§ MR. HEALYasked the President of the Local Government Board, If there is any objection to the publication in a Return of the provisional schemes advertised by the Boundary Commissioners for the counties and boroughs in Ireland, where changes have been adopted with comparative maps, to enable Members to judge of the advisability of the alterations so made; will he explain why no notes of the evidence taken locally are furnished, and no justification is attempted or reasons given for the changes proposed; and, as the maps issued in the Report are of a misleading character, would he have any objection to cause coloured maps to be printed of the counties where changes have been made, with the barony and parish lines clearly shown, in order that Members may better be able to judge the "compactness" of the divisions?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEIn reply to the first branch of the hon. Member's Question, I must say that the greatest possible objection exists, inasmuch as the publication suggested would hopelessly confuse the House. In reply to the second branch of the Question, the decisions have all been the unanimous decisions of the whole of the Commissioners and Assistant Commissioners, and the discussion among the Commissioners has been mainly conducted verbally, although with the assistance of a great mass of newspaper reports of the inquiries. The answer to the third branch of the hon. Member's Question is that 1764 the maps are, in my opinion, not of a misleading character.
§ MR. HEALYasked, whether the right hon. Gentleman would furnish the Return to such Members as would not be misled by it? How could they consider the schemes if they were not given to them?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he should be happy to discuss any individual case with hon. Members. They were all published in the newspapers.
§ MR. HEALYasked, whether the right hon. Gentleman could explain the fact that the plan of division in the originally advertised schemes of the Boundary Commissioners had been altered in the case of seven Ulster constituences, and in only four of those for the entire of the rest of Ireland; was he aware that the changes had called for the most vehement public protests in Donegal, Tyrone, Derry, Armagh, and Dublin; and, whether he would have any objection to granting a Select Committee to examine the Commissioners and others as to the reason of the changes in Ulster and Dublin?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEThe numbers in the first part of the Question, instead of being seven and four, should be seven and nine. I am aware that the Party represented by the hon. Member now state that they are opposed to the changes made in the five counties named out of the 16 where alterations were made. He does not mention the case of Down, where the change made by the Commissioners consisted largely of the scheme of his Friends. [Mr. HEALY: Half of it.] In reply to the second branch of the Question, I should have the greatest possible objection. Doubtless the Commissioners would readily admit that, in some cases, their preliminary schemes were bad; but, as to their final decisions, they were unanimous.