Commons Sitting of 15 June 1885

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1867, Provisional Order.*
Ordered—First Reading—Parliamentary Elections (Medical Relief) [206].
Second Reading—Local Government Provisional Order (Municipal Corporations)* [199]; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 7)* [201].
Committee—Copyhold Enfranchisement [26]—
Lords Amendments considered—Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) [202].
Report—Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 4)* [169]; Public Health (Scotland) Provisional Order* [194]; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 2)* [183]; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Labourers Act) (No. 3)* [188]; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Labourers Act) (No. 4)* [185]; Local Government (Gas) Provisional Orders,* [170]; Commons Regulation (Drum-burgh) Provisional Order* [173]; Commons Regulation (Ashdown Forest) Provisional Order* [174]; Commons Inclosure (Llanybyther) Provisional Order* [175].
Considered as amended—Tramways Provisional Orders (No. 1)*[143].
Third Reading—Gas and Water Provisional Orders (No. 2)* [149]; Water Provisional Orders* [142]; Princess Beatrice's Annuity* [187], and passed.

PARLIAMENT—ADJOURNMENT—RESIGNATION OF MINISTERS—STATEMENT-OF MR. GLADSTONE—ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS.
MR. GLADSTONE: Mr. Speaker, I have received authentic information that Lord Salisbury has undertaken the formation of a Government, and I have likewise received an expression of a desire, to which I am sure the House will be as ready to conform as I am, that I should move to-day that the House, at its rising, should adjourn until Friday next. That accordingly is my intention, and I believe it will be quite conformable to precedent, as it is to the reason of the case, in this necessarily early stage of the arrangements. That being so, we have before us the question whether it is desirable to proceed with the Lords' Amendments to the Redistribution of Seats Bill—a matter upon which, as I have said before, I am in the hands of the House. But my opinion is that, on the whole, it is for the public interest and for the satisfaction of all parties that we should proceed to deal with them and to complete the measure. There is another arrangement, rather less in magnitude, but which, at the same time, touches matters of feeling in relation to Royalty of such a nature as makes it desirable for me to submit to the House whether another exception ought not to be made to the more usual practice. The House will remember that some time ago—I do not know how many weeks ago—it was determined, by a very large majority, to introduce the usual Annuity Bill for the

1537
marriage of Her Royal Highness tie Princess Beatrice. That Annuity Bill has reached its third reading, and, although it is true a limited opposition was made to it on its first stage, that opposition has not been revived. The House has, therefore, on the various stages of the measure, except upon one occasion, given its unanimous assent to the Bill. As there are practical arrangements connected with that measure, and as it touches the relation of the House towards the Throne, and the loyal feelings of the House, my opinion is that there will be a general disposition on the part of the House to approve that course, if I should proceed to move the third reading to-day. There is another portion of the arrangements as to which I do not propose to take a similar course, for reasons which, I think, will be obvious. The custom has always been, besides the Annuity, to propose the grant of a capital sum. But towards the grant of that capital sum in the present instance—which is precisely based upon former precedents—owing to the course of Business, the first stage which is to procure the voting of that capital sum has not yet been taken. I have not the smallest doubt in my own mind that that capital sum will be voted with the same readiness and the same loyalty as was the Annuity. But the House has given no decision upon it, and I wish to call attention to that point—that the House has given no decision upon it, and has not become a party to it. The proposal itself is a responsible act, and I think it is better, being a responsible act, however sure we may be of the decision the House will give, that we should properly reserve it to the House, to be dealt with in the usual manner, upon the proposal of a responsible Government. Consequently, I do not intend, as far as I am concerned, to take any steps in regard to that proposal; but with respect to the third reading of the Annuity Bill, the House will probably be inclined unanimously, as it has been on the later stages of the Bill, to think that, under these circumstances, it is just to make that also an exception to our usual methods of proceeding, and allow the Bill to go forward to the House of Lords by reading it a third time tonight. I beg leave to move that the House, at its rising, do adjourn until Friday next.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House will, at the rising of the House this day, adjourn till Friday next."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
SIR STAFFORD NORHCOTE: I presume that we may infer, from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, that he will limit his proposals this evening to taking the first and fifth Orders of the Day, omitting the intermediate ones, and that, after the fifth Order has been disposed of, he will move the adjournment of the House?
MR. JESSE COLLINGS: May I ask whether it will be possible to make another exception in a matter of great interest throughout the country—that is, to allow the introduction of the Bill for the prevention of the disqualification by reason of medical relief? I am sure that exception would be received with much gratification throughout the country. I do not know to what extent the Bill will be opposed on either side of the House; but it will be simply carrying out an act of justice in preventing the disqualification of a largo number of the new voters.
MR. GLADSTONE: If I may be permitted to answer that question, without giving an opinion on its merits, I certainly should say that I do not see how such an exception could be made. This is a matter which falls within the category of general legislation, with which the House, I take it, is not now disposed to deal. No doubt, it is perfectly competent to the House to deal with it—it is perfectly competent for my hon. Friend to propose it. I do not wish to say one syllable by which, in any degree, his proposal could be subjected to prejudice. But as regards the important rule to which, upon very special grounds, we are led to ask for one exception, I can see no resemblance whatever between the two cases.
MR. LABOUCHERE: I took a vote on the first reading of the Princess Beatrice Annuity Bill, and was defeated. I shall, therefore, not oppose the Bill on its subsequent stages. But there is another question which I would venture to ask the right hon. Gentleman. It is this. We have recently seen, in authoritative newspapers, statements that there is some species of negotiation going on between the Leaders of the present Opposition and

1539
Her Majesty's Government, and that Her Majesty's Government are about to give certain assurances to the Conservative Party that should they take Office they will not oppose them. In The Standard it is stated that they must do this as patriots, because the present Ministry have brought the country into such a deplorable state that they ought to be thankful to anyone who gets it out of that state. But in The Times it is stated that Ministers ought to take this course, and, indeed, that they intend to take this course, and that without it the present Opposition will not take Office, because the Ministers themselves have committed a species of suicide. Now, I think it is desirable that these statements should be put to rest at once. We know perfectly well that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite during the present Session did their best—especially, I believe, on Monday last—to turn out Her Majesty's present Advisers, though they were warned beforehand that, if they did so, they would have to accept Office. Under these circumstances, I would ask the Prime Minister whether there is any truth in these statements, and whether anything beyond that aid will be afforded to the Leaders of the Conservative Party to carry on the Government which the Conservative Party have afforded to Her Majesty's present Advisers during the present Session? It would set at rest a very strong feeling which is felt in the country on the subject, if the right hon. Gentleman could give some sort of assurance that these statements, however authoritative they may appear, have no sort of foundation.
MR. GLADSTONE: With regard to what has fallen from my hon. Friend, all that I can say is that I have no cognizance of any such communications as he has referred to. I can commit nobody, I can promise nothing, I can refuse nothing. I simply state that I am absolutely without information. At the same time, as regards the matter of form, I may explain that it may be requisite to take a different course with regard to the adjournment. Substantially, the meaning of the Motion is that no opportunity shall be given for making a House for going on with Business between this time and Friday. That is the real object we have in view. We are now going to consider, and per-
1540
haps dispose of, the Lords' Amendments to the Redistribution of Seats Bill. They will be returned, in the shape in which they may receive the assent of this House, at once to the House of Lords. I think it probable, from what I hear, that the House of Lords will deal with them this evening, or if not this evening, at any rate tomorrow morning. [An hon. MEMBER: The Lords have adjourned.] At any rate, the Bill will probably be in a condition to receive the Royal Assent before Friday. [Lord RICHARD GROSVENOR here made a communication to the right hon. Gentleman.] I have just received intelligence that the House of Lords has adjourned. That being so, I have only to say that the original intention will be fulfilled.
MR. SPEAKER: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose Friday?
MR. GLADSTONE: Yes, Sir.
Question put, and agreed to.
Resolved, That this House will, at the rising of the House this day, adjourn till Friday next.

COMMITTEES.—RESOLUTION.
Ordered, That all Committees have leave to sit, notwithstanding the adjournment of the House.—(Mr. Gladstone.)
PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (REDISTRIBUTION) BILL.— [BILL 202.]

  CONSIDERATION OF LORDS' AMENDMENTS.
  Order for Consideration of Lords' Amendments read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Lords' Amendments be now considered."—(Sir Charles W. Dilke.)
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, that, wishing to make a few observations upon this subject, he would conclude by moving the adjournment of the debate. There was no responsible Government or Opposition in the House, and yet they were asked to deal with Amendments involving several questions of a Constitutional character. He objected to the Bill as it had come down from the Lords, because a most important Amendment had been made in the title, and that Amendment entirely altered the character of the Bill. Originally the title was "A Bill for the Re-

  1541
  distribution of Seats at Parliamentary Elections, and for other purposes relative thereto." The Lords had struck out the words "relative thereto," and they had evidently done so with an object, which was to introduce certain clauses that were practically a new Bill. They had introduced a Registration Bill into a Redistribution Bill in the form of a fourth part, the original measure consisting only of three parts, the clauses which formed the fourth part referring to the acceleration of registration, a subject with which the original Bill had nothing to do. It was originally intended that these clauses should have been passed as an independent Registration Bill. Another point of objection was that one of these clauses gave the Judges the right to appoint additional Revising Barristers. He maintained that this clause was, indirectly perhaps, but not the less distinctly, an infringement of the Privileges of this House. No reference was made to the salaries of these additional Revising Barristers; but it was clear their salaries would have to be provided. If these clauses had been contained in the original Bill, or if they had been embodied in a separate Bill, they would have gone through all the stages of first reading, second reading, Committee, and third reading in this House, which would have had ample opportunity of discussing them; but, instead of this, the House of Commons was called upon to pass them, at one stage, and that the consideration of the Amendments made by the Lords. This was an infringement of the liberties of the House of Commons so far as the provision of the salaries was concerned, and it was done at the instance of a Liberal Government. For these reasons, and without detaining the House any longer, he moved that the debate be adjourned.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Sir H. Drummond Wolff.)
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he did not know whether the hon. Member's statement that this had been done at the instance of the Liberal Government applied to all the points he raised, or whether he only meant it to apply to the last one; because, as regarded the more important point which he raised first, he could assure the hon. Member that the
  1542
  step which had been taken had not been taken at the instance of the Government. It was taken at the instance of the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: What step?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEreplied, that the step of putting into this Bill the Acceleration of Registration Clauses was taken entirely at the instance of Lord Salisbury, or the suggestion of Lord Salisbury. The intention of the Government was, on the whole, to have made these clauses a separate Bill, and they had prepared a separate Bill for that purpose. It was the opinion of the Leaders of the Party opposite that the other was the preferable course, and communications were made so strongly urging the Government to place the clauses in the Redistribution Bill, instead of in a separate measure, that they thought in the circumstances, there being no difference of principle, it was desirable to do so. Therefore, he was very much astonished that that objection should come from Members on the other side of the House. He thought the matter was merely one of convenience; but if it was to be argued on its merits, it was a different question. As to the point about the additional Revising Barristers, that was-a question they might argue when they came to it. He was not certain that the clause as to the Revising Barristers was necessary, and whether what it proposed to do could not be done without it; but he saw no reason for refusing to consider the Lords' Amendments. With regard to the main objection as to the Acceleration Clauses, it would have been a most improper thing to have inserted them unless they had been encouraged to do so from the other side; but they had been so encouraged, and, under the circumstances, he did not see any reason why they should not proceed with the consideration of the Amendments.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, that he simply rose to confirm what had been said by the right hon. Gentleman. A communication was made to the effect that it was proposed to introduce a separate Bill; and it was suggested by Lord Salisbury that it might be more convenient to introduce the clauses into this Bill.
  MR. G0RSTsaid, he did not think that anyone could gravely find fault with the substance of these clauses; but

  1543
  they ought to be careful that they were not doing something which could be drawn into an inconvenient precedent hereafter. If the House of Lords could upon this occasion introduce clauses which were not directly germane to the Bill, they might on another occasion introduce clauses which would be objectionable. He understood the Prime Minister to suggest that they should consider Amendments that were trifling and unimportant, so that the Bill might speedily pass into law; but they were asked to do a great deal more than that, and to pass clauses of an unusual character, introduced, no doubt, with a good intention, but in a manner for which there was not a precedent, and which might be made into a very inconvenient precedent. Nor, in point of time, was there any urgency. The clauses did not come into effect until the revision was about to commence, about the 7th or 8th of September, and, therefore, there was plenty of time for regular legislation. He thought the right hon. Baronet the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote), or some of those at whose suggestion these clause had been inserted, should explain why there had not been time to pursue the course intended by the Government, of introducing a separate Bill, which could have been discussed in all its stages.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the hon. and learned Gentleman had stated that there was no hurry for proceeding with the Bill. He (the Attorney General) begged to tell the House that there was every reason why a single day should not be wasted in dealing with it. Whether they should proceed with what were called the "Acceleration Clauses" was not the question. The Motion before the House was to discuss the Lords' Amendments to the whole Bill, and that had been delayed too long already, if they were to do justice to those who would be charged with carrying out the measure. The moment the Bill passed, Town Clerks and Clerks of the Peace would have to issue precepts, and there was barely time for them to do all the work involved in the registration of voters. Unless the House considered the Amendments of the Lords at once, a vast addition would be made to the labour of these officials. It was said they must be careful not to establish an evil precedent; but the House of
  1544
  Commons always had its remedy. If the House objected to these clauses, it could strike them out; but, at all events, let the House consider the clauses, which was all it was now asked to do.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I shall not be contradicted by anybody of authority if I say that the House of Commons is generally extraordinarily careful and very jealous of setting any new precedent in procedure or the conduct of its Business. We are asked by the Government to make a precedent for which there is no justification whatever. I shall be glad to know from the First Lord of the Treasury, who is well acquainted with many a change of Government and many an interregnum, whether he can adduce any precedent whatever for Parliament or the House of Commons proceeding with important questions in the absence of responsible Advisers of the Crown? I do not believe that there is any precedent whatever. Are the Government prepared to contend that the delay of Business for a few days—namely, till Friday—will really cause the country any inconvenience? Unless they are prepared to lay that down with all the force they can bring to bear, the proposition is one that the House ought not to entertain, in view of the great danger of creating a new precedent for the conduct of Business. But as regards the new clauses, it is obvious that the House ought not to proceed, because the House of Lords has, no doubt ignorantly, at the instance of the Government, imposed a pecuniary burden upon the people. Is it not curious? Here you have a Liberal Government, which is inclined to take a most derogatory view of the power of the House of Lords, using that House to impose fresh burdens upon the people. That is a position they cannot controvert; and to propose, in the absence of any responsible Advisers of the Crown, that the House should consider such an extraordinary innovation on the Constitution of the country is monstrous, and ought not to be entertained. But even supposing that the country does suffer inconvenience from being unable to proceed at the present moment with the Lords' Amendments, whose fault is it, I should like to know? Who has thrown the country into this state of confusion? Aye, not only thrown the country into this state of confusion,

  1545
  but deliberately, and I will say of malice aforethought, prepared the inconvenience under which the House is now suffering. Is it not a notorious thing that the whole of the events of Monday night, the inconvenience of which we are now suffering from—
  MR. SPEAKER: The noble Lord is perfectly entitled to give reasons against the adjournment of the House, which is the immediate Question before the House; but the noble Lord is now going beyond the Question.
  LORD RANDOPH CHURCHILL: I fully recognize, (Sir, the force of your observation. I will only point out that I was endeavouring to support the Motion of my hon. Friend on the ground that the argument of the Government that the adjournment would create inconvenience is not one that can have any weight with the House of Commons. I will, however, pursue the point no further, but will simply say that the matter before the House is a serious disagreement between the Lords and Commons. As to the contents and scope of the Bill—and I venture to say that there is no precedent for the House of Commons, under such circumstances, proceeding with the discussion of the Bill without having at its command responsible Advisers—I sincerely trust that the Leader of what is called the Constitutional Party in this country will not sanction a precedent which, some day or other, will have most inconvenient and dangerous consequences.
  MR. ONSLOW: I should like to ask, as a point of Order, whether it is competent for the House of Lords, on a Constitutional question, to send down to this House clauses in a Bill entailing a fresh charge on the Consolidated Fund?
  MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member will look at the Amendment proposed by the House of Lords he will find that in the form of it there is no charge on the people of this country. There is a provision for appointing fresh officers in case of need; but, of course, the provision for those officers will have to be made in the ordinary Estimates of the year, when the House will have full control over the matter. The Amendment makes no provision for the payment of these officers.
  MR. GLADSTONE: We are, it appears to me, putting together two
  1546
  questions which are entirely distinct. Observations have been made upon the merits of the Lords' Amendments with respect to one set of clauses, that it is travelling too far beyond the precincts of the Bill as it went up from this House, and ought not to be entertained; to another set of clauses, that it imposes charges on the people and ought not to be entertained. Upon the last I can only say that to a certain extent I sympathize with those who dislike the practice which has grown up of late years of inserting in the House of Lords clauses which do not impose charges directly, but which do so as a natural consequence. But that, I am afraid, has become a settled practice. If, however, they are to be rejected—and I do not say the House is not free to reject them—why not do so when we come to them, if the arguments produced be sufficient to justify that course? But these are really matters only, in my opinion, partially relative to the main question. The main question I freely admit, is one not without importance, and it is whether this subject should be entertained at all in the absence of a full, responsible Government. That is a fair question to raise and entertain; but in order that it might be fairly considered we must consider what is the scope and view of those who ask for an adjournment. They ask for an adjournment till Friday, and say that, after all, there can be no very great evil in that. I believe we are prepared to show that even adjourning till Friday will very greatly aggravate the present inconvenience. But what I wish to observe particularly and press upon the House is that an adjournment till Friday cannot possibly suffice—that there can be no responsible Government in the full sense of the word on Friday next. The utmost that can happen, I apprehend, is that Lord Salisbury will be in any position which will enable him and his Friends to come down to Parliament not in propriis personis, but through their proper agents, and move certain Writs for the re-election of certain Members; but until the Gentlemen honoured by the choice of Her Majesty have been returned and have taken their places there will be no means of meeting the objection that there is not a responsible Government. I do not know how long that will be; but speaking in the rough I

  1547
  should think this day fortnight will be the very earliest day on which it is possible to entertain this subject with a responsible Government fully installed on the Treasury Benches. Is it worth while, for the sake of objecting to make a precedent—I assume it is making a precedent—to incur a very great and serious inconvenience indeed? Now, certainly, it would not become the present outgoing Government to be fastidious and captious in making objections to the settlement, and the speedy settlement, of this affair. It is distinctly a matter with us not only of policy but of honour to do everything we properly can towards the absolute closing of this affair at the earliest possible moment; and I am prepared even to make a precedent, unless it be shown to me that in that precedent there is danger. I cannot possibly say that I find danger in the precedent, and I found that observation on these two principles—first of all, the extreme peculiarity of the circumstances, which can hardly recur; and secondly, the general assent of the House. Now, only when these two conditions exist, and when it can be fairly and impartially said that they exist in a very marked degree and form, I am prepared to create a precedent for the purpose, at the same time putting a stamp upon that precedent, and recording the opinion that it is not to be followed as a precedent except in cases where the same conditions, the same urgency, and the same general assent should seem to recommend it. These are the observations I wish to make, and I cannot help thinking that they represent the evident sense of the House.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: I think the closing words of the right hon. Gentleman place us in a considerable difficulty. How is it possible for us to set a precedent as to which we can be perfectly sure that no peculiar circumstances, or circumstances said to be peculiar, will recur to justify its being followed in the future? I understood when the Motion was made that this Amendment should be considered, and when my right hon. Friend the Member for North Devon expressed his concurrence in the consideration of the particular Amendment alluded to by the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff), that that Amend-
  1548
  ment had the support of Her Majesty's Government. We understand now from the speech of the Prime Minister that he looked upon that Amendment—being, as it is, a proposal by the Lords to insert something which would lead, if carried out, to a charge on the taxpayers—as an Amendment upon which there is a great deal to be said; in fact, that it is so far a matter of contention that he even intimated that it was somewhat doubtful whether Her Majesty's Government would support it. [Mr. GLADSTONE: No, no.] At any rate, there was quite enough in what fell from the Prime Minister to warrant the expectation of a considerable amount of opposition in this House. But this is not all. There are other Amendments of importance, and there is one in particular as to which it has been publicly stated—I do not know with what truth—that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Border Burghs is prepared to move that the House should disagree with it. Does the House seriously think that it is well that we should enter, not merely upon Business upon which we are all agreed and which we desire to carry through unanimously, but upon contested questions, and that these questions should be thrown on the floor of the House for debate and decision without there being any responsible Government in Office? I think my right hon. Friend and all those who supported proceeding with this matter to-night, only gave that support with respect to Business that was uncontested. I do not think it fair that we should be asked to-night to enter upon matters on which such differences may arise as those hinted at by the Prime Minister. But we have had no intimation as to the precise nature of these differences; and if we are to have contests and divisions upon this matter, serious though the delay may be, it would be preferable that we should not deal with it until a responsible Government is sitting on that Bench to direct the proceedings of the House, rather than set a precedent which will certainly be followed, perhaps with great disadvantage to the country, in similar circumstances.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: The right hon. Gentleman has said that we are placed in a difficult position. Well, of course we are, because my right hon. Friend has made a proposal which has

  1549
  been accepted and approved by the Leader of the Opposition; and then the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) gets up and denounces it, and he is supported by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach). No doubt, that is a difficult position; but it has not been created either by those who for the moment sit upon these Benches, or by the Leader of those who sit upon the Benches opposite. I take it the responsibility rests with the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Gloucestershire. I do not wish to enter into a controversy on the matter; but the whole question is one not only of the convenience of the House, but of the convenience of the country and of the constituencies. It is in favour of the constituencies that this appeal is made. We are not in a position to dictate to or put pressure upon the House in any way; but I think it is a matter which ought to be determined by the free vote of the House. Let the House take the opinion of my right hon. Friend and of the right hon. Baronet the Member for North Devon on the one hand, and the opinion of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock and of the right hon. Baronet the Member for East Gloucestershire on the other, and decide between the two. Now, the reason why we, at all events, have recommended this course to the House is on account of the very great inconvenience, which it is impossible to exaggerate, which will result from delaying this matter for a fortnight. I am authorized by my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board to say that it was the facts brought before Lord Salisbury as to the great inconvenience which would ensue to those who have to make up the Registers which are to be the foundations of the future Elections, and upon which the rights of the constituencies rest, which induced Lord Salisbury to approve the course which has been taken, and that argument equally applies to our going on with the matter now. That, no doubt, is also the reason why the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon, who has been, as I believe the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Gloucestershire has not, in constant communication with
  1550
  Lord Salisbury in reference to this Bill, had approved not only of the introduction of the Acceleration Clauses in the House of Lords, but of doing what has been clone with precisely the same object—namely, the taking into consideration these clauses to-night, in order that we might accelerate the measure, and that the House of Lords may deal with them on Friday. How can there be danger in such a precedent as this? If the clauses are objectionable, let them be objected to. If the Lords have made proposals to enlarge the Bill which they ought not to have done, let those proposals be rejected. If the clauses with respect to Revising Barristers be objectionable, let them be objected to. My right hon. Friend says he quite understands the objections to the course of proceeding taken by the Lords; but the right hon. Gentleman opposite is mistaken in thinking that my right hon. Friend has expressed hostility to that proceeding. The Bill has been throughout a very exceptional Bill. It is not a Bill promoted by one Party and met in a hostile spirit by the other Party. It has been in a very great degree a consent Bill between the two Parties. It is not a matter upon which the two sides of the House are widely distinct or are acting in a hostile spirit. We are desirous of carrying out to the end the spirit in which this Bill has been conducted hitherto, and I sincerely hope that one of its last stages will not be made the occasion of a Party fight.
  MR. RAIKES: There is quite the same disposition in this part of the House to deal with this measure as a consent Bill; but the difficulty of dealing with it in that spirit is indicated by the action taken by the Government this afternoon. It seems to me that in casting the Bill on the Table and asking us to discuss it at a moment of such excitement and confusion the Government have done their best to embitter the last moments of the Bill. But for that the Bill might have passed through the House with very little discussion and become the law of the land in a very few days. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that we ought not to shrink from making a precedent in the circumstances. I do not think the House has fully grasped, while discussing generally the form of the matter, the actual

  1551
  substance of the clauses with respect to which we are asked to make a precedent. We are asked to allow to be introduced Amendments made in the House of Lords on a matter not only of general concern, but one which closely affects the constitution and privileges of this House, a matter dealing with the Electoral Law of the country, which especially concerns the Members of this House, and upon which the Members of this House have always expressed a most decided and unwavering opinion. This House passed a Resolution in 1704, in the Ashby case, declaring that—
  "The determination of the right of the election of Members to serve in Parliament is the proper business of the House of Commons, which they would always be very jealous of, and this jurisdiction of theirs is uncontested,"
  There can hardly be any question more distinctly and exclusively concerning the House of Commons than this matter, of which the Prime Minister asks us to make a precedent by departing from our usual course. If the matter had been brought before us in the regular way, we should have a Bill and should be able to discuss it on the first and second readings, in Committee, on the Report, and on the third reading; but it has been found convenient to ask us to deal with an important matter of electoral law upon the ipse dixit of the other House of Parliament, instead of proceeding through all the stages with very careful consideration. If we should have an undertaking that these clauses to which objection has been taken would not be proceeded with, it would be easier to pass the other clauses; but I do not know that there is anyone in a position to give that undertaking. I do not think the present difficulty is due to anyone on this side of the House; it is due to the hasty action of Her Majesty's Government. In recommending the matter to the House an attempt has been made by the President of the Local Government Board to conjure with the name of Lord Salisbury.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: What I said was, that the whole of the clauses to which the right hon. Gentleman is now objecting were placed in the Bill because the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) desired that the Registration Clauses should be placed in it instead of being made a separate measure.
  MR. RAIKES: That is exactly what I was saying. What I was anxious to point out was, that the Government, in dealing with this matter, are divesting themselves of any responsibility for the matter, and are casting the responsibility wholly on others. ["No!"] Well, when the President of the Local Government Board sat down, up gets the Home Secretary, and he can point to no other ground for proceeding than the action of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon. Thus the Government are so anxious to shirk responsibility for the course they have adopted that they shelter themselves behind the names of Lord Salisbury and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon. I call attention to this as an illustration of the embarrassment in which we are placed, and I hope that the Government, having seen what is the disposition of the House, will postpone consideration of these Amendments for a fortnight.
  MR. JOSEPH COWENsaid, he did not intend to enter into the dispute between the occupants of the two Front Benches. They could settle their differences amongst themselves. He wished, however, to make a suggestion that would meet the views of the majority of Members. The situation was exceptional. The Redistribution Bill was the measure of Parliament, and not the measure of any Party. It was the wish of all that it should come into operation at the earliest possible period. Everyone was anxious to have the present unsatisfactory interregnum terminated. Personal and political reasons combined to render the prolongation of the existing uncertainty most undesirable. But it sometimes happened that with more haste there was less speed. He feared that in the anxiety of the Government to have these Amendments considered, they were delaying proceedings that all were anxious to facilitate. His proposal was this—that the Amendments to the Redistribution Bill should be taken at once. Their consideration would occupy but a very short time. There was not much in dispute about them; and when they were passed the Redistribution Bill would be safe. That work being accomplished, they might allow the new matter to stand over for further consideration. It was originally the intention of the Government that this should be the

  1553
  case. They had drawn a Bill for the purpose of accelerating the formation of the Registers, and that Bill would in time have run its regular course in that House, where there would have been adequate opportunity for Members discussing it. The object sought by the Bill was one they were all agreed on, though they might differ as to its details. But, instead of a Bill that could have been dealt with in this way, the House of Lords had attached important clauses which in themselves constituted a Bill. He could not understand how Gentlemen who complained of the encroachments of the House of Lords on popular liberty could assent to such a proceeding. He objected, too, to the clauses on their merits. They required at the hands of the Local Authorities work to be done in a given time which could not be done. He was speaking with some knowledge of the subject, and he made bold to affirm that it was impossible for the Registers to be got ready in the time specified. This was another reason why the matter should be delayed; and, as the delay would not stop the formation of the Registers, he was at a loss to know how they could object. If the Government would agree to this suggestion, he believed the difficulty would be solved, and the Lords' Amendments disposed of in an hour, or even less.
  MR. LEWISventured to suggest that, inasmuch as the whole of the difference seemed to turn on the Acceleration Clauses, the course proposed by the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen) was a most judicious and sensible one, and, in the end, would prove the most expeditious. He himself was about to make the same suggestion. The Acceleration Clauses appeared to have been drawn up in too great haste. Certainly, on their merits, they required the gravest consideration, and he should be able to show, if they came to them, that they would not work. In order that they might be adequately dealt with, the House must wait until responsible Ministers and a responsible Attorney General should be in Office, who would give weight to the discussion.
  MR. DILLWYNrose to Order. He wished to know whether the observations of the hon. Member were admissible on the Question that the debate be adjourned?
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, that he had not observed that the remarks of the hon. Member were out of Order. Of course, the debate must be confined to the Question before the House—namely, that of the adjournment of the debate.
  MR. LEWISsaid, he thought the usual very great acumen of the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) would have enabled him to appreciate the great importance of the question whether the House ought to take into consideration the arrangements for the Election on the 7th of November or not. The Question before the House was whether they should consider those matters now or not? It was unnecessary for him to add what had already been said; but he thought that the suggestion of the hon. Member for Newcastle took away the objection to creating a precedent. If the Acceleration Clauses were postponed, the other matter might still be disposed of that evening. He doubted whether these clauses could have been introduced into the Seats Bill during the stage of Committee.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he personally thought the action of the House of Lords was for the public advantage, and would be glad if the House assented to it. On the other hand, the suggestion of the hon. Member for Newcastle was not at all a bad one. It was not desirable to proceed with any question which had not the general assent of the House; and as there was a difference of opinion upon this subject, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would say that he would drop these clauses from the Bill, leaving the subject to be dealt with by a separate Bill. If the suggestion should receive the approval of the House, the practical discussion of the main Amendments of the House of Lords could be proceeded with.
  MR. O'DONNELLdesired to make a suggestion which he thought would perhaps terminate the discussion. With the indulgence of the House the right hon. Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote) might be asked to make an explanation. Then they might know whether he accepted the views of a noble Lord in the other House, or the views of a noble Lord in the House of Commons. He asked because he was rather concerned about the unity of the future Government. At present it ap-

  1555
  peared that it would be about as united as the great united Liberal Party.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, that, in his opinion, the Government ought to express some opinion with respect to the proposal of the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen).
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSthought the House ought certainly to hear some statement from the Government. The proposal of the hon. Member for Newcastle was a very reasonable one, and appeared to meet with a great deal of favour in all parts of the House.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 35; Noes 333: Majority 298.—(Div. List, No. 202.)
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  Lords' Amendments considered accordingly.
  NOTE.—The page and line refer to the Bill No. (109) as first printed by the Lords.
  Page 1.—Title, leave out ("relative thereto,") the first Amendment, read a second time.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE,in moving to agree to the Amendment, said that, although a verbal one, it raised the question of the Acceleration Clauses, and it was desirable that the House should now make up its mind whether it intended to put in these clauses or not. He could only repeat that the original intention of the Government had been to place these clauses in a separate Bill; but they were informed in the most distinct terms by the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition, that he desired that these clauses should be placed in this Bill, and, as the Government had no objection whatever to that course being taken, they at once acquiesced.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with The Lords in the said Amendment."—(Sir Charles W. Dilke.)
  MR. LEWISsaid, it was perfectly obvious that the Attorney General could not suggest any reason whatever why these clauses should be hurried forward. Such a matter as the acceleration of the registration required that freedom of action which alone could be had in Committee of the Whole House. There was, he thought, some legitimate ground
  1556
  for requiring that they should have an opportunity of considering in Committee in detail the question of the dates when the revised lists were to come into force. He believed it would be practically impossible to get the revision through and the lists published by the dates named in the Amendment. A further objection was that there would certainly be a large number of appeals which could not possibly be heard before the early days of the month of November, fie believed that the 7th of November was far too early a date to fix for the new Registers to come into effect. In his opinion, the proper and legitimate course was to carry out the original intention of the Government to put these clauses into a separate Bill.
  MR. GORSThoped that the suggestion of the hon. Member for Newcastle would be adopted. The noble Lord the Member for North Leicestershire (Lord John Manners) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire(Sir R. Assheton Cross) both appealed to the Government before the division to postpone the consideration of the Acceleration Amendments; and he (Mr. Gorst) understood the late division to be a protest against the refusal of the Government. Now the tables seemed to be turned, and they had the President of the Local Government Board making an appeal to the Front Opposition Bench to the same effect. So that they had the Front Opposition Bench appealing before the division and the Government after the division. ["No!"] It, therefore, seemed to him they were all agreed that these Acceleration Clauses should be postponed. ["No, no!"] At any rate, the two Front Opposition Benches were agreed.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman had spoken of two Oppositions, but there was a third Opposition which was opposed to both. The hon. and learned Member was entirely mistaken in the interpretation he had put upon what the President of the Local Government Board had said. His right hon. Friend did not make any sort of appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite to withdraw these clauses. These clauses, like many others in the Bill, had been agreed to by arrangement between those who were understood to represent both Parties in the House. Her Majesty's Government

  1557
  felt themselves bound to adhere to the arrangement which they had made with Lord Salisbury as to the introduction of these Acceleration Clauses. The Government approved of them themselves, and while it was a mere matter of form whether they should be introduced into the present Bill or not, the Government were bound to adhere to the arrangement they had made.
  MR. GRANTHAMasked whether the President of the Local Government Board would state the difference which he intimated existed between the proposals of the Government and those of Lord Salisbury?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEreplied, that as far as he remembered there was no difference in substance, but the clauses of the Government were more detailed.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEremarked, that he was afraid the House would get unnecessarily confused on this matter. The circumstances wore these—while the Bill was in progress through the House of Lords some discussion took place with regard to the introduction of a separate Bill, which had been contemplated at an early period of the Redistribution Bill, for the purpose of accelerating the time of the elections. The policy of accelerating the elections had been more than once mentioned in that House, and he had heard no objection to it. While the Bill was in progress through the House of Lords circumstances arose which induced Lord Salisbury to endeavour to accelerate matters and save time, and that was the only object he had in introducing the clauses necessary for the purpose of accelerating elections into this Bill instead of the same object being carried out by a separate Bill. He believed his noble Friend communicated with one or two Representatives of the Government, and he also made a communication to him to the effect that he had agreed with the Government that it would be more convenient to introduce Acceleration Clauses into the present Bill than to bring in a separate Bill. There was no attempt to curtail or shorten the time that the House might require for the discussion of matters which it had a right to discuss, and there could be no objection to a fair discussion taking place upon every point that arose in connection with these
  1558
  clauses. The suggestion made by the hon. Member for Newcastle was a very reasonable one—that if they came to matters which were open to considerable discussion they should be set aside, and they should proceed with such parts of the Bill as did not raise any such discussion. With regard to Lord Salisbury's action in the matter, he wished it to be understood that his sole and simple object was to save time. The Government took the same view, and he was bound to say his noble Friend made a very reasonable proposal. As to the merits of these Amendments, he should not pronounce any special opinion. He was ready to listen to any expression of opinion, and the matter seemed to him to be one which justified fair consideration on the part of the House.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Page 3.—Line 38, at beginning of clause insert as a separate paragraph—
  "The borough of Warwick shall be called Warwick and Leamington."
  —the next Amendment, read a second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with The Lords in the said Amendment."—(Sir Charles W. Dilke.)
  MR. WARTONsaid, that the argument which applied to this case applied equally to that of Pembroke and Haverfordwest. Unless the case of Pembroke was also dealt with, they would have the anomaly of acting differently with regard to two boroughs, formed from merged boroughs, the cases of which were exactly parallel.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that he had submitted the proposal as to Pembroke to the draftsman, and he had not thought it necessary to make the alteration, as the two cases were not on all fours.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Page 4.—Line 43, leave out ("required,") the next Amendment, agreed to.
  Page 5, line 2, at end of clause insert—
  "(5.) In any new borough constituted under this Act, the whole or the larger part of the area of which was before the passing of this Act comprised in the Parliamentary borough of

  1559
  Westminster, the high bailiff of Westminster shall be the returning officer for the new borough, and also the town clerk for the new borough within the meaning of the Registration Acts, and may, by writing under his hand, appoint a fit person to be his deputy for all or any of the purposes relating to Parliamentary elections in any such new borough, and anything in relation to a Parliamentary election authorised or required to be done by, to, or before the returning officer, may be done by, to, or before the high bailiff himself or such deputy. "(6.) Every such deputy shall, in so far as he acts as returning officer, be deemed to be included in the expression 'returning officer' within the meaning of the law relating to Parliamentary elections,"
  —the next Amendment, read a second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with The Lords in the said Amendment."—(Sir Charles W. Dilke.)
  MR. RAIKESsaid, he understood that this Amendment was consequential to the sub-division of the City of Westminster, which the Government had now adopted. He would take that opportunity to ask the President of the Local Government Board, if he would state the reasons which induced the Government to change their minds with regard to the City of Westminster? The Government had had four different policies with regard to this question during the course of this Bill, each one opposed to the other, and they had now reverted to their first opinion, he presumed, in deference to the House of Lords. He thought it was a pity that the House of Lords should have gone into this question at all, or should have sought to reverse the carefully considered conclusion arrived at by the House of Commons.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that the Amendment had been moved by Lord Salisbury himself. It had been agreed to by the Government on account of the pledge which he himself had publicly given in that House on a former occasion.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, that this question had been carefully considered by those interested in it in the City of Westminster; and, on the whole, it had been found best to accept the proposals of the House of Lords.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Page 5.—Line 9, leave out ("determination,") and insert ("fixing"); and
  1560
  Page 6.—Line 28, after ("practices,") insert ("prevention,") the next Amendments, agreed to.
  Page 6, line 41, leave out the words—
  ("Provided that this sub-section shall not apply to Scotland or Ireland") and insert ("Provided that in Ireland the place of election, in the case of a division of a county at large, shall from time to time be fixed by the returning officer, and shall be situate within the division or within a county of a city or town adjoining that division,")
  —the next Amendment, read a second time.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he wished to know the effect of this Amendment? It was very desirable that it should not be in the power of Returning Officers to hold elections at a distance from the division. A considerable practical inconvenience would frequently result. If the Lords' Amendment practically left the question as it left the House of Commons, they would be willing to agree to it. He would like to have a definition of the effect of the word "adjoining" in the Amendment?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, this was a matter of detail about which there had been some difference of opinion. He thought that the hon. Member would be safe in accepting the words as they had come down from the House of Lords. It had been admitted that there were some cases in which it would be desirable that the place of election should be in a city as described. The expense would be avoided of transporting the necessary apparatus of an election to places which were far from railways or good roads. It had been suggested that the places should be scheduled; that, however, had been found to be impossible.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, he could not see why it it was impossible to schedule the places. The number of counties of towns was extremely limited in Ireland. The right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had not defined the word "adjoining." Did it mean physical contact with the division?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): Yes.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Page 7, line 8, after ("of,") insert ("successive occupation or"); line 19, insert at end of clause—

  1561
  ("And where the area of the constituency of which such place before such change formed part becomes, after such change, part of two or more constituencies, each of such two or more constituencies shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to have included the whole of the said area.")
  Line 34, at end of line insert—
  "Divisions of counties may be divided into polling districts at any time after the passing of this Act in like manner as they might be divided after the end of this present Parliament.
  "Where any act or thing has, before this Act came into operation, been done in pursuance of the Registration Acts, or in relation to polling districts or polling places, such act or thing shall be as valid as it would have been if this Act had previously thereto come into operation, and it had been done by the officer or authority and in the form and in relation to the constituency by whom, and in, and in relation to which it would have been done if this Act had previously thereto come into operation, and where any act or thing ought to have been done if this Act had come into operation before the time for doing the same, the same shall be done forthwith after this Act comes into operation, and shall be as valid as if it had been done at the time now appointed by law.
  "In England the clerks of the peace and town clerks shall, as soon as may be after the passing of this Act, send to the overseers on whom they have served precepts under the Registration Acts, such supplemental precepts as are necessary or desirable for instructing the overseers to carry into effect the Registration Acts in the constituencies as altered by this Act, and in municipal boroughs affected by this Act, and in particular shall, where necessary, instruct overseers as to the difference between the county and borough lists of voters, and shall direct the overseers of parishes situate in municipal boroughs, and included by this Act in parliamentary boroughs, to prepare lists of burgesses in conjunction with the lists of parliamentary voters, and shall send the corrupt and illegal practices list containing the names of voters disqualified by this Act. Every such supplemental precept shall be served by the clerk of the peace or town clerk who would have served the former precept if this Act had coma into operation before the time for the service of such former precept.
  "In Ireland any polling districts which have been formed in anticipation of the provisions of this Act shall be valid; nevertheless, if the districts are inconsistent with the boundaries of any divisions constituted by this Act, the Lord Lieutenant, by and with the advice of the Privy Council, may by order alter or vary such polling districts and the polling places for such districts in such manner as appears to him necessary or desirable."
  Page 8, line 38, leave out ("by which they are wholly surrounded,") and insert ("to which they adjoin.")
  Page 9, line 1, leave out ("or town-land,") and insert ("townland or
  1562
  place"); line 12, after ("by,") insert ("the whole or part of"); line 23, after ("districts,") insert—
  ("And in the ease of a parliamentary division of a county in Ireland, by the Local Government Board for Ireland, by order made after local inquiry, and taking effect when made");
  line 35, leave out ("contents and boundaries,") and insert ("limits").
  Page 10, line 5, after ("under") insert ("the"); line 10, leave out ("the area comprised in"); line 41, after ("county,") insert ("at large,") the next Amendments, agreed to.
  Page 12, after Part III., insert—

PART IV.

  CLAUSE A.—ACCELERATION OF REGISTRATION IN 1885.
  (Power to appoint additional barristers.)
  "If in the present year it is made to appear to any judge of the High Court of Justice, sitting in chambers at any time after the fifth day of September, that the lists of voters for any Parliamentary county or borough in England cannot by reason of the insufficient number of barristers be revised within the period fixed by this Act, such judge shall appoint one or more duly qualified barristers to act in addition to the barristers originally appointed for such county or borough, and a barrister so appointed shall have the same duties, powers, and authorities as if he had been originally appointed.
  "Where the Lord Chief Justice or judge appoints in the present year barristers for counties and boroughs on any circuit, he shall appoint them to act for all the counties and boroughs for which he has power to appoint revising barristers; and each barrister, when acting for any county or borough, shall have the same duties, powers, and authorities as if he had been appointed sole revising barrister for such county or borough.
  "The duties of barristers so appointed shall be distributed among them as the Lord Chief Justice or judge who appoints them, or, after the fifth day of September, any judge of the High Court of Justice sitting in Chambers, may direct."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that the object of the clause was to give power to a Judge in Chambers to appoint additional Revising Barristers where it was shown to be necessary. The clause was a useful though not a very important one. The hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff), in his remarks in moving the adjournment of the debate, was under a misapprehension as to this clause. In consequence of the addition of 2,000,000 voters and of the diminishing of the time that would be at the disposal of the Revising Barristers for

  1563
  carrying on the revision, it would be necessary to add to the present number. He had endeavoured to find out how many would have to be appointed. He had called the Revising Barristers together, and they gave him the best opinion they could on the subject, and it seemed that the smallest number of Revising Barristers that could be added would be some 34. By an existing Act of the present Reign they had power to appoint any number of Revising Barristers that might be required by Orders in Council. They could thus either increase or diminish the number. They were anxious to take the most economical or smallest number; but they did not know exactly where the pressure of the work might come in the different counties and boroughs. They had made the best estimate they could; and if it should turn out that in any particular locality the Revising Barrister should find that an additional Revising Barrister was wanted, he might go to the Judge in Chambers and ask that such assistance should be given to him. If in any place a miscalculation had been made, and they had not given sufficient strength for the revision of the lists of voters, the Revising Barrister might say that he wanted help; and the clause sent down from the House of Lords gave power to enable that help to be afforded. The clause provided that if in the present year it was made to appear to any Judge of the High Court of Justice, sitting in Chambers, at any time after the 5th of September, that the lists of voters for any Parliamentary county or borough in England could not by reason of the insufficient number of Barristers be revised within the period fixed by that Act, such Judge should appoint one or more duly qualified barristers to act in addition to the barristers originally appointed for such county or borough; and the barrister so appointed should have the same duties, powers, and authority as if he had been originally appointed. The power given by the clause was a mere general power, the object being to avoid increasing the number of Revising Barristers unnecessarily, and not to put the country to any undue expense. And to talk of the House of Lords having in that case interfered with the privileges of the House of Commons was really an abuse of language. Those Revising Barristers could
  1564
  not be paid without a Vote of that House, and he therefore trusted that the Lords' Amendment would now be accepted.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, he was sorry to hear the unconstitutional principles laid down by the Attorney General. Of course, they must have some additional Revising Barristers, and they had already power to appoint them by Order in Council; the existing Act of Parliament also enacting that Revising Barristers should be paid 200 guineas by way of remuneration for their services and travelling expenses. That Act gave a salary to the Revising Barristers who were appointed, and they might be appointed by Order in Council; but instead of following the Constitutional course, the Government had persuaded the House of Lords to introduce a clause into that Bill, which he maintained was an infringement of the privileges of the House of Commons, and would impose a burden on the country. The infringement might not be an important one, but it set a bad precedent.
  MR. GREGORYsaid, he thought the clause was very wide in its terms; it gave the go-by to the Order in Council, because it vested power in Judges in Chambers to make the appointments.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)explained that the Order in Council would come into operation before the revision, and it would probably fix the right number of Revising Barristers. It was only in case the number proved insufficient that power was to be given to apply to a Judge in Chambers.
  MR. GREGORYsaid, that the responsible person from whom the application should come ought to be definitely defined by the House.
  MR. GRANTHAMsaid, it would be desirable to ascertain beforehand the number of Revising Barristers who would be required, and what was necessary in regard to additional Revising Barristers might be better done under an Order in Council than by the novel proceeding now proposed.
  MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, that in respect to that being done by Order in

  1565
  Council, it would be impossible at present accurately to fix, not only the additional number of barristers that would be necessary, but the counties in which they would be required. There would be a great pressure this year, which in all probability would not occur again. The cost of that arrangement had been already provided for by the Estimates for this year, and the Treasury reckoned that about 120 would be the number required, although probably less than that would be sufficient. He was satisfied that the most practical and economical way of meeting the emergency was by leaving the matter in the hands of the Judge in Chambers.
  MR. WARTONpointed out that the Attorney General had spoken of 34 as the number of Revising Barristers who would be required, whereas the Under Secretary for the Home Department had mentioned 120. He pointed out that the revision would be a very difficult one on account of the new franchises introduced by the Bill, and the investigations which were rendered necessary as to whether property came by marriage or inheritance. The pressure put upon the officials in order to complete the lists would be tremendous, and the consequent hurry would have the effect of making the Revising Barristers more than ever likely to commit mistakes. Errors made in this connection might have terrible influence with regard to the coming elections, especially when it was borne in mind that there would be no Court of Appeal, because no time was allowed for the decisions to be revised. He maintained that there ought not to be any undue economy with regard to the appointment of Revising Barristers.
  MR. LEWISsaid, he was of opinion that the Government had dealt with this matter in the only manner consistent with efficiency and economy. It seemed to him that the machinery provided by this clause was sufficiently necessary to overtake the revising work.
  MR. J. W. LOWTHERasked for some explanation as to the method in which an application was to be made to a Judge in Chambers?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)pointed out that this provision was only to continue for one year, and that it was not to be a permanent one. He thought the House
  1566
  might leave it to the Judges to see that the application made was a proper one.
  MR. GORSTsaid, he would call the attention of the House to the great inconvenience of discussing this matter as they were now doing. It was impossible for the Government to answer the numerous questions which were being asked, and he thought it would be much better if the House put the sole responsibility for this matter on the Attorney General and the Members of the Government.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause B:—
  (Dates for registration in the year 1885 in England.)
  With respect to the registration of voters in parliamentary counties and boroughs in England in the present year, the following provisions shall have effect:—

  "(a.) The lists of parliamentary voters, and the lists of burgesses which are revised together with the lists of parliamentary voters, shall be revised between the eighth day of September and the eighth day of October both inclusive, and shall be revised as soon as possible after the seventh day of September, and the eighth day of September shall be substituted in the Acts relating to the registration of Parliamentary voters for the fifteenth day of September; and the declarations under section ten of the County Voters Registration Act, 1865, and section twenty-four of the Parliamentary and Municipal Registration Act, 1878, shall be sent to the clerk of the peace or town clerk on or before the fifth day of September.

  "(b.) The printed hook or register containing the lists of voters, when revised, shall be delivered to the returning officer for the parliamentary county or borough to which such book or register relates on or before the seventh day of November, and shall be the register of persons entitled to vote for the county or borough at any election of a member to serve in Parliament which takes place after that day, or if this present Parliament is not then dissolved, then after the date of such dissolution, and before the first day of January one thousand eight hundred and eighty-seven.

  "(c.) In sections sixty-two and sixty-three of the Act of the session of the sixth and seventh years of the reign of Her present Majesty, chapter eighteen, relating to appeals from revising barristers in England, 'the Michaelmas sittings of the High Court of Justice' shall be substituted for ' the Michaelmas term,' and forthwith after the fourth day of the Michaelmas sittings a court or courts shall sit for the purpose of hearing such appeals, and those appeals shall be heard and determined continuously and without delay, and any statement by the barrister for the purpose of any such appeal made in pursuance of section forty-two of the said Act may be made at any time within ten

  1567
  days after the conclusion of the revision, so that it be made not less than four days before the first day of the said Michaelmas sittings, and the statement need not be read in open court, but shall he submitted to the appellant, who shall sign the same as directed by the said section, and return the same to the barrister.

  (35 & 36 Vict. c. 33.)

  "(d.) In section five of the Ballot Act, 1872, relating to polling districts, the first day of October shall be substituted for the first day of November, as respects the date at which orders relating to polling districts apply to registers of voters,"

  —the next Amendment, read a second time.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES),in moving to agree to the clause, said, that he was not at all surprised that some hon. Members should think that the Government were not allowing sufficient time for the printing of the Register. At present registration began on the 15th of September in boroughs, and it must be finished on the 12th of October. Between the 12th of October and the 1st of November sufficient time existed for the printing of the lists in the boroughs. In the counties registration began on the 15th of September and was finished at the end of October. Under this Bill, registration was begun on the 7th of September and finished on the 8th of October in boroughs; therefore, they were allowing more time than existed at present. It would be seen that more time was allowed for the printing of the lists, and, therefore, so far as the boroughs were concerned, there could be no objection. In the case of the counties, however, they did diminish the time allowed for the printing of the Register. They allowed from the 8th of October to the 7th of November, and therefore they allowed only one month instead of two, as at present. At the present time they could not begin to print the Register until the revision was completed; but, under the present arrangement, they could begin to print the moment they had finished dealing with one polling district. The Government had taken the best advice they could obtain on the point, and on the whole they believed that with a little care and discipline on the part of the officials connected with registration, the time allowed was sufficient to carry out the object in view.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the
  1568
  Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
  MR. LEWISsaid, he was of opinion that, in the exceptional circumstances of the current year, the time for printing the Registers in counties ought by no means to be curtailed. He would, therefore, move to omit the words "seventh of November," and insert "twentieth of November."
  Amendment proposed, in sub-section (b.), line 4, by leaving out the word "seventh," and inserting the word "twentieth,"—(Mr. Lewis,)—instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the word 'seventh' stand part of the said Amendment."
  MR. H. H. FOWLERopposed the Amendment, which he said would have the effect of postponing the election for another month. In 1868 Parliament had to deal with a very similar state of circumstances, and the time given for revision by the present clause was one week longer than in 1868. This question had been carefully considered by the Clerks of the Peace, and there was no doubt that there would be no difficulty in printing the lists by the 7th of November.
  MR. WARTONcalled attention to the fact that the dates for the completion of the Registers were 1st of November in Scotland, 2nd of November in Ireland, and 7th of November in England. He wished to know what was the explanation of the difference of date in the different countries?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, that with regard to Scotland the answer was very simple. It was that the clause, as it here stood, would simply restore matters to the position in which they now were. At present the 1st of November was the day on which the new Registers came into operation. In the Franchise Bill it was postponed till the 1st of January, so that there should be a simultaneous coming into operation of the Registers in all the three countries. But when it was resolved to go back, as was done by this Bill, they simply went back to the present date.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed, in sub-section (c), line 6, by leaving out the

  1569
  words "forthwith after," and inserting the words "on or before,"—(Mr. Gregory,)—instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words 'forthwith after' stand part of the said Amendment."
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed, to.
  Clause C:—
  (Date for registration for 1885 in Scotland.)
  "In Scotland, notwithstanding anything contained in section thirteen of the Representation of the People Act, 18S4, the register of voters made in the present year shall come into force on the first day of November one thousand eight hundred and eighty-five,"
  —the next Amendment, agreed to.
  Clause D:—
  (Dates for revision in Ireland in 1885. 13 & 14 Vict. c. 69, ss. 46, 47, 64, 76.)
  "In Ireland, in the present year

  "(a.) The lists of voters shall he revised between the first day of September and the eighth day of October, both inclusive, and shall be revised as soon as possible after the first day of September, and that day shall be substituted in the Parliamentary Registration (Ireland) Act for the eighth day of September.

  "(b.) Notice of the holding of a revision court may be given by the chairman or revising barrister to the clerk of the peace at any time not less than five days before the holding of the court, and shall be published and posted by the clerk of the peace forthwith.

  "(c.) The book or books constituting the register of voters for every county and borough shall be signed and delivered to the sheriff or returning officer not later than the seventh day of November.

  "Such register shall commence and come into force on the seventh day of November, or if this present Parliament is not then dissolved, then on the day of such dissolution, and shall be the register of voters in force between the day on which it commences and the first day of January one thousand eight hundred and eighty-seven.

  "(d.) In sections seventy-five and seventy-six of the Act of the session of the thirteenth and fourteenth years of the reign of Her present Majesty, chapter sixty-nine, relating to appeals from chairmen or revising barristers, ' the Michaelmas sittings of the High Court of Justice in Ireland' shall be substituted for ' the Michaelmas term,' and forthwith after the fourth day of the Michaelmas sittings, a court or courts shall sit for the purpose of hearing such appeals, and those appeals shall be heard and determined continuously and without delay, and any statement by the chairman or revising barrister for the purpose of any such appeal made in pursuance of section fifty-eight of the said Act may be made at any time within ten days after the conclusion of the revision, so that it be made not less than four days before
  1570
  the first day of the said Michaelmas sittings, and the statement need not be read in open court, but shall be submitted to the appellant, who shall sign the same as directed by the said section, and return the same to the chairman or revising barrister,"

  —the next Amendment, read a second time.
  MR. CALLANmoved, as an Amendment, that 10 days' notice be given of the holding of a Revision Court, instead of five days, as mentioned in the Bill. This would be necessary in order that the people should have full notice of the holding of the Court.
  Amendment proposed, in sub-section (b.), line 3, by leaving out the word "five," and inserting the words "ten clear,"—(Mr. Callan,)—instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the word 'five' stand part of the said Amendment."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)thought five days was sufficient.
  MR. LEAMYsupported the proposal of the hon. Member for Louth. The Irish Members were in the habit of holding a great many meetings in Ireland; but no meeting was ever held unless a Sunday intervened between the notice of the meeting and the holding of it, so that the people might see the notice of it posted on the church doors on the Sunday. He thought that the information of the holding of the Court would not reach the people unless, as he said, a Sunday intervened; and he hoped, therefore, that the Amendment would be accepted.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses E and F:—
  (Definitions.)
  "For the purposes of this part of this Act—
  "The expression 'present year' means the year one thousand eight hundred and eighty-five.
  "The expression 'parliamentary county' means a county returning a member or members to serve in Parliament, and where a county is divided for the purpose of such return means a division of such county.
  (41 & 42 Vict. c. 26.)
  "Other expressions in this part of this Act have, unless the context otherwise requires, the same meaning as in the Acts relating to the registration of parliamentary voters.
  (Temporary repeal of inconsistent provisions.)
  "All provisions of any Act of Parliament inconsistent with the provisions of this part of this Act shall not apply to the lists or register of voters to be made in the present year; but, save as aforesaid, all the provisions of the Acts relating to the registration of parliamentary voters shall remain in full force,"
  —the next Amendments, agreed to.
  Page 15, line 42, leave out ("district"); line 43, leave out ("Westminster Three").
  Page 16, line 25, leave out ("Liberty of the Rolls").
  After line 61, insert—

  St. George, Hanover Square

  Middlesex

  One

  Parish of St. George, Hanover Square.

  Page 17, after line 5, insert—

  Strand

  Middlesex

  One

  Strand District, parish of St. James, Westminster, and parish of St. Martin - in-the Fields.

  After line 11, insert—

  Westminster

  Middlesex

  One

  Westminster District, Close of Collegiate Church of St. Peter.

  Page 18, line 44, after ("and") insert ("including"),
  —the next Amendments, agreed to.
  Page 23, after line 18, insert the words—

  "Hawick District

  The present district, and the municipal burgh of Jedburgh,"

  the next Amendment, read a second time.
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, he was afraid he must trouble the House by asking it to disagree with this Amendment, for reasons which he would be able to state very briefly, though they were very weighty. The Amendment was a very exceptional one. Other Amendments related to names and technicalities; but this one touched the very substance of the Bill. It proposed to take out of the county a town—he did not say for the purpose, but with the effect, of altering the political balance in that county. Even in the House of Peers, he was informed, the proposal caused such compunction among Members of the Conservative Party that there was a poor divi-
  1572
  sion as compared with the full strength, of that Party. What were the facts of the case? The groups of the Haddington Burghs and the Wigtown Burghs, which contained no less than nine burghs, had been merged in the counties, with the exception of one burgh out of the nine, and that not the largest or the second largest of these burghs, which it was proposed to place in a group of existing burghs. It was very necessary to prove that this was done in obedience to some principle, and he thought it was quite impossible to prove that the principle of the Bill was to remove from the list of burghs every town under 15,000 inhabitants. Here it was proposed to insert in a list of burghs a town of only 3,000 inhabitants, when such towns as Banbury and Kendal, with populations of from 14,000 to 15,000 inhabitants, were merged in counties. He said it was a proposal that the House ought not to accept. To take a town of 3,400 inhabitants out of a county and put it into a list of burghs—was that consistent with the understanding?—and here he did not refer to any private agreement, but to a public understanding between the two Parties in that House. What he was now saying was very much in the memory of the House. His right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate introduced a great number of important Amendments, some of which were voted upon and actually carried. The Leaders of the Party opposite protested in private, and the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Stafford Northcote) protested in the House. These Amendments were accordingly dropped, and those which had already been carried were withdrawn, very much to the regret of several Scottish Members, and to the regret of no one more than the hon. Member for Roxburgh, whose constituency was now being tampered with. Among these Amendments there were many proposals to merge small boroughs in the counties. This was supposed to be an advantage to the Liberal Party. It was opposed by the Conservative Party, but was none the less carried. It was proposed to put the Inverness district in Schedule A in order to merge Fortrose in Ross, and this was carried by 46 votes. It was proposed to place the Hawick Burghs in Schedule A, in order to put Jedburgh in Hawick group of burghs. This, after long debate,

  1573
  was lost by 73 votes. Yet when they had spontaneously abandoned the proposal which told in favour of their views, and which was carried in the House of Commons by a large majority, they were asked to accept a proposal which told against their views, and which was thrown out in the House of Commons by a majority nearly twice as large. When the Lord Advocate drafted his proposals with regard to the Scottish burghs it was quite understood on the Liberal side of the House that all proposals emanating from the other side of the House were dropped likewise. He did not charge anyone with bad faith. All he did say was, that when that turned out not to be the ease they were very much surprised. There was only one point to which he wished to call the attention of the House. It was an important one. He thought the Liberals of the Border Burghs had been very ill-used in this particular. [A laugh.] The hon. Member would agree with him that, if they had not been ill-used, they had behaved very well. Galashiels had a population of 14,000 or 15,000 inhabitants within the municipal boundary; but the Parliamentary boundary only contained 12,000 inhabitants. Those 2,000 inhabitants or more who were outside the Parliamentary boundary were very strong Liberals. What was the course that the Liberal Association of Galashiels took? Of their own accord, because they thought it just to the Conservative Party, and to the burgh of Galashiels, they applied to the Government to send down a Redistribution Commissioner in order that on their application 2,000 of the population should be taken out of the county where they would tell for the Liberal Party, and put into the burgh, where they would not tell at all for the Liberal Party. The Conservative agent declared he had pleasure in expressing his acquiescence in what had been done, and that everyone would approve of the position taken up by the Liberal Association, who had thrown up Party interest and looked at the matter in a broad light. Now, he would put it whether it was a proper return to such honourable conduct that at the eleventh hour, in an Amendment superinduced on the Bill, they should bring forward a proposal which the Liberals of the burghs regarded as most inequitable? The people concerned did
  1574
  not wish it. The noble Lord who moved tht Amendment in the House of Lords said that the burgh of Jedburgh did not wish it, but that the county did. That he utterly denied, and his hon. Friend who had been sent to speak for the county utterly denied and the people entirely reprobated it. The proposal was to cut out of Roxburgh the county town, which was the natural centre of the county life, the market town, the town where one of the principal newspapers was published, the county town in every sense of the word. It was proposed to mix that town up with towns with which it had little or nothing in common. The Border Burghs consisted entirely of ancient towns and villages, which had become considerable manufacturing towns quite recently, and the population of which was increasing very rapidly. But Jedburgh was a rural town, which had in it only one or two manufactories, which was not a commercial town in any sense, and in which the population was very much the same as it was 10 years ago. Nor was it on account of any discrepancy of numbers between the county and the town. If the county contained a very large population and the burghs a very small population, then there would be something to say for this proposal; but the burghs at this moment contained 40,000 inhabitants, whereas the county, including Jedburgh, only contained 37,000, and therefore on no question of population, and with no public need to serve, it was proposed to take 3,000 people out of the county, which wanted to keep them, and put them into a group of burghs with a large population, which did not want to have them. They did not require in Scotland to redress any balance between the town and county populations. In Scotland, in general, every burgh Member had a larger population attached to him than the county Members. For his own part, he had no interest in the matter. He should be very proud to represent the population of Jedburgh; but he did not wish to represent them at the expense of the interests and the feelings of the county to which they naturally belonged. This Bill as it had come back to the House of Commons contained one proposition only relating to Scotland which showed signs of having been introduced on other than on public and national grounds. It was

  1575
  a proposal that did not square with anything else in the Scottish representation; and he thought he had shown excellent reasons why the House of Commons should—agreeing with a decision of its own carried by nearly 80 voices—overset a decision of the House of Lords in which only 66 Contents could be found against 53 Not-Contents. He believed he had put the ease with sufficient clearness, and he trusted it would commend itself to the judgment of the House. He moved that the House disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. Trevelyan.)
  MR. DALRYMPLEsaid that, as he had moved the Amendment in Committee of this House, he might be allowed a few words. He was much astonished at the statement of his right hon. Friend that because proposals made by the Lord Advocate were found to be inconsistent with the agreement between the heads of Parties, therefore Amendments on the Paper from that side of the House ought not to have been moved. No such statement had been made, at all events while the Bill was in Committee. He therefore dissented from that statement, because there was no agreement about Amendments, and the Amendments were moved in due course. His Amendment was defeated on a division; but no such contention as that suggested by his right hon. Friend had ever been started. The House would imagine from what his right hon. Friend had said that this had been a proposal to take a town out of a county where it had always been in the Parliamentary sense, whereas the truth was that Jedburgh had been a Parliamentary burgh for 200 years. It was one of the Haddington group, and though it was no doubt part of the Government Bill that that group should be destroyed, their contention was that the case of Jedburgh was quite exceptional, and that Jedburgh should not be flung into a rural constituency, as it had nothing in common with a rural constituency. His right hon. Friend had said something about the character of the place. The character of the place was simply this—that the main occupations of Jedburgh were exactly the same as those of
  1576
  the Border Burghs; and he was told that there were not 20 persons in Jedburgh connected with agricultural pursuits. The right hon. Gentleman's argument, therefore, as to the towns remaining in the county had very little support. It was with considerable surprise that he found himself with an opportunity of saying a few more words on this subject, for he knew nothing whatever of the reasons why this particular Amendment—[Laughter]—he did not know what the laughter meant; but what he had to say was that he knew nothing of the circumstances which led to the selection of this burgh for special notice elsewhere. He thought the explanation was that it differed from the other Amendments by which they on his side of the House had endeavoured to add towns in counties to presently existing groups of burghs, where they had not been Parliamentary burghs before; whereas in this case the burgh was already one of a group of burghs. But it was certain that this was a life and death question with the Party opposite. He would tell Gentlemen opposite why he said it was a life and death question with them, because it was the subject of a four-line Whip. It was a question of life and death judging by the number of lines; but he thought it was rather hard upon Jedburgh, where it was so important that it should only have had four lines. The feeling opposite was very strong indeed. He imagined that the Party opposite would have staked its political existence on the subject if it had had any political existence to stake. But the point selected for this life and death struggle was one with regard to which the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill said that he sympathized with the view entertained on this side of the House. He could not say that the Chancellor of the Duchy had added any further reasons; but he would add a word as to expressions of opinion from that locality. He had had no communication with the locality until Saturday, when he received three Petitions on the subject. Two of them were from the associations in the county, but the third was from the burgh of Jedburgh itself, and was signed by 800 male persons, which was a remarkable fact when it was remembered that Jedburgh only had 390 voters in it. That was probably, therefore, a very large

  1577
  proportion of the constituency of Jed Burgh. They were told recently that the good ship of Reform was about to come to port. He thought it would be a good thing if the ship were to come into port, but not flying false colours. ["Oh!" and cries of "Divide!"] He would explain what ho meant. It had been part of the instructions to the Boundary Commissioners that they should, as far as possible, separate urban and rural constituencies; it had further been stated by the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government that these elements should, as far as possible, be kept distinct; and the proposal before the House was dead in the teeth of this view, and of the declaration of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Trevelyan) that the great object in view was that the country should be represented. It could hardly be in irony that this expression had been used, and yet it was the country parts of counties that would be unrepresented if the urban element overwhelmed them. Here a considerable urban population was flung into the midst of the rural population, dominating and inundating the political population of the county. He would only conclude by saying that he, for one, was not at all anxious to ask the House to go to a division on this subject. He held that, so far as this House was concerned, its decision was taken on a former occasion; and it was for the other House of Parliament to do what they thought right in the matter. He once more protested in regard to the arrangements for Scotland that there was a most unfair re-arrangement in regard to the disparity of population between counties and burghs. He entirely disagreed with the statement of his hon. Friend that the burgh Members represented in many cases greater populations than county Members. It was quite otherwise in regard to many counties. It was not, however, in this case, in regard to numbers, but because an urban population was being flung into the midst of a rural constituency, that he had once more objected to the proposal before the House.
  MR. CRAIG SELLAR,who rose amid loud cries of "Divide," said, he would not detain the House; but there was still a Representative of the burgh of Jedburgh, and he hoped he might be allowed to add his voice to that of his
  1578
  right hon. Friend, and to express the hope that the House would disagree with this Amendment. [Cries of "Agreed!"] He would confine himself to a single point which had been alluded to by his hon. Friend who had just spoken—namely, that with regard to the expression of opinion in the locality. When the news arrived on Wednesday that the change had been made in the House of Lords, and that Jedburgh had been taken out of the county and thrown into the Border Burghs, the surprise was greater than he could express. Immediately a public meeting was called in the old-fashioned way—by tuck of drum—and that evening a large meeting assembled in the hall, and a motion was put to the meeting, and the whole gathering, except eight, voted in favour of disagreeing with the Lords' Amendment. A Petition was sent to him which he had presented to this House to-day, and he had got another Petition, not from that meeting, but signed by 70 per cent of the electors of Jedburgh, begging the House not to agree to this Amendment. That, he thought, was a sufficient answer to the Petition, which was said by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Dalrymple) to have been signed by 300 male inhabitants of the borough. In the face of the facts, he thought it would not be possible for the House to agree to this Amendment.
  MR. LEWISsaid, that one of the points raised in connection with the Bill was that every burgh of under 15,000 inhabitants should be disfranchised. He thought the case was not so indefensible as the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Trevelyan) seemed to believe. If anyone had broken the principle of the Bill it was the Government, who had done so in the cases of Pembroke and Warwick, and of these flagrant exceptions no explanation had been given. He should certainly vote in favour of the Bill as now drawn.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Page 28, column 1, line 14, after ("Staple Inn") insert ("and"); column 1, lines 15 and 16, leave out ("and Liberty of the Rolls").
  Page 35, column 2, line 24, leave out ("detached"); column 2, line 25, after ("entirely") insert ("or nearly ").
  Page 38, leave out lines 1 to 11, both inclusive.
  Page 42, line 26, leave out ("Donny-brook") and insert ("Saint Stephen's Green ").
  Page 50, line 34, leave out ("South-Eastern") and insert ("Ilkeston"),—the next Amendments, agreed to.
  Page 51, line 20, leave out the word "Crediton," and insert the words "South Molton," the next Amendment, read a second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with The Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. Johnson.)
  SIR STAFFOED NORTHCOTEsaid, he had a strong feeling that the name originally selected by the Boundary Commissioners was the right one, and he could not understand why it was departed from.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the Boundary Commissioners probably would not have chosen South Molton if they had anticipated it was to be preceded by the words "Northern or," which did not sound well with South Molton.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 52; Noes 87: Majority 35.—(Div. List, No. 203.)
  Page 53, line 27, leave out ("and") and insert ("including").
  Page 55, line 29, after ("Caerphilly Lower") insert ("including the whole of the parish of Eglwysilan").
  Page 56, line 8, column 3, after ("Kibbor") insert ("except any part of the parish of Eglwysilan").
  Page 64, line 25, leave out ("Hindley") and insert ("Ince").
  Page 66, line 10, after ("Hawerby") insert ("cum-Beesby").
  Page 67, line 26, after ("Kensington") insert ("St. George, Hanover Square, Strand").
  Page 75, line 8, after ("Okeover") insert ("Prestwood"); line 16, after ("Stafford") insert ("including the whole of the parish of Gnosall"); lines 17 and 18, leave out ("including the whole parish of Gnosall").
  Page 76, line 1, leave out ("South-Eastern") and insert ("Handsworth"); line 11, leave out ("Lowestoft") and insert ("Mutford and Lothingland"); line 38, after ("Hadleigh") insert ("or Cosford").
  Page 78, line 7, after ("parliamentary") insert ("borough of Deptford and the area of the Parliamentary"); line 8, leave out ("Deptford"),—the next Amendments, agreed to.
  Page 84, line 29, leave out "Batley," and insert "Morley," the next Amendment, read a second time.
  MR. SERJEANT SIMON,in moving that the House disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment, said, the question had been fully discussed in the House, and he did not propose to repeat arguments that had been heard already. He would simply say that his Motion in favour of Batley was carried by a majority of 17. The majority in favour of Morley in the House of Lords was only three, and he thought this was a case in which the opinion of the House of Commons ought to prevail.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with The Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. Serjeant Simon.)
  VISCOUNT LEWISHAMsaid, that, although the majority on the second occasion in favour of Batley was 17, yet it was a small House, and the majority contained no fewer than 23 of the extreme Irish Party; while of 4 county and 10 borough Yorkshire Members present, all the county and 6 of the borough Members voted in favour of Morley.
  MR. WADDYsaid, that four-fifths of Batley was in the borough of Dewsbury, and what was now wanted by his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Serjeant Simon) was that the new constituency should be named after a small corner of Batley, four-fifths of which was already represented by himself.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he hoped the House would not discuss this question over again. On the whole, he sided with his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Serjeant Simon) in favour of Batley; but he must say that the majority of the Government voted for Morley. The question had been carried both ways in that House, and not by a very large majority; and in the House of Lords Morley was only carried by 21 to 18.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 36; Noes 86: Majority 50.—(Div. List, No. 204.)
  Page 85, line 38, after ("Owston") insert ("Skellow"),—the next Amendment, agreed to.
  Page 86, line 39, leave out the words "Spen Valley," and insert the word "Birstall," the next Amendment, read a second time.
  MR. ILLINGWORTH,in moving to disagree with the Lords' Amendment, said, that in that House they had already had two debates and three divisions on the point, with the result that the name of Spen Valley was confirmed. In the Lords, the change was made at the end of the discussions on the Bill after a very short debate. This district comprised six towns, and in point of population Birstall was only the fifth. Spen Valley was a well-known area. The name had been adopted by the Local Government Board for the whole district for sanitary purposes. It had been said that this was a matter of sentiment; but sentiment ought to be respected. The Spen was not a large stream; but it was a very important one, running through the very centre of the district, and on it were a large number of very important works. On the other hand, Birstall was a small place, at the extreme north-east corner of the constituency. There could be no case made out why a name covering the whole area should be given up for the name of a small town. This was a Party move on the part of the other House.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with The Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. Illingworth.)
  MR. E. STANHOPEprotested against the language of the hon. Gentleman. He had had occasion to look into this subject, and he found that the feeling in the district was very strong indeed in favour of Birstall. It was a name thoroughly wellknown in the district, while, on the other hand, nothing could be stronger than the statement of Lord Cranbrook, who told the House of Lords that he had known the district intimately all his life, and had never heard of the Spen Valley.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, according to whether a man knew one part of a district or not, so he thought one or other of these names was the better. The Government had received
  1582
  a Memorial in favour of Spen Valley, from the Local Boards of Heckmond-wike, Liversedge, and Cleckheaton, with a population of over 32,000, forming by far the greater portion of the inhabitants of the district. It was quite true that the name of Spen Valley was very little known. It was a name which was invented a few years ago by the Local Government Board. This was one of those questions where local jealousies interfered between town and town; and Birstall, which was a small place, was unpopular among the larger places, and therefore they had united on the name of Spen Valley. While he should not expect all his Colleagues to vote with him, he himself would support Spen Valley.
  COLONEL GUNTEEsaid, he trusted that the House would agree to the Lords' Amendment, not only because it was agreed to there, but also because it was the name given by the Boundary Commissioners, and was the best known in the whole of Yorkshire. Out of a population of 54,000, the whole civil parish of Birstall contained 51,000.
  MR. BARRANsaid, that nearly the whole of the population were in the civil parish of Birstall, and no district was better known in Yorkshire. He should regret very much if Birstall did not retain the name.
  MR. JACKSONsaid, that there never had been the slightest reason shown why the name of Birstall should not be adopted.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 65; Noes 46: Majority 19.—(Div. List, No. 205.)
  Page 88, line 26, leave out ("Kirkpatrick Juxta").
  Page 90, line 28, after ("Kilbride") insert ("and so much of the parish of Kirkpatrick juxta as may be in the county of Lanark"); line 36, leave out ("so much") and insert the detached ("portion").
  Page 91, line 1, leave out ("as") and insert ("which").
  Page 103, lines 11 and 12, leave out ("North Liberties").
  Page 110, line 3, leave out ("Kilculliheen"); line 28, after ("Dysart") insert ("except the townlands of Ballyote, Slanebeg, and Slanemore"),—the concluding Amendments, agreed to.

  1583
  Committee appointed, "to draw up Reasons to be assigned to The Lords for disagreeing to two of the Amendments to which this House hath disagreed; "—Sir CHARLES DILKE, Secretary Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT, Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE, Mr. TREVELYAN, Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, The LORD ADVOCATE, Lord RICHARD GROSVENOR, and Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND:—To withdraw immediately:—Three to be the quorum.

  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (REDISTRIBUTION) BILL.
  Reasons for disagreeing to The Lords Amendments reported, and agreed to.
  To be communicated to The Lords.

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: I ask the indulgence of the House one minute in order to express a wish that the adjournment of the House will not be agreed to until one other item of Business, which will probably take only five or ten minutes, has been disposed of. The Business of to-night has been of an unusual character. All the Business has been postponed except the Seats Bill and the Princess Beatrice's Annuity Bill. The item I propose to proceed with is germane to the Seats Bill—almost a part of it, and it is a matter which thousands in this country look upon as very important. What I propose is that the remaining Orders be run through until we come to the Motion for what is practically the first reading of the Bill, which provides that no person shall be disqualified from voting at Parliamentary elections by the receipt of medical relief for himself or for his family. If it is the will of the House that this Bill should be proceeded with, it will only take about 10 minutes; and, seeing the shortness of the time at our disposal, it is of importance that the Bill should be introduced at once. The first reading is a stage of the Bill that does not usually raise contentious matter, and no harm could be done by agreeing to my proposal.
  MR. BBOADHURSTsaid, he would add his earnest appeal to that of the hon. Member for Ipswich. Since the decision in regard to medical relief was agreed to, evidence had come to hand from all parts of the country showing that the measure of enfranchisement which both Houses had passed would
  1584
  in many cases be a perfect mockery unless this disqualification were removed. He hoped the House would not refuse a request which was intended to do justice to a vast body of the electorate.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, he originally supported the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Christchurch (Mr. Horace Davey), as there was something real about it; but this resuscitation of the question was made for the purpose of getting up an electioneering cry. It was perfectly impossible to pass the Bill through the House of Lords this Session. Hon. Gentlemen could not seriously expect to pass the Bill.
  MR. WARTONwas of opinion that the Bill could not be considered by the House, as the subject of it had already been disposed of.
  MR. E. T. REIDrepudiated the charge of the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) that this was an electioneering trick, though, no doubt, the hon. Member knew as much about tricks as anybody. If Radical Members had simply an electioneering object in view, they would allow the grievance to remain unredressed, for the grievance would be much more beneficial than the remedy. It would be a cruel thing, seeing the period of the Session, to refuse to allow the first stage of the Bill to be taken, especially as he had reason to believe that the coming Conservative Administration would not oppose it.
  MR. KENNYsaid, he thought that the subject ought not to be introduced at the present time.
  MR. PICTONpointed out that, as to the idea that it was sought to introduce this Bill for the purpose of an electioneering cry, the best electioneering cry the most advanced Liberal could have was that the House had refused to take any trouble to pass a measure of justice such as this was. By passing the measure they were rather depriving themselves of an electioneering cry. On behalf of the most helpless portion of the community, he supported the request of the hon. Member for Ipswich.
  MR. CALLANsaid, he also should support the proposal. He regretted that the Attorney General and other Members of the Government were not present to explain the course they took on a former occasion.
  SIR LYON PLAYFAIRsaid, he was glad one Irish Member had risen to sup-

  1585
  port the proposal. They were all agreed that medical relief in Ireland should not be a disqualification; and it was astonishing that two Irish Members could be found to prevent the same privilege being applied to the rest of the country. From one point of view, he was very anxious about this. It was possible—he hoped it was not probable—we should have a visitation of cholera; for we saw cholera coming over different parts of Europe at the present moment. Now, the most important measure to prevent the spread of cholera was immediate isolation in a public or parish hospital of infected patients, and we ought to offer the greatest facilities for producing that isolation in the case of any epidemic visiting this country. But if medical relief were to be a disqualification, one of our greatest sanitary measures would be rendered inoperative. He was sure the other side would not have made this alteration in the House of Lords had they known it to be of the importance it was. What his hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings) asked the House was not to decide upon the merits of the Bill, but that he should have permission to introduce it, in order that in the limited time of the Session they might have a chance, if what had been done was considered a mistake, of rectifying it.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 32; Noes 55: Majority 23.—(Div. List, No. 206.)
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEexplained that, under the circumstances, it was, of course, not the intention of the Government to take any Government Orders that night, and he appealed to private Members not to take their Orders. The Government had, of course, no power to prevent private Members from taking their Orders; but the only effect of taking any of the Orders would be to keep the House sitting to a late hour, without producing any good result.

ORDER OF THE DAY.
  COPYHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT BILL.
  (Mr. Waugh, Mr. George Howard, Mr. Stafford Howard, Mr. Ainsworth, Mr. Ferguson.)

  [BILL 26.] COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  MR. PELL,in moving that the Speaker leave the Chair, said, he only asked it to do so formally, although the Bill was quite as important, if not more so, than the one relating to disfranchisement through medical relief, which the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. J. Collings) was so anxious to push through the House. It was one in which small holders, who were among the most provident people in the country, were interested.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Pell.)
  MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, he hoped the Bill would not be proceeded with, as it would be impossible to adequately discuss its merits on this occasion. If this Bill, which was a very good one, was proceeded with, he thought it was likely that the reasons of its interposition would be taken to be a desire to prevent the bringing on of the Bill for which the House had consented to go through the Orders. He hoped there would be no attempt by any side wind to upset the conclusion to which the House had so recently come.
  MR. WARTONprotested against this attempt of hon. Members opposite to set aside the understanding which had been entered into early that evening, that no Business except the Redistribution Bill and the Princess Beatrice's Annuity Bill should be proceeded with. The Government had, by their statement, induced the majority of the House to leave, and had now failed to secure the adjournment of the House. He accused the Radical Members of a want of honesty and fair play in their endeavour to force a Bill upon the House in the face of the understanding between the two Front Benches. Sharp practice did not pay in the long run.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Friday.

MOTIONS.
  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—ORDERS OF THE DAY.

    RESOLUTION.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the remaining Orders of the Day

    1587
    be deferred till Friday."—(Mr. Rowley Hill.)
    MR. CALLANsaid, he should oppose the Motion. He proposed to take a stage of the Irish Borough Funds Bill, which stood in the name of the hon. Member for Carlow, and was a Bill of great importance.
    MR. KENNYsaid, he was also opposed to the Motion. The Irish Turbary Bill was down on the Paper, and was an extremely just and equitable one.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, that when this question of enfranchising those who obtained medical relief which hon. Members we're driving at in an irregular fashion came properly before the House he would vote for it. He opposed the present Motion on the ground that the Irish Turbary Bill, which was down on the Paper, ought to be considered.
    MR. BR0ADHURSTpointed out that when the appeal was made to the House not to adjourn, the sole objection was to permit the introduction of the Medical Relief Bill. He, therefore, hoped his lion. Friend would not press his Motion.
    MR. SAMPSON LLOYDpointed out that many hon. Gentlemen were interested in other Bills which stood on the Paper. He thought the simplest course would be to allow all the Orders of the Day to be run through, as this would be better than to stop at a particular measure.
    MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, that after the speech of the hon. Member for South Warwickshire (Mr. Sampson Lloyd), it seemed hopeless for him (Mr. Jesse Ceilings) to attempt to get the Medical Relief Bill introduced tonight. The hon. Member had contended for the right to deal with certain Bills. That was not in the mind of the House when it agreed to continue the Sitting. He could not hope to take the first stage of his measure to-night without keeping hon. Members for such a length of time as he did not like to propose. He regretted the course the hon. Member had taken, and he left the responsibility with him. He understood that after the House went into Committee pro formâ on the Copyhold Enfranchisement Bill, nothing would stand in the way of the Medical Relief Bill. He was afraid that the bottom of the Opposition was an unwillingness to allow the object which the House
    1588
    wanted carried out to be accomplished. Therefore, if the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Rowley Hill) went to a division, he should vote with him.
    MR. SAMPSON LLOYDrepudiated the imputation that he wished to delay the question of Medical Relief. Nothing was further from his intention. All he asked was that if for the convenience of some hon. Members they proceeded with certain Orders they might also proceed with other Orders in which other lion. Members were interested.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Sir Henry Fletcher.)
    MR. BIGGARthought it was idle for hon. Members opposite below the Gangway to attempt to make the public suppose that they could introduce a Bill on the 15th of June, and pass it into law during the present Session. There were no fewer than 42 Bills on the Orders far to-night, many of which were of far greater importance than this.
    MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, they were in the midst of what was known as a Ministerial crisis. There was no responsible Minister of the Crown present in the House, and the well understood practice of the House for generations had been that no legislative action of any kind should take place when there was no responsible Minister of the Crown ready to undertake the responsibility of advising the acceptance or rejection of these measures. Special exception had been made in favour of a measure passed in both Houses, and which would shortly receive the Royal Assent, and the House had also decided to allow a Bill to be introduced closely connected with that measure. An exception had further been made with regard to the closing stages of the Princess Beatrice's Annuity Bill. Ho would submit that it would not be wise, in the absence of a Ministry, and in the absence of a large number of Members on both sides of the House, to attempt to snap a division on any of the Orders of the Day on the Paper, and that it was due to the House and the country that they should on that occasion follow well-understood precedents, and adjourn the proceedings of the House.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he entirely concurred with what had

    1589
    fallen from the hon. Member, that it was in accordance with all practice in a Ministerial crisis that the House should merely meet from day to day to know when it might expect that crisis to terminate; and that it was most unusual and unprecedented for Business of a controversial character to be taken. Tonight they had had a large number of Orders of the Day, the accumulation of former days, and it was perfectly understood, when the Motion was made for the adjournment of the House to-day, that it was that a further adjournment might be made, that a day might be fixed in order to take the necessary steps to establish regular order in their proceedings. Two exceptions, however, had been made by the House at the suggestion of the present Government. One was to finish, so far as lay in their power, the proceedings on the Redistribution of Seats Bill, and the other was to finish the Bill with regard to Princess Beatrice's Annuity. Both of these were treated exceptionally, and they were informed by the right hon. Gentleman still at the head of the Government, who, although only holding Office till his Successor was appointed, still had the responsibility of the actual events of the day, that as soon as the fifth Order had been passed—namely, that of the Princess Beatrice Annuity Bill, the Motion would be made that the House would adjourn. That Motion was made: but he was certainly surprised that no steps appeared to have been taken to keep hon. Members present. However, they must not be too critical at a time like this. It was unfortunate, and had led to some confusion; but he believed they were now in this position—that all the Government Orders had been postponed, and other days fixed for them. One or two Orders for Bills of independent Members had been proceeded with, and he believed his hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) had obtained a stage on his Bill. It was obvious that something might be done all through the remaining Orders; but he did think it would be considered hardly fair, and hardly in accordance with practice, that those Bills so put down should be taken. The case of the Motion of the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings) was treated as a peculiar one; and although the Government, and he with them, divided in favour of the ad-
    1590
    journment of the House, yet, now that the division had been carried against them on it, he certainly did not desire to throw any impediment in the way of that Motion being made; but he thought it would be extremely inconvenient for the House if they were to proceed with all those Bills, most of which were met with Notices of opposition, and none of which were expected to be taken on a Monday, which was a Government night. He thought it would be unfair if advantage were taken of accidental circumstances. He hoped, therefore, the House would agree to the postponement of all these Orders till Friday, and that the hon. Member for Ipswich would be permitted to bring forward his Motion.
    DR. CAMERONremarked, that it was one of the inconveniences of having no responsible Government that no responsible Minister thought it necessary to stay in the House while the dinner hour was on.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 75; Noes 7: Majority 68.—(Div. List, No. 207.)

  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTION S (MEDICAL RELIEF) BILL.

    MOTION FOR LEAVE.
    MR. JESSE COLLINGSmoved for leave to bring in a Bill to provide that no person shall be disqualified from voting at Parliamentary Elections by the receipt of Medical Relief for himself or for his family.
    MR. WARTONrose to Order. He wished to know whether it was in Order that a Bill should be introduced dealing with a question which had already been several times discussed and decided by the House on another measure? Both in Committee, on the Report stage, and on the Lords' Amendments, the question raised by this Bill had been before the House. If this practice was adopted there would be no end to the proceedings of the House. Three times had this very question been discussed—once upon the Committee stage, again upon the Report, and now as an Amendment of the House of Lords.
    MR. CHARLES RUSSELLmaintained that, until the Bill was in the hands of Members, no such point of Order could be raised.
    Mr. SPEAKERsaid, that he could not give a decision upon that point without seeing the Bill. If the Bill was substantially the same as a Bill upon which the House had come to a decision, it would be out of Order; but if it referred to a clause in a Bill which had been decided in different ways at different times, then he was clearly of opinion that it would not be irregular.
    Motion agreed to.M
    Bill to provide that no person shall be disqualified from voting at Parlimentary Elections by the receipt of Medical Relief from himself or for his family, ordered to be brought in by Mr. JESSE COLLINGS, Mr. DAVEY, Mr. BURT, Mr. BROADHURST, Mr. HENEAGE, Mr. REID, Mr. CHARLES RUSSELL, Mr. CHRBUTT, and Mr. AGNEW.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 206.]

    PUBLIC HEALTH (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1867, PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
    On Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, Bill to confirm a Provisional Order relating to the Village of Renton, ordered to be brought in by The LORD ADVOCATE and Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL for SCOTLAND.
    House adjourned at a quarter before Ten o'clock till Friday.