Commons Sitting of 28 April 1885

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Industries (Ireland), nomination [House counted out].
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—Resolutions [April 27] reported.
PRIVATE BILL (by Order)—Second Reading—Committed to a Select Committee—Lower Thames Valley Main Sewerage.*
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Water Provisional Orders (Barton-upon-Humber and District Water, &c.)*[142].
Considered as amended—Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) [134] [First Night], debate adjourned.
Third Reading—Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 6)*[118]; Local Authorities (Expenses of Conferences)*[129], and passed.

QUESTIONS.

  INDIA (BOMBAY)—FOREST DEPARTMENT—THE THANA DISTRICT.
  MR. SLAGGasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether it is a fact that the Government of Bombay has recently appropriated, as a "protected forest," about 1,000 square miles of wooded land in the Thana District; whether the population of the district has not, from time immemorial, exercised unlimited right of user over the said woodlands; whether this step has not caused serious discontent among nearly 1,000,000 people, whose trade, agricultural, and domestic necessities have been seriously affected thereby;

  959
  and, whether he can give, or will obtain, information as to the reasons which are held to justify this step?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: To the first clause of my hon. Friend's Question, I must reply that the "reserved" and "protected" forests of the Thana Division amounted in 1879 to 2,034 square miles. In 1844, by abandoning lands which it was not considered absolutely necessary to conserve, they had been reduced to 1,486 square miles. For many years previous to about 1870, the restrictions necessary for the protection of public forests were much disregarded, so that in some cases the people have come to regard as rights practices which really are trespasses and destructive of the forests. The enforcement during the last 15 or 20 years of these restrictions has caused some discontent. But the attention of the Bombay Government has been constantly directed to the subject, and every concession has been and will continue to be made compatible with the preservation of the forests.

  PIERS AND HARBOURS (IRELAND)— WORKS AT KINSALE AND MALINMORE, BUNDORAN, CO. DONEGAL.
  MR. DEASYasked the Secretary to the Treasury, If it is a fact that before the plans for the present harbour works at Kinsale were finally approved of and settled by the Board of Works, the plans were surveyed or examined by the chief engineer of the Board, Mr. Manning; whether the duty of making the survey was imposed on a junior engineer, Mr. Crosthwaite; whether Mr. Crosthwaite discharged this duty; and, if, when the quay walls as now specified are built, the harbour can be deepened without endangering the stability of the walls, so as to allow fishing vessels to come alongside the quay?
  MR. HIBBERT: The plans for the present harbour works at Kinsale were designed by the Chief Engineer to the Board of Works. They were drawn under his direction, and were carefully examined before being approved. The survey was made by Mr. Crosthwaite, acting under the immediate direction of the engineer. When the works are finished, fishing vessels will be able to come alongside the pier at low water, and alongside the quay at half-tide.
  MR. LEAalso asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, When the
  960
  works in connection with the piers of Malinmore and Bundoran, county Donegal, will be commenced, in accordance with the recommendation of the Fishery Commissioners, and approved by the Treasury; and, if a Return can now be given of all moneys allocated under the recent special grant from the Church Fund?
  MR. HIBBERT: The contract for Malinmore is in hand, and the formalities are being completed. It is hoped that the work will be begun in a couple of months. The contract was accepted for Bundoran; but, unfortunately, the contractor threw it up, and new tenders had to be called for. Probably, the general figures which my hon. Friend desires can be best given in the Report of the Fishery Piers and Harbours Commissioners.

  WAYS AND MEANS—THE INCOME TAX ON TENANT FARMERS.
  MR. BIRKBECKasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he has given consideration to the request, made during the debate on Customs and Inland Revenue Bill last Session, as to placing the tenant farmers of England on the same footing as Scotch and Irish in respect of the charges under Schedule (B) of Income Tax?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): In reply to the Question of the hon. Member, I may assure him that I have, since last Session, given great attention to this subject, which is one of much complexity, as he, doubtless, is aware. In my Financial Statement I hope to deal with it in a manner of which the hon. Member will possibly approve.

  CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND)— DISTRICT OF GWEEDORE, CO. DONEGAL.
  MR. LEWISasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Government are in possession of information regarding the existence of a state of extreme lawlessness in the district of Gweedore, county Donegal; whether special magisterial reports from the districts have been received; and, what steps the Government are taking to put down intimidation and boycotting, and to enforce the Queen's writ?
  MR. T. D. SULLIVAN: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that Question, I would wish to ask him, whether the district referred to in the Question has not, for a long series of years, been the scene of excessive rack-renting, extreme poverty, and many cruel evictions; and, whether the Government intend to take any steps to put an end to so intolerable a state of things?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Perhaps the hon. Member will give Notice of that Question. In answer to the Question on the Paper, I have to say that there has been a good deal of excitement in this district, and it has been the subject of report and inquiry on the spot. The means adopted by the Government with the view of preventing the Boycotting and intimidation are the same as those used in other parts of the country; and the necessity has been impressed on the local police of making every endeavour to render amenable any persons guilty of these practices. Due protection will be given to the officers of the law in the execution of their duties.
  MR. SEXTON: Is it not a fact that a great many evictions have taken place in the district, and that the Inspector of the Local Government Board reported that men, women, and children were lying for days and nights together in the ditches under the rain?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I must ask for Notice of the Question.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—SKIBBEREEN UNION, CO. CORK—ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN AND DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF BOARD OF GUARDIANS.
  MR. DEASYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If the Local Government Board have received a communication from a guardian of the Skibbereen Union, objecting to the recent elections of chairman, vice-chairman, and deputy vice-chairman, respectively, on the ground that the elections were irregularly carried out; and, whether the Local Government Board will order new elections for the above officers?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It appears that the voting at the first election was equal; and that by unanimous consent the election was postponed to a later date, when the then chairmen
  962
  were chosen. Two Guardians have since complained of the course pursued; but the Local Government Board see no reason whatever to interfere.
  MR. DEASY: Was not the election conducted contrary to the regulations of the Local Government Board?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: No; I think not.
  MR. DEASYsaid, he would ask another Question on the subject.

  FISHERIES (IRELAND)—THE HERRING FISHERY.
  MR. DEASYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If his attention has been drawn to a meeting of fishermen, fishbuyers, and boat owners held in the Kinsale Court House on Monday 20th instant, when it was unanimously resolved to ask the herring fishermen (who are mostly from Scotland) not to commence herring fishing until May 11th, on the ground that, if carried on earlier, it would materially injure the mackerel fishing; and, whether, in view of the large and representative character of the said meeting, and largeness of the interest involved, he will direct the Inspectors of Fisheries to hold an inquiry into the matter as soon as possible?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I think it would be desirable to have an inquiry into this subject, and the Inspectors inform me they are quite ready to hold one. They point out, however, that a bye-law, fixing the 11th of May for the commencement of the herring fishing, even if it should be determined upon, could not come into operation for this season; and that the result of an inquiry held now could not bind the fishermen this year, though, perhaps, they might of themselves acquiesce in any arrangement that might be come to at the inquiry. I do not know that this is very likely; but I will leave it to the Inspectors themselves to fix a date, having regard to their other engagements.

  NAYY—H.M.S. "AGAMEMNON."
  ADMIRAL EGERTONasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, What is the latest report of the steering qualities of Her Majesty's ship Agamemnon?
  SIR THOMAS' BRASSEY: The last Report from Captain Long on the steer-

  963
  ing of the Agamemnon is satisfactory. It is stated that on the voyage from Colombo to Singapore the ship, as a rule, steered very steadily. In the Straits of Malacca the difficulties at first experienced had been so completely overcome, that the ship never deviated more than two degrees from her course. It is believed that, with more experience, the gallant captain of the Agamemnon will be able to still further improve the steerage of his ship.
  MR. W. H. SMITHasked, whether the good and steady steering referred to in the Report mentioned was at full speed, or was limited only to eight or nine knots?
  SIR THOMAS BRASSEYsaid, that the exact speed at which the vessel was steering was not stated in the Report; but he had given as succinctly as he could the general effect of the Report.
  SIR JOHN HAYasked, if the hon. Gentleman would ascertain the speed at which the vessel steered well?
  SIR THOMAS BRASSEYreplied in the affirmative.
  MR. GORSTasked, if the hon. Gentleman would instruct that in future Re-ports the speed would be stated?
  SIR THOMAS BRASSEY: Yes.

  SOUTH AFRICA—AFFAIRS OF BECHUANALAND.
  MR. E. N. FOWLER (LORD MAYOR)asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether it is true that Sir Charles Warren, Special Commissioner in Bechuanaland, has been blamed for asking President Kruger to enter into the question of the cattle stealing which has taken place in Bechuana land from the Transvaal frontier since May last, without first consulting Sir Hercules Robinson, the High Commissioner; whether it has since been ascertained that Sir C. Warren, before addressing Mr. Kruger on the subject of the cattle stealing in question, had been urged by Sir H. Robinson to take that step; and, whether Her Majesty's Government will, by firm and conciliatory action, prevent any further conflict of authority in Bechuanaland?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: I think, Sir, there is some public disadvantage in entering by way of Question and answer into small past misunderstandings between the two distinguished public servants who are now serving their
  964
  country in South Africa. But I may shortly say, as to the point raised in the right hon. Member's Question, that Sir Charles Warren, construing a former communication from the High Commissioner as an instruction to make certain formal representations to the Transvaal Government, acted on that view, and sent a direct communication to President Krüger, at Pretoria, in reference to cattle stealing in Bechuanaland. It was then pointed out to him that the High Commissioner should be the channel by which communications should be made to the Transvaal Executive in all matters involving policy and political considerations. The Government hoped, by their action, that they have cleared up any difference between these two gentlemen on the matter. As to any conflict of authority in Bechuanaland, there simply has not been any, the only authority recognized there being British authority.

  ARMY—THE BRIGADE OF GUARDS.
  MR. PERCY WYNDHAMasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the Brigade of Guards left with less than the usual complement of Subaltern Officers per Company; whether some who embarked as Company Officers at the time held Staff appointments; whether others have been so appointed since, while more have been invalided home; and, whether it is intended to send out reinforcements?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: The Brigade of Guards embarked with its full strength of subaltern officers—namely, two per company. No officer who embarked as a company officer held a Staff appointment; one officer has been killed, and one was appointed to the Staff, but has since been invalided. The question of sending reinforcements is under consideration.

  EGYPT (THE EXPEDITIONARY FORCE)—THE TROOPS AT KORTI.
  MR. WARTONasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is intended to keep the Troops now at Korti there during the Summer; if so, is it known what the degree of heat is there during the Summer; and, if he can form any estimate of the percentage of men who will probably die or be invalided through the heat during the Summer?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: There are no troops actually at Korti. It is not intended to keep troops in that neighbourhood during the summer. Under these circumstances, it is not necessary to form the estimate asked for by the hon. and learned Member.

  EGYPT AND PRANCE—THE SEIZURE OF THE "BOSPHORE EGYPTIEN"—THE NEGOTIATIONS.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he can now inform the House of the details of the settlement of the difficulties between the French and Egyptian Governments relative to the suppression of The Bosphore Egyptien?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I am not in a position to make any addition to the statement I have already made on this subject.

  CIVIL SERVICE (PARLIAMENTARY CANDIDATURE)—MR. W. JOHNSTON, INSPECTOR OF FISHERIES.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Has Mr. William Johnston, Inspector of Fisheries, been called on to admit or deny that he wrote to the Orange Grand Master (Rev. E. E. Kane)—
  "Expressing his readiness, if called upon, to contest one of the divisions of Belfast at the General Election;"
  will the Government inquire if he is in a position to deny that he is the author of the following letter in The Belfast livening Telegraph:—
  "The 12th of July is being prepared for all over Ulster. In view of the approaching General Election it will be of unusual importance. On that occasion I hope to take my place with my Orange brethren. No more loyal addresses will be presented to the Princess and Princess of Wales than the Orange ones, and I hope to be able hereafter to give emphasis to them when I am Member for South Belfast;"
  and, do such declarations by a Civil Servant of his intention to seek a seat in Parliament constitute a broach of the Treasury Rule of November Pith 1884 (since made an Order in Council), which requires that any Civil Servant who, by an election address or "in any other manner, announces himself as a candidate," should resign his position under the Crown?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Mr. Johnston admits that he wrote a
  966
  private letter to Mr. Kane to the effect quoted, and he also admits the authorship of the letter in The livening Telegraph; but he explains that he intended the passage quoted from the letter to have reference to a future time, when, having resigned his office, he should again be able to take part in political affairs. He repeats that he had no intention of infringing the Treasury Minute; but it appears questionable, so far as I can see at present, whether he may not technically have done so.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked whether this case was not analogous to the case of Sir William Gurdon, who——
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: Who three times announced himself——
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: Who three times announced himself as an intending candidate for Norfolk, and is still allowed to retain his place?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order. That Question does not fairly arise out of the Question on the Paper.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: I beg to give Notice——
  MR. SPEAKER: I rule that the Question is out of Order. If the hon. Member wishes to give Notice, he is at liberty to do so.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: That is what I intend to do. I beg to give Notice that I will ask the Prime Minister a Question on Monday.
  MR. HEALY: As the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. Gladstone) is responsible for the issue of this Order, I would ask him whether his special attention has been called to the case in which one of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Fisheries expressed his intention to contest one of the divisions of Belfast at the General Election, and this matter is published in Belfast newspapers, and that he intended to give emphasis to his views on a certain state of things when Member for South Belfast; and whether, on the 12th of November, 1884, a Treasury Minute was issued, which was made an Order in Council, that—
  "If a Civil servant issued an election address, or otherwise announced himself as a candidate, he must resign his position;"
  and, whether the right hon. Gentleman will assist the Irish Government in coming to a conclusion on this matter?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he was sorry to confess himself unacquainted with any facts connected with the Public Service; but really he was not competent to judge of the matters embraced in this Question. He was unable to make any addition to the answer given by his right hon. Friend.
  MR. HEALY: I will put a Question to the right hon. Gentleman on the Paper, as he is the person who is responsible for this matter.
  MR. SEXTONalso gave Notice to ask, whether, notwithstanding the fact that Mr. Johnston gave a public pledge that he would bridle his tongue, he recently condemned energetically in a public manner the "errors of the Church of Rome?"

  ECCLESIASTICAL AFFAIRS (IRELAND)—THE CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF DUBLIN—MR. ERRINGTON'S MISSION.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Foreign Secretary has caused representations to be made by Mr. George Errington, M.P. to the Sovereign Pontiff, with the object of preventing the appointment by His Holiness of the Very Reverend Dr. Walsh, Vicar Capitular of the Catholic See of Dublin, to be the Archbishop of that See?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE; I am requested by Lord Granville to state that he has given no such instructions to Mr. Errington to favour or press the claims of any Prelate as successor to the late Roman Catholic Archbishop of Dublin.
  MR. LEAMY: Will the noble Lord be good enough to say what Mr. Errington is doing at Rome?
  [No reply.]
  Subsequently—
  MR. W. J. CORBETsaid: In reference to this matter, I would ask the noble Lord, whether he has seen the following passage in The Times of this day:—
  "Our Correspondent in Rome informs us that if the Vatican proceed and persists in nominating to the Archiepiscopal See of Dublin Dr. Walsh, rather than Dr. Donnelly, who is patronized by the English Government, Mr. Errington, who is officially intrusted with the duty of settling with the Holy See ecclesiastical
  968
  questions connected with England, will immediately leave Rome."
  I wish, Sir, to ask whether Mr. Errington has been intrusted with any instructions on this subject?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I have not seen the passage the hon. Member refers to. The Question must be put on the Paper.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVAN: Surely the noble Lord can answer the simple Question as to whether Mr. Errington has any official mission at Rome?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I explained last year—no, the year before last—the circumstances relating to Mr. Errington's visit to Rome. If the hon. Member will refer to the answer I gave then, I think it was on the 11th of June, of which I shall be very glad to send him a copy, he will be able to see what were the circumstances to which I have referred.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Does the noble Lord mean to say that, at any rate with regard to Mr. Erring-ton's mission, the policy of Her Majesty's Government has for a period of 12 months undergone no change?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I stand entirely stand by the statement I then made.

  METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS—RECREATION GROUNDS.
  MR. BRYCEasked the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works, Whether the Board have considered the desirability of making on the small piece of land which they propose to acquire, fronting the River Thames, in the Isle of Dogs, for the purposes of their contemplated steam ferries, a recreation ground available for the inhabitants of that district, having regard to the fact that there is a great want of open spaces available for the recreation of the poorer classes in that part of London, and also to the fact that a society is willing to bear the expense of laying out the ground as a place of recreation if the Board will allow it to remain unbuilt on?
  SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG: In reply to my hon. and learned Friend, I beg to state that the Board has considered the matter referred to in his Question; but, in the first place, the Bill which now stands referred to a Select Committee

  969
  does not empower the Board to appropriate the land in question for the formation of a recreation ground; and, in the second place, the proposition to devote it to that purpose appears to assume that the Board will purchase the whole of the land up to the limits of deviation, which is extremely doubtful. Moreover, the area would be very small even if the Board's proposed powers were exercised to the utmost, and would only amount to a little over an acre, divided into two portions by the approach to the steamboat pier. Under these circumstances, the Board has not felt itself in a position to entertain the suggestion made to it by the society alluded to by my hon. and learned Friend; but I can assure him that any fresh representation on so important a subject shall be fully considered.

  THE WESTERN PACIFIC—ISLAND OF COREA—OCCUPATION OF PORT HAMILTON.
  MR. O'KELLYasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Russian Government has made any representations to Her Majesty's Government about the occupation of Port Hamilton; whether the Russian Government regards the occupation of Port Hamilton as a menace to the Russian settlement in Eastern Siberia; and, whether Her Majesty's Government will consider the expediency of withdrawing from Port Hamilton in order to facilitate the restoration of friendly relations between Russia and England?
  MR. GLADSTONE: No representation has been received from the Russian Government by Her Majesty's Government on the subject.

  CENTRAL ASIA—RUSSIA AND AFGHANISTAN—RUSSIAN OCCUPATION OF HERAT.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Russian Government have withdrawn from their undertaking not to occupy Herat?
  MR. GLADSTONE: The Russian Government have not withdrawn from any engagement they have entered into with regard to the subject of this Question.

  CENTRAL ASIA—THE AFGHAN BOUNDARY COMMISSION—MR. STEPHEN AND SIR PETER LUMSDEN'S DESPATCH.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLasked the First Lord of the Treasury, When Mr. Stephen, who had been sent by Sir Peter Lumsden with despatches to the Foreign Secretary, was likely to arrive in this country?
  MR. GLADSTONE,in reply, said, that he was informed that he was expected in about three weeks from the date of starting. He was presumed to have started on Friday last.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—THE VOTE OF CREDIT.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I beg to ask the Prime Minister, What day the Government propose to fix for taking the Report of Supply upon the Vote of Credit? In his powerful speech of the previous night, the Prime Minister appealed to the House not to allow any delay, and there was but one desire, to agree to that suggestion; but I hope we may be allowed a proper time for discussion on the Report. I therefore ask, if the right hon. Gentleman will consent, if possible, to the Report being taken on Thursday, after the Budget?
  MR. GLADSTONE,in reply, said, he thought that the request of the right hon. Gentleman was perfectly reasonable and convenient, and the Government would make arrangements accordingly.

  DOMINION OF CANADA—THE INSURRECTION IN THE NORTH-WEST TERRITORY.
  MR. INDERWICKasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the Government had received any information as to the reported fighting in Canada; and, whether there was any reason to believe that the rebel forces had, been defeated with considerable loss?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY,in reply, said, that the Government had received two telegrams from the Governor General—one on Monday, which the Secretary of State had read in the House of Lords, and it virtually corroborated what the newspapers stated. That morning the Government had received another

  971
  telegram, which, was as follows:—"There has been no fighting since Friday." Evidently that answered the Question of the hon. and learned Gentleman, as, according to the telegram, it was certain that there had not been a defeat of the rebels on Sunday. The telegrams confirmed the severity of the action, and increased the number of casualties. They further stated that the rebels had disappeared; but the General's advance was delayed by the care of the wounded and by having to wait for supplies. The General intended to push on to Prince Albert as soon as possible.
  MR. HEALYasked, if the hon. Gentleman would say whether any Papers would be laid on the Table, more especially with reference to the grievances of the half-breeds?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEYsaid, that it would be premature to say at present. The Government had no Papers on the subject in their possession.

  CENTRAL ASIA—RUSSIA AND AFGHANISTAN—REPORTED BATTLE.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I will ask a Question of which I have given Notice to the Prime Minister—namely, Whether the Government have received any information as to the reported engagement between the Russians and the Afghans mentioned in this morning's newspapers?
  MR. GLADSTONE: We have received no confirmation of the statements in the newspapers, and we have, indeed, no information on the subject, excepting what we have gathered from them.

  REGISTRATION OF VOTERS (IRELAND) BILL.
  MR. BRODRICKgave Notice to ask, Whether the Government intended to include in the Financial Estimates this year the cost of Irish registration, in pursuance of the recent vote of the House?
  MR. SEXTONasked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, whether the same Instructions to officials as were in the Registration of Voters (England) Bill could be inserted in the Irish Bill?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER),in reply, said, he would have a look at the Instructions and see what they were.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (REDISTRIBUTION) BILL.— [BILL 134.]
  (Mr. Gladstone, The Marquess of Hartington, Sir Charles W. Dilke, Mr. Attorney General, The Lord Advocate, Mr. Campbell-Bannerman.)
  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (REDISTRIBUTION) BILL.— [BILL 134.]

    CONSIDERATION. [FIRST NIGHT."]
    Bill, as amended, considered.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE,in moving the insertion of a new clause relating to Pembroke, said, that the effect of the Amendment was to adhere to the original provision of the Bill. Since the question of Pembrokeshire had been discussed, he had considered the matter; and the feeling which he had then expressed with regard to the Bill as it stood had not been removed by the further consideration which he had given to the subject. The proposal which had been made by the noble Viscount the Member for Carmarthenshire (Viscount Emlyn), to turn one of the boroughs into the county, and keep another as it was, had been put forward by him chiefly on the grounds of distances and convenience. But the Bill, as it stood, equalized the population as between the county and the borough better than the noble Viscount's proposal. The Haverford west boroughs were comparatively small, whereas Weston had a very large area. The boroughs of the county were completely mixed up; and, so far as geographical features went, there was a strong case in favour of the proposal in the Bill. The noble Viscount had argued in Committee that some of the boroughs of the proposed group were situated at a great distance from one another. No doubt the extreme distance of any one borough from another was in the case of Fishguard and Tenby, which were 24 miles apart; but in the case of boroughs in some of the other Welsh counties the distances were greater still, being in one case 32 miles, and in another 36. Under the circumstances of the case, he did not see his way to change the proposal of the Bill with regard to the grouping of these boroughs. According to promise, he had now placed on the Paper as a clause what had formerly appeared as a Note to the Schedule. The clause was to the effect that the law relating to the elec-

    973
    tion for the boroughs of Pembroke should also include the present Parliamentary borough of Haverford west. He would, therefore, move the second reading of the clause.
    Clause:—
    (Provision as to Pembroke.)
    "The law relating to the Elections for the Parliamentary borough of Pembroke shall apply as if the places comprised in the area of the present Parliamentary borough of Haverford west were named in the Act of the Session of the second and third years of the reign of King William the Fourth, chapter forty-five, as places sharing in the election of a Member for Pembroke, and the borough shall be called Pembroke and Haverfordwest,"—(Sir Charles W. Dilke,)
    —brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
    VISCOUNT EMLYNsaid, that his argument against the change proposed by the Bill rested chiefly on this ground—that it violated the principle laid down by the Government with respect to grouped boroughs. What case did the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Charles W. Dilke) make for breaking through a principle which he had declared to apply to the whole of the United Kingdom—namely, that there should be no grouping of boroughs? He took a scattered group of seven boroughs, one of which was purely agricultural, and because of the position of that one borough between two others, he argued that the principle of the Bill should be departed from. In the Pembroke district of boroughs were included towns of an electorate respectively of 16,300,4,750, 3,812, and 717. Because of the position of the small town of 717 persons, the right hon. Gentleman claimed to apply a different rule to these boroughs than he applied to other parts of the country. If the small borough of Weston ought not to be in the group, let it be taken out; but there could be no doubt that Pembroke, having a population of over 25,000, was absolutely entitled, according to the principles of the Bill, to its own Representative. The Government had no right to try and equalize the population, because it happened to suit their purpose. There were numbers of cases where gross anomalies took place, and no attempt was made to equalize the population. There was no reason why the Haverford west boroughs
    974
    should not be amalgamated with the county of Pembroke. The population of the latter, 57,000, was by no means excessive, as compared with many other counties. With regard to local feeling, he might say that while Pembroke did not desire to be connected with Haverford west, the latter was in favour of the proposal. Seeing that the people of Pembroke strongly objected to the proposal, he should certainly divide the House upon it.
    LORD KENSINGTON,in supporting the insertion of the clause, said, he would ask whether the noble Viscount opposite (Viscount Emlyn) possessed any evidence to show that the people of Pembroke were opposed to the Government proposals? Yesterday he (Lord Kensington) presented a Petition from. the Corporation of Haverford west in their favour. He denied that there was any Party spirit whatever involved in the matter; and it was the desire of both political Parties in the borough that the arrangement proposed should be made.
    MR. MORGAN LLOYDsaid, he strongly supported the scheme in the Bill, which commended itself to his judgment, distinct from Party, as better than the proposal of the noble Viscount opposite the Member for Carmarthenshire (Viscount Emlyn). The noble Viscount objected to the provision now in question as a departure from the principle of the Bill. That was a mistake, for the principle of the Bill was to equalize electoral districts so far as could be done without undue interference with the existing system. The rule applied to England that disfranchised boroughs should be merged in the counties involved no principle, but was found a convenient rule to adopt so far as regarded England, where grouping of boroughs was unknown. In Wales all their boroughs were grouped, and it was but natural to join a disfranchised group to another in the same county when that was found to be a convenient arrangement. The county of Pembroke had already a population of 57,000, whilst the Pembroke boroughs had only about 30,000. It was, therefore, in accordance with the principle of the Bill to add Haverford west to the boroughs and not to the county.
    MR. GORSTsaid, the scheme of the Government in this matter was in shock-

    975
    ing bad taste. The Welsh boroughs generally, and the case of Haverford west in particular, formed the great blot on the Bill. It was ridiculous to say that the Bill was one to equalize population; for if that was the principle of the Bill the principle was violated in every line, and it was only invoked in this particular case of Haverford west, which, being a Welsh town, it was no doubt convenient should be forced into the borough of Pembroke. A little trick was being played in the case of Haverford west. The great towns of Wales, such as Pembroke, were really not Welsh, but English towns; the people who lived in them were English; they were, in fact, a little England in Wales. What was done by the clause was to destroy this little English element, by importing into the Dockyard constituency a number of small Welsh agricultural villages. In this case, Haverford west was Welsh, and there was no reason why it should be merged into Pembroke, except that it was hoped thereby to insure the return of a Radical candidate. ["Oh, oh!"] Of course, it was no use talking. The noble Lord opposite (Lord Kensington) had his big battalion down on this occasion. After the experience of Friday, the Government Whips would be more careful, particularly on an occasion like the present. He repeated that the proposal was in shocking bad taste. It was an entire violation of the whole principle of the Bill to save Haverford west by adding it to the Pembroke group. It had no affinity with the Pembroke boroughs; and though the noble Lord opposite (Lord Kensington) had quoted local feeling in favour of the proposal, he would ask in what other instance had local feeling been allowed to prevail in the arrangements of this Bill? The Government had a shocking bad case, and he should certainly vote against it.
    MR. W. DAVIESsaid, as Member for the county of Pembroke, he trusted he might be permitted to say a word on this subject. He was very much amused by the observation of the hon. and learned Member who had just spoken (Mr. Gorst) that Haverford west was a Welsh town. That showed what he knew about it. Haverford west was a purely English town. [Laughter.] Hon. Members laughed. Why, he was
    976
    born in it—was educated in it—had resided in it; but he could not speak a word of Welsh. It was a very extensive town—it was a large town with a small population. He did know something about Haverfordwest and about the county of Pembroke, and a little more about them than the noble Viscount opposite (Viscount Emlyn). It was so much on a par with Pembroke Dock and Denbigh that scarcely any distinction could be drawn between them, all being English places. If the noble Viscount had gone into the matter, he would have found that nearly the whole of Pembroke Dock was in favour of the scheme proposed by the Government. [Laughter.'] That was true, because he had inquired into it. It had actually been proposed to him that a Petition should be presented to that House on the subject; but he had discountenanced the proposal, but strong representations had been made in favour of grouping these towns. The noble Viscount was attempting to convert Haverfordwest from town into county. Haverfordwest was one of the ancient boroughs of the Kingdom, and sent Members to Parliament before Wales sent any at all. Why, therefore, should it now be extinguished and merged in a county—a proceeding which its inhabitants strongly objected to? Moreover, if the proposal of the noble Viscount were adopted, between 200 and 300 electors of Haverfordwest would be disfranchised. [An hon. MEMBER: Why?] That showed that hon. Members opposite had not investigated the thing. At present, they voted for the borough as occupiers, and they also voted for the county as freeholders; but if the town was merged in the county they would only have their county vote. That ought to weigh with the House. The population of Pembrokeshire was now 57,000; why, therefore, should it be increased to 64,000? To increase it to that extent would be to add to the expense of standing for his county, although he had no doubt that it would also add to his majority. Upon that ground the increase would be most objectionable, and he ventured to hope that the Amendment would not be carried.
    MR. WARTON,in opposing the insertion of the clause, said that there were two or three jobs in the Bill, but that this was the greatest. [Cries of

    977
    "Divide!"] He could well understand the impatience of the Liberal Party. Hon. Members opposite were so ashamed of this job that they wanted to hurry it through without any discussion.
    SIR E. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that it was perfectly true that he had received a letter from Haverfordwest, asking the reason for the vote he had given in respect of this matter on a former occasion; and as he intended to repeat that vote he desired to give his reason for doing so. There were two principles in the Bill which ought to be adhered to—one was that, as far as England and Wales were concerned, the grouping of towns was not allowed; and the other was that boroughs of less than 1,400 electors were to be merged in their counties. In his opinion, no satisfactory grounds had been shown for departing from those two recognized principles in the present case; and he should, therefore, vote against the proposal.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 206; Noes 117: Majority 89.—(Div. List, No. 133.)
    VISCOUNT EMLYNsaid, he hoped the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) would not persist in adding to this borough two places, one of 1,100, and the other of only 15 population. He, therefore, moved an Amendment, with a view of excluding from the borough Fishguard and Narberth, to the effect that the municipal borough (and not the present Parliamentary borough) of Haverfordwest should be included in the new Parliamentary borough of Pembroke and Haverfordwest.
    Amendment proposed,
    In line 2, to leave out the words "the places comprised in the area of the present Parliamentary," and insert the word"Municipal,"—(Viscount Emlyn,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he could not accept the Amendment, which would break up the town in a perfectly artificial fashion.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 196; Noes 108; Majority 88.—(Div. List, No. 134.)
    Clause added.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES),in moving, as an Amendment, to leave out Clause 27, (dealing with the disqualification of voters for corrupt practices), and to insert the following clause:——
    (Repeal of Acts in Eighth Schedule respecting corrupt practices.)
    "The Acts mentioned in the First Part of the Eighth Schedule to this Act, whereby certain persons reported guilty of corrupt practices are declared not to have certain rights of voting, are hereby repealed to the extent in the third column of that Schedule mentioned,"
    said, the House was, no doubt, aware of the object of the new clause which he now moved. When the House was in Committee on the Bill, and while discussing the clause, he thought that the general feeling of the Committee was that the penalty with respect to defaulting voters as having been guilty of corrupt practices in 1880 should be mitigated to seven years' disqualification. He understood the opinion of the House to be strongly expressed in favour of that mitigated penalty; and, therefore, the clause was amended in that respect. It, therefore, became necessary that the punishment inflicted on corrupt voters should be equalized, and the object of this clause was to deal with the voters disqualified by previous legislation. There were, he believed, 10 boroughs which had been disqualified, among them being Beverley, Bridgwater, Totnes, Reigate, Norwich, Great Yarmouth, Sligo, and Cashel. Inasmuch as it had been agreed that the voters who were disqualified on account of corrupt practices in 1880 were to suffer only seven years' disqualification, it was impossible to maintain an inequality of punishment in respect of the disqualified voters of those boroughs, and to allow the disqualifications to remain as they were. The disqualified voters in those boroughs had suffered disqualification for a period not less than 14 years, and some had gone considerably beyond that period. With the object, therefore, of imposing equal punishment on all disqualified voters, he now proposed this clause, with the object of bringing those voters to life again, and to allow them to vote at elections. The number of voters thus restored would be practically very small. Probably one-third

    979
    of the persons who had originally been disqualified only remained to be registered. These being the circumstances of the case, he hoped the House would accept the new clause. If the clause were agreed to, it would be necessary to omit Clause 27, and he should move to do so at a later stage.
    Clause (Repeal of Acts in Eighth Schedule respecting corrupt Practices,)—(Mr. Attorney General,)—brought up, and read the first and second time.
    Question proposed. "That the Clause be added to the Bill."
    MR. BIRKBECK,who had two new clauses on the Paper for the removal of the disqualification of certain voters in Norwich and Great Yarmouth, said, that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, in moving the clause under notice as he had, had accepted the principle of the two new clauses which stood in his (Mr. Birkbeck's) name, and had been on the Notice Paper some days prior to the Attorney General's new clause. This Amendment on the part of the Government would be greatly appreciated by the disqualified voters of Norwich and Great Yarmouth. There would now be no necessity for his moving the new clauses which stood in his name, and he should consequently withdraw them.
    MR. HEALYasked, with regard to the freemen of Dublin, by what means they could get again upon the Poll; and whether they would have to go through all the formalities which they would have to go through when coming on as new men? They were an extremely corrupt class, and were generally taken out of the workhouses, given a new suit of clothes, in order to go to the poll, and after having spent the sovereign which they got for the vote went back again to the workhouse. Under ordinary circumstances, the freemen of Dublin had to pay something like 10s. as a fee to the Town Clerk. He wished to know whether the freemen would be, by this clause, entitled to be put back in globo on the voters' lists? It would be a very unfortunate state of affairs if they were. Frightful corruption had been proved against them; and it had been proved in the case of Lord Ardilaun, formerly Sir Arthur Guinness, that whole oceans of beer, as well as money, had been spent in corrupting them. For the pur-
    980
    pose of giving the Government an opportunity of considering the matter, he would move that this clause do not apply to the freemen of Dublin.
    Amendment proposed,
    To add at end of Clause the words, "Provided, That this clause do not apply to the freemen of the City of Dublin."—(Mr. Healy.)
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he would consider the matter. He would, however, point out that the object of the hon. and learned Member could be attained better by his moving the Amendment in a later part of the Bill.
    MR. HEALYsaid, he would accept the suggestion of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause added.
    MR. HEALY,in moving as an Amendment, in page 2, after Clause 8, to insert the following Clause:——
    (Corporation or town commissioners may revise ward boundaries.)
    "Within twelve months after the passing of this Act it shall be lawful for the corporation or town commissioners of any town, city, or borough in Ireland to rearrange the ward boundaries of such city, town, or borough, provided that in no case shall the number of wards in any constituency be increased or diminished,"
    said, the clause was necessary in consequence of the manner in which the wards were cut up by the Boundary Commissioners. It was absolutely necessary that there should be some provision to enable the voters' lists to be properly prepared. The ward was the unit of municipal life, and the voters' lists were prepared by wards; and unless the boundaries of the wards were not coterminous with the boundaries of the Parliamentary division, great confusion, trouble, and expense would be created. In both Dublin and Belfast the wards had been divided. He hoped the Government would accept the clause, or insert some equivalent proposition.
    Clause (Corporation or town commissioners may revise ward boundaries,)—(Mr. Healy,)—brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he agreed in substance with the desire of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Healy), but not with the mode in which he sought to give effect to it. It was a hardship that the municipalities in Ireland could not alter their wards without an Act of Parliament, as they did in England; but the present proposal was not germane to the Bill. Perhaps, however, some measure would be brought in—it might be in this Session—dealing with that subject.
    MR. HEALYsaid, he was willing to withdraw his clause; but he would point out to the right hon. Baronet that unless the Government attended speedily to the matter it would be too late. He supposed the Revision Courts could sit a month earlier this year, and the Town Councils were now preparing the lists.
    Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 26, to leave out the words "end of."—(Mr. Warton.)
    Question, "That the words 'end of stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 1, line 27, to leave out the words "cease to be entitled to," in order to insert the word "not,"—(Mr. Warton,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
    MR. ALDERMAN COTTON,in moving an Amendment giving the City of London four Members instead of two, said, he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman who had charge of the Bill would now see his way to accepting the Amendment, when it would no longer interfere with the main principle of the Bill. There was one point upon which he wished to make some remarks—that was, the subject of the Livery vote in the City. It was not the case that the Livery vote gave a citizen of London two votes, as seemed to have been supposed. After the full discussion which the question of the City representation had received, he would not go into the matter at greater length, but would ask the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board to waive the objection which he had on a former occasion taken to his proposal.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 2, line 2, to leave out the word "two," in order to insert the word "four,"—(Mr. Alderman Cotton,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the word 'two' stand part of the Bill."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that the question had been decided in a very large House; and, considering the way in which the Committee had decided it, he thought that it was not desirable that he should re-open on the present occasion the arguments which he had used before. The hon. Member had remarked that the question of the Livery vote ought not to have been made so much of, because it did not give two votes. Of course, it did not give two votes for the same constituency; but it increased the voting constituency. He must ask the House to re-affirm its former decision.
    MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCEsaid, he wished to protest, although he knew it would be unavailing, against the taking away of two Members from the City. He was aware that it was only a protest, because they all knew that all these matters had been settled before they had been brought under the notice of the House. They were even deprived of the Court of Appeal, which they might have found in the House of Lords, since the arrangements come to between the Leaders of the two Parties were binding there also. The defence made by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition (Sir Stafford Northcote) on this point was utterly invalid; he had maintained that by giving up, or rather throwing over, the City of London, he had gained advantages for his Party which he would not otherwise have obtained. For his own part, he (Mr. Alderman W. Lawrence) protested against the mode in which this matter had been settled, and the manner in which the City had been treated. The citizens of London felt that they had been unjustly dealt with by the Bill, and that there had been a want of appreciation and a want of knowledge of the commerce, the trade, and the exceptional circumstances of the City. He should not be doing his duty unless he protested in the strongest possible manner against the conduct of the Leaders of the two sides in settling this question

    983
    behind the backs of the City of London—it ought to have been left to the decision of both Houses of Parliament. A great deal had been made of the sleeping population in the City; but there was a day and night population of the City which was not a sleeping population. The arguments drawn from the Census population were of the most fallacious kind. The history of the City of London was a glorious history, and he was astonished that it should have been disregarded by the persons who had prepared the Bill. There was once a Cecil who had appealed to the City for assistance in the Plantation of Ulster, at a time when the Crown found it impossible to obtain Colonists on the proposals placed before the public. The City responded to that appeal; the flourishing Cities of Londonderry and Coleraine were evidences of the success of that arrangement. From that time to the present there had been the most intimate relations between the Cecils and the City of London. He regretted that a Cecil should now have joined in a scheme to deprive the City of half its Members. Those who had arranged the clause had shown their incompetence to deal with the matter.
    MR. ALDERMAN COTTONsaid, that although he felt bound to reiterate his opinion that taking away two Members from the City of London was a great blot on the Bill, he would ask permission to withdraw his Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    On the Motion of Mr. WARTON, the following Amendment made:—In page 2, line 3, leave out "borough," and insert "boroughs."
    On the Motion of Sir CHARLES W. DILKE, the following Amendment made:—In page 2, line 16, leave out "comprised," and insert "or as regards the greater part thereof in extent comprised within the Metropolis, and."
    On the Motion of Mr. WARTON, page 2, line 18, at end, add "as a borough."
    On the Motion of Sir CHARLES W. DILKE, the following Amendment made:—In page 2, line 23, at end of line, insert—
    "And shall not include the places which are either therein specified and described as excluded, or are included by this Act in any other Parliamentary borough."
    MR. HEALY,in moving the following Amendment to Clause 8, which provides that boroughs in the Sixth Schedule should be divided into divisions:—
    "Provided, That this section, so far as it applies to the city of Dublin, shall only remain in force until the thirty-first day of December, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-seven, and no longer,"
    said, he should be content to leave it to the future Lord Lieutenant to find out what the boundaries should be. They all knew that Dublin was jerrymandered in the interests of the Tory Party; and, of course, if under the jerrymandered scheme the Tories got one seat, no objection would be made. But if, at the General Election, the Nationalists were able to carry all the four seats, there could be no necessity for maintaining the present ridiculous and absurd boundaries.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 2, line 36, after the word Schedule," o insert the words Provided, That this section, so far as it applies to the city of Dublin, shall only remain in force until the thirty-first day of December, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-seven, and no longer."—(Mr. Healy.)
    Question proposed, That those words be there inserted."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he was sorry that he could not accept the Amendment any more than he could accept the one made at an earlier stage of the proceedings. It would place the alteration of the boundaries in the hands of a body of persons other than Parliament, and that could not be agreed to. The arrangement proposed by the Bill was, upon the whole, a satisfactory one, and ought not to be open to disturbance.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he must express his regret that the Amendment was not accepted.
    MR. GIBSONsaid, he thought the boundaries of the City of Dublin were very fairly drawn; and in saying that he happened to have the advantage, which was not possessed by the two previous speakers, of being a Dublin man.
    MR. HEALY: I live there too, and pay taxes there as well.
    MR. GIBSONsaid, he was born in Dublin and knew the locality, and he was convinced the boundaries in the Bill were fair, reasonable, and convenient. The Amendment proposed to give to the

    985
    Corporation of Dublin the power to upset the arrangements with regard to the boundaries of Dublin which Parliament in its wisdom had laid down; but he (Mr. Gibson) was sure that Parliament would never allow any power other than itself to interfere with the boundaries. Besides, it would be inconvenient in the highest degree to declare in an Act of Parliament that the arrangements were of a temporary character.
    Question put, and negatived.
    MR. WARTON MR. WARTON moved, as an Amendment, to leave out Sub-section 3 of Clause 8, which provides that in the boroughs to be divided a man shall not vote in more than one division. The property qualification, he contended, ought not to be infringed.
    Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 37, to leave out sub-section (3) of Clause S.—(Mr. Warton.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE,in opposing the Amendment, said, it was contrary to the principle of the Bill. The sub-section did not apply to counties; and in the case of large towns he did not see why, for instance, a man with a number of shops in all the leading thoroughfares should have the right to vote in all the divisions. The clause in no way interfered with the property qualification which did not exist in boroughs.
    MR. HEALYsaid, he thought the principle of one man one vote, as applied to the boroughs, ought to be extended to the counties. He could understand it if it were so extended.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he did not see why a man with the necessary qualification should not have votes in the various divisions of a largo town; but, while he sympathized with the object of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Warton), as the matter had been practically settled by what had occurred previously, he hoped his hon. and learned Friend would not press his Amendment.
    MR. HICKSsaid, he was sorry that, for one, he could not accept the advice of the right hon. Baronet (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach). He objected most strongly
    986
    to the disfranchisement of property proposed by this provision—a disfranchisement totally at variance with the provisions of all previous alterations of the franchise; and he thought the House ought to go to a division on the question. He did not know whether this particular point was included within the terms of the celebrated agreement of which they had heard so much; but, if it was, he trusted that the right hon. Members on the Front Opposition Bench would for once have the courage of their convictions, and vote for that which in their hearts they must feel to be right.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    MR. HEALY,in moving to amend the clause by the insertion of the following words:—
    "A person shall not be registered as entitled to vote and shall not vote in any Parliamentary borough who is registered as a voter in any county constituency conterminous with such borough,"
    said, he would point out that people living in Rathmines, and having places of business in Dublin, had a dual power of voting. The Boundary Commissioners had so jerrymandered the county and City of Dublin that these people would have power to vote in the South-Western Division of Dublin City, and had also a neat little paddock in the county to prance in. He found that the chief of that Commission (Mr. Piers White) had already been preconized as successor to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland when that Gentleman would become Attorney General, on the promotion of Mr. Naish to the Lord Chancellorship, so that his reward had followed quickly on his services to the Government in this respect.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 2, line 39, after the word "division," to insert the words "A person shall not be registered as entitled to vote and shall not vote in any Parliamentary borough who is registered as a voter in any county constituency conterminous with such borough."—(Mr. Healy.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he could not assent to the proposition, which had been fully discussed on previous occasions. The hon. and learned Member had done, on the present occasion, what

    987
    he did when this question was last before the House—he had treated it as if Dublin had a greater grievance than existed elsewhere. But the case of Dublin was precisely the same as the case of London and Glasgow.
    MR. GRAYsaid, the argument of the right hon. Baronet amounted to this—that two wrongs made a right. But there was a special grievance, because of the artificial character of the boundaries of the City.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsupported the Amendment.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 17; Noes 107: Majority 90.—(Div. List, No. 135.)
    MR. HEALY,in moving to amend the same clause by the insertion of the following words:—
    "A person shall not be registered to vote and shall not vote in any borough where a university is situate who is registered as a voter for such university,"
    said, that his Amendment embodied the one man one vote principle, which Liberals professed in theory. Universities were, he thought, sufficiently represented already, without giving those resident in them votes outside those given for University Members. In Dublin they had 200 persons out of Trinity College on the Electoral Roll of the City as lodgers; and he doubted whether the same thing existed in the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge, and Edinburgh. It was bad enough to have such voters on the Roll; but matters were made worse when the Commissioners put them into the South-Western or jerrymandered Division. In addition to the borough representation, those gentlemen at present had also the advantage of representation by the two Members on the Front Opposition Bench for Dublin University. He thought that two Members were representation enough for them. If the Government could not accept his Amendment, he contended that they, at least, should accept an Amendment to the effect that a person should not qualify as an elector outside of University premises. To allow him to so qualify was to inflict a great hardship on the permanent voters of Dublin.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 2, line 39, after the word "division," to insert the words "A person shall not he registered to vote and shall not vote in any be-
    988
    rough where a university is situate who is registered as a voter for such university,"—(Mr Healy.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he would point out that the hon. and learned Member's speech covered a great deal more than his Amendment. He (Sir Charles W. Dilke) thought it was unnecessary to repeat to the hon. and learned Member what he had already said on a previous occasion with respect to his individual opinion on the question of the double vote. As it had been found necessary, however, to concede something on this head for the purpose of carrying the measure through Parliament, the question of the double qualification had been agreed to as a matter of arrangement between the two Parties. He could not accept the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member. He did not believe that the double voting power was possessed by those who voted for University Members; but he would promise to look very closely into the matter.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, that the point raised by his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Healy) was that persons having votes for University Members within the walls of a University had also votes for Members of Parliament out of chambers in the University in the division in which those chambers were situate. He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) was confident of the existence of the double qualification. It was a monstrous injustice that a man should have a vote as a graduate of the University of Dublin, and should, at the same time, be at liberty to go outside the gates of the University to another polling booth, and record a vote for one of the Members for a division of the City. That was one of the greatest and most grievous absurdities in the whole Bill.
    MR. BIGGARsupported the Amendment.
    MR. PLUNKETsaid, that if the Dublin University students were deprived of the right to exercise the franchise in virtue of their occupation holdings, they would be the only persons in the community who were debarred their right of doing so.
    MR. GRAYsaid, that the Amendment on the Paper raised a very important question as to whether students

    989
    of a University were, owing to the accident of being within the walls of a College for two or three years, really the persons intended by Parliament to come within the designation of lodgers at all? However, the effect of the Amendment made the issue a very much narrower one. It was a question as to whether persons in a College or University should be entitled to two votes, one for the University, and another for the constituency in which the University happened to be situate? In the case of Dublin City, the question was whether the graduates should vote for the Members who represented that University, and also for other Members of the House. He would ask whether the lodger franchise had been ever intended to cover the case of students whose fees, &c. were paid by their parents while they were inmates of a College?
    MR. THOMAS RUSSELLsaid, the difficulties suggested by the hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. Healy) applied to the Scottish Universities as well as to the Dublin University; but the remedy was not to be found in the restriction proposed by the hon. Member. What they wanted to do was to abolish the University representation altogether.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 16; Noes 88: Majority 72.—(Div. List, No. 136.)
    MR. HEALY MR. HEALY moved an Amendment standing in his name on the Paper to the effect that, in cases where a candidate was stated to have already voted owing to the mischance that he had received voting papers for two districts, the Returning Officer should be allowed to ask the question—"Have you already voted for this division," and to administer the oath.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 2, line 39, after the word "division," to insert the words "and if by any neglect or accident the same person should be registered as a voter for more than one division, and the attention of the returning officer or his deputy is called to the fact on or before the day of polling, such returning officer or deputy shall administer to such voter on oath the question prescribed by section twelve, sub-section four, of this Act."—(Mr. Healy.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that this was a matter which should be settled
    990
    before the Election. The matter had been very carefully considered by the Boundary Commissioners for England; and he thought that the hon. and learned Member had better not interfere in any way until the discussion on the English Registration Bill.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. HEALY,in moving an Amendment to omit from the clause the subsection which provides that the polls in a divided borough shall take place on the same day, said, he would point out that no similar provision was made in regard to counties, and that to impose this obligation on Returning Officers was needlessly to increase the expense. He saw no reason why the same staff should not be employed where possible upon different days in the different divisions in the same boroughs, in order to lessen the expense.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 2 line 40, to leave out from the word "at" to the word "borough," in line 42.—(Mr. Healy.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he could not accept the Amendment, because he believed, if it were agreed to, that it would lead to great inconvenience, especially in the large boroughs of England and Scotland—such, for instance, as Liverpool, with nine divisions. He thought the advantage in saving would be counteracted by the facility which it would give to organizations of a formidable kind to go round the town with money or other inducements to voters. He did not, however, attach much importance to either of these arguments; but he thought that a town would be considerably disturbed if different days were taken up in polling.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. HEALY,in moving an Amendment to the effect that nothing in Subsection 4 of the clause, which enables the Returning Officer to fix the polls in a divided borough for the same day, should be taken to enlarge or extend the discretion vested in the Returning Officer by the Ballot Act of 1872 as to fixing the day of poll, said, he thought that in order

    991
    to prevent any Returning Officer exceeding his powers the day should be fixed in accordance with the provisions of the Ballot Act of 1872.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 3, line 42, at end, insert "but nothing in this sub-section shall be taken to extend the discretion vested in him by the Ballot Act of 1872, as to fixing the day of poll."—(Mr. Healy.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that a difficulty of the kind suggested by the hon. and learned Member might arise in the case of some Returning Officers; and the Government would, therefore, accept the Amendment.
    Question put, and agreed to; words inserted accordingly. Amendment proposed,
    In page 2, line 42, after the word "borough," to insert the words, "who shall not be entitled to charge for his expenses to all the candidates, in all the Divisions collectively, a greater sum than he would have been able to obtain if this Act had not passed, the expenses for each candidate to be ascertained by dividing the number of candidates for the borough, as a whole, into the amount now allowed by law."—(Mr. Healy.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he agreed that it would be necessary to pass a clause on the subject brought forward by the hon. and learned Member; but the proper place to do so would be in the Returning Officers' Expenses Bill. On the part of the Government, he would undertake to have the matter looked into.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 9 (Division of counties).
    MR. HEALYsaid, he had been requested by his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) to move an Amendment in regard to the dividing of Irish counties into divisions. Except, perhaps, in the case of the Ulster counties and the county of Dublin, the Amendment, if carried, would make no great change. Why should a county like Longford be divided into divisions, when there was no increase whatever in the representation? No
    992
    political effect could arise in the case of the counties referred to. Nothing would be gained but the casting of extra expense on the Parnellite Party, who would gain their seats all the same. It was only another instance of the error of applying English ideas to an Irish situation. Where counties returned an increased number of Members he could understand why the division was made, because a new political situation would be created; but why counties having the same complement of Members as of yore should be divided he could not understand. He regarded the single-Member constituency principle with aversion, and believed it would ultimately break down. But for that the National Party would have 90 seats instead of 80, and something like 17 or 18 seats in England. The single-Member principle applied to Ireland would give the Tory Party votes they would not otherwise gain, depriving the National Party of the majority they were entitled to. Thus, in Donegal the Tories would gain one seat, in Tyrone two, in Derry two, in Armagh two; whereas in all these cases, except Armagh, the Catholic National Party were in the majority. Then take the converse case—in Antrim, and any other instance, except Down, would the Nationalists gain thereby? He saw no reason for interfering with a constituency which the Bill did not benefit.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 3, line 6, after the word "shall," to insert the words "except in the case of the county of Dublin and the counties in the province of Ulster."—(Mr. Healy.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. TREVELYAN,in opposing the Amendment, said, the hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. Healy) advocated a departure, in the case of only a part of Ireland, from the general principle upon which the Bill was framed as regarded all counties. It was impossible, in a matter of this sort, to have regard to local circumstances, or to the bearings which the division or the non-division of counties would have on any political Party, and he should be sorry to believe that in any part of the Kingdom there should continue to be no political stir whatever. An advantage of small constituencies was that it gave variety of representation, and 50,000 was a

    993
    better number of constituents to represent than 100,000 in a double constituency, say, for instance, such as Newcastle-upon-Tyne. It admitted of exactly that mixture of political and personal relations between constituents and Members which produced the most healthy representation. The Bill applied the general principle all around, irrespective of local political circumstances. That principle had been argued over and over again, and it was impossible on this occasion to depart from it; indeed, he almost thought the Amendment was only moved as a final protest.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR,in supporting the Amendment, said, he disapproved entirely of the system of single-Member districts. He also objected to the general principle and description of the Bill just given. There was no arrangement of political life in America against which politicians protested more than the single-Member constituency. Through its operation a large number of eminent men were excluded from the National Councils, because they had no home in a constituency they might otherwise represent. The very fact of a man having personal connection with a locality was often the best reason why he was not returned. A prophet was not always regarded in his own country. The Bill, however, presented several exceptions to the rule, and the right hon. Gentleman had alluded to one, for instance, Newcastle, as a double constituency. Why not apply the exception to Ireland? To secure variety of representation he granted an advantage; but the advantage in Ireland gained by dividing the Ulster counties, would be purchased at the cost of giving the minority an excess of representation far beyond their fair claim.
    MR. PLUNKETsaid, he felt himself in some confusion as to what was the object of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) when he placed the Amendment on the Paper, if it was not with the object of gaining a political advantage. At first, he thought the Amendment must be misprinted. The arguments by the hon. Members who had supported the Amendment were ingenious, and directed against the whole principle of single-Member constituencies; but the Amendment of the hon. Member for the City of Cork would apply this obnoxious principle to
    994
    all Ireland except the Province of Ulster. The fact was, the only possible object was a most unblushing, audacious attempt as far as possible to extinguish the minority in the only place where that minority had a chance of being represented.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, he thought the principal point in the controversy was the question of convenience and reduction of the Returning Officer's expenses, and he should not think the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) could be fairly accused of political selfishness. There need not be a great anxiety for consistency in the Bill. No Bill over passed that did not contain some anomalies. On the considerations he had mentioned, he supported the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that in order to meet the case of certain Irish counties, and that of the alternative names of county divisions, he would move to amend the clause by the insertion of the following words:—
    "And any name placed before the description of a division shall be the name of the division, and where the names of the divisions are in the alternative, the division may be designated by both or either of such names."
    Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 11, to insert the words—
    "And any name placed before the description of a division shall be the name of the division, and" where the names of the divisions are in the alternative, the division may be designated by both or either of such names."—(Sir Charles W. Dilke.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
    MR. WARTON,in proposing the omission from the Amendment of the words "and any name placed before the description of a division shall be the name of the division," said, he would refer more especially to Birr and Tullamore, as names which could not stand alone.
    Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, to leave out the words—
    "And any name placed before the description of a division shall be the name of the division, and."—(Mr Warton.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the said proposed Amendment."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he had been no party to prolonging discussion on names, which he thought unimportant, and, while he was disposed to agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Warton) as to the names mentioned, the objection to them would not, in his opinion, be met by the Amendment.
    LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he would point out that some confusion might arise by one authority using one name and another another in referring to these divisions. In that case, who was to be the authority to exercise the discretion given by the right hon. Gentleman in the selection of a name?
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Original Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE ATTORNET GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES),in reply to the noble Lord opposite (Lord John Manners), said, the overseer would select the name. It might be possible to create uniformity when they came to the Schedules; but he should point out that it was the House in Committee, and not the Government, who had pushed forward this matter of alternative designations.
    LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, that different overseers might select different names, and that would lead to confusion. The Quarter Sessions might be a fit authority.
    MR. WARTONproposed to amend the Amendment, by rendering it obligatory that where there were two names both should be used.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "may," and insert the word "shall,"—(Mr. Warton,)—instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the word 'may' stand part of the said proposed Amendment."
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that the Registration Bill was to come into operation within seven days. He was afraid that in connection with the retention of alternative names there might be difficulty with respect to the names under the Registration Bill,
    996
    which might come into operation before this Bill.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that he had already pressed the same view on the House. He should have preferred that there was no alternative name; but the Committee on the Bill had decided otherwise. The matter would, however, have to be reconsidered when the Schedules were reached, and he would meanwhile give attention to the subject.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: said, on the whole, he thought it might be the better course to get rid of the alternative names, especially as in some cases both the alternative names were taken from localities. Before that was done, however, the subject would require serious consideration.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that, no doubt, as he had just said, the subject would have to be reconsidered on another occasion.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Original Question put, and agreed to; words inserted accordingly.
    On the Motion of Mr. GREGORY, Amendment amended, by adding the words "thereof for all purposes."
    Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 10 (Qualification by occupation of premises in immediate succession in divided borough).
    MR. HEALY,in moving an Amendment in the clause, the effect of which would be to make the law uniform for boroughs and counties with regard to qualification by successive occupation, said, he did not see why qualification by successive occupation should be confined to the boroughs alone.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 3, line 22, to leave out the words "situate within any division of a Parliamentary borough shall."—(Mr. Healy.)
    Question proposed, "That the words 'situate within any' stand part of the Bill."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the matter had been fully discussed on an Amendment of his hon. and learned Colleague (Mr. Firth), and he did not now wish to re-open the question. He thought the House would be more inclined to move in the direction of short-

    997
    ening the qualifying periods than of extending the application of the principle of qualification by successive occupation.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 3, line 22, to leave out the word "division," in order to insert the word "part,"—(Sir Charles W. Dilke,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the word 'division' stand part of the Bill."
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause agreed to.
    Clause 11 (Returning officers in new boroughs).
    On the Motion of Sir CHARLES W. DILKE, the following Amendments made:—In page 4, lines 12 to 27, leave out sub-sections (4.) and (5.); line 33, leave out from "case" to "the," in line 34; and in line 36, after"boroughs,"insert—
    "To the mayor of which the writ has before the passing of this Act been directed, or if it has not been directed to any such mayor, then to the mayor of that one of the municipal boroughs."
    MR. HEALY,in moving the insertion of an Amendment, constituting in the boroughs of Newry and Galway the Chairman of Town Commissioners the Returning Officer instead of the Sheriff, said, he made this proposal on no political grounds whatever, but simply to uphold the dignity of the office of the Chairman of Town Commissioners. In Ireland there were very few boroughs now left. He believed that in Belfast and one or two other places, the Mayor was the Returning Officer; while in Cork, Kilkenny, and one or two other places, the Sheriff was the Returning Officer. He had also reason to believe that the Chairman of the Newry Town Commissioners was a Conservative, so that no one could imagine that his (Mr. Healy's) object in moving the adoption of the Amendment was in any sense a political one. Up to the time of James I. Newry had a Charter. James repealed all the old Charters, and gave Newry a new one; but when William III. came in he abolished all James's Charters. Only for that, Newry would now be a corporate town, and, of course, entitled to its Mayor, who would be the Returning Officer.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 4, line 44, to insert the words,—"In Ireland, in the boroughs of Newry and Galway, the chairman of town commissioners shall be the returning officer instead of the sheriff."—
    —(Mr. Healy.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he had followed the case of the hon. and learned Member with regard to Newry, and although he knew very little about that place, he thought the case was a good one, and that there was something in what had been said. As to Galway, however, he could not follow the hon. and learned Gentleman so well, for that was a county of a town, and to pass over the Sheriff of a county of a town would be to create an anomaly. He must, therefore, oppose the Amendment.
    MR. LEWISsaid, he also opposed the Amendment, contending that the House was now asked to introduce a new thing in the history of elections, and to create a precedent. It was quite true the Chairman of the Town Commissioners answered all the purposes of the Mayor; but, after all, the Mayor was an officer of long standing, whose position and duties were well understood. He thought the House should be careful how they created precedents in these matters, and he hoped the Government would not consent to make an exception in the case of these boroughs. They recognized the Mayor and Sheriff as Returning Officers; but he knew of no case in England in which the Chairman of a Local Board was made the Returning Officer.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that, as far as he knew, there was no instance of such a creation of a Returning Officer by legislation as was now proposed. In no case he knew of was the Chairman of a Local Board a Returning Officer. They were asked in this case to create new Returning Officers, and he must confess that his instinct was against it. On that account, he could not agree to the hon. and learned Member's proposal.
    MR. THOROLD ROGERSsaid, he supported the Amendment with regard to Newry. He believed that Newry was altogether in an anomalous position, as it was difficult to ascertain who was really the chief man in the borough.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, the Returning Officer for Newry, under the Bill, would be the Sheriff of the County Down, who would have the same duties to perform for the whole of the divisions in the county. He was already the Returning Officer for the four divisions of the county, and also for the four divisions of the city of Belfast, and if the borough of Newry were added, there would, in fact, be only one Returning Officer for nine divisions, which he (Mr. O'Connor) considered to be a very anomalous position. It was, therefore, he contended, a case where a separate Returning Officer was required. He therefore asked the House to make a special provision for this ease. He did not think the case of Galway was as strong as that of Newry, and they had a Sheriff there
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he thought the Sheriff of the County Down need not be frightened at having to act for nine constituencies, seeing that the High Sheriff of Lancashire would be Returning Officer for 23 constituencies.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he thought that the proposal of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Healy) should be adopted if for no other reason than because it would establish uniformity in eight of the nine boroughs left in Ireland, in all of which they had a local urban Returning Officer. The local officer in authority for the time being would be the Returning Officer, and he wanted to know why Newry should be made an exception? The Chairman of the Town Commissioners was a most suitable officer for the position of Returning Officer; and he was sure the Conservative Town Commissioners of the town of Newry would not be very thankful to the Conservative Member for Derry (Mr. Lewis) when they found that he was the man who was particularly opposed to their obtaining this simple act of justice and convenience.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he would point out that the Sheriff of County Down had always acted as Returning Officer for Newry.
    LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, the remedy appeared to be rather to give a Corporation to the town of Newry.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, he thought it was obvious that Newry was entitled to have the Chairman of the Town Commissioners as the Returning Officer at elec-
    1000
    tions. It was a very ancient town, for it was mentioned by Dean Swift, who said it was—
    "High Church, low steeple,
    Dirty streets, proud people."
    So that it was an important town in Dean Swift's time, and he really saw no reason why it should be treated in the exceptional manner proposed under the Bill. If it were the county town, the case might be different; but it was situated at the very extremity of the county; in fact, part of the town was in the county of Armagh, and the county town was a long way off, so that the Sheriff would have to travel a long way to perform his duties. The Chairman of the Town Commissioners was thoroughly competent to perform the duties, and he certainly ought to have the position of Returning Officer.
    MR. HEALYsaid, he should like to have the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Charles W. Dilke) on the matter?
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that, no doubt, Newry would be the exception in Ireland; but if the Amendment was passed, it would be an exception also to the general rule in the United Kingdom, and consequently exceptions would also have to be made in other instances.
    MR. LEAMYsupported the Amendment, and asked if the right hon. Gentleman who had charge of the Bill could point out any reason for treating Newry in an exceptional manner? He thought the Conservatives of Newry would be very much surprised to find that the only Irish Member who opposed the Resolution was the hon. Member for Derry, and after all he was an Englishman.
    MR. ARCHDALEsaid, he fully agreed with the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis). He thought it quite immaterial where the Returning Officer was located; but he looked with great suspicion upon anything brought forward by the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan, because it was generally against the Irish Church.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 29; Noes 109: Majority 80.—(Div. List, No. 137.)
    Other Amendments made.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 12 (As to boroughs divided into divisions').
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 5, line 3, after the word "may," to insert the words "in and for any one or more of such divisions."—(Mr. Warton.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 5, line 15, after the word "voter," to insert the words "except non-resident freemen in Dublin."—(Mr. Healy.)
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.
    MR. HEALY MR. HEALY moved, in page 5, line 23, to insert an Amendment, the object of which was to compel the townships of Pembroke and Blackrock to repay the Corporation of Dublin the expense incurred in the preparation of the lists of Parliamentary voters in those townships.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 5, line 23, after the word "series," to insert the words,—"For the preparation of the lists in the city of Dublin, the Commissioners of the townships of Pembroke and Blackrock shall repay to the Treasurer of the Corporation of Dublin the expense of making out the lists for such portion of these townships as are situate within the Parliamentary borough of Dublin."—(Mr. Healy.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he would invite the right hon. Baronet to give his serious attention to this matter. It would be unfair to throw the expense on Dublin.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he would admit that this was an anomaly, and he thought it would be properly dealt with in the Registration Bill.
    MR. HEALY: Will you introduce a clause to that effect in the Registration Bill?
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he would do so.
    MR. HEALYremarked that a Registration Bill was introduced, and yet the Government without pressure would not remedy this injustice to the ratepayers of the City of Dublin.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause agreed to.
    Another Amendment made.
    Clause 15 (As to place of election).
    MR. HEALY (for Mr. SMALL)MR. HEALY (for Mr. SMALL) moved, as an Amendment, in page 6, line 35, to leave out the words "county at large," in order to insert "division." He thought it unfair that the Sheriff, who in Ireland was almost always opposed to the popular Party, should have it in his power to appoint a place for nominating the candidates and counting of the votes which might not be in the division for which the election was held. Perhaps the best way of dealing with the matter would be to give any candidate power to serve the Sheriff with a notice requiring him to name a place within the division.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 6, line 35, to leave out the words "county at large," and insert the word "division,"—(Mr. Healy,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words 'county at large' stand part of the Bill."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he must oppose the Amendment on the ground that in some county divisions in Ireland there were no towns containing adequate accommodation for the officers conducting nomination proceedings and those connected with the counting of votes.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he would ask the House to consider the importance of this question in the case of Ireland. Although there might not be a town in some of the divisions, he believed there were none in which there was not to be found a pretty considerable village which would be available. There was no division without a Petty Sessional Court or a police barrack. His hon. and learned Friend proposed that a candidate should have the power to compel the Returning Officer to conduct the nomination in some town or village in the very division which contained the constituency. It was not likely that a candidate would propose that the proceedings should take place in a town inconveniently situated.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)explained that in many counties there were central places to which it would be specially easy to bring the ballot-boxes in consequence of the facilities of railway communication. It was reasonable that such a

    1003
    place should, in certain cases, be looked upon as the centre of more than one Division.
    MR. O'DONNELLsaid, that in every division in Ireland sufficient accommodation could be found for the officials engaged in an election. At the same time, there were some Irish districts where the same facilities in the way of railway communication did not exist as in others. He would instance the cases of Cork, Donegal, Mayo, Sligo, and many other parts of Ireland, where great difficulty would in some cases be found in reaching the place selected, if something was not done to meet their requirements.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he was afraid that if the Amendment were not agreed to, Sheriffs in Ireland might disregard the convenience of constituencies in fixing the places of nomination.
    MR. LEWISsaid, that while he generally approved of the objects of the Amendment, its scope was too large. He held that it was not desirable that a polling place should be outside the limits of the county, which was the locus of the election.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he would point out the disadvantages there would be in cases where a county town was adjoining the division, were such an Amendment enforced. A city adjoining a county could only be fixed as the polling-place in cases where the city was geographically, although not technically, within the county.
    MR. GRAYsaid, that the assumptions of the Government had been made upon the understanding apparently that the Returning Officers would be desirous of holding elections at places which would best suit the majority of the electors. Now, he believed that there were some places in Ireland where the opposite course would be taken by Returning Officers, who would throw every obstacle in the way of the electors.
    MR. ARCHDALEinterposing, said, he felt bound to protest against these statements. He knew several Returning Officers who were quite incapable of such action.
    MR. GRAYsaid, that the hon. Member must be very fortunate in his acquaintances. He (Mr. Gray) had, however, the misfortune to have had quite a contrary experience. He would ask the House to consider in the case of
    1004
    Cork County, in which there were seven divisions, the difficulty which might be cast in the way of the electors by an injudicious selection of a place by the Returning Officer.
    MR. DEASYsaid, that some portions of Cork were 80 miles distant from the City of Cork, and there being great lack of railway communication, the poor people would be put to great expense and inconvenience if their case was not considered.
    MR. ARCHDALEsaid, it was preposterous to imagine that any High Sheriff would bring voters from a distance of 80 miles. As regarded the High Sheriff of the county of Cork, there was no more honourable man in the county.
    MR. O'SULLIVANsaid, he hoped the Government would accept the Amendment. It would do away with a possible hardship.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid, there was nothing more fatal to the cause of good government in Ireland than the opposition of the Government to the wishes of the Irish Representatives even on such small points. The great majority of the Returning Officers in Ireland were men—["Hear, hear!"] He was glad to see that his remarks elicited applause; and he would be glad to extend his remarks for the benefit of those who applauded him. Perhaps, however, before he concluded them those who interrupted him would be the worse for their interruption.
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must continue his speech without making any threat to hon. Members of this House.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid, he hoped the Speaker would save him from interruptions. The great majority of the Returning Officers in Ireland were men who, by their character and position, were distinctly opposed to the wishes and aspirations of the people. In the case of a bye-election in one division of a county, it would be absurd and unwise to carry the turmoil of the election into another division.
    MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYsaid, it was possible that, for some reason unknown to him, the arrangements made under this clause might be expedient and convenient in the English counties. He only contended that they were not expedient in Ireland. In England there

    1005
    was no great dispute between Parties; but in Ireland there was a lasting dispute between two great Parties. The great objection, however, to the clause was that an election might take place in a division of a county which was in no way concerned in it. The passing of a clause like that as applied to Ireland could only produce inconvenience and dissatisfaction, and might also create mischief without being attended with any advantage whatever.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, there was a practical difficulty in the working of the clause in Ireland as it stood at present, and it would prove adverse to the true and free expression of the opinion of voters at elections. The hours of nomination as fixed were generally between 12 and 3, and if the nominators and assentors were brought 30 or 40 miles to the nomination in case there was any defect in the nomination paper a serious difficulty might arise. He suggested that it might be retained for the case of England, to the circumstances of which it might be better adapted, but that it was totally unsuitable for Ireland.
    MR. KENNYsaid, he thought it was unfortunate that the President of the Local Government Board had not seen his way to accept the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for the county of Monaghan (Mr. Healy). He hoped, however, that the Government would reconsider the matter which had been placed before them. Every argument could be used in favour of the Amendment; and if the Government did not accept it, they would be obliged to press the matter to a division.
    MR. MARUMsaid, that it would undoubtedly be a very great inconvenience in large counties, if the electors were to be compelled to travel great distances. He would urge upon the Government the necessity for considering the matter.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that the Government would consider the matter, and confer with the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Healy) on the subject.
    MR. JUSTIN HUNTLY M'CARTHYasked if there was any precedent for the result of an election being declared outside the constituency in which the contest took place?
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that in cases where there was a large county
    1006
    town adjoining, it had been taken as being in the county for such purposes.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 164; Noes 35: Majority 129.—(Div. List, No. 138.)
    MR. HEALY MR. HEALY moved a further Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for the county of Wexford (Mr. Small), to substitute, in page 6, line 36, "division" for "county at large." He explained that the object of the Amendment was to provide that the place of election in the case of a county at large should be in such town situate in the division as the Local Authority having power to divide the division into polling districts, or Re-turning Officer, might from time to time determine as being most convenient for the purposes of the election. He regretted the strong opposition which had been manifested by the right hon. Baronet to every proposal put forward by the Irish Party. When they were discussing the boundaries, the right hon. Gentleman defended his action by the necessity of abiding by the decisions of the Boundary Commissioners; but now they had returned to the provisions of the Bill, the right hon. Baronet was quite as adamantine. The expereince he (Mr. Healy) had gained of the proceedings of that House convinced him that it was only by weariness and iteration that the Irish Members had any chance whatever of inducing the Government to make the slightest concession to their opinions. So far as he was concerned, he was determined not to allow it to be in the power of any High Sheriff in Ireland to inflict an unnecessary hardship upon the voter, and especially the poor voters, in regard to the election arrangements in the baronies. He had gone carefully into this matter, and the only ground adduced by the Government for adhering to the proposal in the Bill was the personal convenience of the Sheriff. Was the convenience of the voter to be set aside altogether? The Sheriff was a well-paid official, who received an exorbitant fee for everything he did. His convenience was to be carefully studied; whereas that of the voter, who discharged his duty without fee or reward, was not to be consulted in the slightest respect. He was to be subjected to the highest inconvenience, in order that a well-paid official should sus-

    1007
    tain none whatever. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that the nomination should be held in one of the divided districts; but that was not a suggestion which could be accepted as satisfactory, and for this reason—that the candidate ought to have some voice in the matter. The candidate would know whether there was going to be a contest or not, and he ought to have the power of serving a notice upon the Sheriff requiring him to hold the election in any part of the division he thought proper. As a matter of fact, the Sub-Commissioners, under the Land Act, found themselves obliged to hold their Courts in some of the poorest and most out-of-the-way villages in Ireland; but they found no difficulty in discharging their duties. There were always little school-rooms which were available, in which they were able to hear counsel on both sides, and give their decisions. No difficulty had ever been experienced in these poor and remote areas in finding suitable buildings in which to carry on the work. And yet they were told that they were bound to study the convenience of a Sheriff, who might have to sit for an hour or two in order to receive nomination papers, and perhaps for five or six hours in casting up the votes. The contention of the Government was that the convenience of these officials was so important that it was impossible for them to spend two or three hours in such places as they might be able to find in the county of Mayo or Donegal, or some other out-of-the-way place. The result might be that, when it became necessary to count the votes, the ballot boxes might have to be brought from long distances, and, in a keenly-contested election, they might be besieged and some of them destroyed, and thus the whole election might be rendered void, in consequence of the failure to provide some central place in the division for conducting the elections. It would not be so much in the power of any political Party to tamper with the ballot boxes if the Sheriff were required to sit in a polling-booth in the centre of the division, surrounded by the agents of every Party, determined to see fair play in the counting of the voting papers. If the provision in the Bill were allowed to remain, the Sheriff would undoubtedly hold the election in the place most convenient, not to the
    1008
    county or to the candidate, but to himself, and he would not hesitate to put everybody else to unnecessary expense in bringing up scrutineers. That was a state of affairs to which he, for one, could not assent; and he must say that the Government, in the way in which they had acted in the matter, had exhibited an amount of mulishness which he had hardly anticipated after the extravagant compliments which had been showered upon the right hon. Baronet for his courtesy. As the old poet said—
    "If she be not fair to me,
    What care I how fair she he?"
    He had noticed, notwithstanding the lavish way in which the right hon. Gentleman had been complimented for his courtesy, that whenever an opportunity was afforded for doing an act of real courtesy to the Irish Party, the right hon. Gentleman declined to take advantage of it.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 6, line 36, to leave out the words "county at large," and insert the word "division."—(Mr. Healy.)
    Question proposed, "That the words 'county at large' stand part of the Bill."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he was afraid that the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy), having accused him of mulishness, would now accuse him of pusillanimity and weakness, for he was about to surrender at discretion.
    MR. HEALY: I beg to withdraw "mulishness."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he would consider what he could do in the matter, and he would move a Proviso at the end of the clause to provide that it should not apply to Scotland or Ireland.
    MR. HEALYsaid, that, in asking leave to withdraw the Amendment, he must be permitted to say that this was another instance of the value of Parliamentary pressure.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    CAPTAIN AYLMER CAPTAIN AYLMER moved an Amendment, in the same clause, after the word "borough," to insert the words "or division as the case may be." His object was to provide that the Returning Officer should have power to determine the most convenient place of election in

    1009
    the case of a Parliamentary borough or "division" of a borough.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he had an Amendment to propose which would come before that of the hon. and gallant Member—namely, in line 41, to move the insertion of the words "Provided, That this sub-section shall not apply to Scotland or Ireland."
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 6, line 41, to insert the words "Provided, That this sub-section shall not apply to Scotland or Ireland."—(Sir Charles W. Dilke.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. DEASYasked what the effect would be in reference to Ireland and Scotland?
    MR. EDWARD CLARKEsuggested that it would be better for the right hon. Baronet to surrender the sub-section altogether. He had voted in the minority in the division which took place a short time ago, and he could not himself conceive any valid reason for taking the conduct of an election out of the division in which the Member was to be elected. He certainly knew of no division in which it would not be possible to provide a suitable building for conducting the election. It was not likely that any large number of persons would assemble.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Edward Clarke) was returning to a subject which had. already been disposed of. This was simply a matter of convenience. The Government had received representations from several localities asking for this clause. The right hon. Baronet the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote) would be aware that Exeter was a central place for the whole of Devonshire, and was convenient for counting the votes in the case of more divisions than one. The same might be said of Oxford, and several other counties; York, for instance, was very central, and most convenient on account of its railway communication. It was in consequence of the representations which had been made that the clause had been inserted.
    MR. ACKERSsaid, he hoped the Government would not yield upon this point in regard to England as they had consented to do in the case of Ireland. Although it might be a propor mode of
    1010
    dealing with that part of the United Kingdom, there were a considerable number of English constituencies in regard to which it would be a grievance, if they were not able to conduct the business of the election in some places outside a particular county division to which the ballot boxes could be readily conveyed. He would instance Cheltenham, which, for all practical purposes, was the meeting place for the great Cotswold Division, although it was situated outside the division. He earnestly hoped that the convenience of the English constituencies would be consulted as well as those of Ireland.
    MR. SEXTONasked whether, as the sub-section was not to apply to Ireland or Scotland, the Returning Officer would be obliged to perform his functions within the division?
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Yes.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEremarked, that, so far as the English constituencies were concerned, Exeter was a case in point. It was a county and a city in itself, and therefore was not included within any division of the county of Devon; but it was unquestionably the most convenient place for holding proceedings in connection with the county elections.
    MR. HEALYinquired whether, in order to make the matter perfectly clear to the Sheriffs in Ireland, there would be any objection to add at the end of the clause words to provide that all election proceedings in connection with Ireland and Scotland should be conducted within the division affected?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, it would not be necessary to do that, as it was the law now, and must be the case.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    CAPTAIN AYLMERthen moved, in line 44, after "borough," to insert "or division as the case may be." His object was to insure that the election proceedings in connection with the division of a Parliamentary borough should take place within the division. He thought that was even a more important object in boroughs than in counties. In counties it might be convenient sometimes that the election should take place outside the division; but in boroughs that would be very objectionable, especially in bye-elections, where, from the excited state

    1011
    of public feeling, or some other cause, it would be most undesirable to take persons into another part of the borough in order to hear the poll declared. He thought it would be better to confine the election altogether to the division of the borough to which it belonged.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 6, line 44, after the word "borough," to insert the words "or division as the case may he."—(Captain Aylmer.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEopposed the Amendment, and remarked that, as a general rule, the convenience of the candidates would be consulted.
    MR. EDWARD CLARKEsaid, that if his hon. and gallant Friend went to a division, he would vote with him. He thought it would be a most mischievous thing to take the election proceedings out of the limits of the district to which they naturally belonged. He saw no difficulty in the Returning Officer finding within the limits of the division some place in which to conduct the election proceedings.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 17 (Detached parts of parishes).
    SIR CHAELES W. DILKE SIR CHAELES W. DILKE moved an Amendment to substitute the 26th of March, 1885, for the 25th, as the date for determining the constitution of new or detached parts of parishes.
    Amendment agreed to; word substituted accordingly.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 22 (Effect of Schedules).
    On the Motion of Sir CHARLES W. DILKE, the following Amendment made:—In page 8, line 23, leave out "and the notes thereto."
    MR. WARTON MR. WARTON moved an Amendment to leave out the clause, on the ground that it was unnecessary, mere surplusage, and probably a simple freak on the part of the draftsman. Originally, there were notes appended to one or two of the Schedules; but there were none now.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Clause 22 be struck out of the Bill."—(Mr. Warton.)
    Question proposed, "That Clause 22 stand part of the Bill."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the clause was not very material, and he thought the hon. and learned Gentleman might be allowed to have his way in the matter.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Clause struck; out accordingly.
    Clause 23 (Definitions in Schedules).
    Amendment proposed, in page 9, line 3, to leave out from beginning of line to "such," in line 13, and insert the words,—
    "Where a parish, townland, or other place with a definite boundary, whether larger or smaller than a parish or townland, is situate in a county or borough divided into Parliamentary divisions, and such parish, townland, or other place is not, in the Schedules to this Act, included in any of the Parliamentary divisions of the county or borough in which it is situate, such parish or town land shall be considered as included in that one of those Parliamentary divisions which it adjoins, or if it adjoins more than one of such divisions, then in that one of the said divisions with which it has the longest common boundary.
    Where a Parliamentary division of a county or borough is described in any Schedule to this Act as containing the whole of a sessional division, barony, or other area, with the exception of the portion comprised in another Parliamentary division of the same county or borough, and by reason of such description includes 'a parish, townland, or ward, or part of a ward, separated from the rest of the first-mentioned Parliamentary division by the said portion comprised in the other Parliamentary division, such parish, townland, ward, or part of a ward, shall, notwithstanding the said description, form part of the other Parliamentary division, as if it had been included in the said exception.
    If any doubt arises as to the Parliamentary division of a county or borough in which any parish, townland, ward, or other place, whether larger or smaller than a parish, townland, or ward, is intended by the Schedules to this Act to be included,"—(Sir Charles W. Dilke,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, to leave out from the words "Where a Parliamentary division," in line 10, to the word "exception," in line 19."—(Mr. Warton.)
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment," put, and agreed to.
    And the Question, "That the words,—
    'Where a parish, townland, or other place with a definite boundary, [whether larger or smaller than a parish or townland, is situate in a county or borough divided into Parliamentary divisions, and such parish, townland, or other place is not, in the Schedules to this Act, included in any of the Parliamentary divisions of the county or borough in which it is situate, such parish or townland shall be considered as included in that one of those Parliamentary divisions which it adjoins, or if it adjoins more than one of such divisions, then in that one of the said divisions with which it has the longest common boundary.
    Where a Parliamentary division of a county or borough is described in any Schedule to this Act as containing the whole of a sessional division, barony, or other area, with the exception of the portion comprised in another Parliamentary division of the same county or borough, and by reason of such description includes a parish, townland, or ward, or part of a ward, separated from the rest of the first-mentioned Parliamentary division by the said portion comprised in the other Parliamentary division, such parish, townland, ward, or part of a ward, shall, notwithstanding the said description, form part of the other Parliamentary division, as if it had been included in the said exception.
    If any doubt arises as to the Parliamentary division of a county or borough in which any parish, townland, ward, or other place, whether larger or smaller than a parish, townland, or ward, is intended by the Schedules to this Act to be included,' be there inserted,"
    —put, and agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 27 (Adaptation of certain enactments as to disqualification of voters for corrupt practices).
    On the Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Clause struck out of the Bill.
    Clause 28 (Disqualification of certain voters for corrupt practices).
    MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid, the Amendment which he should endeavour to induce the Government to accept in this clause was to leave out the words "in the year one thousand eight hundred and eighty." His object in moving the omission of those words was to prevent the infliction of what he considered would be a very great injustice on the Conservative portion of the electors in the city of Canterbury. The House would be aware that after the last General Election of 1880, an inquiry was instituted into the practices which
    1014
    took place at Canterbury during that Election, the result being that certain persons were scheduled as bribers and bribees, both in respect of the Election of 1880 and in respect of the Election of 1879. Now, he wished to point out that if the Bill remained as it was, without alteration, the persons scheduled for corrupt practices committed during the Election of 1879 would got off scot free, while those scheduled in respect of the Election of 1880 were disqualified for seven years. The effect of that would be very much in favour of the Liberal Party, by which the corrupt practices ascertained at the inquiry had been committed. The House would perceive that there were 140 persons scheduled in respect of the 1879 Election—all Liberals who, unless the Government agreed to adopt his Amendment, would be entitled to vote at the next Election. Under the circumstances, he trusted the Government would see their way to accepting his proposal, which would do an act of justice to the Conservative Party, and, at the same time, save him from the necessity of moving the rejection of the clause itself when the proper time arrived. Before he sat down, he might point out to the Government that no other constituency would be affected by the alteration which he proposed to make in the Bill.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 12, line 14, to leave out the words "in the year one thousand eight hundred and eighty."—(Mr. Akers-Douglas.)
    Question proposed, "That the words 'in the year one thousand eight hundred and eighty,' stand part of the Bill."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he certainly did not feel any merciful consideration in dealing with persons guilty of corrupt practices at elections; but in this case there was a reason for not accepting the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for East Kent (Mr. Akers-Douglas), the effect of which would be to disqualify persons who had never yet been disqualified. He thought that, in dealing with political matters, it was safer, if it could be done, to apply precedents to every case as it arose. He had searched for every precedent bearing on the matter, and there was not one single instance of any punishment having been

    1015
    inflicted, except in respect of the offences committed at the last Election before the inquiry was held, which, in the present instance, would be the Election of 1880, and he thought the hon. Member for East Kent would be aware that such was the case. Now, at the inquiries at Bristol, Chester, and Gloucester, the Commissioners went back to the last Elections but one, and although they found that, in respect of those Elections, some persons had been guilty of corrupt practices, they did not include them in the Schedule, because the practice, as he had pointed out, had always been to deal with the corruption at the last Election only. He was aware that the case of the hon. Member was more acute than those to which he had referred, because the last Election but one at Canterbury only occurred a year before the last—that was to say, in 1879; but the principle laid down was equally applicable. If they went back beyond the Election inquired into, there was no reason why they should not go back six years, instead of one. He pointed out that the persons reported as guilty of corrupt practices at the Election of 1879 were really punished in the immediate Election under consideration; and it might be assumed that they were repentant. If this Amendment were adopted, it would be the introduction of a new principle entirely, and thinking it safer to adhere to the practice that had hitherto obtained, he certainly preferred the clause as it stood in the Bill; and, therefore, as far as he was concerned, he could not assent to the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman.
    MR. RAIKESsaid, he was sorry to differ from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General on this question. The hon. and learned Gentleman had told them, and he thought it was his only argument against the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Kent (Mr. Akers-Douglas), that in these cases they could not depart from precedent. But an ounce of common sense might sometimes be worth a bushel of precedent; and he put it to the House whether there would not be at least an apparent injustice if, with respect to persons included in the same Report, they were to punish those guilty of corruption in 1880, and let go scot free those who were guilty of the same offence in 1879? Therefore, although he should be glad
    1016
    to accept precedent as a general guide, he thought the House might follow it too far. He hoped to hear that they were not to be guided strictly by the legal view that the Amendment was only directed to the case of those persons who were guilty of corrupt practices in 1879. It would meet as well the cases dealt with by any of the Commissioners who sat in 1880. If the Bill remained unaltered, this case would be left in glaring contrast with other cases. All the persons scheduled in 1880 would be punished under this clause, and all those who committed corrupt practices at an earlier date would escape punishment altogether, because the seven years' disqualification did not touch their case.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, he could not agree with one of the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down (Mr. Raikes). The objection of his hon. and learned Friend (the Attorney General) to the admission of this Amendment did not rest entirely upon precedent. He ventured to suggest that there was a very sound reason for making a distinction between the members of this constituency guilty of corrupt practices in 1880, and those guilty of the offence in 1879—namely, that between the present time and the latter year, an Election had intervened, and the electors had shown that they were capable of passing through a subsequent Election without being guilty of corrupt practices. He apprehended that it was not merely punishment that they desired to inflict, they desired to see constituencies purified; and, therefore, he thought that the persons scheduled in respect of 1879 having passed purely through an intervening Election, might be trusted to act purely again.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, that some attention ought to be paid to the circumstances which incapacitated a person from voting during seven years. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had said that if they had regard to 1880, the point was clear, because that was the date of the last Election; but if they went behind the last Election, they might go back to 1874. But in this case it was only to 1879.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): Seven years from the date of the Report in the clause.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Exactly; the Report being in 1880. The other Report——
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): The two Reports were in 1880, and the Amendment refers to persons reported in 1880, but guilty in 1879.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman said a little while ago that if they went back to 1879, they might just as well go back to 1874. But they would preclude themselves from doing that by taking the period of seven years as the time for which the disqualification was to exist. If they went back to 1874, and stipulated that persons who were then convicted or scheduled should be disqualified, they would only be disqualified for seven years; and, therefore, that time would now have expired.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): But the right hon. Baronet will see that the words used are "seven years from the date of the Report."
    MR. WARTONsaid, they must take the Amendment as a whole, and if they did that, no one knew better than the hon. and learned Attorney General that it had no reference to the Reports made in 1880 only. If they looked at the clause as moralists, what did they find? What was the preamble of the clause? That—
    "Whereas Commissioners appointed by Her Majesty in pursuance of Addresses from both Houses of Parliament in the year one thousand eight hundred and eighty reported that at parliamentary elections for the borough named in the second part of the Eighth Schedule to this Act the persons named in the schedules to the said reports had been guilty of corrupt practices, be it therefore enacted."
    What was the result of this glorious preamble? That they would punish some guilty persons and not others. The clause was so framed as to prevent the seven years' punishment being applied to Liberals who were corrupt in 1879. It was exceedingly unfair not to treat one party as they treated the other.
    Question put, and agreed, to.
    MR. THOROLD ROGERSsaid, in the Amendment he was about to move he ventured to again ask the House to prevent a person who had been found guilty of bribing from sitting in the House for the space of seven years. He was led to take that course partly by
    1018
    the fact that in Committee his Amendment was only defeated by a majority of 13, and that he had good reason to believe that had the Committee known what the particular scope of his Amendment was, and what the limited character of the punishment inflicted was, there would have been a majority, instead of a minority, in favour of his proposal. He had been told by many hon. Members that they were under the impression he had proposed to prevent a guilty person from ever sitting in the House; that they did not know he was following on the lines of an Amendment which had been accepted by the House. Furthermore, it was notorious that the Amendment he proposed was supported strongly by hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House, and, therefore, he had reason to believe that he did appeal to a sense of morality and justice. It appeared to him quite illogical that the Bill should contain clauses which declared that certain individuals should not have the power to vote in certain constituencies in which they never had or ever would have a vote. If this Bill went out to the public at large containing a penalty on the lower classes of society, while it allowed the opulent classes to go scot free, a most unfavourable impression would be created. In the interest of common justice and public morality, it was essential that the Amendment he suggested should be adopted. It had been said that the Amendment would act as a precedent, and that there was no precedent for the action he proposed. He had been told also that this would be a retrospective Act. Allow him to observe that retrospective action had been adopted by the Committee with regard to voters. If the malpractices of voters had been recognized by existing Statutes, it would not have been necessary for his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General to introduce disqualifications; the fact that certain voters were not disqualified by previous Statutes was the reason why they were disqualified by the clauses of the Bill. As regarded the general principle, he thought it was high time the House should show it was prepared to mete out equal justice to persons who committed an offence, as well as to persons who became the victims of the offence. He had no wish, on the present occasion, to dwell upon the malpractices of particular indi-

    1019
    viduals; neither did he know—he had not been at the pains of investigating, for he was not at all concerned in the question—whether this just action on the part of the House would inflict more injury on the individuals who nominally belonged to the Party he belonged to, or to the other Party. He held that the persons against whom his Amendment was directed had been guilty of a great offence against the Constitution; that they had been exposed and declared guilty of a high crime and misdemeanour against Parliament; and that the time had come when this House should vindicate public morality in the matter. When he moved the Amendment in Committee, the malpractices of one or two persons were fully dwelt upon on both sides of the House. He did not, he repeated, wish to deal with those particular cases. He only wanted to appeal to what he thought was the sense of justice in the House towards persons who had been guilty of Parliamentary malpractices. He appealed to the House to determine, in the exercise of righteous judgment, that such offences should no longer go unpunished; he appealed to the House to punish such offences in the only way in which they could be punished—namely, by the exclusion of the guilty persons from a seat in the future Parliament.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 12, after line 25, after the word "borough," to insert the words,—"(c.) Of being a candidate, or of being elected to, and sitting in, the House of Commons, for the space of seven years next after the presentation of the said reports respectively, and, if he shall be elected, his election shall be void."—(Mr. Thorold Rogers.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he felt that the arguments and motives of his hon. Friend (Mr. Thorold Rogers) would appeal very strongly to a great many Members of the House. But however much they might wish to remedy a particular evil by severe measures, the House would agree with him (the Attorney General) that it was undesirable to inflict a punishment at the expense of a principle of much greater importance than that of seeing even a guilty person receive his just reward. His hon. Friend dwelt in Committee very strongly upon a
    1020
    particular case. The hon. Gentleman pointed out what the effect would be if the person in the case alluded to obtained a seat in the House. He (the Attorney General) said nothing about the argument the hon. Gentleman used in respect of a particular offender who had, he (the Attorney General) quite admitted, received virtually no punishment at all. He asked the House not to be led away by the faults of one or more particular persons, and say—"We will, in order to punish them, do that which on reflection we ought not to support." In this matter they were not dealing with one person, but with 8,970, for that was the number of persons scheduled. If this clause were added to the Bill, it would affect all those persons, and it would inflict this ex post facto penalty upon all of them. Since the Corrupt Practices Act was passed, Parliament had accepted, without any exception, one punishment as the proper punishment to impose upon persons who had been reported. In 1880, when these offences were committed, no other punishment was known. In 1883, when the Corrupt Practices Act was passed, Parliament thought it necessary to increase the previous punishment, by imposing on the person who had been guilty the very penalty his hon. Friend sought to impose now. But what did they do then? They refused to impose the penalty, unless before the punishment was inflicted the person was allowed to be heard in his own defence. In 1883 they went further and provided a second safeguard—namely, that not only should the man be summoned, and have the right to cross-examine witnesses, but he should also have the right to go, by way of appeal, to the Court of Assize. It was now proposed to inflict punishment upon a man who might never be heard—that was, in 1885, punishment was proposed without the safeguards that were thought necessary in 1883. A still further important principle remained. The persons who committed these offences in 1880 knew what Parliament always regarded as the punishment, and now, five years after the offences had been committed, it was proposed to impose by Statute this statutory penalty upon the offenders. The principle involved in the Amendment was such that he asked the House to hesitate before they accepted it. If once,

    1021
    by legislating after an offence had been committed, they imposed a penalty upon the offender, they would, in his opinion, form a precedent of the most dangerous character. The matter was entirely in the hands of the House; but he hoped they would not sanction the retrospective legislation which was now proposed.
    MR. EDWARD CLARKEsaid, that before the House divided, he would like to add a few words in support of the Amendment. He supported it on a previous occasion, and he hoped the House would accept it. He was extremely sorry to hear his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General ask the House to accept what seemed to be quite an artificial statement of a principle, and so keep up an anomaly which was disgraceful to the House. By this section of the Bill they were dealing with those persons who were scheduled as guilty of bribery in 1880, and if this Amendment were rejected, the effect would be that they said by this Statute that certain persona were unfit to be allowed to vote for Members of Parliament, yet they were fit to sit as Members of Parliament. That really was making a farce of the whole thing. It was all very well to say that it had been the habit of Parliament in past times to impose a particular penalty. He did not know that Parliament contemplated before what it unhappily was forced to contemplate now—namely, the probability of persons who had committed these offences succeeding in making their way within the walls of the House of Commons. If Parliament had contemplated such a state of things before, he did not think it would have hesitated to protect itself by giving the punishment the area and effect proposed by this Amendment. It seemed to him that the objections to it were somewhat technical in their character. Whatever the Party effect of the Amendment might be, he did not care one jot; but he did care for a certain principle which the House desired to assert, not only against poor men, who had some of them suffered in other ways and in other penalties for the offences they had committed, but also against those men who were far worse than they, being the instruments and means of corruption.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 40; Noes 87: Majority 47.—(Div. List, No. 139.)
    MR. MONKsaid, that if the House had adopted the Amendment of the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Thorold Rogers), he certainly should not have stood up to move the rejection of the clause; but the House was generally so very fair and just towards all persons whose cases were brought before it, that he must ask for its attention for one moment, while he pointed out—though he could not do it more forcibly than it had been done by the hon. and learned Gentlemen the Member for Plymouth (Mr. Edward Clarke)—the injustice done to the unfortunate householder who was corrupted, while the House allowed those who had corrupted him to go scot free. There was a penalty of disfranchisement for seven years against all voters who had been scheduled. He (Mr. Monk) had challenged the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General in Committee—a challenge which was not accepted—to state to the House whether it was not the case that on several Election Commissions the Commissioners had made very imperfect inquiries concerning the corruption which had taken place. As soon as these gentlemen had discovered what the amount of money was that had been expended, they had thought it not worth their while to spend their time in discovering the names of those who had taken bribes, and the consequence was that, in some cases, they admitted that at least 1,000 or more voters had taken payment for their votes who had not been scheduled, as they had not been called before them for examination. In other cases, every person who had received a bribe had been scheduled. The result was that, in the first class of cases to which he referred, the thousands of persons who had been bribed would go free through not having been scheduled; whereas, in the other class of cases, thousands of persons would be disfranchised for seven years under this clause. He would put it to the House whether it did not show something like a vindictive act on the part of Parliament to inflict this penalty on these unfortunate voters, while it allowed those who had found the money and paid the voters to go free? The question had been raised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Raikes), who had moved an Amendment. He (Mr. Monk),

    1023
    for his own part, had accepted the Amendment at that time, because the penalty under it was much less severe than that first inserted in the Bill. It had been first proposed to disfranchise those voters for life; but, when he saw the leniency which had just been shown by Members on both sides of the House towards those who had been guilty of corruption and had been scheduled by the Commissioners, and who were notwithstanding eligible for a seat in that House, he trusted the House would now extend the same leniency towards those unfortunate voters whom it was proposed to punish by the Bill. He begged to move the omission of the clause.
    Amendment proposed, in page 12, line 5, to leave out Clause 28.—(Mr. Monk.)
    Question proposed, "That Clause 28 stand part of the Bill."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the House would recollect that they had discussed this matter very fully in Committee, he having, at the time, been prepared to leave the matter entirely in the hands of the Committee. Having passed the most lenient sentence that had ever been passed by any Legislature on corrupt electors—having reduced the period of disfranchisement in the Bill from life to seven years from the date of the Report of the Commissioners—the right hon. Gentleman now proposed to go further, and declare that there should be no punishment at all. The effect of the Amendment would be to say that the scheduled voters should receive no punishment at all; and of these persons, he believed there were no fewer than 2,400 in Gloucester. The hon. Member asked immunity from punishment for these persons, who were almost as guilty as the persons who had given the bribes and received punishment. Did the hon. Member mean to say that while they allowed the persons who were bribed to go without punishment, they should impose this penalty on the persons who bribed?
    MR. MONKsaid, he was sure the hon. and learned Gentleman did not wish to misrepresent him. He had alluded to the vote the House had just passed, giving immunity to those scheduled as bribers, and who were to be allowed to
    1024
    come forward as candidates for seats in that House.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that the House, under circumstances of hope for the future, had declared that it would make the disfranchisement of persons bribed seven years instead of for life; and they were now asked to go further and tell the new constituencies—constituencies in some places taking the old borough voters into the counties—for the first time, that bribery was no offence at all, and was not to be punished. They might make the punishment in the future as light as it had been in the past; but would they not be incurring a grave danger if they told the new electors that this Parliament, which had passed an Act for the prevention of corrupt practices, was of opinion that no punishment for the offence in question should be given at all? He thought that the seven years' disability—the penalty fixed by the clause—was a lenient one.
    MR. LYULPH STANLEYsaid, he felt great disappointment at the alternative moods of severity and indulgence of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General. He regretted the decision the House had come to in the last division, and he was of opinion that there was great inconvenience in their now proceeding to attach a penalty of seven years' disfranchisement upon the ordinary person bribed—which was the only penalty which could be attached to him—whilst they refused to attach any penalty to the other class—namely, the bribers. He could not help thinking that when they considered that the persons guilty of paying bribes generally belonged to the class who sought admission into the House, the public outside would comment rather severely upon the different measures of justice they meted out to those who sat with themselves and the wretched people who accepted the bribes that those bribers offered to thorn. To say to a man who went into a town with money in his pocket, and used that money at an election for the purpose of bribery—to say to him—"Because you have been guilty of bribery, you shall not have a vote, but you shall be eligible for election," was really no punishment at all. The proper penalty to mete out to the man who bribed was to deprive him of any political advan-

    1025
    tage which he might get in connection with it. That the House had refused to do; and he (Mr. Lyulph Stanley) should not like to stand before any assembly and say that he would punish those who had taken bribes by disfranchisement for seven years without punishing the persons who bribed. If they were to let bygones be bygones in the case of the rich bribers, they should do the same in the case of the poor voters who had accepted bribes.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he thought his hon. Friend (Mr. Monk) was taking a very singular course in desiring to inflict a greater penalty than that contained in the Amendment of the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Thorold Rogers). The House did not accept that Amendment, although there was a great deal to be said for the severer penalty on the briber than on the bribed. They inflicted in this clause exactly the same punishment upon the briber as the bribed. The hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Lyulph Stanley) said that it was no punishment at all—that, as everybody knew, the men who gave the bribes were often strangers, and contrived to avoid detection; whereas those who received the bribes were poor voters who were more readily got at. What his hon. Friend really wanted was to inflict a greater punishment upon the briber than the bribed; and as he had been disappointed in obtaining that, he chose to turn round and say that he would not punish anybody at all. Was that a very wise course? He could quite understand that his hon. Friend was disappointed at the result of the last division; but because the House refused to go to a greater length of severity, he turned suddenly round and said—"Because we cannot do that, we must say to all the constituencies—'Neither the briber nor the bribed shall have any punishment at all.'" He could sympathize with his hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) with the compassion he must feel for a number of these unfortunate people. He could quite understand that, but he could not understand the severer virtue of his hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, who could not have the same inducement for entertaining a similar feeling. This was, no doubt, a moderate penalty, but it was a penalty applied to the briber and the bribed alike; and he hoped the House would
    1026
    not, on account of the last division, give these offenders a clean bill of health and allow them to enjoy absolute immunity.
    MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid, he should support the Motion of the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk). He had always voted in favour of the remission of these penalties, and his object in moving his Amendment was to carry out the principle that what was sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander. The House had not accepted his Amendment, and had he been successful he would still have supported the omission of the clause. He thought that these unfortunate people had already been sufficiently punished, and he should have been glad to see all the electors placed on the same footing and able to vote at the next Election. He had been anxious, in his Amendment, to amend the clause by simply putting the penalty upon the scheduled persons from the time of the commission of the offence, and not from the date of the Report of the Commission. If the hon. Member for Gloucester went to a division he should certainly support him.
    MR. GILESsaid, he had also supported the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk), in the earlier stage of the Bill, to strike out Clause 3. He had done so on the ground that, as this Bill was a new departure, there should be no retrospective punishment. Surely the Act of 1883 provided ample punishment enough for anything that might happen in the future, and it ought to be sufficient to keep everybody straight—candidate as well as voter. He therefore hoped that the House would accept the Amendment, and wipe out the stigma which the Report of the Commissioners some years ago had inflicted upon a certain class of voters.
    MR. EDWARD CLARKEsaid, he would like to say that it was not in consequence of the defeat of the previous Amendment that he should vote in support of leaving out the clause. The choice was between inflicting no punishment at all, or of inflicting it as it was laid down in this clause. If it were passed as it stood it would certainly be a discreditable clause; because, notwithstanding the two divisions which had been taken against it, it established inequalities in the application of punishment. It purported to punish persons for seven

    1027
    years who had been found guilty of corruption. Those who had committed the same offence within the seven years were excluded, while those who were reported by the Commission of 1880 were included. There was also a second inequality, because the House did not venture to apply the same penalty to some 10 or 11 persons who had personal influence on both sides of the House as their victims got. It was all very well to say that all were equally treated, but that was only a phrase; because those who had been equally guilty since the Report of the Commission of 1880 received no punishment whatever under the Bill. If, then, they could not have fair and equal administration of punishment, they ought to say that, starting from the Corrupt Practices Act of 1882, there should be a clear slate.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, that he had voted against the Amendment of the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Thorold Rogers); but he should vote in favour of the Amendment which had been moved by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk). It was not because he had any sympathy with bribery; but he failed to see that anything could be said in favour of a law which only reached a small portion of those who had been found guilty of the offence. He would certainly be in favour of a stringent Bribery Law if he thought it would be applied impartially to the bribers as well as the bribed. Anybody who had paid any attention to the Bribery Law of this country must be aware that it only reached a few scandalous examples, and that more by luck and accident than anything else; while it left unpunished a large number of men who were just as flagrantly guilty, but had had the good luck not to have determined opponents who insisted upon putting the Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Act in force against them. There was really a good deal of cant and hum bug about the method of dealing with this question. He wished that, for a few minutes, the House could be transformed into a Palace of Truth, in order that hon. Members, including some of the occupants of the Treasury Bench, might relate their electoral experiences. If such a phenomenon were ever likely to occur, he should wish that two of the first Gentlemen subjected to the influence of it should be the hon.
    1028
    and learned Attorney General and the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)rose to Order. If the hon. Member opposite (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) meant to impute that he (the Attorney General) had been guilty of bribery, he hoped the hon. Gentleman would have the candour to say so directly. All he would say was that he had neither directly nor indirectly sanctioned or allowed corrupt practices on his behalf.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, that what he had stated was that he should be glad if all the Members of that House were to relate their electoral experiences, and that among the first to do so might be the Attorney General and the Secretary of State for the Home Department.
    MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member intends, either directly or indirectly, to impute any conduct of the kind to the hon. and learned Gentleman (the Attorney General) and the right hon. Gentleman (Sir William Harcourt), he is clearly out of Order, and he must withdraw the imputation.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I certainly had no knowledge of any practices of the kind.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he would at once withdraw the expression. He was only connecting his statement with a general remark that he would be in favour of a stringent Bribery Law if he thought it would be impartially administered, and that it would reach the bribers as well as the bribed. One of the reasons why he was in favour of allowing bygones to be bygones was that in Ireland there were a large number of persons who had been allowed to reach the highest positions in the country, who, it was perfectly notorious, had obtained their seats in the House of Commons by gross and extensive bribery. He presumed that the Speaker would rule him out of Order if he were to make any statement with regard to any existing Members of the Irish Judicial Bench, and therefore he would not do so; but he could name three eminent Judges in Ireland, one of whom was no longer on the Judicial Bench, who had gained their seats by notorious and open bribery. Judge Keogh, for instance, became Member for Athlone

    1029
    by open, extensive, and flagrant bribery; and yet he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) had been present at an election inquiry in Dublin, in which that same individual delivered a most edifying homily against the wickedness of electoral corruption. He had been so much struck by the unblushing hypocrisy manifested on that occasion that he determined to make a protest against it if ever he had the opportunity. For these reasons he should support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk), and he should continue to vote in the same direction, until he saw a stringent Bribery Law established which would punish all offenders equally, whether high or low.
    MR. BRYCEsaid, he had voted for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Thorold Rogers), and he regretted the decision which the House had arrived at. He should regret it still more if it were made the excuse for the perpetration of another folly and another injustice. He could not support the argument used by some hon. Members, and especially by the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Lyulph Stanley)—namely, that because they had not done complete justice, they should do a piece of injustice; and because the House had had not punished, as it ought to have punished, the briber, therefore they ought not to punish the bribed. The hon. Member for Southampton talked of "these poor people," meaning those who had been scheduled for corruption; but those who received bribes were the most degraded class of the electors, and were persons entitled to no sympathy or indulgence from the House, and, as far as in them lay, had done everything they could to degrade and demoralize our electoral system; and if the House was particularly bound to select any moment for showing its condemnation of corrupt practices, it was a moment like this when they were largely extending the franchise.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 82; Noes 18: Majority 64.—(Div. List, No. 140.)
    Further Consideration of Bill adjourned till To-morrow.

  SUPPLY.—REPORT.
  Resolutions [27th April] reported.
  First Resolution postponed.
  Second Resolution agreed to.
  Third Resolution read a first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Resolution be read a second time."
  MR. SEXTONsaid, that amongst the questions raised on this Vote in Committee there was one which he had stated that he should have to refer to again on the Report. On examining the details of the Vote, he had been surprised to find that, while a residence for the senior Clerk of the House was provided, the second Clerk was without that accommodation. It appeared to him that the second Clerk of the House required such accommodation as much as the senior Clerk, inasmuch as he had quite as long hours and as much work to get through; indeed, as far as his experience went, he had rather more. It had been pointed out that one officer of the House of Lords had 16 rooms at his disposal. For those reasons, he asked the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury if he could hold out any hope that the gentleman he alluded to would be furnished with a residence?
  MR. HIBBERTsaid, that unfortunately there was but too little space for the Business that had to be performed in respect of the House of Commons. With respect to the question raised to-night on that Vote by the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton), he had stated in Committee that the accommodation that had been referred to in the case of Clerks of the House would be a matter to be considered by those who had to deal with those questions. He wished, in reply to a question put to him yester-day, on the subject of the accommodation required by Members and their secretaries, the latter having been turned out of the Tea Room, in consequence of the new arrangements made by Mr. Speaker at the commencement of the Session, to state that he was desired by Mr. Speaker to say that he was desirous of providing, if possible, accommodation of the kind asked for, and that he was in communication with the authorities of the House of Lords with the object of obtaining suitable rooms to be used for the purpose indicated. Mr. Speaker would also consider whether tables and other appliances for writing should not be placed in the

  1031
  Central Lobby as requested, or in some other convenient position.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, he could assure the hon. Gentleman that Members would be generally obliged by the steps that bad been taken.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he had drawn the attention of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury to a matter that he hoped would not be lost sight of—namely, the difficulty of intercommunication between the different parts of the House, which was a source of considerable inconvenience to Members. He had stated before that it was easier to learn in a newspaper office in Fleet Street what was going on in the House of Commons than in the Smoking Room, or any other department of the House. He had learned privately and with great satisfaction that some steps had been taken in regard to that matter, and he trusted that the inconvenience referred to would be as soon as possible removed. There was another point to which he would ask the attention of the Secretary to the Treasury, by whom he hoped it would be brought before the authorities of the House. He believed his hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) had mentioned it on one occasion; and he would now ask the hon. Gentleman whether, in the accommodation now being provided for writing purposes for Members, he would endeavour to see his way to placing typewriters at their disposal? Now, many hon. Members were obliged to do a great deal of writing, and some of them were in the habit of using those machines, and the habit made it rather laborious to write in the usual way. He understood that when this subject was brought forward on a previous occasion, a promise had been given by the Secretary to the Treasury that it should be considered. He trusted the hon. Gentleman would take the matter seriously into consideration, because there were five or six Members of the House of Commons who had a very large amount of writing to get through, for whom these type-writers would effect a considerable saving of time.
  MR. HIBBERT: The matter shall be brought before the proper authorities.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolution agreed to.
  Subsequent Resolutions agreed to.
  Postponed Resolution to be taken into Consideration upon Thursday.

  REGISTRATION OF VOTERS (IRELAND) [PAYMENT OF ADDITIONAL REVISING BARRISTERS].
  Resolution [April 27] reported.
  "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of the Salaries of any Additional Revising Barristers, and of any person temporarily acting as assistant to a Clerk of the Peace, who may be appointed under the provisions of any Act of the present Session for amending the Law relating to the Registration of Parliamentary Voters in Ireland."
  Resolution agreed to.

  POST OFFICE SITES [PURCHASE OF LAND AND EXPENSES].
  Resolution [April 27] reported.
  "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of sums required for the purchase of lands, and for the costs and expenses which may be incurred by the Postmaster General in carrying into effect the provisions of any Act of the present Session to enable Her Majesty's Postmaster General to acquire lands for the public service."
  Resolution agreed to.

  INDUSTRIES (IRELAND).

    NOMINATION OF SELECT COMMITTEE.
    [ADJOURNED DEBATE.]
    Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question, "That the Select Committee on Industries (Ireland) do consist of Twenty-four Members."—(Sir Eardley Wilmot.)
    Question again proposed.
    Debate resumed.
    MR. SHEILsaid, it would not be necessary for him to detain the House at any length in stating the object of the Amendment standing in his name on the Paper, because the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) had already stated the reason which could be adduced against the proposed construction of this Committee. But perhaps he might be allowed to point out that the real and main objection to the Committee was, that the number of its Members which represented the Irish Party on those Benches was not in proportion to the remainder of the Committee. He might also say that the hon. Baronet

    1033
    (Sir Eardley Wilmot), who moved the appointment of the Committee, was entitled to the thanks of hon. Gentlemen on those Benches for the great care and interest taken by him in Irish matters; it was owing to the hon. Baronet that the hon. Member for the City of Cork had been appointed, with a number of other Members representing the Irish Party, to sit on that Committee. He understood that the Government would not agree to the number of Members representing that Party exceeding six, which, in his opinion, was insufficient for effective representation of their views on the subject of inquiry. He rose, therefore, to say that if the Government were not prepared to agree to that number being increased, it would be the duty of himself and those with whom he was associated to oppose the appointment of the Committee on the proposed basis. He begged to move the Amendment standing in his name.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the words "Twenty-four," in order to insert the words "Twenty-five,"—(Mr. Shell,)—instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words 'Twenty-four' stand part of the Question."
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he had rather understood the other night that the feeling on the part of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) was that the Committee was not to go on, and that his objection was based on the constitution of the Committee rather than the number of its Members. However that might be, he (Sir William Harcourt) was unable to agree to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Sheil). It seemed to him that the Committee was very fairly constituted—in other words, he could not accept the argument that one particular section of Irish Members should represent an undue proportion of the number of Members of that Committee. It was necessary, in the construction of a Committee, to consider the resources of Ireland generally; they should have regard to information on the subject from whatever quarter it might come, and not in connection with any particular section of the House. Therefore, he thought the constitution of the Committee must remain as proposed. Without desiring to show the least disrespect
    1034
    to any particular section of the Representatives of Ireland, he said that, in a matter of this kind, the Government ought to have a general regard to the Representatives of the country.
    SIR EARDLEY WILMOTsaid, notwithstanding what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, he would make an appeal to the generosity of the Government to allow the Committee to be appointed in a form that would be satisfactory to hon. Gentlemen on those Benches; and, with that object in view, he asked the Government to allow another Member of the Nationalist Party to serve upon it. The number of the Committee proposed by the Government was 24, of whom the proportion of the Nationalist Party was six. He urged upon the right hon. Gentleman that there was no political question involved in the matter, and they wanted to enter upon the work with reference only to the prosperity of Ireland; and certainly he thought that even if the Government consented to the proposal of the hon. Member for Meath, the 18 Members of the Committee who were not of the Nationalist Party would be well able, in respect of numbers, to prevent any Members of the Nationalist Party turning the Committee into a piece of political machinery. There was the strongest interest felt in this matter, which persons of all political opinions regarded as a step in the direction of increasing the prosperity and welfare of Ireland, and it was most desirable that the labours of the Committee should proceed; because, although they might not get through their work this year, as he had pointed out on the last occasion when this matter was before the House, they had three months before them in which a great deal might be done. There was a large body of evidence to be taken, and to avoid delay he strongly urged upon the Government to accede to the proposal of the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Sheil). He repeated that the greatest concern was felt in this matter. He had received letters from all parts of the country, beseeching him not to give way, to show his courage and perseverance, not to allow the opposition to dishearten him, to go on with what he had undertaken, to appeal to the Government, and to throw upon them the whole responsibility, if they

    1035
    declined, for the sake of adding another Member to the Committee, to allow it to go to work. If they did that, he said it would go forth to the country and Ireland that they had not any sincere desire to assist, promote, or encourage those who had for their object the material prosperity of the Irish people.
    DR. LYONSsaid, he would also appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department to assent to the Amendment. He asked him not, for the sake of a single additional Member who could not really alter the constitution of the Committee, to jeopardize the attainment of the object in view. They wanted a Committee capable of getting through a great deal of work; and he would point out that the Gentleman whom it was desired to add to the Committee was one of the most hard-working men in the House; he knew that he was a man willing effectively to do any amount of work in connection with this inquiry. The matter was almost settled, and he would urge the right hon. Gentleman not to risk the loss of their object by resisting the proposal of the hon. Member for Meath, which would cause in Ireland a very great amount of disappointment. He had received letters which showed that the most intense regret would be felt if the Committee fell through. If this one name were added, the Committee would probably be in a position to go to work in a very short time.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department had not met the Amendment of the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Sheik) in at all a satisfactory way. He was obliged to say that the Government had placed every obstacle possible in the way of this Committee, with the result that the settlement of it had been postponed from time to time, and week after week. [Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT: Why did you move the adjournment?] It was not he who moved the adjournment of the debate. The Committee was appointed on the 10th of March, and the adjournment was moved for the first time by an Irish Member on Friday last, the 24th of April, so that the Government had very nearly six weeks' delay to account for. That time had been wasted by the Government; and the effect of it would
    1036
    be that the Committee, if it went on at all, would be driven off to a time when it would have very little chance of going to work. He wished to say that the hon. Baronet (Sir Eardley Wilmot) who introduced this matter had recommended himself to the affection and confidence of the Irish people by his exertions on their behalf; and he was sure that those exertions would always be remembered by them with feelings of gratitude. But the hon. Baronet had that night renewed his exertions on their behalf, and had, moreover, truly expressed the feeling of the people of Ireland, when he declared, with reference to the attitude taken up by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, that the whole responsibility in this matter rested upon Her Majesty's Government. There was not a single claim that the Irish Members had made that had not been strongly resisted by the Government. The hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton), first of all, asked the noble Lord the Member for Flintshire (Lord Richard Grosvenor) when this Committee was going to be appointed. He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) did not attach any bad motive to the noble Lord; but whether the noble Lord's actions were deliberate and intentional or not, the fact remained that the Committee was postponed day after day, in spite of the questions upon the subject which were almost daily addressed from the Irish Benches. Then they came to the composition of the Committee. This was a Committee which was for the sole examination of the industrial resources of Ireland. Surely it was a Committee which should consist exclusively of Irish Members; or, at all events, it was a Committee on which, unquestionably, the large predominating influence should be Irish. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir William Harcourt) objected to the Members of the Irish Party claiming an undue share of representation upon the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman had denied their right to speak as the Representatives of the majority of the Irish people. He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) did not think the right hon. Gentleman would do that after the month of next November. He thought that a General Election would be quite sufficient to prove even to the right hon. Gentleman that the Members of the Party led by

    1037
    the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) did represent the overwhelming majority of the, Irish people. He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) thought that the Committee should largely consist of Members drawn from the Irish Party. It was quite evident that the right hon. Gentleman would much rather prefer that Ireland should be deprived of the benefit of this Committee, than that the Representatives of the Irish people should have their due share of the Members of the Committee. The hon. Baronet (Sir Eardley Wilmot) must not be daunted by the attitude taken up by the Government. The Irish Members heartily echoed the frank and incontestible statement of the hon. Baronet, that all responsibility for the failure of this Committee would lie in the hands of the Government.
    LORD RICHARD GROSVENORsaid, he wished to say a few words on the subject of the delay which the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) had said occurred in the constitution of this Committee. The nomination of a Committee of this importance necessarily occupied a considerable time. Hon. Members had to be seen personally, and asked if they would serve. That there was some delay he freely admitted; but he maintained that there was no more delay than occurred in the nomination of every Committee of this kind. He was anxious to secure a thoroughly representative Committee, and he used Ms best endeavours to secure that end. It must be borne in mind that the nomination of the Committee was on the Paper for the 30th March, and that since that time the delay had not been occasioned by Members of the Government, but by Members of the Irish Party themselves. He hoped hon. Members would be good enough to remember that only last night the main argument of the speech of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) against this Committee was that there was not sufficient time this year to deal with the subject. The hon. Gentleman did not rely on the question of the constitution of the Committee. As regarded the addition of this name, hon. Members would also remember that, to meet their views, the Government did agree to add another Member of their Party, and also, in accordance with the wishes of the Members of the
    1038
    Irish Party, the Committee was strengthened by the addition of two right hon. Gentlemen—one from each of the Front Benches. As a matter of fact, the Committee was constituted as far as possible to meet the views of hon. Members; and he thought that anybody, looking at the Committee, would confess that its constitution was extremely fair, and that the Party to which hon. Members opposite belonged was very fully represented. The Government had raised no objection to the appointment of the Committee; but, on the contrary, had done their best to secure its appointment. He did not think that any blame whatever attached to the Government in the matter.
    CAPTAIN AYLMERsaid, he was sure that no one who had had to deal with the noble Lord opposite (Lord Richard Grosvenor) would blame him in any way. The hon. Baronet (Sir Eardley Wilmot) and himself (Captain Aylmer) had found the noble Lord most courteous in his dealings in this matter. But the noble Lord could not say that the Government were not to blame. The Government had done their best all through to kill this Committee. Four years ago the Prime Minister refused to grant a Committee of this kind, although he (Captain Aylmer) got up a Petition, signed by three-fourths of the Irish Members, in favour of an inquiry such as it was now proposed to hold by this Committee. The Government had only assented to the appointment of the Committee now because it gave the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) an opportunity of saying there was no time in which to make the investigation. He (Captain Aylmer) knew it never would be passed this Session, and that it never was the intention of the Government that it should pass. If the Government had intended that a Committee of this kind should be appointed, they would have appointed one when they were asked in writing, four years ago, by three-fourths of the Irish Members.
    MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYsaid, he wished to supplement the information given by the noble Lord the Member for Flintshire (Lord Richard Grosvenor). When this Committee was being nominated, the hon. Baronet (Sir Eardley Wilmot) consulted the Party to which he (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) belonged, and

    1039
    the hon. Baronet's own suggestion was that seven Members of the Irish Party should be appointed upon the Committee. To that proposal the Party assented; and to save the Government the trouble of making the selection, a list of seven Members of the Party was sent to the noble Lord (Lord Richard Grosvenor).
    LORD RICHARD GROSVENOR: The hon. Gentleman is not quite accurate. A list of six Members was supplied to me.
    MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYsaid, that certainly seven was the number suggested by the hon. Baronet (Sir Eardley Wilmot); and he (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) had supposed that a list of seven names was sent to the noble Lord. When the nomination of the Committee, however, appeared on the Paper, they found a totally different Committee from that which they were prepared to find. There were only four of their Party, and these were swamped by a large number of Members from all parts of House. He did not object to the appointment of English Members on the Committee. There were many English Members whoso assistance the Irish Party would be glad to have, because they knew that those Gentlemen would come on the Committee with a serious intention of promoting its object. But everyone would see that the Irish Members were now merely swamped by hon. Members who cared nothing whatever about Irish industries. Let him remind the noble Lord of a precedent of only two or three years' standing. It would be in the recollection of the noble Lord that two or three years ago a Committee was appointed, under the Chairmanship of the junior Member for Leeds (Mr. Herbert Gladstone), to deal with a question mainly connected with Irish interests. On that occasion the hon. Gentleman nominated a Committee consisting almost exclusively of Irish Members; and the hon. Gentleman expressed a hope that that would be the beginning of such a practice in the House. The practice, however, had not been followed since; and there was a striking deviation from this principle in the case of this very Committee, which was concerned exclusively with the interests of the Irish people.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid, it was a most extraordinary thing that
    1040
    the Government would not accept the extra name which the Irish Members desired to have placed on this Committee. He thought it would be generally admitted that the Committee was one which concerned Ireland alone, and that, therefore, the wishes of the Irish Members on the matter should be respected. If the right hon. Gentleman (Sir William Harcourt), who now represented the Government, was as anxious as the Irish Members that this Committee should be appointed, and do some good work, he would not object to the name which they proposed to have placed on the Committee. Certainly, the number of Members from Ireland whose names were already upon the Committee did not appear to him to be at all sufficient for the requirements of the case; and, after mature deliberation, he and his hon. Friends had arrived at the conclusion that the appointment of six Members of their Party would be much more calculated to insure the success of the objects for which the Committee was formed than five Members would be. If the right hon. Gentleman killed this Committee, because he would not allow this extra name to be put upon it, his action would be viewed in Ireland with a great deal of disapprobation; and certainly the verdict of the Irish people would be that the Government were not in earnest in their desire to promote this Committee, or else they would not have endangered its existence by refusing to allow this one other name to be put upon it. He could not understand why the Government should refuse to assent to this extra name; surely it could not be a matter which concerned them very much. On the other hand, it was a matter which concerned Ireland and the people he and his hon. Friends represented very much indeed. Therefore, they appealed to the Government to give them six Members upon the Committee instead of five Members.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid, he wished to support the appeal which had been made by hon. Members opposite—namely, that the Government should assent to this very modest and very just proposition. He did not think the Secretary of State for the Home Department could really have looked into the matter himself, or else he would have seen the reasonableness of the position assumed

    1041
    by hon. Members opposite. It was proposed that this Committee should consist of twenty-five Members, and all that the Irish Members asked was that they should have six Members upon it. The hon. Members opposite might not be numerically strong in the House; but, undoubtedly, they had a very large body of the people behind them in Ireland; and he thought that anybody who considered the facts would admit that the request of those hon. Gentlemen was a very moderate one. He thought that this was just one of the instances in which the Government did themselves very much harm. It was quite clear that however much the Government might be anxious to obtain this Committee, it would be said that by the original delay which took place, and by their refusal to grant the addition of this one Member, they did not desire the Committee should be appointed at all; and he could not help expressing the opinion that this would be said with some justice. Unless a Committee of this sort was entirely representative of all sections of the people, he agreed with the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) that its appointment would serve no good purpose. He thought there was time, even this Session, for a certain amount of good work to be done; or, at all events, for the foundation to be laid for a future Committee in some future Session of Parliament; and, therefore, he appealed to the Government to make this simple concession, which would smooth the way for the appointment of the Committee, and which would show that they really desired that the Committee should be held, but which, if they refused, would do them a great deal of harm in Ireland.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, it seemed that the Government had made up their minds that they would not say anymore on this subject.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: We cannot say any more.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, that the suggestion of the Government was that the Committee should consist of twenty-four Members, and out of that number twelve should be English Members. If a similar Committee were appointed on a corresponding English subject, how many of its Members would be Irishmen? They had an example lately, when the Committee, on the Registration
    1042
    (Occupation Voters) Bill was appointed. There was not a solitary Irish Member on that Committee. Where the subject was English, Irish Members usually did not press for representation, unless the matter to be taken in hand had some bearing or other on the interests of their country. Even then they were satisfied with a nominal representation. There were twelve Irish Members nominally on this Committee; but the Government proposed that only five should belong to the Party led by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell.) The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir William Harcourt) called that a section of the Irish Party. They considered themselves to be the only Irish Party in the House. The other Members for Ireland were the obedient followers of the two English Parties in the House. They had no separate existence; they had no soul, no conscience, nor line of action of their own. That being the case, he declined to recognize them as representative; and if the House waited until next January, when hon. Members came back to Parliament, those who said that the Irish Party were a "section" would see whether they were so or not. He could tell the right hon. Gentleman that the return of the Irish Party to that House, not as a section, or as a fraction, but as the acknowledged and overwhelming majority of the people of Ireland, was a much more certain thing than the return of the right hon. Gentleman's Government, or the return of the right hon. Gentleman himself. What were the Government afraid of? What horrible possibilities did they see in the addition of this one Member? The Committee would consist of twenty-five Members, only six of whom would belong to the Irish Party. Did not the right hon. Gentleman know perfectly well that, in connection with any proposal brought before the Committee, he could rely upon the solid vote of nineteen? What, then, wa3 the right hon. Gentleman afraid of? The hon. Member for the City of Cork was naturally unwilling to enter upon laborious and long proceedings in this Committee with only four of his Colleagues, and was of opinion that five was the least number he could accept. The hon. Member believed that without six Members of his Party they could not hope to elicit the

    1043
    proper kind of evidence. He (Mr. Sexton) could come to no other conclusion, from the obstinate resistance of the Government on this question of one Member, infinitesimal to them, but of the greatest importance to Ireland, than that, whatever the professions of the Government might be, they were desirous in their hearts that the Committee should not be appointed. Let the House consider the delay which had occurred. The Committee was assented to by the Government last year. Since then, more than half a-year had elapsed. If the Government had allowed the Irish Members to have the representation they desired, the Committee would have been appointed. Even if they had allowed the Irish Members to have six Members, it would have been appointed any time within the last six weeks; but day after day had passed away, and the appointment of the Committee had been staved off, and now the House found itself asked to enter upon a grave and weighty inquisition on a most important question in what he might call the last hours of a dying Parliament. What could be done between now and the end of the Session? It was true that the hon. Member for the City of Cork had objected to the number of Representatives allowed him; but the delay had been so great that another objection had arisen. There were only twenty-four Members proposed; but what assurance had the House that these Members would come back to Parliament in the General Election? He might not err on the score of rashness if he said that at least half of them might not return. Was the hon. Member for the City of Dublin, with all his chances of life, and with all the vicissitudes of politics upon him—was he ready to commit himself to an inquiry of this kind, when the Tories might come with their shears and cut the web of his intentions? Suppose the House rose in July or August, and Parliament died immediately, the Committee could not ask Parliament to reappoint it; and the result would be that the whole thing would have to be taken again de novo next year, and in the absence of a number of men who had lost their seats, and would not be able to give the new Committee the advantage of the study and investigation they had given to the question. The Committee would then be burdened with a number
    1044
    of hon. Members who had not had an opportunity of considering the question. He thought the hon. Member for the City of Cork had come to a right conclusion, when he asserted that more harm than good would result from a hasty consideration of this subject. He believed the investigation would be much better begun in the favouring atmosphere of a reformed Parliament, and under circumstances which would render the right hon. Gentleman opposite politically more genial and arithmetically less rigorous.
    MR. MOLLOYsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir William Harcourt) could not reply to the hon. Member who had just sat down (Mr. Sexton); and, in order to give him an opportunity of doing so, the best thing that could be done would be to move the adjournment of the debate. The right hon. Gentleman would then be able to state, on behalf of the Government, whether he intended to accede to the demand of the Irish Party.
    COLONEL NOLAN: Do not move it.
    MR. MOLLOYsaid, he was anxious to put an end to a debate which seemed to be useless, and which was keeping them out of bed for no reason.
    COLONEL NOLAN: Do not move it.
    MR. MOLLOY: I move that the debate be now adjourned.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned." —(Mr. Molloy.)
    MR. LEAMYsaid, he hoped his hon. Friend (Mr. Molloy) would withdraw that Motion. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir William Harcourt) had stated that the Government had already spoken; but the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Walker) was present, and he would be able to give them the answer they wanted. He (Mr. Leamy) would ask the hon. and learned Gentleman what harm it could do anyone to give this additional Member? Could he find a satisfactory answer to that? It was an extraordinary thing to say that the Committee should be refused because the Irish Members wanted to have this extra name added to it. What objection could there be to this proposal, and would the Government tell them why it was they would not accept it? If it were accepted, the Com-

    1045
    mittee might be at once formed, and could proceed to business in a day or two.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that of course he could not refuse the invitation of the hon. Member who had moved the adjournment (Mr. Molloy). He did not know what further explanation there was to give—he did not know whether the hon. Gentleman had beard the speech of the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) or some other hon. Gentleman who had spoken opposite; but he had said that his distinct view was that the Gentlemen who belonged to the Party that sat on these Benches were the only Gentlemen who represented Ireland, and who ought to represent Ireland on the Committee. [Mr. SEXTON: The only Irish Party.] That was their view; he did not know whether it was the view of his hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr. Sydney Buxton); he did not think that hon. Member would accept the statement. It was exactly because this Motion was made from that point of view that the Government could not assent to it. The Government were dealing with the present Parliament; they had not powers of prediction as to the future Parliament; they were dealing with the present; and it would not be decent for them to accept, as the foundation of the appointment of a Committee on Irish Industries, the proposition that a number of Gentlemen, whom he had no doubt were very influential as Irish Representatives, were the sole Representatives of Ireland in respect to those industries. He, therefore, hoped the hon. Gentleman the Member for Peterborough would reconsider the observations he had addressed to the Government in the light of that statement. They must consider the constitution of the Committee, he did not say in reference to a "section" of a Party—he would not use that word, and if he had used it he had not intended it in any disparaging sense. The Government were obliged to consider the matter not from the point of view of hon. Gentlemen opposite, but as a whole. They had come to an agreement, and this was really the foundation of the whole thing; they were anxious that the Committee should be appointed, and they had come to an agreement with the hon. Baronet who proposed the Committee (Sir Eardley Wilmot) and the hon. Member who, in
    1046
    these matters, acted as the Representative of hon. Members opposite, as to the basis of the Committee, and the Government were prepared last Friday to pass it through. The hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), however, got up and opposed the appointment to some extent on the grounds of its constitution, but mainly on the ground that it would have no good result, but, on the contrary, would be rather injurious. Everyone who remembered the speech of the hon. Member for the City of Cork would remember that that was the position he took up. The hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) had repeated that argument with great emphasis, and had said that to appoint a Committee at the fag end of a Parliament would be a useless and injurious operation. In the face of that, what was the use of hon. Members endeavouring to force upon the Government the responsibility for the Committee having fallen through? The hon. Member for the City of Cork had moved the adjournment of the debate the other night—he had not proposed to add another Member, or to take any course of that kind. The hon. Member had told the House that he thought the Committee would do no good, and that had led to its being postponed to Tuesday. On Tuesday this proposal was made, which was, in fact, a departure from and an overthrowing of an agreement which had been come to by all the Parties on the subject. It would be utterly impossible to do the Business of the House if, when Committees were appointed by regular agreement between all the Parties, they should be thrown over at the pleasure of one Party, as this Committee had been, by the hon. Member for the City of Cork, first in his Motion for Adjournment, and now in this Motion for an alteration of the constitution of the Committee. It was from no desire on the part of the Government to prevent the constitution and appointment of this Committee, but rather for the purpose of standing by the agreement all Parties had come to, that the Government resisted the proposal of hon. Members opposite. The whole history of the attitude of the Government showed that their desire had been to abide by the agreement arrived at between their own Representatives, the right hon. Baronet who had moved the Committee, and the

    1047
    Representatives of hon. Members opposite. If that agreement had been carried out the Committee would have been appointed last Friday; and he (Sir William Harcourt) could not, on the part of the Government, accept any responsibility for any failure which might have resulted from a departure from the original agreement.
    MR. MARUMsaid, he did not think the arguments which the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir William Harcourt) had addressed to the House were at all sound. A Member returned to this House by any constituency was the Representative of that constituency only; he was presumed by the law to be simply a Member of Parliament; and therefore it was not open to a Minister of the Crown to say that the addition of a Member like the hon. Member for Ennis was objectionable, for the reason that he represented a particular Party in the House. So far as that statement was concerned the right hon. Gentleman ought to withdraw it.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I was not the author of that argument; the hon. Member is distinctly proposed as a Member of the Party opposite. He is not proposed by me, but by his political Friends.
    MR. MARUMsaid, he thought, however, that there had been a precedent set that night which was very inconvenient. On previous occasions the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) had brought forward questions of this kind; and, after a great deal of argument and delay, concessions were obtained from the Government. As concession was, therefore, to be expected in the end, it was to be regretted that the Government had not expedited matters by acquiescing in the proposal made, or by coming to some arrangement as to this Committee. He could assure the Government that the falling through of the Committee would be a very serious matter. The name of the hon. Baronet (Sir Eardley Wilmot) was revered in Ireland for the manner in which he had brought forward this question, the question being one which had very closely and earnestly engaged the attention of the Irish people. He (Mr. Marum) did not desire to detain the House any length of time, and he would, therefore, merely urge upon the right hon. Gentleman opposite not to
    1048
    allow the Committee to fall through. If he did, upon the Government must rest the responsibility. The matter had been before the Irish people for some time, and they should not be told now that the whole thing was a sham.
    MR. O'SHEAsaid, he hoped the Government would think twice before they allowed the Irish people to suppose that they had, by reason of an arrangement of the Whips, thrown over such a Committee as this. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman (Sir William Harcourt) that if the Committee fell through it would be considered in Ireland, whatever the real reason might be, that the Government were opposed to an inquiry into this very important subject. What on earth could it matter whether there was an additional Member on one side or on the other on a question which would really be a test question to the Irish people as to the feeling of the Government towards Ireland on this question of Irish industries? He thought the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Walker) should get up and say that he accepted the proposal of the Irish Members. He trusted the Government would not take such a suicidal step as to allow the Committee to fall through.
    MR. WOODALLsaid, he thought that the House generally sympathized with the appointment of this Committee, and believed in the possibility of great good to Ireland resulting from it. Indeed, he was sure that all of them must have been conscious that hopes had been encouraged and much interest stimulated in the question already. Well, he was sorry that the Government did not see their way to assenting to the proposal to add another Member. On the other hand, he could not feel that the whole responsibility for the lapse of the Committee would rest on the Government if it fell through that night. He hoped he might be permitted to appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite to consider whether they were not accepting very grave responsibility in allowing a matter of this kind to fall through, after the negotiations which had taken place, on such a small point as the addition of another Member. He had already served upon a Commission which had inquired very fully, and had presented to the House a mass of evidence and information bearing upon the subject. He

    1049
    was desirous to see it proceed, as he was confident it would bring about important results in developing the industries of the Sister Country, which had been so long neglected; and he earnestly hoped that the Committee would be appointed, and would set to work to collect material which any other Committee appointed by the next Parliament would be able to take in hand and make valuable use of. Though many Members appointed on the Committee might have no connection with Ireland, they would be Gentlemen engaged in the various industries of this country, the influence of which they would like to carry to Ireland. He, therefore, begged most earnestly—whilst, on the one hand, expressing his surprise that they could not arrange this difficulty by adding another Member to the Committee—to urge hon. Members opposite not to accept the responsibility of defeating the appointment of the Committee for the mere sake of getting added to it another Member to represent their political views. Political questions really should not arise in an inquiry of this kind.
    MR. MOLLOYintimated that he had no wish to press the Motion for the adjournment.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. STEVENSONsaid, he would join in the appeal to the Government to allow this additional Member to be appointed to the Committee. He thought it desirable that the Committee should be appointed, and for that purpose that it should be constituted in such a way as to satisfy the desire of hon. Gentlemen opposite. He should certainly vote for the nomination of an additional Member.
    Original Question put, "That the words 'Twenty-four' stand part of the Question."
    The House divided;—Ayes 6; Noes 24: Majority 18.—(Div. List, No. 141.)
    And it appearing on the Report of the Division that 40 Members were not present,
    House adjourned at a quarter before Three o'clock.