government had made two populations, one having a very narrow majority; they had thrown such a bone of contention into Ulster by this jerrymandering scheme that at the next General Election they would be required, in all probability, to incur an outlay of £100,000 for extra police. All the Orangemen were armed, and Party riots and tumults would occur. By this scheme a virulent poison was put into the bowels of Ulster; and at every General Election
      58
      until the Nationalists got the upper hand, as they would, there would be disorders and tumults. Every one of the Ulster counties, one after another, would drop into the National phalanx. The fact that in the next Parliament there would be 85 Nationalists returned would be a great magnet to the people of Ulster. They would not care to be left out in the cold, and therefore they would flock to the one fold. He trusted the Government would see the propriety of making the arrangements in County Armagh provisional until it was seen which Party got the upper hand. If it was seen that the Nationalists gained the ascendancy let them have the advantage; if the Tories gained that position let them have the advantage. He and his hon. Friends objected to have their baronies and parishes—Lower and Upper Orior, Lower and Upper Fews, and O'Neiland West—split up contrary altogether to the Instructions of the Lord Lieutenant. Finally, let him point out to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Trevelyan), who had said that in the original scheme there was in one division an overplus of 6,000, that the Nationalist Party proposed a scheme which would have equalized the population without touching the baronies to the same extent as the Commissioners had done; and it was a very remarkable thing that the Commissioners, in their Report to Parliament, omitted all reference to that scheme. It was scarcely fair to the Nationalists. The pledge was obtained from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke) that he would present a Paper showing the reasons why the Commissioners made alterations in the original schemes respecting the counties of Armagh, Donegal, Kerry, and Tyrone, and the City of Dublin. It was very strange that in that Paper there was no mention of the fact that a scheme which would have equalized the population without cutting up the baronies was laid before the Commissioners by the Nationalists.
      MR. PLUNKETsaid, the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) seemed rather to call upon someone on the Conservative Benches to enter into this debate. He (Mr. Plunket) did not wish to enter into the discussion in a more heated or controversial spirit

      59
      than was absolutely necessary. The hon. and learned Member had challenged the Opposition why they did not put down Amendments in the same proportion that he and his hon. Friends had done. There was one very good reason to be given for it; and that was that in order to give the Amendment which the hon. and learned Member had put down, in this instance, a colour of support, the hon. and learned Member had been obliged, with all his great ability and ingenuity, to have recourse to the most extraordinary series of arguments he (Mr. Plunket) ever heard. Amongst other things the hon. and learned Gentleman had said there was a meeting of "Whigs and Tories, and they tried to invent some more favourable scheme; but they had to give up the task as impossible. There might have been such a meeting; but he could assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that that was the first time he had heard of it. Well, what was another ground on which the hon. and learned Gentleman objected to the Commissioners' scheme? He said it was a violent attempt to produce something like equality in the various parts of Ulster, and that if they succeeded in doing that they would pour a most deadly poison into the bowels of the Province. He (Mr. Plunket) did not understand what was the alternative the hon. and learned Gentleman suggested, because it was perfectly plain that if they were not to equalize, as far as they could, the Protestant and Catholic populations, they must give preponderance to one or the other. If they were to give preponderance, to which Party ought it to be given? He should say to that Party which was, on the whole, in a majority. According to the reasoning of the hon. and learned Member, it was the duty of the Commissioners to give the preponderance to the Protestants, who were in a very considerable majority in the county. He did not think that argument, if the effect he had stated were given to it, would be exceedingly satisfactory to most of the hon. Member's Friends. The fact of the matter was that there was a very plain and good reason given by the Commissioners for what they had done, a reason not resting on any question of equalizing the Protestant or Catholic populations. The Commissioners reported—
      60
      "In this particular instance we have been obliged to depart from the ordinary process of going by boundaries of baronies and parishes, because in this particular county some of the baronies are very irregular in shape, and parishes in a great many cases overlap the boundaries, so we must fall back on the town-land areas to a considerable extent, so as to get the divisions as compact as possible, and containing populations as nearly equal and as similar in pursuits as possible."
      They went on to say that in each of the three divisions they had succeeded in making the boundaries compact. He submitted that the Commissioners had not founded their decision on any such ground as that of giving preponderance to one Party or the other; and therefore the Committee were bound to support the conclusion arrived at.
      MR. SEXTONsaid, it was quite unnecessary for the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Plunket) to explain why his Party had not put down Amendments to the proposals of the Commissioners. The Tory Party had got all they could expect to get, therefore there was no reason why the right hon. and learned Gentleman should elaborately explain why that Party had not proposed to amend the scheme. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had suggested that as the Protestants were in a considerable majority in Armagh they ought to have two seats, and that the Catholics ought to be content with the one seat which remained. But wherever the Catholics had an overwhelming majority the same argument did not apply in the view of the Tory Party. No matter how small, how numerically trivial, the Protestant minority in any place might be, it was argued that they ought to have a Member. The argument which was considered very good by the co-religionists of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, when applied to the counties of Ulster, was considered by them worthless when it was applied to other counties of Ireland. After all, the Protestants had only a slight majority in Armagh—there were 72,000 Catholics and something over 80,000 Protestants. He thought the right hon. and learned Gentleman would agree with him that it would have been more absolutely fair, and more in accordance with the principles of equity, if his coreligionists—the Catholics—had had an equal chance in the Mid Division of the county. It was not fair that such a

      61
      division should have been artificially procured as to give one creed a dominance, especially when the members of the two creeds in the division were ordinarily equal. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Trevelyan) had greatly simplified the case. He had argued the matter with a frankness which the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke) might be inclined to call excessive. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy had said that it was necessary to equalize the population, and to have regard to the pursuits of the people, and had pleaded those two facts in justification of the scheme now before the Committee. What did he say to the arrangement of his (Mr. Sexton's) hon. and learned Friend? It was true that the middle division would have 6,000 less of a population than the upper division in the scheme of the Commissioners. Why, then, in order to adjust the balance, had they started by taking a number out of the middle division? An easy way to adjust the balance of population would have been to take 3,000 people out of the Northern Division, there being a difference of 6,000 between the Northern and the middle. But that would not have answered the purpose. It was necessary to take a great number of Catholics, and he, therefore, said that in the alleged pursuit of equality of population the Commissioners had been guilty of a manifest absurdity, for in order to increase the population of a division they had taken a large population out of it. He challenged contradiction when he said that such manufactures as there were in Armagh did not exist in the Northern Division and in Newry. Except in Newry, the North Armagh manufactures did not exist in any part of the county. North Armagh was a manufacturing division, and Mid Armagh was agricultural. The principle of the identity of pursuits of the population had been flagrantly outraged. The Government took a large body of artizans out of the only artizan division of the county, and threw them in amongst the farmers, with whom they had no community of interest, and in like manner they took farmers from agricultural districts and threw them amongst artizans.
      MR. SMALLsaid, he was glad to have the opportunity of taking part in the discussion, as he possessed an intimate local knowledge of the county of Armagh, and, moreover, had the advantage of having been present at the boundary inquiry held by Major Macpherson. When the original boundary scheme for the county was issued, it was generally considered a very fair one. It divided only one barony, O'Neiland West—which from its large size would have to be intersected, and very slightly another. The Commissioners stated that the population of the Northern Division would be 55,083, of the Mid Division 51,166, and of the Southern Division 51,033. However, at the inquiry it was announced that the Commissioners had made a serious error in stating these figures, and that they ought to have been for North Armagh 56,233, for Mid Armagh 49,966, and for South Armagh 51,033. There would, therefore, have been a difference of 6,267 between the highest and lowest division, and it became necessary to make some alteration in the scheme. At the inquiry he (Mr. Small) had proposed an alteration to equalize the population, which would have necessitated the transfer of parts of two parishes only—the transfer of the part of Loughgall which lay in the barony of O'Neiland West and had a population of 3,302, from North Armagh to Mid Armagh, and the transfer of the part of Mullaghbrack, in the same barony, with a population of 1,339, from Mid Armagh to South Armagh. These changes would not have divided any baronies beyond those intersected in the original scheme, and they would have left the populations of the three divisions as follows:—North Armagh 52,931, 'Mid Armagh 51,929, and South Armagh 52,372. The Conservatives proposed an utterly absurd scheme, which would have intersected no less than six baronies out of a total of eight. Now, what had the Boundary Commissioners done in the revised scheme, for the division of the county? They had divided four baronies and seven parishes. In dividing two of those parishes they had adhered to barony lines which already intersected those parishes; but in dividing the remaining five they had not done that, but had actually divided the parishes by town-

      63
      lands, and that although some of those parishes laid in two baronies. They had joined together parts of the county which had no connection, either legal, business, or social, with each other, and people who had no interests in common. As regarded the question of equality of population, the plan which he (Mr. Small) put forward at the inquiry would have left a difference of 1,002 people between the highest and lowest division, the Commissioners left a difference of 2,213. Then, as to compactness, the Commissioners had framed the Mid Division so that a line drawn due North and North through it at a certain point would be about 15 miles long; but a line due North and South, a couple of miles east of that point, would be only about four miles long. It might be considered that Lurgan and Portadown would be the principal political centres in the North Division, Armagh City in the Mid Division, and Newry in the South Division; yet the Commissioners had put into the South Division some places which were about three and a-half miles from Armagh and 12 miles from Newry. The parish of Lisnadil seemed to have been particularly hardly treated. It laid in two baronies, and had now been so cut and carved that it was almost impossible to know, at first sight, in which division any townland was. In one case the Commissioners had transferred the four townlands of Cashel, Foley, Segahan, and Ballymacnabb from Mid to South Armagh. They were very near to Armagh City in the Armagh Union, and Armagh was their market town. It was rather curious that in three of those there was not a single Protestant householder, and in the fourth very few. He presented some days ago a Petition, which he understood was signed by every householder in the four town-lands, protesting against the change. The Commissioners at first put the entire barony of Lower Orior into the Southern Division. Now, they had put into the Middle Division that very considerable portion of the barony which was comprised in the parishes of Kilmore and Ballymore. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy (Mr. Trevelyan) had said that the Commissioners stated that the Tanderagee district, which consisted of Kilmore and Ballymore, was connected with the
      64
      North of the county. Then, why did they not put it into the Northern Division? Along the Eastern side of the county and through this district there ran, from North to South, the Great Northern Railway, which gave the people facilities of direct access to Lurgan and Portadown in the North, and to Newry in the South. Anyone from the district desiring to go to the City of Armagh had to make a considerable detour by rail, or else to drive by road across the entire county. The Commissioners had taken this district from the South, with which it had some connection and direct intercourse. They had not added it to the North, with which it had also some connection and direct intercourse; but they had added it to the Middle Division, with which it had not any connection or intercourse whatever. He (Mr. Small) had presented Petitions from almost every parish in the county which was affected by the alterations in the boundaries, complaining of them. He was not aware that any Petitions had been presented on the opposite side. In fact, arguments to insert in any such Petitions could not have been found. He did not see any Ulster Members present who would oppose the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy); and he hoped the right hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill would accept it.
      MR. BIGGARsaid, the discussion had spread over a very considerable amount of space in point of time, and also a very considerable amount of space in the way of argument. As to the influences which were supposed to have been brought to bear upon the Boundary Commissioners, and also as to what ought to be the decision of the Committee, he thought himself that it was rather unfortunate—indeed, that it was very unfortunate—that the Committee should be called upon to decide a question of this sort on the ground of the religious Parties who were affected by the boundaries of the particular divisions. But, at the same time, he thought it was legitimate, for the opponents of the scheme as it now stood, to endeavour to find out some reason why the Boundary Commissioners had changed the plans so very much from those originally supplied to them as the provisional proposition upon which to base their inquiry. He wished to say this—

      65
      that he bad had an opportunity of seeing the boundaries, not of very many counties in Ireland, but of some of them, and that he thought the original plans were superior in point of impartiality and sound judgment to the boundaries which were ultimately decided upon. He said that because he thought the reason was that the parties who drew up the plans originally were the Ordnance Survey officers, who had practical and great personal knowledge of the maps of those places—and not only of the maps, but also of the natural configuration of the land. They knew what the real boundaries ought to be very much better than anyone could who simply took their view's from the plan of the Surveys, such as hon. Members were obliged to do, by means of the information supplied them for their guidance. He believed the great complaint in connection with the decision the Boundary Commissioners had come to in connection with this county of Armagh was that they entirely ignored the written Instructions given to them by the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. The Instructions of the Lord Lieutenant were that so far as possible the Boundary Commissioners should conform to the local boundaries, baronial parishes, and town lands. They had not the power to divide the town lands, but they bad the power to divide other districts. He must say that the right hon, Baronet the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had seemed to him to very much undervalue the importance of a barony in Ireland as a local description of a particular district, and for this reason. They knew that in Ireland a barony was a local area, which was especially used for taxation purposes by the Grand Juries—for laying on the taxation in respect to new roads, new bridges, and so forth. Nothing was more common than to lay a particular rate upon a particular barony, and in other places to levy it on the county at largo. So that, in point of fact, the baronies were important areas in connection with the taxation of Ireland and in connection with the local county government of Ireland as it at present existed. More than that, they had bodies of local taxpayers in Ireland who met together in the baronies to decide upon certain local repairs to be effected, and which were afterwards au-
      66
      thorized by the Grand Juries. Those baronies were much more important areas than the right hon. Baronet and the Government seemed to think them, or that Major Macpherson had seemed to think them. As a matter of fact, Major Macpherson seemed to know very little about the wishes of the Irish people in the counties. The Instructions of the Lord Lieutenant had been so flagrantly set at defiance in this instance that they had good reason to ask why the Boundary Commissioners had so acted. The only explanation they could arrive at was that Major Macpherson had adopted the course he pursued in order to favour one particular party at the expense of another. If the boundaries had been impartially drawn up, nobody would have known anything about the question of religion—certainly the Boundary Commissioners would have known nothing about it, and would not have taken it into account. As had been shown by the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Small), in some places districts had been put in, and in other places taken out—place after place had been treated in that way in the county of Armagh—so as to reverse the effect of the original scheme. In districts where, if the original scheme had been adopted, there would have been a substantial majority of Catholics, alterations had been made, the result of which would be to give a substantial majority of non-Catholics. If it had not been that the Commissioners had investigated the religious opinions of the inhabitants, instead of acting altogether impartially, the result would have been much more favourable to the Nationalist Party. He did not himself value to a very enormous extent the difference between non-Catholics and Catholics, because they knew very well, as had been proved in the county of Monaghan by the fact that a large number of non-Catholics must have voted for the hon. and learned Member who at present sat for that county (Mr. Healy), that the Nationalist Party would get the votes of non-Catholics almost as readily as they got those of Catholics. What they had seen taking place at the Monaghan Election, no doubt would occur in other places. With regard to the hon. and gallant Gentleman who represented County Dublin (Colonel King-Harman), he now posed as anti-Catholic, anti-Home

      67
      Ruler, and anti-Nationalist; but he (Mr. Biggar) could remember the time when the hon. and gallant Gentleman was elected as a Home Ruler. He remembered that at the first great political meeting he (Mr. Biggar) had ever attended, the hon. and gallant Member was one of the leading speakers of the Nationalist Party. As to Irish land, he (Mr. Biggar) certainly held a very strong opinion that it would be extremely difficult to bring up a non-Catholic tenant farmer to vote against an Irish Nationalist, seeing the advantage he had to get from his support of the Nationalist Party compared with what was likely to result from his support of one or the other of the English Parties. But, be those things as they might, the fact still remained that the question of religion had been taken into account in the county of Armagh, and alterations had been made in the original scheme which should not have been made. The hon. Member for Wexford was the Coroner for one of the districts of the county, and he knew a great deal that the Committee was not acquainted with in regard to those particular transactions. He (Mr. Biggar) thought the Committee should be guided by such Gentlemen, for they had good opportunities of forming accurate opinions, and were well possessed of every local knowledge. He thought that they should agree to the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan, and show that the Committee was guided by strict rules of impartiality, and not by the principles which had evidently actuated Major Macpherson, and which had influenced him in his decisions when dealing with the county of Armagh.
      Question put.
      The Committee divided:—Ayes 70; Noes 22: Majority 48.—(Div. List, No. 110.)
      MR. BIGGARsaid, that in line 14 he wished to move to omit the word "The."
      MR. WARTONsaid, that if he might be allowed, before that Question was put, he should like to protest against what took place that morning. Some hon. Members would, no doubt, remember the circumstances, which were these. After a great many hon. Gentlemen had left the House, particularly among the Tories and Liberals, that part of the Schedule affecting Antrim, and particu-
      68
      larly those divisions in which the Conservative Members were most interested, had been considered. Liberal and Conservative Members, to whose absence he was referring, had gone away under the impression that the Committee would not proceed beyond the Scotch part of the Schedule, and that County Antrim, therefore, would not be considered. He wished to elicit now some sort of promise, pledge, or assurance from the Government that they would consult the wishes of those Members before Report as to the naming of the divisions. He did not know what names would be preferred by those hon. Members who, as he said, were most interested in the county of Antrim; at any rate, he did not wish that their silence should give consent to what had taken place that morning in their absence. He understood that some of those hon. Members were horrified that morning when they were informed as to what had taken place at the late Sitting some hours previously. The hon. Members for Carrickfergus (Mr. Greer) and Lisburn (Sir Richard Wallace) had been especially disgusted when they understood that the case of their county had been brought on, when they had been told that the Committee would not proceed beyond the Scotch part of the Schedule
      MR. CALLANsaid, that if any answer to the censure now uttered by the hon. and learned Member upon the Government for proceeding with the Irish part of the Bill last night were necessary, it would be found in the condition of the Committee at that moment. Notwithstanding that full Notice had been given of the part of the Schedule which was to be considered, there was not a single Irish Tory or Whig Member present to object to the alterations. Though Notice had been given for a fortnight, there was not a single Irish Tory or Whig Member present, showing that those hon. Gentlemen had given it up as a bad game.
      MR. HEALYsaid, that perhaps he might say, to ease the mind of the hon. and learned Member, that he (Mr. Healy) had taken the trouble to consult two hon. Members—namely, the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Tipperary (Mr. J. O'Connor), who was also a Cork man, and a third, he himself (Mr. Healy)—

      69
      being a Cork man—had carefully considered the question. The result of their meeting and consultation had been the Amendments that were put on the Paper. He thought the hon. and learned Gentleman might feel perfectly sure that all scruples in the case had been met.
      MR. WARTONsaid, he did not complain of that; but what he complained of was that the recommendations of the Commissioners in regard to Conservative districts had been extinguished in the absence of Conservative Members.
      SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he had answered the hon. and learned Gentleman on that point yesterday.
      MR. WARTONsaid, the right hon. Baronet's answer had simply been that he had declared that he had privately intimated that it was his intention to proceed with the Schedule so far as it affected the county of Antrim. But the right hon. Baronet's public announcement had been that he should proceed with the Schedule until that part affecting Scotland had been disposed of. The private announcement was given after the public announcement.
      SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that he had said what had taken place between himself and the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket).
      MR. WARTONagain rose.
      THE CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the hon. and learned Member that he is entirely out of Order in the course he is adopting. He has addressed the Committee three times, although there is really no Question before it.
      MR. HEALYsaid, he wished to move, on page 94, line 4, to leave out "Youghal," and insert "South-East Cork." He admitted that there was extreme difficulty in dealing with the divisions of Cork. The county consisted of seven divisions, and any hon. Member who had taken the trouble to examine the map would see that it was only after most mature consideration that the subject could be satisfactorily dealt with. A meeting of the Irish Party had been hold upon the subject, and they had come to the conclusion that it was impossible to deal with the matter in any other way than that proposed in the Amendment.
      SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he should have suggested a transposition.
      70
      The most Eastern part of Cork was in Youghal; therefore he should be inclined to call Youghal "East," and Bandon "South-East Cork." He would suggest that the hon. and learned Member should put down his Amendment for Report.
      MR. HEALYsaid, it was quite immaterial to the Irish Members how that was done; but if the right hon. Baronet would consider the advisability of doing as was proposed, they would be satisfied. The right hon. Gentleman would, no doubt, see the reasonableness of the proposition.
      THE CHAIRMANsaid, that if the matter were discussed, it must be on a formal Motion. As yet the hon. and learned Member had not moved anything.
      SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: We will discuss the matter privately.
      MR. HEALYsaid, in moving the Amendment standing in his name, he wished to take the same course as he had taken in the case of the county of Armagh. He should confine himself to moving the omission of lines 5 to 10, inclusive, which embraced the names of the baronies and parishes which the Government proposed to include in the Northern Division of the county of Donegal, and it was upon that part of the Schedule that he would take the discussion. He regretted that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (M\r. Plunket) was not in his place; but he would be extremely well represented during the discussion by the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton), who, of course, took a deep interest in everything concerning the county of Donegal. He had to consider the way in which the Commissioners had dealt with constituencies in which Catholics were in the majority as compared with places in which they were in the minority. For his own part he was in favour of the fullest and fairest representation of all parties and all religions in the county; he thought the more fully they were represented the better it would be for the general interest. But a moment or two ago, on his Amendment in connection with Armagh, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket) said that as the Protestants were in a large majority in

      71
      Armagh, surely it was only fair that they should have two seats out of the three that were given to the county, and that argument would have been admirable if a similar course were pursued in counties in which Catholics were in the majority. But let the Committee observe the way in which the Government dealt with the Irish counties. In every county in which Catholics were in the minority no representation had been given to them whatever except in the two instances where it could not be avoided—that was to say, in the county of Down, which had four Members, and in the county of Armagh, which had three. In the county of Antrim, where there were 55,000 Catholics, who were clearly entitled to a seat, there would be no Catholic representation at all; in Belfast, where the Catholics were in similar proportion, there would be no Catholic representation; and in Derry—the most shameful case of all—there would be neither Catholic nor Nationalist representation. In Donegal and Tyrone the most shameful jerrymandering had been resorted to for the representation of the minority. They had heard a good deal from the noble Lord the other night, upon the debate about Liverpool, of the proposal to give special representation to Catholics—he"greatly deprecated the severing of the interest of Catholics from that of Protestants.", He (Mr. Healy) would remind the noble Lord of that now that they had come to discuss the case of Donegal. And what had the Commissioners done there? They had departed from all rules— geographical and common sense—as well as the Instructions of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, for the purpose of securing Protestant representation in one of the divisions of the county. He should not complain of that at all; he should rejoice to have his Protestant fellow-countrymen receive the fullest amount of representation in that House, provided the same rule were applied to Catholics. But there was no representation for them in Antrim, Belfast, and Derry, and only one out of three in Armagh. In Tyrone the Government had given two Representatives to the minority, although the Catholics were 75 per cent of the population, and, accepting the correction of the noble Lord, they were endeavouring to give the minority representation in the county
      72
      of Donegal, where the Catholics were 76 per cent of the population. But why was that rule entirely departed from by the Government when they came to deal with Catholic minorities? Why was the Protestant minority in Donegal to be represented at the expense of everything in the shape of logic and common sense, and in spite of the Instructions of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland? The Instructions of Earl Spencer had been trampled under foot by the Commissioners wherever it was necessary to do it in order to give the Whigs or Tories a Member. The barony of Kilmacrenan, as was well known, fulfilled all the conditions entitling it to a Member, and in the first scheme of the Commissioners it was to have a Member allotted to it. He maintained that this barony was, on the showing of the Commissioners themselves, entitled to a Member. Why, then, was that barony not allowed to stand as the Commissioners placed it? Because, if Kilmacrenan were not split up, it would be impossible to have the two Raphoes together, and the Government considered it far more important to meet Tory prejudice in Donegal, than to follow the Instructions of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. The barony of Kilmacrenan, as he had shown, was, by the first scheme of the Commissioners, to get a Member, as it was entitled to do; but the Commissioners went down to Donegal and met the noble Lord, or his representatives if he was not there in person, and the noble Lord's brother, who hoped to be Member for the constituency, and the representatives of the rest of the family; those gentlemen got at the Commissioners, they made their representations, and the barony of Kilmacrenan was now split up, and the two Raphoes, hitherto separated, were now united—the Government had crossed Lough Swilly in order to divide the Inishowens; they split up Kilmacrenan and united the two Raphoes, for the purpose of giving the Tories a Member. Under what pretences had that been done? The right hon. Baronet would, no doubt, say that there was an extreme similarity of pursuits on both sides of the lough, and Irish-speaking people also on both sides. He had taken the trouble to ascertain exactly how the matter stood. The Government had taken three parishes out of Kilmacrenan and put them with Inishowen, under the

      73
      pretence that the people of those places were all fishermen. But the fact was that had they been left where they were they would have been united to an Irish-speaking and a fishing population, because more fishing was done there and more Irish spoken. So the Government had violated their own Instructions, and had taken out of Kilmacrenan the three parishes of Clandavaddog, Killygaran, and Tullyfern, and classed them with Inishowen, because the people were supposed to be fishermen. But he had ascertained that there were no fishermen and no fish to be caught in them but salmon, and his informant said that Killygaran was agricultural with the exception of two or three spots, and that Clandavaddog was more agricultural still. There were 631 families in Clandavaddog, not one of which fished; in Killygaran there were 474 families, of which 63 fished; and in Tullyfern there were 1,126 families, of whom 112 lived by fishing. Therefore, it was absurd to go to the pursuit of fishing as a reason for splitting up those parishes. If the Government had taken firm ground and said—"Wo are ready to give the Tories a seat in Donegal on general principles, "he could have understood the position they took up in regard to that county. But the right hon. Baronet said—"All the people live by fishing, and are Irish-speaking, and therefore we cross over a distance of three miles to unite them with people of the same language and pursuits." But he had shown that that was not the case, and therefore he said that to unite them with the people on the other side of Lough Swilly would be about equivalent to uniting the people of Kingstown with those of Holyhead—there would be just as much similarity of pursuits and interest in the two cases. He repeated that he could understand the Government saying that they would give the Tories a seat in the county; but this peddling fallacy about an Irish-speaking and fishing population would not bear a moment's investigation. Then, as to crossing the lough. When Irish Members proposed that the lake in County Down should be crossed where it was only half-a-mile wide, and there was a half-penny ferry, they were snubbed and laughed at for the notion of people crossing that half-mile of water; but when it was a question of crossing Lough Swilly with its
      74
      four miles of sea and a ferry that was, so to speak, only crossed once in 1,000 years, so far as the pursuits of the people were concerned, why then in the eyes of the Government the Swilly was a bagatelle, a cypher, a mere drop of water. He did not know why if the Government wanted to swindle the Irish people they should not do so openly, and not add hypocrisy to their acts. They gave a seat to the Tories, who were not entitled to it; while the Nationalists of Antrim, Belfast, Derry, Central Armagh, and Tyrone were not getting the full share of representation to which they were entitled. As he had said before, the combinations of the Government should have the word "partiality" stamped upon them, and so long as the name of Donegal remained so long would its divisions be remembered with contempt for the Government who sanctioned them.
      Amendment proposed, in page 95, leave out lines 5 to 10, inclusive.—(Mr. Healy.)
      Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
      LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, that his family took a great interest in the divisions of this county, and he and other members of it were present and heard what took place when the Commissioners came to inquire into the wants of the locality in question. The hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) had stated what at first sight seemed to be a great objection to the scheme with reference to Donegal—namely, that certain parishes had been cut up; and he had particularly referred to the case of one barony which seemed to have a population which, in respect of numbers, entitled it to one Member. He (Lord George Hamilton) felt sure that if the hon. and learned Member had been sent down to Donegal as one of the Commissioners, he would have arrived at the very same decision as that arrived at by the Commissioners. He agreed that there were alterations in the schemes of the Commissioners. In this case he believed they took the Ordnance map and marked out the districts where they were contiguous one to the other; but when they got to the mountainous parishes they found there were insuperable difficulties in the

      75
      way, and that some places apparently contiguous had little or no means of communication. In the case of Raphoe they proposed to cut the barony in two and join the two districts with Inishowen. Under the other arrangement the connection would have been by railway, and persons passing from one part to another would have had to pass through two or three counties; that was to say, they would have to go by the railway which started from Donegal to Tyrone and Fermanagh. Now, there was an unanimous objection to that in the locality, and it was proposed to associate the barony as appeared in the Schedule. Now, the objection raised to that was that there was an arm of the sea between the parishes. Mr. Dogherty argued the ease of the Nationalist Party with great ability; but he not only asserted, but brought witnesses to prove, that the sea was the only means of communication in that part of Donegal, and that the arm of the sea did not constitute any objection to the connection proposed. Later on, when it was proposed to connect certain districts in the Northern Division with those on the East side of Lough Swilly, the Nationalist Party changed their front, and said that the lough constituted an insuperable obstacle. Of course, no one could take that as a reasonable objection. Now the hon. and learned Member had not moved the substitution of the original scheme of the Commissioners for that which was embodied in the Bill, but he proposed to substitute the scheme put forward by the Nationalists for the revised scheme of the Commissioners. The county of Donegal was a very remarkable county; there being an inner and an outer Donegal, as everyone would know who had passed any time there. The outer Donegal was inhabited chiefly by Roman Catholics, many of whom spoke nothing but Irish; it was a poor district; the farms were very small, the people very poor, and a considerable proportion of them were occupied in fishing pursuits. But the inner Donegal was quite distinct and separate in its character from the outer Donegal; there were better farms there than in any other part of the country, the people were Protestants, and were quite distinct from the neighbouring population of the county. Therefore, if ever there was a
      76
      case in which the single-Member principle ought to be applied it was in respect of this portion of Donegal. He thought the Commissioners in every single instance had tried to assimilate as far as they could the population of each county, but there had been immense difficulties in the way of doing so. Now, the Commissioners in their desire to equalize had, as far as they could, preserved existing boundaries. But they had in the case of the two Raphoes added two towns which most resembled them in respect of pursuits and numbers of population. The Commissioners had undoubtedly split up a barony; but on the Nationalists' own showing it was immaterial how those baronies were cut up, because the interests and political opinions of the people were almost identical in every case, and that, as a matter of fact, the boundaries were more artificial than natural. Therefore, he was convinced that any impartial man would have arrived at the same result in this case as that in the revised scheme of the Commissioners. But the hon. and learned Member proposed to substitute for that the Nationalist scheme, which was the association of the barony of Raphoe South with the barony of Boylagh. But Boylagh was probably one of the most Roman Catholic districts in the North of Ireland, and the effect of adding to its population that of the two Raphoes would be at once to submerge the Protestants. The baronies were neither geographically nor socially connected. There was a high range of hills between the Raphoes and Boylagh. But this scheme of the Nationalists had been practically put out of court by a speech made by Mr. Patrick Gallagher, one of the most prominent supporters of the hon. and learned Member, and who had been the representative of a certain district at the National Convention in the days of the Land League. Mr. Gallagher spoke to the effect that the question they had to consider was, what was best for the Nationalist Party; that they wanted to promote the cause; that they did not care a two penny ticket if they could jerrymander the district, and that they wanted to join South Raphoe to Boylagh. That was the report in a Conservative organ, and he might mention that while the other papers reported the proceedings there was no report of

      77
      Mr. Patrick Gallagher's speech. The scheme of Mr. Gallagher was to dissect or cut up one Protestant barony and tack it on to the Catholic baronies of the county with which it had no connection. Now, so far as Donegal was concerned, he contended that the scheme of the Commissioners was a perfectly fair one. The Nationalist Party had 75 per cent of the population, and certainly they would carry 75 per cent of the representation of the county. He thought it very doubtful that the Loyalist Party would carry Raphoe; but still, whatever the result might be, the object was to give the minority a chance of representation, and this scheme gave them that chance. The hon. and learned Gentleman showed great skill in putting forward all these instances in which he thought his friends were unrepresented; but he had omitted to mention all those cases in which the Loyalists would get no representation at all. It was probable that in all the other three divisions the Loyalists would have no representation. In Armagh, the Party which the hon. Gentleman represented would have a majority of three to one, and therefore he thought he had rather weakened his case by bringing this charge of jerrymandering and unfair treatment against the Government. Whatever the Commissioners did, the hon. and learned Gentleman and his Friends tried to make out some charge of unfair play against them. But the hon. and learned Member himself, a shrewd politician, showed that he hardly believed those charges. The hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), speaking of the Bill, had said that the result of the alterations in the schemes as to the North of Ireland would be that the political Parties opposed to him would retain 23 out of 33 seats; but the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) said now that the Nationalists would hold 83 out of the 103 seats. [Mr. HEALY: I said 83 in Ireland and two or three in England.] He thought he had shown that this scheme with regard to Donegal was adopted by the Commissioners on its merits; he did not believe that any other scheme was practicable; and he was quite sure that to substitute for a scheme which had been considered by a judicial body, a scheme declared by one of its most prominent supporters to be a jerrymandering scheme, was a proposal to
      78
      which the Committee would never consent.
      SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, there was very little for him to add. The real contest in Donegal had turned upon whether Boylagh and Raphoe should be thrown together or kept separate. The argument of the noble Lord (Lord George Hamilton) on this subject was a very strong one. Boylagh was admittedly a very poor district, whereas Raphoe was a wealthy district. Boylagh was a district of 160,000 acres, but its rateable value was only £10,000; Raphoe, however, had an acreage of 223,000, and a rate able value of £100,000, 10 times the wealth of Boylagh. he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) was not one of those who believed in distinctions being made with regard to the pursuits of the population; but it was part of the agreement which was made between the Leaders of the two Parties that divisions should proceed on that principle, and therefore he found himself bound to support such distinctions. If regard was had to the pursuits of the population the divisions which had been drawn in the case of Boylagh and Raphoe was a good one. Now, great objection had been raised to the Northern Division of Donegal, on the ground that it was crossed by a lough. Mr. White, the Boundary Commissioner, held the local inquiry, and, in the Report he had laid before Parliament, he stated that he did not attach any serious importance to the fact; and he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) was bound to say, after the most careful examination he had been able to give the matter, that the difficulty of this lough had been greatly exaggerated. In County Down there was a lough which was crossed, and it was much wider than the lough crossed in Donegal. He was sorry that they were obliged, in dealing with these Irish cases, to refer to questions of religion; but as reference to such questions had been made during the debate, it was just as well he should mention the result of the Religious Census in Donegal. The Catholic population of Donegal was 127,000, and the Protestant 47,000. The Roman Catholic population was in a considerable majority in all the divisions, as the divisions had been set out by the Commissioners; and, therefore, if it was true, as stated, that the Nationalist Party were likely to command all the Catholic votes, that Party

      79
      would win all the seats in County Donegal. Even in the division in which they had some doubt of carrying the seat there were upwards of 31,000 Catholics and 20,000 and odd Protestants. He was bound to say that those who had published in Nationalist newspapers forecasts of the results of the elections in County Donegal, and also those who had made speeches on the subject, had estimated that all the four seats would be carried by the Nationalist Party. The Catholic Bishop, who took a very active part in the inquiry, and who was the first to take exception to the Commissioners' scheme, had said the Nationalists would carry all the four seats in that county, although, as had been pointed out, the Protestants were more than one-fourth of the population. ["No, no!"] Well, there were 76 per cent of Catholics. There was this security that fairness was done as between religion and religion—namely, that the Commissioner who held the inquiry was himself a Catholic, and that the Chairman of the Commission, to whom the matter was referred in London, was also a Catholic. That being the case, he hardly thought that any unfairness would be done to those who belonged to the Catholic religion. He was sorry that questions of religion were raised in this matter; he certainly was not the first to raise them.
      MR. SEXTONsaid, he could not agree with any man on any subject more heartily than he agreed with the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) in the concluding part of his speech. It was not only disagreeable, but painful in the extreme, whenever he (Mr. Sexton) had, in arguing political questions, to refer to religious differences. He could not conceive why religion ought to prevent men who were born in the same country from acting together. But if the right hon. Baronet did not begin the reference to the differences of creed in Ireland, he (Mr. Sexton) could plead that neither did the Members of the Irish popular Party. [Sir CHARLES W. DILKE: I did not say you did.] The reference was begun by the landlord party in the North of Ireland when they raised the cry that the Protestant creed would not have adequate representation under the Bill. The landlord party, it appeared, would not be satisfied unless representation
      80
      was given to the Protestant population proportionate to their numbers, without regard as to whether the Protestants did or did not live in one part of the county. He did not see any other way in which the claims of the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton) could be met than by placing the Protestants of a county in one division, and thus assuring them of a Representative. The right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) amused him very much when he said that the Commissioner who held the inquiry in Donegal was a Catholic, and when he seemed to infer from that fact that any decision arrived at by that gentleman would be or ought to be satisfactory to Catholics. There was nothing more familiar to those acquainted with Ireland than that a Government having the power of the purse and the power of administration in any country could get men to do just what they pleased. He need simply remind the Committee that when the Government found it necessary to attack and insult and defame and injure the Catholic priesthood in Ireland, it was a Catholic Judge, the late Mr. Justice Keogh, who did so. Now, the Commissioners had admitted that they had made certain errors; but they endeavoured to make a point against the Nationalist Party by saying that, whilst they were in favour of uniting in South Donegal two baronies which had an area of the sea between them, in North Donegal they disapproved of a similar state of things. Now, the Bay of Donegal did not run to any considerable extent into South Donegal, or, at least, when it ceased to be a broad inlet it became exceedingly narrow and threw no difficulty in the way of communication. The Bay of Donegal, in respect to width, was not to be compared with Lough Swilly. Lough Swilly ran into the very heart of County Donegal, as far as the town of Letterkenny, and it attained a width of no less than four miles at one part of it. In point of fact, he was assured by a gentleman who well knew the county of Donegal, that there was no communication between the western and eastern sides of the lough. Touching the question of similarity of pursuits, he might say that there was really a fishing industry in South Donegal. He saw by the last Report of the Inspectors of Fisheries

      81
      that in and around the town of Donegal there were about 1,000 men and boys engaged in the fisheries; so that if there was any force to be attached to the argument that Donegal Bay had a dividing influence, it was more than compensated for by the fact that the fishing industry was very large. The case was entirely different in Lough Swilly. The noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton) made a point at the expense of Mr. Patrick Gallagher, who was reported by a Tory gentleman to have said he did not care for the Instructions of the Government; all he wanted was to jerrymander the division. He (Mr. Sexton) was not aware that Mr. Patrick Gallagher made the observations attributed to him; but, assuming that he did, it appeared to him that Mr. Patrick Gallagher was exceedingly frank. He (Mr. Sexton) did not suppose that any Nationalist in Ireland had any other desire than that the Nationalists should return as many Members as it was possible for them to do; and, on the other hand, he did not suppose that the noble Lord (Lord George Hamilton), or any of his hon. Friends, desired that the number of Tory seats should be diminished if any possible means could secure the retention of the present number. The only difference between the noble Lord and Mr. Patrick Gallagher was that Mr. Patrick Gallagher said what he meant, and the noble Lord abstained from going through that operation. What was the argument of the noble Lord? He stated that one-fourth of the people of Donegal were of the Protestant creed. He (Mr. Sexton) had just pointed out to the right hon. Baronet the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke) that they were not. The Catholics of Donegal numbered 157,000, and the Protestants 47,000. It followed there would have to be 4,000 more Protestants in the county to give them one-fourth of the population, and thus entitle them to one seat. But wherever the Catholics were massed together in such numbers as to entitle them to return a Member the Commissioners divided them here and divided them there, even to throwing them over a range of mountains; in fact, everything that was possible was done in order to procure a division in which the natural predominance of the Catholics should be neutralized. What
      82
      was done in Donegal? The Protestants were nowhere in sufficient numbers to entitle them to a Member; but the Commissioners took the barony in which they existed in the greatest numbers, and disregarding all the conditions of compactness, pursuits of the population, and well-known areas, they sent out scouts in every direction and took in from every quarter of the county such districts as contained large bodies of Protestants in order to swell the total number in the given division. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, in speaking of the creeds in the barony of Raphoe, showed that ignorance of Irish affairs which made it exceedingly difficult to discuss such affairs in the House of Commons. The right hon. Baronet said that the Catholics in Raphoe numbered 31,000, and the Protestants upwards of 20,000. He (Mr. Sexton) thought the figures were incorrect; but, assuming them to be correct, the right hon. Baronet drew from them an unjustifiable inference. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that the political power of the Catholics of Raphoe would be according to those numbers. That was altogether contrary to the fact. The Catholics in Raphoe occupied the position of domestic and farm servants. The land was held by Protestant farmers, who were the inheritors of the policy of plantation, and the descendants of the planters in Ulster. Many of the Catholics were the servant boys and girls whose parents lived in other counties in Ulster; in fact, a very great part of the 30,000 Catholics in that district was made up of those who occupied the position of servants who had not votes. The 30,000 Catholics, therefore, would not exercise political power at all proportionate to their number. The 20,000 Protestants inhabiting the homesteads of the division would count among them a greater number of Parliamentary voters than the 30,000 Catholics, who were accurately described as "hewers of wood and drawers of water." If there was any county in Ireland the natural configuration of which dictated the divisions for Parliamentary purposes, it was the county of Donegal. Let them glance at North Donegal. The premonitory of Inishowen was separated by Lough Swilly from the rest of the county. It

      83
      contained within 10,000 of the number of people necessary to form a Parliamentary division itself, and the Commissioners in their first scheme thought it a reasonable and sensible course to regard Inishowen, shut off as it was from the rest of the county, as the basis of the unit, adding to it a part of the barony of Raphoe to bring the population up to the required number. Then with regard to Kilmacrenan. That was a barony which contained the precise number of people to entitle it to a Member. It was a division formed by nature on the western side of Lough Swilly. It was separated from the district of Inishowen by Lough Swilly, and from Boylagh in the South by an almost impassable range of mountains. In the South the baronies of Tirhugh and Banagh were separated from the rest of the county by mountains. Thus there were three natural divisions—Inishowen, Kilmacrenan, and the baronies of Tirhugh and Banagh. It was plain that the Commissioners should have accepted the divisions which Nature had made for them, and then to have added a fourth division in the shape of the baronies of Boylagh and Raphoe. Both of those baronies were agricultural. There was certainly in Raphoe a small flax industry, but agriculture was the chief industry; Boylagh was purely agricultural. The noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton) made a great deal of the range of mountains which he said ran between Boylagh and Baphoe. There was a range of mountains there, but it was a range which had passes through it. Between Boylagh and Kilmacrenan, however, there was an impassible range of mountains; no one ever passed over it except occasionally at one remote point where there was a footroad. There was no practical thoroughfare between the baronies of Boylagh and Kilmacrenan, which the Commissioners had put in one division; so that when the noble Lord spoke of a range of mountains as a very good reason for shutting off a division which had many Catholics in it, he should boar in mind that there was a bigger range of mountains separating Boylagh and Kilmacrenan baronies, which the Commissioners had linked together. Instead of taking the divisions formed by Nature, the Commissioners started with the
      84
      barony of Raphoe, making that the unit. The barony of Baphoe was the ground of the old plantation of Ulster. It was divided between the people of the imported and favourite creed, and the Catholics were driven to the outskirts of the mountains of Inishowen and Kilmacrenan. The Commissioners had added to the barony of Baphoe those parts of the baronies of Inishowen and Kilmacrenan which contained the Protestant population. They had actually pursued in 1885 the policy of the old plantation of 200 years ago; they had shut off the Catholic population, and had taken into the barony of Baphoe all those parts of other baronies where a majority of Protestants could be found, without having any regard to the well-known boundaries of baronies, or the natural configuration of the country. To such an extent had the Commissioners carried out that policy that the chief town of Kilmacrenan was actually taken away from that barony and added to the barony of Raphoe. The inhabitants of Boylagh knew as little of Kilmacrenan as they knew of the most distant parts of Ireland. Mr."White, the learned Commissioner, in endeavouring to account for the union of places upon both sides of Lough Swilly, had delivered himself of a very extraordinary argument. Mr. White said he did not place any serious importance to the fact that Lough Swilly ran in through the Northern Division; that fact was counterbalanced by the consideration that the riparian inhabitants on both sides were of a homogeneous class. He (Mr. Sexton) might say, in passing, that he had always understood that riparian inhabitants were persons living on the side of a river. Lough Swilly was not a river, but an arm of the sea, four or five miles wide. Now, was it a fact that there was any intercourse between the inhabitants of both shores of Lough Swilly? The fact was this—that Lough Swilly formed as absolute a division between Kilmacrenan and Inishowen as the Atlantic Ocean formed between Ireland and America. Lough Swilly was four miles wide, it was an inlet of the sea, even visited by storms, and the only means of safe transit across it was one ferry. They were told that the people had to cross Lough Swilly because they had fishing occupations. Now, some of the parishes which had

      85
      been cut off from Kilmacrenan and added to Inishowen were parishes not bordering on the lough at all; they were parishes in which there were no fish, and consequently where there were no fishermen. And with reference to the parishes beside the lake, he said that the fishing industry was more active upon the western side than upon the eastern side. And if the fishing industry were to be considered at all, it would be better served by allowing the inhabitants to go over to the western side of the lough. Again, it was true that the people along the shores of the lough spoke the Irish language; but they spoke the English language also, and therefore there was no peculiarity established in that regard. The fact was, that in the barony of Kilmacrenan and along the shore there was a considerable number of people who spoke the Irish language alone. Therefore, if there was any force in the argument of the Commissioners with regard to uniting the Irish-speaking populations of this part of the county, it was a force which told against their own decision. Now, when they found officials driven to such extremes as these in order to find a colourable reason for a scandalous division of the county, he thought it was time to say that all argument was at an end. The more he looked at the question, the more clear it appeared to him that the Commissioners, who had at first made a tolerably honest scheme, and who only departed from it when they found there was perfect unity with regard to it, had violated every one of the Instructions given them by the Government—the Instructions as to compactness of boundary and similarity of pursuits—and that, in order to justify their scheme, they set up an illusive argument as to the identity of pursuits of the people which had no foundation. The county of Donegal was agricultural; there was no independent industry, and no extensive fishing population, the number of those who fished being only about 3,000. The argument of identity of pursuits had, therefore, no application to Donegal except in the Southern Division, where, perhaps, the main part of the fishing industry, slight as it was, would be found. No; the Commissioners started from the areas in which English Kings, 200 years ago, founded Colonies for the benefit of Pro-
      86
      testants, and they cast out from the divisions the Catholics, and added to them as many Protestants as they could. They scorned the Instructions given to them by the Government, and they exerted themselves to form a scheme which would enable a member of the house of Hamilton to find a seat for the county. That was the object they had in view. But he did not believe that a member of that family would sit for Donegal, because the people at the next General Election would have learnt that their interest did not lie in returning a Tory to Parliament. Finally, he said that, for the purpose of preventing a political result in Donegal which both they and the Government desired to avoid, the Commissioners had violated all the Instructions distinctly laid down for their guidance in respect of this Bill.
      Amendment negatived.
      Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members found being present,
      MR. SMALLsaid, it was difficult to understand why, if the Commissioners had kept in view the conformation of the County Down, they should have given to the four divisions the designations which appeared on the Schedule. He thought it would be more correct to call the 2nd Division the North-West Division, or it should be called the West Down Division; that No. 3 should be called the East Down, and No. 4 the South Down Division; and, therefore, he would move to leave out the word "The" from line 4.
      Amendment proposed, in page 96, line 4, to leave out the word "The."—(Mr. Small.)
      Amendment negatived.
      MR. SMALLsaid, at the inquiry a large body of evidence was given before the Commissioners to show that the inhabitants of Upper Ards were much more closely connected with the people of No. 3 Division than they were with Lower Ardo and Castlereagh Upper. The proposed arrangement of the Government was most inconvenient, and the suggestion he made would render more equal the populations of the different divisions of the county—that was to say, that the entire of Upper Ards, with the exception of one parish, should be joined to the 3rd Division.
      Amendment proposed, in page 96, line 7, to leave out the words "Upper Ards."—(Mr. Small.)
      Question proposed, "That the words 'Upper Ards' stand part of the Schedule."
      SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that the proposal of the hon. Member appeared to be one of the proposals made at the inquiry, respecting which the Commissioners reported to the effect that there was no ground in favour of it. It had not been shown that there was any advantage in the arrangement proposed; and, in view of the Report, he could not agree to the Amendment.
      MR. HEALYsaid, that the proposal of his hon. Friend was in no sense a political one, and, therefore, he thought that the right hon. Baronet would do well to consider the matter. The Party to which he belonged had got all they could extract out of County Down; that was to say, they had one seat— namely, for the Lower Division; and they would have had that in any case, even if the Commissioners had not changed their original plan. He did not think that the right hon. Baronet quite appreciated the local feeling in regard to Lower Ards. He found that at the time there was only one individual who opposed the plan put forward by his hon. Friend; and the fact that the Tory Party had shown no opposition whatever with regard to the change now proposed was a proof that the Tory Party were better served in County Down than anywhere else in Ireland. Their representative, Mr. Finigan, was a gentleman who possessed a good deal of the suaviter in modo, and he remained perfectly silent throughout the proceedings, and, as he had said before, only one gentleman opposed the arrangement suggested. He did not agree with the right hon. Baronet that it would have the effect of un-shaping the entire county. If he looked at the map he would see that it was not so. On the other hand, the feeling at Upper Ards was very strongly opposed to the Government proposal; the inhabitants had to go to Downpatrick on business connected with the Police, Poor Law, and County Court, as they were in the Downpatrick Union, and, therefore, they found it hard to be divorced from the district with which they were fa-
      88
      miliar. He hoped the right hon. Baronet would reconsider this reasonable proposal of his hon. Friend. He would point out also that the entire population of Lower Ards were engaged in market-gardening, and only went to Belfast with their goods; whereas he had shown that the people of Upper Ards all went to Downpatrick, and, therefore, there was no connection between them. As a politician, he assured the right hon. Baronet that the Nationalists could not gain anything by this proposal.
      MR. PLUNKETsaid, he was disposed to agree with the finding of the Commissioners in this case unless some stronger arguments were forthcoming than those yet brought forward. He accepted the statement of the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) that there was no political object underlying the Amendment; but, as the matter now stood, he should certainly vote in favour of the conclusion arrived at by the Commissioners, which appeared to offer the most satisfactory mode of settlement.
      MR. BIGGARsaid, he should support the Amendment of his hon. Friend, on the ground that they would probably have a Government Bill in a short time dealing with local matters; and he thought it desirable that the centres of localities should be, as far as possible, the centres of the Poor Law Unions.
      MR. HEALYsaid, that whatever were the arguments which he and his hon. Friends brought forward, they received no consideration from the Government. The opinions of the Commissioners, who spent half-an-hour in these places, were more important in the eyes of the Government than the opinions of Irish Members who had been in them all their lives; the Commissioners went down by one train and returned by another, and their opinion was regarded by the Government as final. If they had had the County Government Bill, it would have dealt with the county in the way his hon. Friend proposed; but this scheme of the Commissioners absolutely wrenched the people asunder, so far as concerned the natural boundaries, and he was really surprised that the right hon. Baronet was unwilling to give Irish Members satisfaction on this matter. Under the circumstances, be thought they were justified in dividing the Committee, although, whatever they

      89
      might do, he knew that they could get nothing whatever from the Government in respect of these arrangements.
      MR. KENNYsaid, the Amendment before the Committee would have the effect of making the population of the division equal, and generally of covering the main points on which the Government had instructed the Commissioners. He thought the right hon. Baronet would admit that the Amendment of his hon. Friend had much to recommend it in the fact that it was not due to any political motive. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket) had recommended his hon. Friend not to go to a division, but to raise the question again on the Report.
      Question put.
      The Committee divided:—Ayes 51; Noes 23: Majority 28.—(Div. List, No. 111.)
      MR. SMALL MR. SMALL moved to leave out lines 12 to 15, inclusive, in order that they might be inserted after line 21.
      Amendment proposed, in page 96, to leave out lines 12 to 15, inclusive.—(Mr. Small.)
      MR. HEALYsaid, the proposal was of a kind that would affect a good many counties besides County Down, and he would suggest that the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) should consider the matter between now and the Report, and endeavour to arrange the different parts of the divisions in a more orderly manner.
      SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he should be glad to do what was suggested, if that were thought the best way; but he did not think it would matter whether they took that course or dealt with the question at once. He was quite willing to allow the alteration now proposed, and as the Committee had already agreed to make certain alterations in regard to this county, perhaps it would be better to take the Amendments in order, and deal with them now.
      MR. SMALLsaid, as he understood the right hon. Gentleman did not offer any opposition to his proposal to alter the order in which parts of the divisions were placed in the Schedule, he would ask the Chairman to put his Amendment.
      SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I do not object.
      Amendment agreed to.
      SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, line 16 came next, and he supposed the hon. Member (Mr. Small) would propose to leave out the figure 3 in that line.
      On the Motion of Mr. SMALL, the following Amendment made:—Page 96, line 16, leave out 3, insert 2.
      On the Motion of Mr. SEXTON, the following Amendment made:—Page 96, line 16, leave out "Mid Down," insert "East Down."
      On the Motion of Mr. HEALY, the following Amendment made:—Page 96, leave out lines 20 and 21, insert "No. 3, West Down."
      MR. HEALYwished to call the attention of the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) to the fact that, in all the divisions of the Schedule, there were dashes running on the paragraphs, which was a mere printer's mode of setting out the lines. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he would not have those dashes omitted?
      SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Yes, Sir.
      On the Motion of Mr. HEALY, the following Amendment made:—Page 96, line 22, leave out "South West Down," insert "South Down."
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 97, line 4, to leave out the word "Ballbriggan," and insert the words "North. Dublin."—(Mr. Sexton.)
      Question proposed, "That the word 'Balbriggan' stand part of the Schedule."
      SIR CHARLES W. DILKEdesired to call the hon. Member's attention to the fact that the proposed alteration of the title of the 1st Division of County 'Dublin might tend to create confusion as between the divisions of Dublin City and Dublin County.
      MR. SEXTONsaid, it would be in the recollection of the right hon. Baronet that at a previous stage of the Bill he had proposed to amend the divisions of the City of Dublin, as recommended by the Commissioners and as fixed in the Schedule defining the borough divisions, by calling them after the

      91
      historic sites or areas of the city, and one of the reasons he then gave was that he was desirous of preventing confusion, and of having the points of the compass inserted as the titles of the county divisions.
      MR. HEALYsaid, they had the advantage of the presence of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the County of Dublin (Colonel King-Har-man); perhaps he would favour the Committee with his views on this proposal?
      COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, he had not the slightest objection to it.
      Amendment agreed to.
      MR. SEXTONsaid, he had now to move the next Amendment. He desired to express the extremely strong objections felt by himself and his hon. Friends to the division of the county of Dublin proposed by the final scheme of the Boundary Commissioners. This was another case in which they were obliged to appeal from the Commissioners to the Commissioners themselves. The first scheme proposed by the Commissioners was just as satisfactory to the public as the second scheme was faulty and objectionable. In other cases, it could be alleged that the Boundary Commissioners had discharged their duties in the most thorough manner, although they had not very much time for consideration; and it might also be said of them that, in preparing their first schemes, they had to deal with matters with which they were not perhaps very well acquainted, and that, therefore, they fell into certain errors, which they were obliged to correct when they were called upon to frame their final schemes. But with regard to the county of Dublin, he had no hesitation in saying that the Commissioners had had plenty of time to consider their original scheme, and that two of the Commissioners permananently resided in Dublin, and were therefore dealing with a county and a population with the circumstances and pursuits of which they were perfectly well acquainted. The first scheme the Commissioners had presented met with the complete approval of the Representatives of the National Party, as expressed at the public inquiry; but he had to note, as a very extraordinary fact, that whenever the Representatives of the National Party in Ireland offered
      92
      any objection to a particular scheme, the points objected to were sure to be upheld against them; while, on the other hand, whenever the Representatives of that Party agreed to the general features of a scheme framed by the Boundary Commissioners and declared it a satisfactory one, the chances were that the scheme was sure to be so altered as to render it unsatisfactory in almost all those respects wherein it had received their approval. He wished to point out that the first scheme of the Commissioners in relation to the division of Dublin County was a convenient one, and one which satisfied the Instructions given by the Government for th.9 guidance of the Commissioners. For instance, it fully satisfied the Instruction that they should have regard to the principle of equality of population, because in the Northern Division of the county of Dublin—the Malahide Division—the population was put down as 73,100, while the population of the Southern Division was estimated at 72,400; so that the Commissioners had divided a county with a population of 145,500 into two divisions so equally that the disparity between the two was only 700. This result was accepted as a satisfactory discharge of the obligations imposed on the Commissioners by the Instructions of the Government that they were to have due regard to equality of population. He had next to inquire whether the first scheme suggested by the Commissioners satisfied the Instructions they had received with regard to compactness of area and with respect to the preservation, as far as possible, of well-known existing boundaries? The map which he then held in his hand offered a view of the four divisions of the county as recommended by the Commissioners before their scheme had come under the influence of the agents of the Tory Party. A glance at that map would suffice to show that in the first division the Commissioners proposed to take four baronies also to the North of the city, and to add to them five parishes to the North of the city, and form them into the Northern Division of the county, the Southern Division being formed of the whole of the remaining area. Under that scheme the county was divided into two nearly equal parts; the baronial boundaries were respected and preserved intact with the exception only of five parishes, and

      93
      in the fixing of these equal areas security was taken in regard to the future increase of population; for it was obvious that when large equal areas were included in divisions the fluctuations of populalation would in all probability be equalized, not only with regard to the present time but in time to come. The first of the Commissioners' schemes having been one of so satisfactory a character in regard to equality of population and compactness of areas, it might be asked how had it come to pass that the Commissioners had been induced to alter the scheme? The alteration they had made was one which might have been satisfactory to the Commissioners themselves, but it certainly failed to satisfy the people. He was sure the Committee would be puzzled to imagine any reason why the Commissioners, having formulated a scheme such as he had just described, should afterwards have departed from their original plan in so fundamental and objectionable a manner. Upon this point he should like to quote a few expressions of public opinion in reference to the second scheme of the Commissioners. The Kingstown branch of the National Association had characterized the proposal of the Government as a flagrant departure from the Instructions they had given to the Commissioners, and as an attempt to deprive the National Party of their legitimate share of the representation. The Rathmines branch of the Association had described the proposed division under the second scheme as most absurd and unfair, and a palpable concession to the Conservative minority. Other branches of the Association had characterized the scheme as utterly at variance with every principle of justice, as well as with the Instructions given by the Government, and had asserted that the Commissioners had in the most degrading manner abrogated their functions. The Committee had already had the opportunity of seeing that the two divisions of the county as proposed by the first of the Commissioners' schemes were equal. Let them now glance at the divisions recommended by the Commissioners in their second scheme. One of those divisions was formed from a small segment of the county, which in point of area was only 1–20th of the whole, while the other division contained the remaining 19–20ths of the county area. The right
      94
      hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Trevelyan) seemed to think that examples of a similar kind could be found elsewhere; but he (Mr. Sexton) should be very glad if the right hon. Gentleman would point out to him a single instance in which, where there were only two divisions, one of them occupied an area of 19–20ths, while the other contained only the remaining 1–20th. The solicitor to the Emergency Association had appeared before the Commissioners at Rathmines. He had represented that Rathmines was an urban district, and ought not to be thrown into the county.
      MR. ION HAMILTONasked who was the solicitor referred to?
      MR. SEXTONsaid, the solicitors to the Emergency Association were Messrs. Dudgeon and Emerson.
      MR. ION HAMILTONasked who was the counsel?
      MR. SEXTONreplied, that the counsel was Mr. John Gibson. Their objection to the first scheme, which had been shown to be so rational and convenient, was that part of Rathmines was taken into the North of the county of Dublin, and that it was an urban district and ought to be formed into an urban division. He should not greatly object to the inclusion of Rathmines in an urban division, if it could be shown that that object could be really effected, or that that purpose was really hold in view by those who advanced the plea. But it was a very strange fact that while the Commissioners of Rathmines refused to have the place attached to the City of Dublin and strove to show that it was of a rural character, they also urged that it was an urban district. When they wanted to utilize all the Tory votes it was an urban district; but when they wanted to escape the taxes of the city it was a rural district. It was true that in the Southern Division of the county of Dublin the townships of Blackrock, Kingstown, Killiney, and Bray were included, and the villaholders of Black-rock were to be found in the same division with the quarrymen and farmers of Tallaght. That was not an urban district at all. It included a large proportion of the agricultural population, and it shut out the urban population of all the seaboard towns from Balbriggan in the North down to the City of Dublin. The whole arrangement of this

      95
      scheme rested upon a sham and a pretence. The Commissioners had acted on the suggestion of the Marquess of Salisbury that they should divide the counties in a spirit favourable to the Tory Party. They had taken three or four townships chiefly inhabited by persons who were supposed to have Tory predilections and proclivities, and had thrown them into one division, and all the rest into another. The divisions were different in point of area, in regard to boundary, and in regard to the probable increase of population; and the Commissioners had entitled themselves to be branded with the imputation of gross partiality. He asked the Committee to assent to the first scheme of the Commissioners, which would still include a great portion of the urban population, which would have regard to the baronial baronies, and which would give an equal population. He could not imagine what argument could be advanced against it.
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 97, to leave out from the words "Balrothery West," in line 6, to the words "herein described," in line 15, inclusive, and insert the words,—

      "Barony of Nethercross,

      Barony of Coolock,

      Barony of Uppercross (parishes of Saint Catherine's, Saint James's, Saint Jude's, and St. Peter's),

      Barony of Rathdown (parish of Rathfarnham.)"—(Mr. Sexton.)

      Question proposed, "That the words 'Castlenock, Coolock, Nethercross, and Newcastle' stand part of the Schedule."
      SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the case of the county of Dublin had been raised on more than one occasion. It was said that what was proposed for that county did not follow any of the precedents, and he had been asked by the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken to produce precedents. The hon. Gentleman had now narrowed his question to the case of counties with two Members; but even when thus narrowed, there were other cases very similar to this. One was the case of the area around Newcastle, where the division was extremely small. That was a very striking case to which no objection had been taken. Other cases were those of Perth and Renfrew, where the Liberal Party had raised just the same objection as was raised here. The coun-
      96
      ties of Perth and Renfrew were counties with two Members, divided into one very large and one very small division—the small, a populous division; the large, a rural division. In the present case there was a very dense population in one part of the county, and a thin population elsewhere. Of course, the Commissioners had endeavoured to put the dense population together and the scattered population together, and if he had been the Commissioners, acting under the Instructions which were given to them, he should have taken the very same course. The question was whether, given that course, the Commissioners had acted rightly, and there might be more doubt about that, owing to the fact that there were urban districts not included in the small division, but included in the agricultural division. But that objection applied more to the first scheme of the Commissioners than to the present one. If it was an objection to the scheme, it had been greatly diminished indeed, if not removed, by the later changes in the scheme. If the Commissioners had tried to make the urban division contain the whole of the urban population, they would have made a district in the form of a ring right round Dublin. He was not going to argue that they might not have taken that course. It had been taken, in the case of the Bootle Divisions, right round Liverpool; but it had not been very successful, so far as local feeling went, and there had been considerable opposition to that narrow strip around the town. He was not sure whether it was not wise to adopt a more concentrated form. He thought the Commissioners had interpreted their Instructions rightly in forming one very small and one very large division in the county of Dublin, and with less certainty he imagined that they were probably right in forming the divisions in this particular way; but, as to that, he should not like to speak positively.
      MR. ION HAMILTONsaid, that when the Commissioners were sitting, there was a very strong feeling, and all the parties interested were in favour of some scheme like that now adopted by the Commissioners. He himself had representations from people representing all classes—not merely his own Party, but others—in favour of the scheme. There was not a doubt that when the scheme

      97
      was first proposed by the Commissioners on going to Dublin, it was one which startled a great many persons, for it brought together a great many people who were thoroughly inharmonious, and who could not have established any concert at all. But, by the present arrangement, it was evidently intended that the agricultural population should be left to itself, and the urban population to itself. He thought the Commissioners had acted with discretion. He certainly did feel that the Metropolitan county ought to have had an addition to its representation—he should have liked to have seen it with a third Member. But taking things as they were, he thought no better apportionment of the population could have been made; and he trusted the Government would adhere to the last scheme of the Commissioners.
      MR. HEALYsaid, he did not care a straw about this division one way or the other. He was only sorry that the Tory Party had been played upon with such false hopes, for they would not carry either division—they would not come within a mile of it. His only regret was that the Government were giving them double votes—one in the City of Dublin, where they carried on business, and one in the country where they lived. But they might jerrymander as much as they pleased—they could not carry the county of Dublin if they jerrymandered ten times worse than they had done. It was a sad thing that the Committee should now be taking almost its last look at Gentlemen, the Tory Members for the county of Dublin, who had so distinguished themselves in Church and State. Their complaint about the Dublin boundaries was that a resident in Rathmines, which was part of the city, was technically in the county, and thereby acquired a double vote because he carried on business in the city. He did not think it was a proper thing that those people should have this advantage, for they had no superior claims, and were not entitled to more consideration than anybody else. They were just ordinary mortals like other people, and it was hardly fair to imbue them with this tremendous political preponderance. Although the right hon. Baronet the President of the Local Government Board had declared that it was not unusual to pick out bits of urban population and form them into separate divisions, so far
      98
      as Ireland was concerned, this was the only case in the entire country in which it had been done. On reference to the English maps, it would be found that the case of Tyneside showed no parity whatever. He knew the Tyneside Division perhaps better than the right hon. Baronet. But Northumberland possessed 10 Members for the county, and that entirely destroyed the possibility of jerrymandering the divisions in the way which had been done here, for it became absolutely necessary to pick out the suburban districts from the rest. But the case of Dublin was quite different. There were these little bits of villa areas which had been treated by themselves without any necessity or excuse whatever, and this was the only case in the whole country in which the thing had been done. How had it been done? He knew the hon. Member for Dublin County (Mr. Ion Hamilton) was at the county inquiry; but was he at the city inquiry? [Mr. ION HAMILTON dissented.] The hon. Gentleman was not present, so he (Mr. Healy) would ask his attention and that of the right hon. Baronet to what occurred. At the inquiry for the county of Dublin, where he (Mr. Healy) represented the National Party, there was not one word about this present proposal; but next day, when they were holding the inquiry into the case, not of the county, but of the city, a very distinguished and able lawyer—Mr. Jackson—representing the Emergency people, came in and hold up a map, and said to the Commissioners—"I was too late yesterday. I did not get my map prepared in time."(He Mr. Healy) would not pledge himself to the exact excuse made, but it was some excuse of that kind. Mr. Jackson went on—"Would you kindly look at this map?" Everybody in Court roared, it seemed so extraordinary a proposal. But that was the proposal of the Government. No chance was even given for debating it, and he thought it was most unfair that it should have been adopted by the Commissioners. It was not a fair thing to propose that scheme on a day when nobody knew that it would come on, and to adopt it without discussion. It was never supposed that the city inquiry would take up the county scheme; and when the map was handed in, nobody ever dreamed that it would receive any attention—the thing seemed so idiotic.
      MR. ION HAMILTONsaid, that was the first time he had heard of the circumstances described by the hon. and learned Gentleman.
      MR. HEALYsaid, everything had occurred just as he had stated it; and he asked, when Mr. Jackson handed in the scheme—"Is that the scheme of the Emergency Association?" In other words, he made a joke of it, for he did not think for a moment that it could be adopted. But the Government had adopted it; and by so doing they had put another nail into the coffin of ascendancy in Ireland, because those things always impressed the minds of the people better than anything else. The Government were playing the game of the Nationalists—they could not do it better—for they were making the people believe that they could have no fair play on any subject whatsoever. Let the Government appoint a Commission on any subject whatever, and the Nationalists were bound to get no show upon it. The loss of three seats was a small matter compared with the fact which would be fixed on the hearts of the people who were to be crucified under these divisions—that, so far as the Government could manage it, they had been cheated of their rights. This was a matter of very great importance to have fixed upon the minds of the people; and he was sure that every man in the Kingstown Division would believe that he was being unjustly treated—every man in the Northern Division would believe that he had been juggled. He congratulated the Government on the way in which they had played into the hands of the Nationalists. The loss of three or four seats was a small matter when compared with the hatred and contempt which would be stored up in the minds of the people of Ireland by their conduct on the Seats Bill.
      MR. T. D. SULLIVANwished for some explanation of a curious and remarkable fact. How in the world had it happened that the Tory propositions in every borough, whenever they had made any proposal to amend the original scheme of the Commissioners, had been adopted? How had it happened that the moment the Tory and Orange Party placed before the Commissioners their arguments, schemes, and facts, the Commissioners were converted, and all that was proposed was done? If that
      100
      had happened in only one 'or two cases it might be supposed that it was the superior merits of the Tory scheme that went home to the hearts of the Commissioners; but when it was found that the same thing had happened all along the line the matter really required an explanation. The simple facts, which were patent to every man who looked calmly at them, were these—that the first schemes of the Commissioners were made and drawn up irrespective of Party considerations, because the Commissioners did not know the lines and locations of the political Parties in Ireland. But no sooner were they informed by the agents of the Tory Party than they gave way to them. He had heard no defence to that, and he wished hon. Members would take the trouble to look at a map of the county of Dublin, and at the original and the present scheme of the Commissioners, and they would find that there was nothing elsewhere to compare with the jerrymandering which had been going on in that county. The first proposal made a somewhat equal division of the county, which was apparent on the face of the map; but no sooner did the Tory gentlemen go before the Commissioners and open their eyes and show where the Party advantage lay than the whole scheme was withdrawn, and another one forming a little Tory preserve in a corner of the county was constructed. That was manifestly unfair; and not only there, but all over Ireland, North and South, had the Commissioners yielded to the Tory representations, except in those parts where the Tories had nothing whatever to represent, because their case was hopeless. Wherever they could, by any trick or stratagem, add to the advantage of the Tories they had done so. They had gone North, South, East, and West to pick up bits and scraps of territory wherever it would suit the purposes of the Tory Party, and had yielded to the representations made to them in this unfair, irregular, and improper manner. He had heard the Tory Party jocosely spoken of as the stupid Party; but in this matter they had shown themselves a very wide-awake Party indeed. No doubt it was very right and proper on their part so to do; but what right had the Commissioners or the Government to play into the hands of those gentlemen, and to make them-

      101
      selves political partizans? They had a certain line of instructions; but they evaded them and did not abide by them, and they had strained everything in order to concede all that those Tory gentlemen could possibly demand. There was only one instance in Ireland in which they had not conceded everything that the Orange and Tory Party asked for. But the whole of this debate was a sham. What was the use of argument? All that the Nationalist Party could do was to mate a protest. As to any effect upon this Committee, they did not expect to produce any. The Committee were nominally free to do as they liked, but practically the whole thing had been settled—the bargain had been made, and he and his Friends were only talking to the empty air, because freedom of discussion in this instance was only a sham and a farce. Nothing was to be bad from it except the gratification of showing that they understood the game, and complained of it to the people of Ireland, who also understood the whole matter, and who would, at the General Election, show their appreciation of the scandalous way in which they had been treated.
      MR. PLUNKETsaid, he thought it only fair, after what had been said by the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down about this being an attempt to play into the hands of the Tories and Orangemen, that be should say a word or two upon that charge. He could speak of one gentleman who took a principal part in this inquiry—Mr. Piers White, one of the most distinguished Queen's Counsel at present at the Irish Bar, a Roman Catholic in religion, and a gentleman who had been all his life a decided Liberal in politics. [Several hon. MEMBEES: No, no!] He begged pardon of hon. Members who denied that statement. He was sorry to say that his public life bad been much longer than that of some of them; and he could state of his own knowledge that Mr. Piers White had always been a decided Liberal in politics as well as a Roman Catholic. Therefore, he said that, so far as he was concerned, it was absurd to charge against him any connection with the Orange Tory faction. He had lived at Kingstown all his life, and knew every inch of the district as well as he knew the interior of that House, and be would state to the Committee what was really
      102
      the condition of the problem. It was perfectly true that if they looked at the map of the county as it had been left by the decision of the Commissioners, they would see that the Kingstown Division, or, as it was to be called in the future, the (Southern Division of the county, was contained within very narrow limits. That was true. It was the South-Eastern corner of the county. It contained a population of 72,000, and the division, so far as the rest of the county was concerned, was exactly equal; but it was almost impossible for the Commissioners to avoid making one a very small division and the other a large one. It would have been impossible to avoid some such division as that which had been chosen. Why was it that the Commissioners had chosen this particular way of producing the inequality of population? It was because they were instructed, rightly or wrongly, to have regard to the pursuits of the people. All those who lived in the South-Eastern District had the same pursuits. [Mr. SEXTON: What are they?] A certain number of them were professional men, some were landlords, and some were merchants. At any rate, they were all of the same avenue of life, so to speak. With regard to the rest of the county, it had a much more rural population. He knew there would be some voters in the South-Eastern District who would be what they might call thoroughly agricultural people—rural people, in the ordinary sense—just as in Youghal or Balbriggan they would have a certain number of urban residents. It was obvious to everyone who knew the county that, in the course the Commissioners had adopted, they had done their best to carry out their Instructions. It was true that the Balbriggan District was much larger and much more sparsely populated. He should not have thought it necessary to intrude in the debate if it had not been for the charge of partisanship advanced against the Commissioners, which, so far as the gentleman of whom he had been speaking was concerned, was as baseless as it could be.
      MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid, that he must say he failed to see the applicability of the remarks of the right hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down with reference to one of these Commissioners. After all, what did the

      103
      statement of the right hon. and learned Gentleman amount to? He told them that Mr. Piers White was an intimate friend of his own. That was, no doubt, a testimony to the character of Mr. White; but it did not affect the question at all. Then the right hon. and learned Gentleman told them that Mr. Piers White was a Roman Catholic and a Liberal. How, in the name of goodness, did that contravene the contention of the Irish Members? Their contention was that this jerrymandering had been carried on with the consent of the Liberal Government as a part of a bargain which they had made with the Tories. [A laugh.] The right hon. and learned Gentleman laughed. It was easy to do that; but no one knew better than he did what the full extent of that bargain between the two great English Parties really was. No one knew better than he that a large part of that bargain was based upon a certain arrangement being made in Ireland, so as to facilitate the return of Tory Members in certain cases where, if the rules of fairness had been observed, those Members would have had no chance. So that the fact of Mr. Piers White being a Liberal in no way exonerated him from the blame which the Irish Members justly attached to him for carrying on a policy of conceding what he could to the demands of the Liberal Party. The excuse which had been repeatedly put forward for the Commissioners, that they had made their division in order to keep together as far as possible those engaged in the same pursuits, did not, to his mind, apply to this case at all. It was absurd to talk of one of those divisions, the smaller one, as being in an urban part of the county, and the other being in an agricultural part. The Northern Division was not an agricultural division. As had been pointed out, it included a number of suburban districts, such as Malahide, Swords, and Skerries, to the North of Lublin. That was no more agricultural in reality than the Southern District. This was almost the first time that he (Mr. J. Redmond) had taken part in any of these discussions. He had listened most attentively to almost all of them, and had certainly brought to bear upon the subject a thoroughly impartial mind. He had been impressed night after night, more and more, with the conviction that these Commissioners
      104
      had acted unfairly in forming these divisions in Ireland, and that they had acted unfairly with deliberation. He agreed with what had fallen from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) when he said that after all, though the Nationalists might lose some seats through this jerrymandering, they would yet have substantial consolation in the knowledge that the more such jerrymandering went on, and the more instances were recorded of the influence upon popular representation of the English Government in Ireland, the stronger would the National cause become, and the more inevitable would be the failure of that power which had been from the very commencement, and which was that day in Ireland, founded on injustice and trickery.
      COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, that what the hon. Gentleman had just said showed the tone that had been adopted by hon. Members below the Gangway. The hon. Member presumed upon a geographical ignorance on the part of English Members when he tried to impress upon them that a large population had been included in the Northern Division. The hon. Member said that the Balbriggan Division was not a rural constituency at all, and that it included such important places as Skerries and Swords. Well, he (Colonel King-Harman) should like to ask how many people were included in that way? Those places were nothing but wretched villages, as the hon. Member well knew——
      MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid, he mentioned other instances. He did not mention those two alone.
      COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, that Malahide was the other—a town which in the summer season contained a certain population who went down for the sea-bathing. At other times the place could hardly be called a town at all, certainly not a town of any importance. With regard to other towns which had been mentioned in the course of the debate, they could be easily disposed of. The first Amendment moved as to County Dublin constituency was moved by the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton), who preferred that the name "North Dublin" should be used instead of Balbriggan, and yet he wished to see a part of the county included in the Southern Division.
      MR. SEXTONsaid, he had never made any attempt of that kind at all.
      COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, he did not say that the hon. Member had made any attempt in the matter; but he had moved that Balbriggan should be called North Dublin, and the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) had complained that townships included in the North should be included in the South Dublin Division. It was impossible to separate the language of one hon. Member from that of the other. Then the hon. Member for Westmeath (Mr. T. D. Sullivan), in common with other hon. Members, spoke a great deal about the Orange Tory Party. They had spoken about the collapse of the Government, and of the surrender of the Government to the Tory Party. It was said that these demands were made by the Orange Tory Party, and no one but the Orange Tory Party, whoever those unfortunate people were, had anything to do with it, and that a shrinking and. trembling English Government had had to give in to that Party. The remarks to which he was referring were equally correct with the statement which he was sure was not made with an intention to mislead the Committee, but which would mislead the Committee—namely, that a certain scheme had been put forward by the solicitor to the Emergency Committee. Hon. Members would lead the Committee to imagine that this Emergency Committee was a body of men banded together for the suppression of all Ireland; and certain hon. Members below the Gangway especially would have it thought that those people had employed some diabolic firebrand for the purpose of blowing from the breach certain gentlemen, and misleading the Commissioners, and bringing in some dreadful scheme. But it happened that the Emergency Committee had nothing whatever to do with the county of Dublin as a political body, and nothing whatever to do with any of the schemes which had been put before the Commission. He was absent from Ireland at the time, but he believed it was a fact that the solicitors to the Emergency Committee did instruct, on behalf of certain ratepayers who were not in any way connected with the Committee, and who, to the best of his belief, were not subscribers to the Committee, and never
      106
      had been—did instruct Mr. Jackson to bring in a certain scheme; but the fact that he happened to be a solicitor to the Emergency Committee was taken hold of by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, and the scheme was put before the Committee as being that of the Emergency Committee, whereas that Committee had had nothing whatever to do with it. That was an instance of the manner in which hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway strove by innuendo to mislead the Committee as to what was being done by the Orange Tory Party and the Emergency Committee—Gentlemen who did not happen to agree with him (Colonel King-Harman) in politics. He did not think that the statements of those hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway deserved much reply, because their statements were not arguments. He merely wished to point out that their innuendoes about the Orange Tory Party were a sort of bluster, to give the Committee a wrong idea, to impress upon the Committee that the Commissioners had either been Orange Tories themselves, or fools enough to be misled or coerced by them. He knew something about the solicitors to the Emergency Committee, and he was aware that they had submitted a scheme totally different from the one propounded by Mr. Jackson, and who would have brought before the Commissioners a scheme to which he (Colonel King-Harman) could have consented. [Mr. HEALY: What was it?] It was one that would not have improved his (Colonel King-Harman's) position in the county of Dublin.
      MR. GRAYsaid, that he did not think that, under all the circumstances, even the indignation of the hon. and gallant Gentleman who had just sat down would have supported his position in the county of Dublin very materially. That position was so strong and so unassailable at present that it did not require that to strengthen it. He took it that if any doubt existed in the minds of the Committee as to the connection between the Orange Tory Party and the scheme which was put forward by Mr. Jackson, solicitor to the Emergency Committee, and adopted by the Commissioners, that the speech of the hon. and gallant Member had completely set all doubt in that respect at rest.
      COLONEL KING-HARMAN: I never saw the scheme in my life until now.
      MR. GRAY: The hon. and gallant Member has satisfied us on that head, and has told us what the scheme is.
      COLONEL KING-HARMAN: I did not.
      MR. HEALY: What do you know about it?
      MR. GRAY: He told us that an original scheme had been propounded.
      COLONEL KING-HARMAN: I rise to explain. What I said was, that I knew, as a matter of fact, what the scheme propounded by the two gentlemen, the solicitors to the Emergency Committee, happened to be. Whether they propounded that scheme or not before the Commissioners I cannot say. I do not know whether that was the original scheme, and I never saw it before two days ago.
      MR. GRAY: That was what I said.
      COLONEL KING-HARMAN: You said the original scheme.
      MR. GRAY: That is now one of the amended schemes that they adopted on further consideration.
      COLONEL KING-HARMAN: No.
      MR. GRAYsaid, that the hon. and gallant Member acknowledged that they were the same people; but his contention was that their two capacities had no connection whatever. He (Mr. Gray) took it that innuendo was not required under any circumstances, and that assertion must take the place of innuendo. He was satisfied that those hon. Gentlemen who had listened to the speech of the hon. and gallant Member had had all the doubts in their minds now set at rest. The senior Member for the county of Dublin (Mr. Ion Hamilton) in his speech had said that he was sorry that three Members had not been given to the county of Dublin; and he (Mr. Gray) quite agreed with the hon. Member that in view of the population very nearly approaching to the number which would have secured three seats in the scheme, and in view of the character of the Metropolitan county, that three Members might very well have been given to it. But what was the nature of the scheme as it stood? The real effect of it was to give to the county only one Member. The arrangement which had now been adopted for the Southern Division—what was called the Kingstown Division—he did not know what its ultimate name would be—did
      108
      not look like a division of the county at all. It was simply a group of boroughs. The Committee had decided that they would not adopt the system of grouping boroughs, the Government having said that their experience of it led them to conclude that it was not desirable. The Committee were of opinion that it was an arrangement they should not attempt to adopt; but in the present case they had grouped certain boroughs under the name of a county constituency, and given to Dublin County one Member. No one could contend for a moment that the Kingstown Division, with Blackrock and Rathmines included in it—no one could conclude that the legitimate and proper name for such a division could be other than "Kingstown," "Black-rock," or "Rathmines." It was not a county division at all. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket) had said that, in order to comply with the requirements of the directions given to the Commissioners to secure equal population, it was almost impossible to adopt any scheme but that which was now before the Committee. Well, how was it that the Commissioners had, as a matter of fact, adopted a totally different scheme? Remember, they were not promulgating a scheme of their own. They said that the original scheme of the Commissioners was the better of the two—namely, the scheme which divided the county—he did not say into absolutely equal divisions, but into practically equal divisions. It would have given two constituencies to the county of Dublin. What the hon. and gallant Gentleman thought was out of the question in regard to forming two equal divisions was actually done until this solicitor—whether he was a Tory solicitor or a solicitor for the hon. and gallant Gentleman did not matter—came in with his pet scheme. When this pet scheme was brought forward the Commissioners adopted it right off. He (Mr. Gray) felt the hopelessness of arguing this question. They all knew, of course, that the Government were not going to modify the scheme in any way; but let them, at any rate, have the effects of it put plainly before the Committee. What it would really do was this—No matter what the political character of hon. Gentlemen who were returned to that House for the Kingstown Division might be,

      109
      he would not in any sense be a County Member. He would be a Metropolitan Member. This division, with its large number of inhabitants, would, to all intents and purposes, have a single County Member representing it. If the Government had intended to do that it would have been better to have made this division the borough of Kingstown. He could then have understood what it meant. If it had been proposed to associate a Member with Kingstown—Kingstown having certain townships added to it to bring the population up to the required number—everything would have been above-board; but if that had been done it would have then been impossible to resist the claim of Dublin County for another Member. He thought the scheme of the Government was objectionable, and that if the Committee were left to form a free decision upon the matter, they would be likely to go back to the original scheme of the Commissioners. He would urge all who could possibly do so to protest against the proposal of the Government. It was only necessary to glance at the matter to see its absurdity; and it only required the slightest knowledge of the neighbourhood and of the character of the constituency to convince anyone that what he (Mr. Gray) stated was really a fact. The Government had practically manufactured a borough constituency out of one corner of Dublin County; and anyone who had the slightest knowledge of the neighbourhood could see that the scheme practically left only one County Member for Dublin.
      MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he was sure, from the character of the speech they had heard from the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the county of Dublin (Colonel King-Harman), it would be easily understood with what joy they all welcomed his coming amongst them in that House. The hon. and gallant Member had spoken with a certain amount of heat. In fact, to say that he had spoken was to imply that he had spoken with a certain amount of heat. With regard to the statement made as to the Emergency men, the hon. and gallant Member had thought it necessary to repudiate it very warmly. Surely the hon. and gallant Member represented the whole of the Irish people on this matter. He (Mr. O'Connor) had listened with great interest to the
      110
      speech of the senior Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket); and he was sure no better case could be made out for the proposal of the Commissioners than had been made out in that speech. The case was a bad one; but to his mind it had been made out by the right hon. and learned Gentleman as well as it was possible to make it out. What did the case amount to? The right hon. and learned Gentleman had said that the people in this Kingstown Division were all of similar pursuits. Well, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton), who had rather a Socratic method of dealing with fallacies, had interjected a question to the right hon. and learned Gentleman as to what were the similarities of pursuit, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman had said—"Oh, some are professional men, some are landlords, and some are merchants." Well, he (Mr. O'Connor) had yet to learn that in Ireland persons who belonged to the trading classes were persons in a similar class of life to the landed aristocracy. He knew that in England nothing would be more resented by the county families than the insinuation that they belonged to the same class as the unfortunate wretches who got their; living by trade. If a clear distinction between the county gentry and tradespeople had been distinctly kept in England, a fortiori it had been maintained with much greater clearness in Ireland, where the landed aristocracy had such a high regard for the privileges of caste. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had meant, no doubt, that there were large classes of persons who had their business or occupation in other parts of the county, and went out to Kingstown for private residence. But let thorn examine that statement for a moment. He knew very well that it was a habit of very many people in Dublin who pursued their trades in the city to spend their nights outside the city. In fact, when an unfortunate person like himself went over to Dublin, the first thing he noticed was the facility which the people of Dublin enjoyed for getting out of the smoke and turmoil of the city, by paying a small fare and taking a short railway journey to the sea or into the country. He would call the attention of those familiar with the county of Dublin, or that part immediately adjacent to Dublin, to the fact

      111
      that Kingstown was only one of many places outside Dublin which the citizens resorted to for their residences. Some went to Clontarf, some to Drumcondra, some to Howth. In fact, Kingstown, Blackrock, and Bray were only some three, with a dozen or score of health and seaside and country resorts, to which the citizens of Dublin were accustomed to go for their residences. Another argument of the right hon. and learned Gentleman was that the populations of the two divisions were closely alike in numbers. So they were. In the Balbriggan Division there were 72,992, while in the Kingstown Division there were 72,636. No doubt, as far as the equalization of the population was concerned, the present scheme was as good a one as could be devised; but the right hon. and learned Gentleman forgot to inform the Committee of the most important fact that the original scheme of the Boundary Commissioners approached as nearly as this final scheme of theirs to that desirable and necessary equalization of population. The fact that the Boundary Commissioners themselves put forward the original scheme showed that they thought that an equalization of population was fairly reached. He had not the exact numbers by him at the present moment; but his hon. Friend the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) informed him that the difference between the populations of the two districts in the original scheme was only 700. The difference in the population in the present scheme was 354; in other words the two schemes were alike in this—that the Boundary Commissioners were able to reach a degree of equalization in population which was unparalleled in any of the divisions of any other county in any of the three countries. Now, wherein did the old scheme differ from the new one? His hon. Friend the Member for County Carlow (Mr. Gray), whose acquaintance with County Dublin was not surpassed by any Member of the Committee, had pointed out the very important fact that the scheme with which they were now dealing was one not for giving two county Members to the county of Dublin, but practically one for the enfranchisement of the town of Kingstown. The enfranchisement of Kingstown might or might not be a desirable proposal; if the proposal were put to the
      112
      Committee the Committee would deal with it on its merits, and he had no doubt hon. Members sitting above the Gangway would find many good reasons in favour of it. But it was not exactly the enfranchisement of Kingstown that had been secured by this scheme, because Rathmines had been torn from the bosom of the city to which it belonged, and had been, so to speak, pitchforked to Kingstown. Rathmines had a greater population than Kingstown, and therefore the present scheme might fairly be described as one for the enfranchisement of the town of Kingstown, which might be called Rathmines-cum-Kingstown. That, again, he maintained was a proposition which could have been fairly discussed on its merits. Some of them would have objected to the ugliness of the name, and some of them would say that Rathmines, which to all intents and purposes belonged to Dublin, should not be separated from that city, and be hung on to another town which was seven miles distant. The present proposal was one for the enfranchisement of a constituency which he would call Rathmines-cum-Kingstown; in other words it was a proposal for the grouping of boroughs of different character, a system to which all the Members of the Government concerned in this Bill had declared their inveterate hostility. In one of the first speeches which the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke) made upon the Bill, the right hon. Gentleman declared that the Government were distinctly unfavourable to the principle of grouping of boroughs; he said that the plan had been tried in former Redistribution Bills, and it had not been very successful in its results, and that while the Government might be disposed under the stress of circumstances to permit existing groups to remain, they had no intention whatever to make additions to that anomalous and unsatisfactory state of things. When the right hon. Gentleman said that he had not the case of County Dublin in his mind, he could scarcely have contemplated being called upon at a later period of the Bill to stand up and defend a scheme which really amounted to a grouping of different boroughs in one constituency. No doubt, he (Mr. O'Connor) and his hon. Friends were speaking against a foregone conclusion; but they might

      113
      console themselves with the reflection that they had obtained a moral victory.
      MR. HEALYsaid, that this was a matter in which the Tory Party were quite as much interested as he and his hon. Friends. He asked the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) to consider for a moment the figures in this case. Armagh, as he had said, was the only constituency in Ireland which was to have three Members. In 1841, Armagh had a population of 231,000; in 1861, 180,000; in 1871, 179,000; and in 1881, 160,000—a sinking population, all the time. What was the case with regard to Dublin? In 1841, Dublin County had a population of 140,000; in 1861, 155,000; in 1871, 158,000; and in 1881, 170,000—arising population all the time. Now, that was a very important fact; and he asked the Government whether, as the Armagh population was always falling and it had three Representatives, and the Dublin population was always rising and it had only two Members, he and his hon. Friends were not entitled to some reconsideration of the matter? Of course, if the Bill passed in its present cast-iron form they would be unable to get redress when the population of one county very much exceeded that of the other. The Tories were interested in this matter, for he imagined that out of the three Members they would certainly be entitled to one, whereas out of the two Members they would not get one. When the Irish Land Act was under consideration the Government were willing to accept a proposal that at the end of seven years a Commission should issue for the purpose of taking facts into consideration as to the continuance of the Land Commission; and he thought it would be well on Report, if the Government were unable to do so now, to consider whether a Commission should issue in live or six years' time to re-adjust the relative representation of the counties of Armagh and Dublin. This was not a small matter. The population of the Metropolitan county in any country would always rise, whereas a rustic population like that of Armagh would in Ireland be found to decrease. There was more emigration from Ulster than from any other Province in Ireland. The population of County Dublin had increased 30 or 40 per cent in the same number
      114
      of years. Now, if this Bill was to last for 20 or 30 years, the population of County Dublin would in all probability by the end of that time have reached 250,000. The population of Armagh, however, would have sunk to perhaps 120,000 or 130,000; and still, by reason of the fact that there was no adjustable principle in the Bill, Armagh would have three Members and Dublin would only have two. An additional reason why a reconsideration in this matter should take place was that Dublin City had been very badly treated. He would be quite content to leave it to the Lord Lieutenant to say that when Armagh had sank to a lower population than Dublin a Commission should issue to adjust the representation. This was not a matter upon which there could be any political feeling, because he had no doubt that in course of time the Nationalists would be able to win two of the three seats in Armagh. Catholics were gradually gaining the North of Ireland, and in a short time they would equal, if not exceed, the Protestants. Anyone who knew the North of Ireland knew that in certain counties when there was a farm for sale a Catholic always stepped in and bought it, while the emigration amongst Protestants was a higher percentage. In consequence of that there would, in course of time, be a much larger Catholic population than there was now. He hoped the Postmaster General would be able to see his way to provide that in a given time there should be a reconsideration of the representation allotted to the counties of Armagh and Dublin.
      MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that the question of a third Member for County Dublin had been discussed several times.
      MR. HEALY: Not in relation to this particular point.
      MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: No; in relation to the general subject. But it had never been stated where the additional Member was to come from.
      MR. HEALYsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman had not understood him properly. What he asked was that a provision should be put in the Bill by which, when the population of Armagh sank below that of Dublin, the Lord Lieutenant should have power by Commission to allot the third Member from Armagh to Dublin.
      MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he quite understood the hon. and learned Member. The proposal was that the Lord Lieutenant or some other authority should have the power when, as it was expected it would, the population of the county of Dublin became greater than that of the county of Armagh, to give to County Dublin the third Member now allotted to County Armagh. Such a proposal seemed to him (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) to introduce a very extraordinary principle, one which, if adopted in the case of Dublin, would be claimed for a great many other constituencies with an increasing population. The principle was one which he was persuaded the Committee would not accede to. The fact was that the Members had been allotted to the various counties upon the Census of 1881, and quite irrespective of the question whether the population was an increasing or decreasing one. After a certain number of years there would, no doubt, be a disproportion between the various constituencies—the population of some would be lower and that of some higher; but that was a matter which would have to be determined some 10 or 20 years hence, when the question of redistribution came up again for consideration. The immediate question before the Committee was whether the boundaries now determined upon were proper ones or not; whether the determinations of the Commissioners were or were not in conformity with their Instructions. That was a question which really laid in a nut-shell. In his opinion, anybody who looked at the map, and at the condition of the population, and at the Instructions given to the Commissioners, would admit that the conclusions come to were just and proper.
      Question put.
      The Committee divided:—Ayes 70; Noes 19: Majority 51.—(Div. List, No. 112.)
      MR. HEALYsaid, that before they left the county of Dublin he should like to ask the right hon. Baronet opposite why Ballyrobe was omitted, and what precautions were being taken to prevent mistakes?
      SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that every precaution was being taken which could be taken. The Irish part of the Schedule, as the hon. and learned Mem-
      116
      ber would notice, had not been printed with the same care as the Scotch and English portions. That was owing to the fact of their having been delayed in their Irish work. The Scotch work had been very light; but the Irish work had been very heavy, like the English. The Irish Schedules had been printed in a great hurry; but every care had been taken to amend them as they had been going along.
      MR. HEALYsaid, he should like to say a word by way of caution. It would be well for the right hon. Baronet not to rely too much on discovering mistakes in connection with the Irish divisions through the agency of the Irish Members in the House, because the Irish Members had been directing their attention to the political aspect of the matter; whereas in regard to the English part of the Bill hon. Members had been looking as much after names as after political matter. In that way many glaring mistakes might have escaped the Irish Members. He would, therefore, ask that the right hon. Baronet would pay especial attention to this point, in the endeavour to be accurate, and to make the Bill so. He hoped that before Report the right hon. Baronet would put in train all the inquiries he could in order to make the measure as perfect as possible.
      LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, that his noble Friend (Viscount Crichton), who had an Amendment on the Paper, had been called away; and he (Lord George Hamilton) was not able to make the proposal, as he was not sufficiently acquainted with the localities. He would, however, give Notice that his noble Friend would move an Amendment on Report.
      SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: And I give Notice that I shall be obliged to oppose it.
      MR. KENNYsaid, he had a Notice on the Paper to move, in page 98, line 4, to leave out "Connemara" Division, and to insert "West Galway" Division. There were two slightly conflicting Amendments on the Paper in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for the county of Galway (Coronel Nolan); but he might say that he substantially agreed with the hon. and gallant Gentleman's proposals, and that he would therefore modify his own original Amendment, and would, in place of it,

      117
      move, in line 4, to leave out the word "The," and let the word "Connemara" stand.
      Amendment proposed, in page 98, line 4, to leave out the word "The."—(Mr. Kenny.)
      MR. KENNYsaid, he wished to move to leave out "The Tuam Division," in order to insert "The North Galway Division."
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment proposed, in page 98, line 7, to leave out the words "The Tuam Division." in order to insert the words "The North Galway Division."—(Mr. Kenny.)
      Question proposed, "That the words 'The Tuam Division' stand part of the Schedule."
      MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid, that before the Amendment was put he thought it only fair that it should be stated that the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Galway County (Colonel Nolan) felt very strongly upon these points. He had asked him (Mr. Redmond) to take the opportunity of mentioning the fact. The hon. and gallant Member had not asked him to press his Amendment, especially as there was a difference of opinion amonst the Irish Members with regard to it. But he had asked him to state his opinion, which was entertained by a large part of the people of the district, that the name of "Tuam" should remain. It was unnecessary to state the reasons which lay at the bottom of that opinion. Tuam was the name of a very ancient place, the seat of an Archbishopric, and one that was well known and respected. He thought it should be retained. However, be was fulfilling his duty by mentioning the objection the hon. and gallant Member entertained to the Amendment. No doubt, on Report, the hon. and gallant Member would bring forward an Amendment.
      Amendment agreed to.
      MR. HEALYsaid, that he would now move that the Chairman report Progress, and ask leave to sit again. It would be understood that they had only got to line 20, and that, of course, saved his Amendment. When they came to line 20 they would take the Northern Division of Londonderry, and they would have to alter the title. He should like to ask
      118
      the right hon. Baronet, in order that they might know exactly where they stood, when, as they had made very fair progress that night, they might expect the Bill to come on again?
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Mealy.)
      SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the Navy Estimates would come on on Monday, and this Bill would be taken on Tuesday, and he hoped it might be finished in reasonable time, judging from the Amendments that were on the Paper on that day. He would propose that the Report should be taken as the first Order on Monday week.
      MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he had heard the statement of the right hon. Baronet with extreme surprise. They had discussed this matter at Question time that day, and the Prime Minister had given them to understand that if the Bill was not finished that night it would be continued on Monday. Everyone knew at that time that there was no chance of the Bill being finished that night. It was one of those open secrets that everyone acquainted with Parliamentary Business was well acquainted with. He knew several Gentlemen who, on going away that night, were going out of town, and had left under the impression that this Bill would come on on Monday. He must express his strong objection to a sudden change of opinion being arrived at at that late hour of the night, and after a statement of a different kind had been made in a full House earlier in the evening.
      SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he had consulted with hon. Gentlemen opposite on the matter, and the arrangement he proposed to carry out had been the result of that communication. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) was anxious that the Navy Estimates should be taken, and the Government had agreed to take them on Monday; because otherwise they did not know when they would be able to bring them on. The Government felt that they could not get to Report of the Bill on Monday, and that if they had put the Bill down for that day they would have lost all oppor-

      119
      tunity of taking the Navy Estimates, without gaining anything.
      MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, that he had had a conversation with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith), and his impression of that conversation was opposed to what seemed to be the impression of the right hon. Baronet. The inconvenience of the course proposed was undoubted. It must be inconvenient to all those Members who left the House that evening at 6 o'clock, fully persuaded that this Bill would come on on Monday, and not on Tuesday. He (Mr. Balfour) should feel bound to raise this question again.
      MR. HEALY: I hope the hon. Member does not consider that the Irish Members are getting any advantage.
      MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, no!
      MR. HEALY: Because, as far as we are concerned, we would far rather that the Bill should come on on Monday.
      SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that he communicated on the subject with the Leader of the Opposition, and had understood from him that the course now proposed would be the most convenient.
      LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, that he agreed with the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Balfour) that the alteration of the original arrangement would be very inconvenient to Members who were not now in the House; but, on the other hand, he believed there would be a great deal of advantage in the course proposed, because they would all agree that it was desirable to get through the Bill as soon as possible, and that it was desirable to make progress with the Navy Estimates. It was clear that if these were not taken on Monday it would not be possible to go on with the Government Business for some days.
      SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that if they did take the Bill the first thing on Monday it would lead to considerable difficulty, and they would not be able to take the Navy Estimates for a considerable time. The Budget proceedings would occupy a long period.
      MR. WHITLEYagreed that the course the Government was proposing was inconvenient. Indeed, this was not the first time arrangements which had been made earlier in the evening in a
      120
      full House were upset by agreement subsequently entered into. On two or three occasions when the Prime Minister had announced a certain course of proceeding he had observed that later on that course had been altered.
      THE CHAIRMAN: I must point out to hon. Members that this discussion is becoming irregular. The question as to what day the Bill should be deferred to does not come on until I have made my Report to Mr. Speaker. If there is to be a discussion at all, the proper time to raise it would be when a Motion is made to appoint a day for the resumption of the Bill.
      MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, after what had fallen from his noble Friend and the right hon. Baronet opposite he would not press the matter further; but he trusted that the Government would not in future suddenly, and at the close of a Sitting, alter the course of Business arranged in a full House at Question time.
      SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, it was definitely understood that the Committee would be continued on Monday, if not finished at the present Sitting. The Prime Minister was asked when the Navy Estimates would be proceeded with, if not taken on Monday, and he replied that he could not then fix a day for them; and as it was evident to everybody the Committee on the Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) Bill would not finish that night, Members interested in the Navy Estimates had gone away with the understanding that the Estimates would not be taken on Monday.
      MR. HEALYsaid, perhaps it might abate the indignation of hon. Gentlemen to know the reason for the change. If the Committee finished on Monday, then Tuesday would be set free for Motions; and it happened that Irish Members had the first place for the Motion impugning the conduct of the Speaker, and that the Government wished to get rid of.
      SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he was a party to the re-arrangement; but he was not aware what Business was down for Tuesday; he was sure the hon. and learned Member would take his word for that.
      Motion agreed to.
      Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Tuesday next.

  EGYPTIAN LOAN BILL.— [BILL 122.]
  (Sir Arthur Otway, Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Hibbert.)
  EGYPTIAN LOAN BILL.— [BILL 122.]

    THIRD READING.
    Order for Third Heading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
    MR. HEALYsaid, so far this Bill had proceeded without the intervention of the Irish Party in the debates; but he could not, as an Irish Member, allow it to pass without a protest, and he intended to divide against this stage. He had not intervened, and would not do so now, except to offer a protest against the proposal to grant a loan of an immense amount to a bankrupt Power, while advances for desirable and necessary public works in Ireland were refused. Protesting against this disposal of public money, and that afterwards it might not be said that the Bill passed nemine contradicente, he should challenge the question, and take a division.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 42; Noes 17: Majority 25.— (Div. List, No. 113.)
    Bill read the third time, and passed.

  TELEGRAPH ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.— [BILL 121.]
  (Mr. Shaw Lefevre, Mr. Hibbert.)
  TELEGRAPH ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.— [BILL 121.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Second Reading be deferred till Monday."—(Mr. Shaw Lefevre.)
    MR. WARTONsaid, he noted what was said about this Bill in the afternoon by the Postmaster General—namely, that it would not be taken until it could be reached at a reasonable hour. Now, was there any hope of that opportunity being found on Monday? Why not put the Bill down for Friday, when there would be far more chance of finding a reasonable hour for it?
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, it would be better to set down the Bill for Monday. Of course, he should adhere to his undertaking not to bring it on except at a reasonable time; but that time might be found on Monday.
    Motion agreed to.
    Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (EXPENSES OF CONFERENCES) BILL.— [BILL 88.]
  (Mr. Leake, Mr. Algernon Egerton, Mr. Agnew, Mr. Arnold.)
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (EXPENSES OF CONFERENCES) BILL.— [BILL 88.]

    COMMITTEE. [Progress 10th April.]
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 2 (Expenses of local authorities may be allowed).
    Amendment proposed, in page I, line 13, after the word "Board," to insert the words "in that behalf."—(Mr. Warton.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted,"
    MR. HEALYsaid, when the Amendment was moved on a previous occasion he expressed a hope that the Government would see their way to the insertion of a clause extending the Bill to Ireland. Since then he had been given to understand the Government had agreed to that suggestion, and perhaps it would be convenient to the Solicitor General for Ireland at that point to state his proposal.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, he saw no objection to the Bill being extended to Ireland, and he had prepared an Amendment in the form of a new clause to come in after Clause 3.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he was willing to do whatever would facilitate progress, and would withdraw his Amendment if the hon. and learned Gentleman wished to introduce words making the clause applicable to the Local Government Board (Ireland). Understanding from the hon. and learned Gentleman's gesture that was not so, he would move the insertion of the words.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 3 (Interpretation).
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, as consequential upon the clause to follow and to make Clause 3 applicable to England he proposed to put in the words "in England."
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 2G, after the word "that," to insert the

    123
    words "in England."—(Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland.)
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    New Clause (Application of the Act to Ireland,)—brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    MR. HEALYasked what was the clause?
    THE SOLTCITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, it was to the effect that the term Local Government Board should mean the Local Government Board (Ireland), substituting the Act of 1878 for the English Act of 1875, and that the term "Local Authority" should mean Rural Sanitary Authority and Urban Sanitary Authority.
    MR. HEALYsaid, he was not so conversant with the Act as he ought to be. Did the term "Urban Sanitary Authority" include "Town Commissioners?"
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER): Yes.
    Clause agreed to.
    Preamble agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill, as amended, be reported to the House."—(Mr. Leake.)
    MR. HEALYsaid, there was a small matter in connection with the Preamble which, perhaps, it was scarcely worth while referring to; but the Preamble set forth that "whereas doubts have arisen," &c. Those doubts, however, never had arisen in connection with the Irish Act, and it would be better to strike out the Preamble. Those Preambles were all humbug, and were generally omitted. Why have a Preamble at all?
    THE CHAIRMAN: I must remind the hon. and learned Member that the Committee have agreed to the Preamble. Of course the hon. and learned Member could move to omit the Preamble on Report, and the Bill having been amended there must be a "Report" stage.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday 27th April, and to he printed. [Bill 129.]

MOTIONS.
  MEDICAL ACT (1858) AMENDMENT BILL.

    MOTION FOR LEAVE.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend 'The Medical Act, 1858.'"—(Dr. Lyons.)
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked, did the hon. Member mean to re-introduce the particular Government Bill of last year?
    DR. LYONSsaid, that was not at all his object. It would be a small Bill having for its object the removal of disabilities of certain practitioners who were Members of the Irish College of Physicians, with reference to certain appointments in England, where it was a condition that candidates should be Members or Fellows of certain Colleges, and also to insert on the Register the title of Master of Obstetrics granted by the University of Dublin.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill ordered to be brought in by Dr. LYONS.

  CIVIL SERVICE EXPENDITURE.

    NOMINATION OF SELECT COMMITTEE.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. NOEL be a Member of the Select Committee."—(Mr. Hibbert.)
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he thought this Committee was badly nominated. Of the proposed 15 Members only one belonged to the Irish Party, and he, though very competent for the duty, was not now in attendance in the House, nor did he know when his hon. Friend could attend. The subject of the proposed inquiry had particular interest for Irish Members, inasmuch as Ireland contributed more than her share towards the general expenditure, and received much less than her fair proportion in return. Several of the Departments were starved to the disadvantage of Ireland, and the whole system of Civil Service administration in Ireland deserved the serious attention of the House. For instance, in the Board of Works Department it was the custom to prepare inflated Estimates spent in the increase of the pay and allowances of permanent officials, by a system very nearly approaching fraud. He

    125
    maintained that a representation of the Irish Party by one Member was altogether inadequate, and whenever his hon. Friend (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) could not attend a meeting they would have no Representative. He would suggest a postponement of the subject, unless the Government would give them something like a real representation. It could not be pretended that a fifteenth was an adequate representation of the Irish Party on a subject in which Ireland had a special and peculiar interest.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he understood that his noble Friend who had charge of the arrangement of these matters had consulted the Representative of hon. Members on the Benches opposite in reference to this Committee.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, yes; but offered only one nomination.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, this was the first intimation of any dissatisfaction with name or number; there had been no suggestion of it, and they were taken quite by surprise. These arrangements were made, as necessarily they must be, by understandings arrived at beforehand.
    MR. R. N. FOWLER (LORD MAYOR)said, in reference to the constitution of the Committee, that his hon. Friend the Member for North Lincoln (Mr. Winn) had only nominated five Members; not that he complained of that—no doubt it was a proper arrangement. He was one of those nominated; but owing to a change of circumstances, of which the House was aware, he was afraid he should be unable to give much attention to the proceedings. But what he desired to point out was that this Committee was not struck in the usual way; the object had evidently been very naturally and properly to put upon it Gentlemen selected rather with a view-to their acquaintance with the subject of inquiry than with regard to the balance of Parties. He apprehended it was not a question into which political feeling would enter. He only mentioned that to show that Irish Members were only in the same position, as regarded proportion, as the Conservative Party.
    MR. SHEILsaid, he did not understand that his hon. Friend the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) was dissatisfied with the name of the hon. Member (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) on the Committee. He (Mr. Sheil) was responsible for that
    126
    nomination; but it must not be assumed that when the noble Lord (Lord Richard Grosvenor), coming for a name, received it, that thereupon the Irish Party were necessarily satisfied. It was no part of his duty to point out the faults he might think existed in the constitution of the Committee. So far as his duty was concerned, it was fulfilled by handing in the name of the hon. Member (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) when asked to nominate a Member.
    MR. HEALYsaid, it must be understood, as observed by his hon. Friend, whose zeal and activity was well known, that his hon. Friend the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) in no degree desired to cast any slur upon the nomination— quite the contrary. There was some force in the remark of the Home Secretary; and all must feel that in the delicate duty of appointing a Committee it was necessary to have some understanding as to what should take place, to avoid, as far as possible, discussions of a personal character. If the noble Lord had instructions to put in a Member of the Party, of course he would go to his hon. Friend the Irish "Whip" (Mr. Sheil), and so the name would be settled. But in the House the Party had a perfect right to challenge the proportion of their representation. Surely the Home Secretary would see they were entitled to some consideration. Apart from any other considerations, why not treat them fairly in proportion to their numbers? It might be the Committee would not finish its task, and would have to be recast after the General Election. Why wrangle over such a point for an hour at such an hour? If the Irish Party had more than their right, would it "set the Thames on fire?" Was there anything of a revolutionary nature to be apprehended from the proceedings of this Committee? Why show such an ungracious grudging spirit? Indeed, they were under an obligation to his hon. Friend for his endeavour to get Ireland properly represented in this matter. He would ask the Government, who demanded 14 Representatives and Ireland one, were Irish Representatives such formidable persons that another could not be trusted on the Committee? Surely they would not pay Irish Members the extravagant compliment of supposing that another of their number would upset the balance?
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he might mention that in the nomination of another Committee, a Motion for which was on the Paper, though it would not be moved, were two Members from the Party opposite below the Gangway out of a total of 15—more than the proper portion. He would suggest that it was open to Members to increase the numbers of this Committee.
    MR. HEALYasked, would the Government agree to that?
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he could not promise that.
    MR. HIBBERTsaid, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not present; the arrangements for the Committee had been agreed upon with his right hon. Friend, and it would be inconvenient to alter those arrangements in his absence. He (Mr. Hibbert) would suggest that the Committee should be appointed as proposed, and that subsequently a Motion might be made by any hon. Member to increase the number of the Committee by two; one of these might then be a Member from Ireland. He might mention that already there were two Irish Members nominated out of 15.
    MR. HEALYsaid, one was merely a Liberal Member.
    MR. HIBBERT: Of course, if two Members were added to the Committee, Ireland would have a fair claim for another Member.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, the best way of ending the controversy would be to adjourn the debate to Monday, giving the Chancellor of the Exchequer the opportunity of making up his mind. He therefore moved the adjournment of the debate.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Biggar.)
    MR. HEALYsaid, he would ask the Speaker on a point of Order whether, if this was the first time—as he believed it was—that this Notice of Motion had appeared on the Paper, objection taken was not in itself sufficient to bring the Motion within the operation of the Half-past 12 Rule, and necessitate a postponement?
    MR. SPEAKER: The nomination of a Committee is excepted from the Half-past 12 Rule.
    MR. HEALYsaid, he thought it was brought within the Standing Orders.
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. and learned Member is referring to a separate paragraph in the Standing Order relating to Standing Committees. The nomination of an ordinary Select Committee is also exempted from the Half-past 12 Rule.
    MR. HIBBERTappealed to the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) not to press his Motion. He would certainly use his influence with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to increase the number on the Committee to 17. He was not in a position to promise that that would be done; but he would promise to use his influence in favour of it; and if the number was made 17, two of the whole should be Members of the Irish Party.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, if they were satisfied that this would be done their object would be gained. He did not doubt the goodwill and bona fides of the Secretary to the Treasury; but a speech hostile to their desire had been delivered by the Home Secretary. Neither of the Cabinet Ministers present had offered to support the Secretary to the Treasury. If either would promise their aid there would be no objection to the appointment of the Committee.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 14; Noes 36: Majority 22.—(Div. List, No. 114.)
    Question again proposed, "That Mr. NOEL be a Member of the Committee."
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
    House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock till Monday next.