CONSIDERATION. [FIRST NIGHT."]

HC Deb 28 April 1885 vol 297 cc972-1029

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- 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 EMLYN

said, 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 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 LLOYD

said, 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. GORST

said, the scheme of the Government in this matter was in shock- 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. DAVIES

said, 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 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 "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 CROSS

said, 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 EMLYN

said, 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. DILKE

said, 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 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. HEALY

asked, 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- 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. HEALY

said, 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. DILKE

said, 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. HEALY

said, 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. DILKE

said, 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. LAWRENCE

said, 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 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 COTTON

said, 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. DILKE

said, 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'CONNOR

said, he must express his regret that the Amendment was not accepted.

MR. GIBSON

said, 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. GIBSON

said, 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 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 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. HEALY

said, 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-BEACH

said, 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. HICKS

said, 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 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. DILKE

said, 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 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. GRAY

said, 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'CONNOR

supported 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- 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. DILKE

said, 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'CONNOR

said, 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. BIGGAR

supported the Amendment.

MR. PLUNKET

said, 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. GRAY

said, that the Amendment on the Paper raised a very important question as to whether students 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 RUSSELL

said, 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 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. DILKE

said, that this was a matter which should be settled 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. DILKE

said, 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 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. DILKE

said, 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. DILKE

said, 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. HEALY

said, 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 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 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. PLUNKET

said, 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 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. BIGGAR

said, 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. DILKE

said, 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. DILKE

said, 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 MANNERS

said, 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 MANNERS

said, that different overseers might select different names, and that would lead to confusion. The Quarter Sessions might be a fit authority.

MR. WARTON

proposed 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 CROSS

said, 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, which might come into operation before this Bill.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, 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. DILKE

said, 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. DILKE

said, 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- 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. DILKE

said, 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. LEWIS

said, 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 ROGERS

said, 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'CONNOR

said, 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 CROSS

said, 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. SEXTON

said, 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 LEFEVRE

said, he would point out that the Sheriff of County Down had always acted as Returning Officer for Newry.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, the remedy appeared to be rather to give a Corporation to the town of Newry.

MR. BIGGAR

said, he thought it was obvious that Newry was entitled to have the Chairman of the Town Commissioners as the Returning Officer at elec- 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. HEALY

said, he should like to have the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Charles W. Dilke) on the matter?

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, 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. LEAMY

supported 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. ARCHDALE

said, 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 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. SEXTON

said, 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. DILKE

said, 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. DILKE

said, he would do so.

MR. HEALY

remarked 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) 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. DILKE

said, 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. SEXTON

said, 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 place should, in certain cases, be looked upon as the centre of more than one Division.

MR. O'DONNELL

said, 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'CONNOR

said, 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. LEWIS

said, 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 LEFEVRE

said, 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. GRAY

said, 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. ARCHDALE

interposing, said, he felt bound to protest against these statements. He knew several Returning Officers who were quite incapable of such action.

MR. GRAY

said, 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 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. DEASY

said, 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. ARCHDALE

said, 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'SULLIVAN

said, he hoped the Government would accept the Amendment. It would do away with a possible hardship.

MR. WILLIAM REDMOND

said, 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 REDMOND

said, 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'CARTHY

said, 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 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'CONNOR

said, 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. KENNY

said, 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. MARUM

said, 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. DILKE

said, that the Government would consider the matter, and confer with the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Healy) on the subject.

MR. JUSTIN HUNTLY M'CARTHY

asked 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. DILKE

said, that in cases where there was a large county 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 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- 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 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. DILKE

said, 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. DILKE

said, 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. HEALY

said, 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 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 the case of a Parliamentary borough or "division" of a borough.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, 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. DEASY

asked what the effect would be in reference to Ireland and Scotland?

MR. EDWARD CLARKE

suggested 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. ACKERS

said, 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 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. SEXTON

asked 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 NORTHCOTE

remarked, 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. HEALY

inquired 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 AYLMER

then 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 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. DILKE

opposed the Amendment, and remarked that, as a general rule, the convenience of the candidates would be consulted.

MR. EDWARD CLARKE

said, 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 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 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-DOUGLAS

said, 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 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 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. RAIKES

said, 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 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 NORTHCOTE

said, 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 NORTHCOTE

said, 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. WARTON

said, 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 ROGERS

said, 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 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- 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 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, 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 CLARKE

said, 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. MONK

said, 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), 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. MONK

said, 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 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 STANLEY

said, 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- 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 HARCOURT

said, 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 not, on account of the last division, give these offenders a clean bill of health and allow them to enjoy absolute immunity.

MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS

said, 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. GILES

said, 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 CLARKE

said, 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 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'CONNOR

said, 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. 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'CONNOR

said, 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'CONNOR

said, 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 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. BRYCE

said, 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.