Commons Sitting of 17 March 1885

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEES—Army (Commissariat and Transport Services), appointed and nominated; Town Parks (Ireland), Motion for Appointment [House counted out].
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law)* [86].
Committee—Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) (re-comm.) [49]—R.P. [Fifth Night.]

QUESTIONS.

  AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS—PRICE OF BARLEY IN 1884.
  MR. HICKSasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he can state the number of quarters of barley

  1431
  returned in 1884 as having been sold at and below 32 s. a quarter, and the number of quarters returned as having been sold at a price exceeding 32 s. a quarter; and, whether he can state the lowest and the highest price per quarter of barley returned in 1884?
  MR. J. HOLMS(who replied) said: I regret to say that I am unable to give the information asked for by the hon. Member. It could only be obtained by the examination of several hundred thousand entries; and the Return would consequently be extremely troublesome and costly.

  PRISONS BOARD (IRELAND).
  MR. HASTINGSasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the constitution of the Irish Prisons Board has been altered by the reduction of one of the two paid members; and, whether it is intended to adopt the further proposal made by the Chairman of that Board to the Royal Commission on Irish Prisons, that his own powers should be increased and those of his colleague be diminished; and, if so, whether the instructions defining the respective powers of the Chairman and the other paid member will be laid before the House?
  SIR E. ASSHETON CROSSasked, whether any steps had been taken to give effect to any of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Irish Prisons; and, if so, what steps?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: One of the three paid members of the Prisons Board will retire on the 1st of April next, and his place will not be filled up. In lieu of it, a medical gentleman of experience, who has been for some years an Inspector under the Local Government Board, and who was previously Superintendent of the Criminal Lunatic Asylum at Dundrum, has been appointed to the newly-created office of Medical Officer to the Prisons Board. I presume some re-arrangement of the duties of the Board will necessarily follow upon this change; but there is no intention of increasing the powers of the Chairman. With regard to the Question of the right hon. Gentleman, I may say that steps are being taken to carry out a great many of the recommendations of the Commission—as many as could be carried out in such short notice. I will, however, answer more in detail
  1432
  and with greater accuracy if the right hon. Gentleman will give Notice of his Question.
  SIR E. ASSHETON CROSS: I will put the Question on Monday week.

  THE INDIAN CIVIL SERVICE— ADMISSION.
  MR. D. GRANTasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether a Despatch has been received by the Secretary of State for India from the Government of India, stating its views on the subject of the rules for admission to the Indian Civil Service, and of the Statutory Civil Service; and, if so, whether any reply to that Despatch has been sent by the Secretary of State; and, whether he will lay the Documents upon the Table of the House?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: There has been Correspondence between the Government of India and the Secretary of State on the subject referred to. It is not yet complete, and as the matter is still under consideration, it is not expedient that the documents should be laid on the Table of the House.

  PRISONS (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1877— APPOINTMENT OF PRISON CHAPLAINS.
  MR. A. R. D. ELLIOTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is the case that, by the Prisons (Scotland) Act, 1877, the appointment of prison chaplain is restricted to ministers and licentiates of the Established Church; and, if so, whether the Government will endeavour to pass a Bill abolishing this restriction?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): It is the case that by Section 10 of the Prisons (Scotland) Act, 1877, the appointment of prison chaplain is restricted to ministers and licentiates of the Established Church. The Bill was passed by the late Government. In the present state of Public Business, I am unable to hold out any prospect that a Bill dealing with the subject of prisons will be introduced this Session.

CRIMINAL LAW (IRELAND)—TRIAL OF BEATTY AND MR. WILLIAMS AT ARMAGH ASSIZES.
MR. SEXTONasked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Whether, on the trial of the Orangemen, Mitchell Beatty and M'Williams, at Armagh Assizes,

1433
charged with having caused the death of Francis Hughes, a Catholic, the petty jury consisted of eleven Protestants and one Catholic, who from his name was believed by the Crown officials to be a Protestant; whether the jury found the accused guilty of "common assault;" whether Mr. Kilkelly, the Crown Solicitor, on the calling of the jury directed Mr. John O'Hare, of Catherine Street, Newry, an extensive building contractor, and by religion a Catholic, to stand aside; whether as Mr. O'Hare resides at a considerable distance from the scene of the occurrence, and as he had no connection with any of the parties, there was any exception to him except his religion; and, whether the Crown Solicitor of county Armagh has received instructions to exclude all Catholics from juries, or whether in doing so he is acting on his own responsibility; and, if the latter, is his conduct approved?
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER): The Crown Solicitor informs me that he does not know, and made no inquiries about the religious persuasion of any of the jurors in the case referred to in the Question. The jury found two of the accused guilty of a common assault. Mr. Kilkelly did direct Mr. O'Hare to stand aside, not on account of his religion, of which he had no knowledge, but because he was a licensed vintner. The Crown Solicitor has no such instructions as are referred to in the last paragraph. I may add he is himself a Roman Catholic.
MR. SEXTON (for Mr. JOHN O'CONNOR)asked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Whether his attention has been drawn to the observations of Mr. Justice Johnson at Armagh Assizes on the 11th March, on the trial of Thomas Mitchell, Robert Beatty, and Henry M'Williams, charged with an assault on Francis Hughes which caused the death of said Francis Hughes, wherein the judge said that—
"If the grand jury had the evidence before them which had been given in that Court, it was a proper case for them to find a bill for manslaughter,"
which observations are reported in The Belfast News Letter of the 12th March; whether the grand jury found a bill for assault only; and, whether the grand jury had before them all the evidence for the prosecution given on the trial;
1434
and, if not, why was not the evidence produced?
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER): Mr. Justice Johnson made the observation referred to in the Question in answer to an argument of the prisoner's counsel. The grand jury found bills for grievous and common assault against the three accused. They had before them all the witnesses who were examined for the prosecution at the trial.

PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (CORRUPT AND ILLEGAL PRACTICES) ACT, 1883—AMENDMENT.
MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSHasked the Lord Advocate, Whether it is the intention of Government, before the Seats Bill comes into force, to introduce a Bill amending the Corrupt Practices Act, 1883, c. 51, with reference to groups of burghs in Scotland with varying numbers, populations, and distances from each other, providing in each burgh for (1) the candidate's personal expenses; (2) expenses of printing, advertising, publishing, and issuing and distributing circulars; (3) expenses of stationery, messages, postages, and telegrams; (4) expense of holding public meetings, and paying for committee rooms and other official expenses; and (5) for paying agents, sub-agents, and other necessary officials?
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): When the Corrupt Practices Act was passed in the Session before last it was understood by the Government that the provisions applicable to groups of burghs met with the full assent of the burgh Representatives from Scotland. If I rightly apprehend the Question, the suggestion of the hon. Member is that the scale of expenditure fixed by the Act should be increased in no less than five directions. I have not as yet seen any evidence that the statutory scale is inadequate. I shall, however, be glad to confer with the hon. Member and other hon. Members representing groups of burghs on the subject.

LUNACY LAWS—CASE OF MR. CHARLES HILLMAN.
MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been called to the case of Mr. Charles Hillman, an alleged

1435
lunatic, as reported in The Times of the 24th February; whether his attention has been called to the comments of Mr. Baron Huddleston, in delivering judgment, as follows:—
"Somebody—who it was we do not know, and everybody repudiates it—somebody sent the policeman and the other man with the blacksmith to the house to break open the door and take him away. Somebody had hired a carriage to take him and two men to go with him. Somebody had caused this to be done without any order, or any previous inquiry, or any personal examination: without any of the conditions prescribed by the statute to authorise the exercise of the jurisdiction, the applicant was put into a carriage and carried away to the asylum;"
and, whether he can state what action, if any, the Commissioners in Lunacy have taken in the matter. Will the complainant be left to his own resources to vindicate the Law, or will any steps be taken by the authorities to find out and punish the "somebody" to whom the learned Judge referred?
MR. H. H. FOWLER: The Secretary of State has called the attention of the Commissioners in Lunacy to this case; and they have reported to him that, after consideration, it appears to them that certain persons have been concerned in the unlawful taking and confinement, as an insane patient, of Mr. Charles Hill-man; but they are of opinion, having before them the certificates of three medical men and the statement of the Medical Superintendent of the Lunatic Asylum for the county of Sussex, that Mr. Charles Hillman was in fact insane, and a proper person to be placed under care and treatment; and finding no evidence of malice or bad faith on the part of any of the persons referred to, they do not consider that a primâ facie case exists for the prosecution of such persons.

PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (RE-DISTRIBUTION) BILL.
SIR HERVEY BRUCEasked the President of the Local Government Board, If he will inform the House whether the details of the Redistribution of Seats Bill are the same as those originally drafted and laid before those Members of the Government and of the Opposition who met last year to come to an arrangement on the Bill; and, if not, whether he will inform the House what changes have been made?
SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I am sorry I cannot give the information for which the hon. Baronet asks. I can only say that the draft scheme of the Government was greatly changed at the meetings which took place. I should not feel justified in stating the form in which the scheme was first placed before the conference of the Leaders.

POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—ACCELERATION OF THE MAILS BETWEEN BELFAST AND NEWTOWNARDS.
LORD ARTHUR HILLasked the Postmaster General, Whether he received a memorial from the Town Commissioners of Newtownards (county Down) in December 1884, complaining of the alteration in the postal arrangements in that town; whether he is aware that, under the old arrangement, letters were posted at Newtownards at 10.20 A.M. and delivered in Belfast soon after 12 o'clock, whereas, under the present altered arrangement, letters are posted at Newtownards at 1.30, and are not delivered in Belfast until after 4 P.M. thereby causing the greatest inconvenience and loss to the business community of Newtownards; and, whether he can see his way to remedy this just cause of complaint?
MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: The delivery in Belfast, which formerly commenced at 12.25 P.M., has, since the acceleration of the English Mail, viâ Dublin, commenced three-quarters of an hour earlier, and the train from Newtownards does not now arrive in time for the Newtownards letters to be included in the delivery as formerly. If the Railway Company could see their way to bring the train from Newtownards into Belfast earlier the difficulty would be met, and I will have further inquiry made on this point.

LAW AND POLICE—SUNDAY NEWSVENDORS.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he will now instruct the Police to protect the public, more especially on Sunday mornings, from the great and increasing nuisance of itinerant newsvendors crying their goods in the streets?
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I am as sensible as my hon. Friend of the

1437
nuisance to which his Question refers; but I am sorry to say the police have no power to put a stop to it.
MR. SEXTONasked whether the right hon. Gentleman thought that it was a nuisance to the considerable section of the public who wished to purchase newspapers?
MR. T. P. O'CONNORwished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that a large number of the working classes in London and other cities had no time except on Sundays to read newspapers?
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: My answer had no reference to the Sunday part of the question; that is a matter of Sunday trading which it is very difficult to deal with. I understood the Question to refer generally to the extraordinary noise. I wish newsvendors would find means of conducting their business in a more tranquil, and I may say more accurate, manner.

CENTRAL ASIA—RUSSIAN RAILWAY.
MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he can state what point the Russian Railway from the Caspian towards Sarakhs has reached; and, whether Her Majesty's Government have information as to the movement of Russian forces from Samarcand towards Balkh?
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I am not able to say to what exact point the railway is now in working order; but it is being pushed forward to Aska-bad. Her Majesty's Government have no information as to the movement of Russian troops towards Balkh.
MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Are we really to understand that at this crisis Her Majesty's Government have no accurate information with regard to the exact position to which the Russian railway is completed?
[No reply.]
MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I will repeat this Question on Monday next.
MR. ONSLOWgave Notice that he would ask whether Her Majesty's Government could not obtain some information upon this subject from the British Minister at Teheran?

NAVY—SERVICE UNDER STEAM.
SIR HARRY VERNEYasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether
1438
there is a Standing Order from the Admiralty that, unless otherwise ordered, the ordinary service under steam is always to be performed at the most economical rate of steaming; and, whether he is of opinion that such order tends to the efficiency of the Navy as much as when, as formerly, the utmost rapidity consistent with perfect performance was the rule and practice of the Navy?
MR. CAINE: Yes, Sir; there is an order that the ordinary service under steam is to be performed at the most economical rate of steaming. Large discretionary powers are given to the commanding officer. It is considered that this order tends to the efficiency of the Navy.

LAW AND POLICE—ARREST OF JAMES STEPHENS.
MR. JUSTIN HUNTLY M'CARTHY (for Mr. JOHN O'CONNOR)asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it was at the instance of the English Government that Mr. James Stephens has been placed under arrest by the French police authorities; whether Mr. Stephens's opinions are opposed to what is termed the "dynamite policy," and that he has repeatedly expressed and published his disapproval of such policy; whether the Government will at once intimate its desire to the French authorities to have Mr. Stephens set at liberty before permanent injury be done him; and, whether the recent arrest of Mr. James Stephens in Paris was due to any suggestions or promptings of Her Majesty's Government?
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: The arrest referred to in this Question was not made at the instance, or, indeed, with the knowledge, of the English Government at all. As to the second part of the Question, as far as I know, the statement as to Stephens's opinions upon the use of dynamite is correct. As far as regards the last part of the Question, it is not a matter in which the Government would think themselves justified in interfering with the action of the French authorities; and from information which has reached me—not official information—Stephens is not in custody, nor is he in France, but was ordered to leave the territory, and I believe he has done so.

CENTRAL ASIA—ENGLAND AND RUSSIA—THE RUSSO-AFGHAN FRONTIER.
MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If the new agreement between the British and Russian Governments is still in force; whether any advance of the Russian troops has taken place since the date of that agreement; whether this agreement in any way recognises that Penjdeh, Ak-Rabat, and. Zulfagar, are on debatable territory; and, whether he can now, consistently with the public interest, state that Her Majesty's Ministers intend to protect the absolute integrity of all Afghan territory, including these important positions, from Russian occupation and influence, in accordance with their own pledges and those of the Czar's Government?
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I believe that there has been no forward movement of Russian troops since the Russian Government agreed that no advance should take place. The agreement does not touch on the question of the ultimate possession of the places mentioned. As I informed the hon. Member yesterday, it would not be in the public interest to make any declaration of the nature suggested by him.
MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the Prime Minister whether he could answer the last part of the Question?
MR. GLADSTONE: No.
MR. GIBSONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Has the Government yet received any, and, if so, what reply to the telegram of Lord Granville, sent on Saturday to the Russian Government, asking for a confirmation of the Prime Minister's statement on Friday last?
SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether an answer has been received from the Government of Russia on the subject of the agreement or arrangement, shadowed forth in the Despatch of the 5th of March, from Her Majesty's Ambassador at St. Petersburg, for the governance of the Russian and Afghan forces on the frontiers of Afghanistan; and, if so, whether Her Majesty's Government will lay upon the Table the precise terms of the agreement or arrangement?
MR. GLADSTONE: The two Questions are very nearly identical in sub-
1440
stance, and I will answer both at once. Under the circumstances stated yesterday to the House, after having consulted Lord Granville on the subject, a telegram was sent to St. Petersburg; and, although it is an exceptional thing to do, I will read the telegram in reply—which arrived late last night—in the exact form in which it will appear in the Papers. It is to this effect—
"The Russian Minister for Foreign Affairs states that the Russian troops will not advance from the positions now occupied by them, provided the Afghan forces do not advance or attack, or unless in case of some extraordinary reason—such, for instance, as disturbances at Penjdeh. He also states that the strictest orders have been sent to the Russian commander to avoid by every possible means a conflict, or any incitement to a conflict, and that the orders will he repeated."
We accept this communication as made in good faith, and, of course, as applicable both sides, to both parties; and acting upon our responsibility in the conduct of what I described as a National and Imperial policy, I and my Colleagues deprecate any pressure for further explanations at this juncture.
MR. GIBSON: Are we to understand from the answer of the right hon. Gentleman that Her Majesty's Government reserve to themselves on behalf of the Afghans the same right which the Russian Government retain for themselves of advancing "for some extraordinary reason?" I also wish to ask if the Prime Minister feels himself in a position to say whether this provisional arrangement would at all interfere with the business of the Boundary Commission, and when the Commission may be expected to have completed its work?
MR. GLADSTONE: With respect to the first part of the Question, I thought I had disposed of it by saying that we accept the arrangement as applicable on both sides. As regards the second point, I think I drew the other day a distinction between the case of a military advance which, however serious in itself, has no bearing whatever on the matter of right—I drew a distinction between that question and the question of right at issue between the two countries, and which, therefore, has been treated by us entirely apart. I accept the arrangement that has been made as fair, and I do not conceive that it can have any effect but that of facilitating the course of the inquiries. With regard to the precise

1441
position of those inquiries, I am correct, I think, in saying that General Lumsden has made very considerable progress in what hitherto was quite unknown in that country—namely, the actual tracing of the frontier; but I would rather not give any information on that point.
MR. M'OOANasked whether Her Majesty's Government accepted this conditional agreement in satisfaction of their former demand that the Russians should withdraw from the positions they occupied?
LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: The Prime Minister has stated that the Russian Government have sent orders to their officer commanding on the frontier. Can he inform us, without prejudice to the public interest, whether the Russian Government are in communication with their officers on the frontier, or how soon the orders sent will reach them?
MR. GLADSTONE: I cannot state the precise time which it takes for a message from St. Petersburg to reach the Russian Commander; but the communication made to us is perfectly unequivocal and frank—first, upon the point that the strictest orders have been given; and, secondly, upon the point that they will be repeated. I have not the slightest doubt that they will be repeated.
BARON HENRY DE WORMS: Is it not a fact that it is over 200 miles from the nearest telegraph station to where the Russian troops now are?
MR. GLADSTONE: I do not know the precise distance.
MR. ONSLOW: May I ask whether the substance of the agreement or arrangement arrived at with Russia is to the effect that the Russians have determined not to advance into what they consider the proper boundary of Afghanistan; or that they will not advance from the positions they now occupy?
MR. GLADSTONE: That is disposed of by the words of the telegram I have read. I will repeat them again—"The Russian troops will not advance from the positions now occupied by them."
SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: May I ask whether this agreement is to rest merely on the verbal assurance of the Russian Minister to Her Majesty's Ambassador at St. Petersburg, or whether it is to be consigned in any formal way into a diplomatic document?
MR. GLADSTONE: It is difficult to answer a question of that kind. The reply has come to us by telegraph from St. Petersburg, and I cannot doubt that it is a perfectly authentic statement.
MR. E. STANHOPEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, With reference to the statement of the Government in December last, that a communication had been addressed to the Government of Russia- pressing for the withdrawal of the Russian troops from the position they then occupied beyond Sarakhs, whether any answer has been received to that communication; and, if not, whether it has been withdrawn?
MR. GLADSTONE: My hon. Friend is substantially quite correct in the reference he makes to what passed on a former occasion, when my noble Friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs stated, I think in November, that we had pressed the Russian Government to withdraw from the position which they then occupied beyond Sarakhs. Then he asks "whether any answer has been received to that communication; and, if not, whether it has been withdrawn?" Upon that communication a correspondence ensued, and the Russians declined to withdraw their troops. They gave certain explanations about them, but declined to withdraw them; and they founded their answer upon the belief they entertained that the territory is theirs, and that they claim it as a matter of right. We, of course, had addressed a requisition to them in the belief that it was Afghan territory; but that being the state of the case, as the Russians made a serious claim to be the rightful possessors of the territory, we could do nothing in the matter consistently, I think, either with prudence or with any honourable regard to the interests of peace, except to prosecute measures for bringing about a proper investigation and decision of the claim that had been preferred. It was a presumptive claim, it was repeated by the Russian answer, and then it put us upon another course of procedure; and that being so, undoubtedly there has been—I will not say actually a withdrawal of the requisition—but substantially it comes to the same thing. The application that was made has lapsed from the circumstances of the case, and on account of the contentions that

1443
are raised on the two sides respectively.
MR. E. STANHOPE: I understand this communication, addressed to the Russian Government, was to the effect that before Her Majesty's Government would resume negotiations, they should withdraw their troops from the positions they then occupied beyond the boundary. The Russian troops, we are told now, have not been withdrawn, the Russian Government refusing to withdraw them; but Her Majesty's Government have resumed negotiations.
MR. GLADSTONE: That is a matter I will not trust my memory to answer without a further reference, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman will give Notice of the Question.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Substantially, as I understand, we made a demand. Have we withdrawn that demand; and are we satisfied with the reasons given why the Russians would not withdraw?
MR. GLADSTONE: We made a demand unquestionably, as stated by the right hon. Gentleman, in the belief that the territory was Afghan territory. We found that that was the matter in contest—that it was part of the very matter that had to be decided in a regular, pacific, and, I hope, friendly inquiry. That being so, there certainly was no formal act of withdrawal; but substantially the demand was withdrawn.
MR. ONSLOWasked the First Lord of the Treasury, What steps have been taken to inform the Ameer of Afghanistan of the "new agreement" arrived at between England and Russia?
MR. GLADSTONE: We have no particular information on that subject. All we know is that Sir Peter Lumsden is in constant communication with the Ameer, and we have not the slightest doubt that he has communicated with him in reference to this matter.
MR. ONSLOWasked if Sir Peter Lumsden had been communicated with on the subject?
MR. GLADSTONE: I am not aware of that. It would be much more convenient if the hon. Gentleman would kindly address the Departmental Ministers on the subject.
MR. ONSLOWgave Notice that on Thursday he should ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government had communicated
1444
the agreement between Russia and Her Majesty's Government to Sir Peter Lumsden with instructions that he should inform the Ameer that such an agreement had been come to?

EGYPT—THE MAHDI.
SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether Her Majesty's Government have arrived at any definite conclusion on the terms to be exacted from the Mahdi and his adherents as conditions of peace; and, if so, whether, in order to avoid further expense and bloodshed, Her Majesty's Government will instruct Lord Wolseley to take steps to make such terms known to the Mahdi and Osman Digna before resuming offensive operations?
MR. GLADSTONE: I think it would not be expedient on the part of the Government to enter into any statement as to the terms on which it would be possible for us to make any agreement with the Mahdi. If the hon. Gentleman will kindly refer to a statement previously made by me on the part of the Government, he will find that I stated it is our conviction that any attempt on our part to approach the Mahdi, even with the best possible intentions, would be much more likely to defeat the object in view than to effect it. That state of things still exists; but I am not aware that we have either repelled any advances from the other side or lost any opportunity on our part.

ARMY—THE ROYAL INFIRMARY, DUBLIN.
MR. EATONasked the Secretary of State for War, How many deaths occurred in the Royal Infirmary, Dublin, during the first week of March 1885; if it is true that there are no Military surgeons or orderlies of the Medical Staff Corps doing duty at the Royal Infirmary, and the patients are attended by untrained soldiers from the various regiments in the garrison; if it is true that, under the former regimental system, trained regimental hospital orderlies would have been available to attend patients belonging to their own regiments; and, if he will take steps to provide trained female nurses to attend to the more serious cases in the Royal Infirmary and other large Military hospitals?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: During the first week of March two deaths occurred in the Royal Infirmary, Dublin. According to the latest Returns, there were on duty in this hospital one surgeon-major in charge, four civilian surgeons, one sergeant of the Medical Staff Corps, with orderlies from Line regiments. It is quite true that under the former system the hospital orderlies would have been drawn from the regiments, and that they would have had a certain amount of hospital training, though far less than is now given to men of the Medical Staff Corps. Under that system, during war the regimental hospitals at home would have had their own orderlies; but in the field the trained orderlies would have had to be largely supplemented by untrained men, on whom the base hospitals would probably have entirely depended. At present, when an army is in. the field, the hospitals at home afford for it an ample supply of trained orderies, though their employment necessarily, to some extent, denudes for the time the hospitals at home. An augmentation in the female nursing staff at home is proposed in the Estimates for the ensuing year.

EGYPT (FINANCE, &c.)—THE INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Agreement between the Powers with regard to the administration of Egypt has been signed; and, if so, whether he is able to communicate to the House the character of that arrangement?
MR. GLADSTONE: I was rising from my seat at the moment when the right hon. Baronet rose to make some observations on this very matter. I take this opportunity of thanking the right hon. Gentleman and those who sit round him for the great considerateness which they have shown in refraining from putting Questions on this particular subject. The delay has been a very long delay, and certainly much longer than I expected it would be when Questions were at first put to me. But at last I am happy to say that these deliberations have come to a close. I would observe, with reference to the words used by the right hon. Baronet, that it is an Agreement, not for the administration of Egypt, but for the regulation of the
1446
finances of that country. The matter is now substantially closed, and a Declaration relating to the Agreement has been signed to-day at the Foreign Office by all the Ambassadors who assembled there, and the Convention itself is to be signed to-morrow. With regard to the nature of the Convention, it would not, I think, be convenient that I should attempt to enter upon it now, nor could I, perhaps, give a perfectly accurate account of it on all points. Papers are in progress of preparation with all possible speed, and will be laid upon the Table at the earliest possible moment. In the course of to-morrow or the next day my noble Friend, I daresay, will be able to state the precise date when those Papers will be presented. I can assure the House that we are most anxious not to lose a moment; and when they are laid upon the Table we shall be equally anxious not to lose a moment in bringing the matter under the notice of the House.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: As the printing of the Papers must take some time, it would be greatly for the public convenience if we could be furnished, without delay, with information as to the general character of the Agreement that has been made.
MR. GLADSTONE: The remark of the right hon. Baronet is quite just. It is desirable that the House should have as much time as possible for examining the matter; and I will consider what, upon the whole, would be the most convenient course to adopt.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I will put a Question on the subject tomorrow.
MR. GORST: Could not this particular Paper be printed separately?
MR. GLADSTONE: That is just what I am going to consider.

FRIENDLY SOCIETIES—REPORT OF THE CHIEF REGISTRAR, 1883.
MR. ACLANDasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Whether his attention has been drawn to the concluding paragraphs of Part VII. of the Report of the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies, 1883, page 20, with reference to the sale by sheets of the Abstract therein referred to; and, whether he is willing to take any, and, if so, what, steps to carry out the suggestion made in the concluding paragraph?
MR. HIBBERT: The paragraphs referred to relate to matters upon which the Treasury has for some time been in communication with the Chief Registrar, and we shall be glad if arrangements can be made to carry out his views.
MR. ACLANDasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Whether his attention has been drawn to Part XI. of the Report referred to in the preceding Question, which deals with the Independent Mutual Brethren Society; and, whether the Returns of that Society establishes its ability, as now re-organised, to discharge its present liabilities to its members?
MR. HIBBERT: I have read the paragraphs of Mr. Ludlow's Report which refer to this Society, and have nothing to add to them. The Government is not responsible for the solvency of Friendly Societies; and my hon. Friend will hardly expect me to express an opinion on the subject.

ORDER OF THE DAY.

  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (REDISTRIBUTION) (re-committed) BILL.— [BILL 49.]
  (Mr. Gladstone, The Marquess of Hartington, Sir Charles W. Dilke, Mr. Attorney General, The Lord Advocate, Mr. Campbell-Bannerman.)
  COMMITTEE. [Progress 13th March.]

  [FIFTH NIGHT.)
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

PART I.

  REDISTRIBUTION.
  Boroughs.
  Clause 8 (Division of Parliamentary boroughs).
  MR. RITCHIE: Several attempts have been made on more than one occasion to ascertain from the Government what they consider to be the vital points of the Bill; but these attempts have always failed, or have been met evasively. It is evident to the Committee, however, that the Government are clearly determined to maintain the Bill, as it has been presented to the House, not only on questions of principle, but also on questions of even what some of us consider matters of merely minor detail. I am one of those who have always advocated, as strongly as I could, the ar-
  1448
  rangement in the matter which was ultimately come to between the Government and the Leaders of the Opposition, and I have not changed my opinion that that arrangement was a desirable one to come to, and that it was good for all parties concerned. But I am bound to say that the extremely hard-and-fast manner in which the Government seem determined to draw the lines of the agreement is calculated to militate strongly against any future proposal for entering into such an arrangement. We certainly did expect that there would have been some amount of elasticity in regard to questions of detail. But in whatever way these hard-and-fast lines may have been applicable to other matters which have come before the Committee on previous clauses of the Bill, I venture to say that the Government will find great difficulty in taking up that position in reference to the Amendment I have placed upon the Paper. Certainly nothing that may be said either by the Government or by the Members of the Front Bench below me upon the Amendment I am about to move can show that it is objectionable because it involves a departure from the principles contained in the Bill. So far from that being so, I believe it will be admitted both by the Government and the Front Opposition Bench that the Amendment I am about to move is one which carries out in its entirety one of the main principles, if not the main principle, of the Bill. That being the case, the Amendment which I have to move is one which not only ought not to be objected to by either Party to the agreement, but which ought to be welcomed by both Parties. I do not think I am wrong in stating that the principle of single-Member constituencies is one of the main principles, if not the main principle, of the measure. It was so described by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister in introducing the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman stated that the division of constituencies into single-Member constituencies was one of the main principles of the Bill. The question then for consideration has reference solely to that principle. I may say that I do not wish to pause here to discuss whether it is a good principle or a bad principle—for my own part, I think it a good principle, and a principle the House ought to accept; but I

  1449
  can understand that there are Gentlemen in the House who may consider that the principle is not a good one. I can understand that there are many reasons why hon. Members should arrive at a conclusion of that kind. All I would lay down on this particular principle is this—that as Her Majesty's Government and those who negotiated this compromise with them have considered it a good principle, this good principle should be applied to every constituency dealt with by the measure. How is it applied by the Bill, as it stands, at present? Every county is divided into single-Member constituencies. All the new boroughs are divided, and all the old boroughs which are allowed to receive an additional Member are also divided into single-Member districts; but there is this singular and, I venture to say, ridiculous anomaly in the system—that while the old boroughs which are to have additional Members and the new boroughs which are to be created under the Bill are to be divided into single constituencies, the old boroughs returning two Members are to be left undivided. The old boroughs which have had one Member added to them are to be divided into single-Member districts. I venture to say that this is a ridiculous and absurd anomaly, and I cannot conceive what possible argument can be used in support of it. I have inquired of many hon. Members on both sides of the House what argument can be advanced in support of the proposition contained in the Bill; but I can find no one who has been able to put forward a single reason or argument why these exceptions should be made. As far as I have looked into the matter there are 23 boroughs which will stand in the condition of dual constituencies, while all the other boroughs will be single-Member constituencies. So far as I can gather the only basis upon which this proposition is made in the Bill is the one stated by the Prime Minister when he introduced it—namely, that the unity of municipal life ought to be maintained in these boroughs. But what argument can the right hon. Gentleman employ for maintaining the municipal life of a borough like Dundee, and destroying the municipal life of a borough like Aberdeen? Dundee, being a borough which now returns two Members, is to be allowed to remain un-
  1450
  cut up, while Aberdeen, which is a borough very similar in many respects to that of Dundee, is to receive an additional Member, and is to be divided into two single-Member constituencies. Surely the municipal life, of which the right hon. Gentleman spoke, will be destroyed in the case of Aberdeen by cutting up that city into two districts? Then, again, let me take the case of Leicester and Nottingham. What possible argument is there for maintaining the municipal life of Leicester and destroying the municipal life of Nottingham? I might go on multiplying these cases considerably, but I think the illustrations I have given are sufficient. If there be advantages in cutting up the municipal life of some boroughs they must equally apply to all boroughs. When the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister introduced the Bill he recommended the single-Member system. He recommended it on the ground that it would be economical. Then I want to know why, if elections in single-Member districts will be attended with economy, the principle is to be applied to Aberdeen and not to Dundee, and why it should be applied to Nottingham and not to Leicester? The right hon. Gentleman stated also that the single-Member principle went a very long way towards that which many hon. Gentlemen have at heart—namely, what is termed the representation of minorities, the representation of separate interests and pursuits, and that the adoption of the principle would lead to a large diversity of representation. Then I want to know why the 23 boroughs I have spoken of are not to enjoy that large diversity of representation which the right hon. Gentleman says is a capital object in a good electoral system? As far as I can gather there is no possible argument in favour of preserving the dual representation in the ease of these 23 boroughs, and I am unable to see why the advantages which the right hon. Gentleman says, and says truly, are conferred by the one-Member system are advantages which ought not to be applied to all the boroughs of England alike. As far as the argument is concerned, I maintain that it is altogether in one way. My Amendment involves no departure, whatever, from the principle of the Bill, but simply an extension of that principle to the whole

  1451
  of the Bill. I also contend that it is an anomaly to have 23 boroughs excluded from the general principle of the measure; but although it is an anomaly, I do not ask the Committee to reject it on that ground. I am not one of those who desire to see the Constitution of this country set out as a mathematical problem. I am not afraid of acknowledging that I have some regard myself for anomalies; but for this particular anomaly I cannot for the life of me see the slightest reason why it should be adopted, or why it should be considered a vital principle of the Bill by either one side of the House or the other. If the Committee will consent to my proposal, which is simply that all boroughs returning two or more Members should be divided into divisions, they will do away with a glaring anomaly for the existence of which no reason whatever can be assigned. I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name on the Paper.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 2, line 36, to leave out the words "mentioned in the Sixth Schedule to this Act," and insert the words "returning two or more Members,"—(Mr. Ritchie,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The hon. Member has pressed the Government very much to state whether this matter is regarded as one of those vital points which entered into the agreement between the two Parties, and I therefore think it is only right that I should say that it is a vital point of the agreement, and that the adoption of the Amendment would be a breach of the agreement. The hon. Member seemed to think that the Government have determined to draw a line, hard and sharp, with regard to Amendments, in consequence of the agreement between the two Parties, and to apply it rigidly to all hon. Members who wish in any way to alter the clauses as they appear in the Bill. Now, Sir, I hope that as we go on in Committee the hon. Member will find we are by no means disposed to draw the line rigidly, but that we shall be ready to accept, freely, Amendments which do not interfere with general principles or with the lines of
  1452
  the Bill, and which meet with the approval of the House. When Amendments are in their natural place on the Schedules, hon. Members will find that there is a disposition on the part of the Government to meet what may be the general and freely expressed wish of the House. The hon. Member has spoken of the matter now before the Committee as if it were one of mere detail; but the view that is taken of single-Member districts is, as he has fairly stated, that the boroughs generally, as well as the counties, should be divided into single-Member districts, except the City of London, and except those boroughs which, having two Members at the present time, are not to receive more than two by the Bill—that is, boroughs which gain no advantage by the Bill. I would freely admit to the hon. Member that the arrangement that has been arrived at on this subject is somewhat of a compromise between opinions of different kinds. There are persons on that side of the House, as was shown by the cheers with which the speech of the hon. Member was received, and others also on this side, who are in favour of single-Membered constituencies, while, on the other hand, there are persons of both political opinions who are opposed to them. These differences of opinion are naturally reflected in any body of persons who may act on behalf of the different political Parties in the State. As I have said, I freely admit to the hon. Member that the arrangement to which he objects is somewhat in the nature of a compromise. I am, myself, like the hon. Member, in favour of single-Membered constituencies. I believe in them in principle, and I have argued in favour of them in discussions which have taken place in this House. But there is a great deal to be said in favour of departing from that principle, if you once adopt the principle of excepting any constituencies in any part of the Bill from the general rule. The hon. Member has pointed out that we retain in the Bill the second seat in the ascending scale of boroughs up to the point of 50,000, which gives two Members, and that in those cases we divide the constituencies to which the additional seat is given into two separate districts. He asks why, as a logical conclusion, we do not adopt the same course in regard to the boroughs which have two seats

  1453
  already, and which are still to retain two under the Bill. Now, the general principle we have adopted has been to interfere as little as possible with existing interests in the middle size constituencies. We have displayed great tenderness towards them, both in regard to boroughs and counties. The hon. Member has asked upon what principle—if there is any argument or principle at all—we have been guided in the system we have adopted. We desire, as little as possible, to interfere with the unity of the boroughs which are given Representatives under this Bill. The hon. Member desires to secure the representation of minorities by providing single-Membered districts. So do I. But while it is easy to secure the fair representation of minorities in boroughs which are to have their Members increased, in boroughs having already two Members that is far less easy, for if there is a minority of a considerable size, the result, of course, would be that the minority would obtain far more than its fair share, and would, consequently, neutralize the political influence of the borough. Therefore, the representation of minorities on the single-Membered system does not apply so completely to boroughs with two Members as to boroughs having more than two Members. The hon. Member has drawn a sharp comparison between the boroughs of Dundee and Aberdeen and the boroughs of Leicester and Nottingham. Aberdeen is one of the boroughs which is to gain a double representation under this Bill, and in consideration of that fact it was thought fair that Aberdeen should be asked to submit to division into two parts. So also in the case of Leicester and Nottingham. Leicester gains no new representation, while Nottingham gains an additional Member. We have tried as little as possible to depart unnecessarily from existing arrangements. If we were to listen to the wishes of the constituencies, there can be no doubt at all that those which do not receive an accession of strength in their representation by this Bill greatly dislike the idea of being divided into equal parts. As far as I know, there is only one exception—only one out of the 23 boroughs spoken of by the hon. Member is inclined to favour a division into two parts, and that from local and personal reasons. All the
  1454
  others—22 out of 23—are opposed to the idea of division. Their view is not confined to one political Party in the State, but is shared generally by all political Parties and by the municipal authorities. Under these circumstances, I would ask the Committee to reject the Amendment of the hon. Member; but, in making that request, I will assure the hon. Member that he will find no indisposition to meet the views of the Committee generally later on in the Bill, when we come to the Schedules.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Sir, I have listened with surprise to the greater part of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. I was aware that the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie) was an Amendment inconsistent with the terms of the agreement entered into between the two Parties, and I was, of course, prepared to find that the right hon. Gentleman would call upon us, under the terms of the agreement, to resist the Amendment, and I myself was prepared to do so on being so called upon. But there was one expression of the right hon. Gentleman which somewhat surprised me, and which renders it necessary for me, at all events, to rise, in order to prevent any misunderstanding on the part of the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman has said that the proposal with regard to these 23 boroughs is in the nature of a compromise. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that he, for his own part, is in favour of single-Member constituencies. Now, if these statements are allowed to stand without any comment, it might seem to imply that there had been a difficulty between the Government and the Opposition, and that it was the Conservative negotiators who objected to that principle of single-Member constituencies. I think the more accurate account would be this. Both the Marquess of Salisbury and myself were anxious to introduce the system of single-Member districts. We considered that single-Member districts would have many advantages, and among them the great advantage of aiding in a satisfactory way, to a certain extent, the representation of minorities. After consideration upon that subject, the Government agreed to accept the principle we had striven for. It was very doubtful, however, at that time how far the principle of

  1455
  single-Member districts would be accepted by the House and the country; I and, no doubt, there was a natural hesitation in regard to introducing a principle which might turn out to be very much disliked. Therefore, a compromise was arrived at by which the Government consented to accept the principle of single-Member districts, on the whole, with the reservation that the 23 towns which at present are above the limit of 50,000 in population, which have two Members, and which are to continue to return two Members, should remain untouched. Upon that understanding, we came to the agreement at which we arrived. That, undoubtedly, is the line of the agreement, and the line by which we are prepared to abide. It is one that is clearly laid down and defined. But it does appear to me that, since the Bill was introduced, there has been a considerable change in the public feeling in regard to single-Member districts, and I should have been ready now to discuss the matter from another point of view, under what I believe to be the altered circumstances in regard to public opinion; but as the matter had been put before the Committee by Her Majesty's Government, and they express their desire to call upon us to adhere to the lines of the Bill, we shall undoubtedly do so; and I cannot, therefore, support the Amendment, although I think there is a good deal of force in the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie).
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am desirous of bearing testimony to the perfect accuracy of the right hon. Gentleman's statement, nor was the statement made by my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke) at all at variance with it. My right hon. Friend, no doubt, spoke of a compromise, and he was justified in describing the arrangement as part of a compromise; but he was thinking, not so much of a compromise between Parties, as of a compromise between principles. There were certain principles we were desirous of laying down, and, of course, there was that principle which lay at the very root of the whole measure, and which has received stronger support than any other principle—namely, the principle of population; and coming after that was
  1456
  the principle of the representation of diversity of interests—a matter in which it was only natural that hon. Gentlemen on this side should feel great anxiety, and one in which it was not the less natural that hon. Gentlemen opposite should feel greatly interested. It was considered that this representation of diversity of interests was likely to be secured by single-Member districts. To that principle the Government gave, on their part, a cheerful adherence, as being by far the best mode of solving the most difficult problem of distributing a considerable number of Members among the more populous towns of the country. In the third place, came the principle which I have referred to more than once in this House, and which I think the right hon. Gentleman himself, and other Members of the House, are disposed to value, and that principle is a disposition to respect the historical existence and the common life of the towns that for a long time have existed as communities in our Parliamentary system, and which are sufficiently large to return Members of Parliament by the votes of a considerable number of persons. That principle of common life has been very largely respected. Perhaps the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie), who moved the Amendment—and I must say in a very moderate and able manner—will allow me to correct what he said. He spoke of the 23 towns as constituting an exception and an anomaly in the framework of the Bill. Undoubtedly, it is the simple fact that they are to continue to return two Members to the House, and in that respect they may seem to constitute an anomaly. But it is to be observed that the framers of the Bill have been desirous of striking a fair balance between two principles, both of which, no doubt, conflict up to a certain point—that of respecting the unity of common municipal life transmitted through many generations. In the case of the smaller towns—that is to say, of between 15,000 and 50,000 inhabitants—there is no compensation, because there is to be only one Member, and the community of existence and interests is preserved. It is at the higher end of the scale, where the constituencies are very large, we feel that the municipal unity must be invaded, because any attempt to pre-

  1457
  serve it would be attended with great disadvantages in other respects. But with regard to the towns which now return two Members, and are to continue to return two Members under the Bill, the considerations which have operated in our minds have been two. First of all, the desire of the towns themselves to have unity of representation is not an unimportant element. Speaking generally, I believe there is a strong desire on the part of the towns which now return two Members, and which are to continue to return two, to have their unity preserved. That, as I have said, it an important element in the consideration of the matter, and we think that, unless some stronger reasons exist than have already been shown, and which may be applied to the case, it is not desirable to interfere with the municipal and historical unity of these communities. My right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke) has shown, I think, that there is a different reason which tells another way. Where you have a large town divided into five or six districts, the presumption would be that the different interests would obtain fair representation according to their magnitude and influence. Undoubtedly, it is very likely that in returning two Members, and where parties are almost equally divided, each party should return one Member, and in that case the minority would get more than it was entitled to. I admit that that is often the case now in particular towns, but it is done by the free will of the entire community. I do not object to the letting in of a second Member, although he may represent a somewhat smaller number of voters than those represented by his Colleague, provided it is done by the free will of the entire community. In the three-Member county constituencies, before the Minority Clause was introduced, where each elector had the power of giving three votes, if you will inquire into the history of the matter from the time of the first Reform Bill, it will be found that the majority had the means of appropriating the whole of the representation; but there have been a large number of cases since the Reform Bill where the minority has been allowed, under the Minority Clause, to obtain a share in the representation. Under all the circumstances of the case,
  1458
  I trust that the Committee will give its sanction to the Bill in its present state.
  SIR FREDERICK MILNERsaid, he was afraid that unless the Government consented to give way, the Committee would have to submit to the anomaly which had been pointed out by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie). As, however, he represented a constituency (York) which was largely interested in the question, he hoped to be allowed to say a few words upon it. The Bill was founded on the democratic theory that each Party of the State should be properly represented. As objections were entertained against proportional representation, or any similar system for the representation of minorities, the Government and the Opposition Leaders had agreed to adopt what was called the single-seat system. It was quite true that many hon. Members viewed that system with daily increasing dislike; but no doubt it was the fact that, however much they disliked it, they must put up with it as they best could. He quite agreed with the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie) that there was no possible argument why boroughs having more than two Representatives should, be divided into single-seat constituencies, and why even counties returning two Members should also be divided into single-Member constituencies, if the same principle were not to be extended to boroughs already returning two Members, whose representation was not changed by the provisions of the Bill. He desired to point out that a great injustice might be done in a large number of places—especially where those who held Conservative and Liberal opinions were pretty equally divided—if this Amendment were not agreed to. He would take the case of York, where, in 1884, his majority was only 21. He was not supporting the Amendment from any selfish motive, because he had good reason to believe that, owing to the curious freaks in which Her Majesty's Government had indulged during the last 18 months, his majority would be increased very largely at the next Election, in consequence of the votes of a number of patriotic Liberals who valued the interests of their country above that of Party. But, be that as it might, hon. Members would admit that in a constituency like York, where the Con-

  1459
  servative and Liberal Parties were almost equally divided, it would be a gross injustice if the opinions of each Party were not duly represented in the House of Commons. Yet, under the system proposed by the Bill, that was precisely what might happen; and if the Liberal Party in York found themselves stronger by only one vote, and all its members were whipped up by the exertions of the indefatigable 400, they might obtain both seats, and the Conservatives would have none, although the strength of the two Parties was nearly equal. It was quite evident that that would be a palpable injustice. No doubt it would be said that the same thing might happen if the borough were divided; but he would confidently assert that in no double-seated borough throughout the country, where political opinions were equally balanced, would two Liberals or two Conservatives be returned. He had not had the advantage of hearing distinctly the arguments which had been brought forward against the Amendment by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke); but he understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that, as far as possible, the Government had been anxious not to interfere with existing interests. He (Sir Frederick Milner) confessed that he could not see how, by dividing the two-seated boroughs, there would be any interference whatever with any existing interests. On the contrary, he thought it would promote existing interests, rather than interfere with them. The only arguments he had heard outside the House were—(1) that it might happen that if the borough were divided, there might not be the actual number of voters prescribed for the return of a Member to Parliament; (2) that if the double-seated boroughs had been divided, it would have thrown much extra trouble upon the Boundary Commissioners; and (3) that it might possibly have increased the Conservative strength. The first of those arguments was the only one worth glancing at; but he did not see how any hon. Member could argue that the fact that each Member was not returned by the prescribed number of voters allowed for each Member ought to prevent such a fair system from being introduced, the general principle being to divide the urban districts in the country upon a system
  1460
  which would secure uniformity as far as possible. Hitherto Her Majesty's Government had not displayed much inclination to meet the wishes of those who sat on that side of the House; but he hoped they would think twice before they rejected the Amendment, and thus perpetrate an act of injustice which would remain as a great blot upon their Bill.
  MR. WARTONsaid he only wanted to make one short practical observation. He was very glad indeed to hear, at the beginning of this discussion, right hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House say that this question was a matter of contract between both sides. It was much to be regretted that the debate on the representation of the City of London the other evening was allowed to drag on for four hours, and, after all the discussion which took place, to find that the subject had also been a matter of bargain between the two Front Benches. It was desirable on this occasion to obviate a similar misunderstanding at the earliest opportunity.
  MR. HICKSsaid that he had an Amendment upon the Paper of a very similar character to the one which had been proposed by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie). There was only this difference between the two Amendments—that his included the words "except the City of London." He wished to put a question to the Chairman upon a point of Order—namely, whether, if the Amendment of his hon. Friend were negatived, or the first part of that Amendment were rejected, he (Mr. Hicks) would then be able to move his Amendment? He hoped he had made himself distinctly understood. What he wanted to know was, whether, if the first part of the Amendment were negatived, he would be in Order in moving the one which stood directly afterwards in his (Mr. Hicks's) name?
  THE CHAIRMAN: I think the Amendment of the hon. Member is very much to the same effect as that which the Committee is now discussing. If the present Amendment is negatived, I do not think the hon. Gentleman would be in Order in moving his Amendment.
  MR. HICKSsaid, that in that case he should like to say a few words on the subject now. The hon. Member for the

  1461
  Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie) had told them that he was one of those who approved of the existing alliance between the two Front Benches. He (Mr. Hicks) was one of those who had never approved of it. He thought there was evil in it in the first instance, and the more he saw of the Bill the more he saw the liberties of the House sliding away from under their feet. Could anybody doubt it? What did the hon. and learned Member for Marylebone (Sir Thomas Chambers) tell them upon that day week? The hon. and learned Member maintained that if the Motion then before the Committee had been put in a free House, the four Members for the City of London would have been maintained. [Cries of "No!"] Yes; that was what the hon. and learned Member said, and he (Mr. Hicks) contended that the liberties of the House were being destroyed by the agreement between the two Front Benches. He came next to the question of the one seat. There again he differed from his hon. Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie). He thought the one-seat principle was bad, and the principle which the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister seemed to approve—namely, the principle of three-corner constituencies, was a much sounder one, and one that would be much better for the country. But if they were to have the single-seat constituencies, he maintained that the principle ought to be carried out universally, in the way it was to be applied to the counties and to a large number of boroughs, especially to those upon whom extended representation was to be conferred. There was no principle whatever in retaining the 23 boroughs to which reference had been made, with two seats for each borough. When the Prime Minister spoke of political life and historical life in boroughs, was there no historical life in the counties? Did not the electors in the counties desire to be retained as county voters, instead of having the counties cut up into wards with extraordinary names, which he believed the Committee would never, for one moment, retain when they came to the Schedules? If they would consult the county electors, he believed it would be found that they were unanimous in preferring to remain as counties, instead of being divided into districts. Her Majesty's Government,
  1462
  in this Bill, compelled them to become electors for divided constituencies, and yet they did not consider it necessary to apply their own convictions to the boroughs. Anyone who looked into the political constitution of the boroughs in question would find that the majority of Members they returned were supporters of this very truly Liberal Cabinet. For his own part he should certainly vote for the Amendment of his hon. Friend.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, that after the discussion which had taken place, and after what he had heard from the two Front Benches as to this question being a matter of bargain between them, he did not feel justified in asking the Committee to divide. He was certainly desirous of maintaining the bargain as far as possible, and he would not put the Committee to the trouble of a division. He thought, however, that it was a greater anomaly than the existence of these boroughs to find that the two Front Benches were in favour of the principle for which he contended, and yet that they had come to the conclusion that it was impossible for them to support it. They had had one or two reasons given for retaining these 23 boroughs from the other side of the House; but he thought that probably the real reason and the real argument had not been mentioned—namely, that for the 23 boroughs which were proposed to be retained as dual constituencies the proportion of Representatives returned was four Liberals to one Conservative.
  THE CHAIRMANasked if it was the pleasure of the Committee that the Amendment should be withdrawn? [Cries of "No!" from the Ministerial side of the House.]
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, that as the Committee would not allow the Amendment to be withdrawn he should certainly take a division upon it.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 253; Noes 44: Majority 209.—(Div. List, No. 57.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCK: Before this clause is agreed to, I am anxious to say a few words to the Committee. The House has allowed myself and hon.

  1463
  Members who agree with me to lay our views on proportional representation fully before it, and I do not propose to restate the case.
  MR. HICKSrose to Order. He was afraid that, by an accident, the Chairman had overlooked his Amendment, which was to omit the 3rd sub-section of the clause. He had certainly not heard the Chairman call upon him to move it?
  THE CHAIRMANexpressed his regret that he had overlooked the Amendment.
  MR. HICKSsaid, he presumed he would be at liberty to move it now?
  THE CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that the error I have committed, and which I sincerely regret, will prevent the hon. Member from moving the Amendment, the Question having been put, "That Clause 8 stand part of the Bill." It will, however, be open for the hon. Member to make any remarks he desires to offer to the Committee.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCK: Sir, the House has been kind enough to allow us to lay our views on proportional representation fully before it; and though this clause raises other considerations, and if the hon. Baronet the Member for Buckingham (Sir Harry Verney) goes to a division, I shall, of course, vote with him, still I do not propose to trouble the Committee by restating the case. No importance is, of course, to be attached to the division which took place on my Instruction, because it was during the dinner hour. If, indeed, we had only been defeated by 100 in a full House, when we had against us the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, and the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), that would be very encouraging. Moreover, though we had been deserted by one or two on whom we relied, we had received quite as many adhesions. Still we felt we could not reckon even in a full House on more than 150 to 200 Members. But, Sir, I am anxious to say one word more by way of explanation on the subject of chance. We have pointed out that if the second votes are distributed proportionally, there would be no element of chance whatever; but the mode we have suggested is somewhat shorter, and the chance which does, no doubt, theoretically exist, is infinitesimally small. We have stated that the odds would be 44,000 to 1 against chance making a difference of
  1464
  100 in a constituency of 25,000. We made this assertion on the authority of Mr. Stokes, the eminent Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge. This statement has been flatly contradicted by the hon. and learned Attorney General and the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board. I have in vain attempted until now to induce any of our opponents to state on what authority they contradict our statement. But at length we have extracted an answer. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board seemed to regard it as a question of Oxford Mathematics versus Cambridge Mathematics, and he stated that a distinguished Oxford authority, Mr. Dodgson, "attached a far higher value to the element of chance" than Professor Stokes had done. Much surprised that Mr. Dodgson should have made any such statement, and being only anxious to arrive at the truth, I wrote to Mr. Dodgson, and asked him if he really questioned the statement we had made. In reply, he says—
  "Dear Sir,—I have entire confidence in the accuracy of Professor Stokes's calculations, and fully accept his conclusion."
  The statement of the right hon. Baronet, therefore, entirely breaks down, and I think the Committee and the right hon. Baronet himself will feel that we have completely substantiated our statement that the amount of the element of chance is just what we stated it to be. Whether it would be worth while to take the small amount of trouble which would completely eliminate even this minute fraction, I will not, of course, now occupy the time of the Committee by discussing. My right hon. Friend denies my statement that this Bill will multiply areas or dissociate the Parliamentary constituencies from the areas of local government. I confess I cannot understand this. Take Liverpool, for instance; it will be divided into seven constituencies. Is not this multiplying areas? In how many cases I should like to know—in how many of the whole number—will the boundaries of a constituency coincide with those of a municipality? But, Sir, though we do not propose to raise the question again, we are not convinced. In Ireland we believe the effect will be disastrous. Ulster, indeed, may, and I trust will, send Loyalist Representatives; but it is ad-

  1465
  mitted on all hands that the effect of the Bill, out of Ulster, will be that our Loyalist fellow-countrymen may not obtain one, or, at any rate, not more than a single Representative. It seems unwise—might I not say it seems madness—to devise a system which will silence and exclude our friends, and give our opponents far more political power than under any just system they could fairly claim. Sir, I repeat that though we do not propose to raise the question again here, we are not convinced. The effect of this clause will be to lower the character of this House; in large districts of the country it will entirely exclude the minority from any share of representation; about once in every four General Elections it will give the minority in the country a majority in this House; and, lastly, as has been pointed out by every bon. Member from Ireland, to whichever side he may belong, it will silence and exclude our loyal fellow-countrymen in Ireland, and thus practically handing over the whole representation of Ireland, excepting parts of Ulster, to the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), will render the maintenance of the Union far more difficult, or perhaps render it impossible. We have done our best to prevent this, to warn our countrymen, and to avert these misfortunes. If any exertions of ours could induce the House and the country to pause before adopting a course so suicidal, no efforts on our part would be wanting; but we feel that in this House, at least, any further struggle would be useless. We shall continue our exertions in the country; but so far as the present clause is concerned, we are unwilling to give the Committee unnecessary trouble, and will therefore content ourselves with a respectful protest, and with the expression of an earnest hope that the country may in some way be spared the evils which we foresee, but which we are powerless to avert.
  MR. HICKSsaid, he very much regretted that in consequence of the unfortunate, although, he was certain, unintentional, mistake on the part of the Chairman, be was not in a position to move the Amendment of which he had given Notice in regard to Sub-section 3, and that, therefore, he was compelled to trouble the Committee with a few remarks on the subject. They had been told more than once that the Bill was
  1466
  not intended to deprive anyone of his vote; but this Sub-section 3 did deprive electors of their votes. It introduced an entirely new principle into the mode of carrying out the registration of the electors of the country. From the time of the first Reform Bill, persons possessing freeholds in different counties, or in different divisions of the same county, had exercised a right of voting in those several counties and in those several divisions. In this great Metropolis, which nobody could look upon but as one town, it was perfectly capable for an elector to have votes for Westminster, Marylebone, and the City of London. In the same way, the cities of Manchester and Salford were close together, and the same elector might have votes for both. But by this sub-section of Clause 8, it was for the first time proposed that this right of a person to vote in two counties or two boroughs should be abolished. [Sir CHARLES W. DILKE: That is not so.] He (Mr. Hicks) thought that be was quite right. The words were—
  "Where any Parliamentary borough is divided into divisions in pursuance of this section a person shall not be registered as entitled to vote and shall not vote in more than one such division."
  That was the point, and he maintained that it involved the introduction of an entirely new principle, and that a disfranchising principle. If it was to be applied to the City of Manchester, it might be applied to counties, and to the division of counties; to counties returning two Members, and to borough districts. He thought it was the introduction, almost clandestinely, of the thin end of the wedge of the "one man one vote" principle. It was the most democratic proposal ever made in that House. It had been contended that every man bad a right to a share in the representation of the country; but there was a great difference between an equal right to a share, and a right to an equal share. That was no new doctrine, nor was it a Tory doctrine. It was the opinion of a man who lived years ago, and was considered rather an advanced Member of the Radical Party—Horne Tooke. Horne Tooke said that he would give every man a vote for every bit of property he bad in every parish. Home Tooke contended, and he (Mr. Hicks) thought he contended fairly, that the

  1467
  larger a man's property the greater the stake he had in the country, and the greater the interest. It had been contended that one man's all was equal to another man's all. But that could not be true, because the all of a man advanced in life could not be recovered, while the all of a young man of 25, if destroyed, might be recovered. The right hon. Baronet the President of the Local Government Board shook his head at that statement. There was doubt that it had not been introduced into the Reform Bill of 1832, or into any subsequent Reform Bill. He found, however, that it was useless in the present temper of the Committee to oppose the clause as it stood; but he hoped on some future occasion to have the opportunity of raising the subject again.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the hon. Member did not quite understand the effect of the sub-section, or he would not have said that the clause was a disfranchising clause. No person was disfranchised by this sub-section. The hon. Member stated that at the present moment a man could vote for all the divisions of a county, or in two counties; so he could under this Bill. No doubt the principle was objected to, and it was intended to raise the question by Amendments to be moved later on. The hon. Member stated that, under the existing system, a person might vote in more than one Parliamentary borough. Under this Bill a man would still be able to vote for more than one Parliamentary borough, and even for a greater number of boroughs than he could vote for at present, because there would be a larger number of Parliamentary boroughs than now existed. The number of the Parliamentary boroughs in the Metropolis, for instance, was increased by the Bill seven-fold. The hon. Member stated that at present a man could vote for Salford, and also for Manchester; so he could under this Bill, The Bill disfranchised no one; but at present a man could not vote several times in Birmingham, and the Bill did not alter that state of things. A man for municipal purposes was prohibited by law from voting for every municipal division, and the municipal law was applied by the Bill to Parliamentary elections in boroughs. Probably, when they came to deal with the Amendments which proposed to prohibit persons from
  1468
  voting for more than one county, or more than one borough, he would find himself in the same Lobby as the hon. Member; but that question was not raised by the present sub-section.
  MR. HICKSsaid, he had listened with great attention to the right hon. Baronet; but he still maintained that the logical consequence of this section was to disfranchise men who had property in more than one part of a borough. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of Birmingham, and had stated that no one would be disfranchised. At the present time the electors of Birmingham had three Representatives, and every elector could vote for two of them. In future the borough would be divided into wards, and each elector would only be allowed to vote for one. What he wanted to know was, why an elector, having a residence in one district and a place of business and property in another, should not be entitled to two votes as he would be under the same circumstances in Manchester and Sal-ford;? There was no principle whatever in the case; and the Government were halting on this occasion—as they did on the last clause—between two opinions.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEthought the hon. Member had better not insist too strongly that there was no principle in the clause. Certainly in the boroughs the rating principle prevailed, whereas in the county elections the only principle involved was the possession of property. In a borough it was far easier to defend the retention of a name on the Register than it was in a county division. There was a common authority for registration purposes in the same town; but in regard to the county registration that was not the ease.
  MR. GORSTsaid, that no doubt the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Hicks) was perfectly right in stating that this clause introduced a new principle. It might not carry it further than it was carried by the present law; but if it were carried to its logical effect it would be the "one man one vote" principle. Hon. Members below the Gangway appeared to be anxious to smuggle through the Bill, without its real effect being understood. All he wanted to point out was that this was a new principle introduced into their electoral system. Hitherto no man had

  1469
  been debarred from voting in one Parliamentary constituency because he happened to possess a vote for another. Where the county or borough was large, and the constituencies were separated, any man could vote for each if he were upon the Register and possessed the qualification. This clause for the first time introduced this new principle—that in a limited number of constituencies carved out of what had previously been a single borough, although a man might possess votes in each separate constituency, he was prohibited by law from voting in more than one. He would not now discuss whether that principle was right or wrong. It was carried to so small an extent in the present case that it was hardly worth while fighting about except as a question of principle. He supposed that this was one of the points which had been considered and agreed to between the Leaders of both [political Parties. At the same time, he must enter a protest against the danger of allowing a precedent to be set in this particular case, which, if carried to its logical consequence hereafter, would introduce a new principle into their legislation.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENDRY JAMES)said, that no new principle was introduced by the clause. He thought his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Gorst) was mistaken in supposing that each ward or division of a borough was a constituency. Now, the borough was a constituency. It was only a Parliamentary town divided into divisions. The old principle was that one man might vote for more than one borough if he possessed the necessary qualification in each. That principle was still maintained; but by dividing a borough into different divisions each Member returned still remained a Representative of a borough, although for different divisions. At present, in the case of Birmingham, the Members returned were Members for Birmingham; and under this Bill the Members for Birmingham would not be Members of different constituencies in the borough, but for the borough of Birmingham. The only difference would be that, whereas at present each Member for the borough was one out of three, he would in future be one out of eight, and no elector would lose any portion of the privilege he now enjoyed.
  MR. MACARTNEYsaid, that the right hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial Bench maintained that there was a principle in the Bill, whereas his hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Hicks) maintained that there was no principle in it. Now, he did not altogether agree with his hon. Friend. He was reminded of the man who spoke of the seven senses, who, when told that there were only five, said—"Yes, there are five ordinary senses, but in addition to the five there are good sense and bad sense." In the same way he maintained that in this Bill there was a principle; but it was an abominable, bad, and unfair one. At present, if there were two Members, each elector could vote for two; but under this Bill no voter would be able to vote for more than one. It was all very well to say that the same elector might vote in different county divisions, or in different boroughs; but how would that be possible if it were provided that all the elections took place on the same day? Such a provision would effectually prevent persons who had votes for different constituencies from exercising the franchise. It certainly seemed to him that the Bill disfranchised those who ought to have a vote, and enfranchised those who ought not to have it.
  MR. NORWOODdesired to call attention to what he believed to be an omission in the Bill. Under the Bill, however many qualifications a man might possess in the same borough, he would only be able to vote for one district. He failed, however, to see that there was any provision made by which the Revising Barrister could prescribe the district in which such voter should record his vote. In the case of a borough returning three Members in three separate wards or divisions there would be a considerable number of persons who would possess the necessary qualification for a vote in each division. Certainly the division in which such persons should exercise the vote ought not to be left to chance; and he could not help feeling that there ought to be some provision giving the voter the option of signifying the district in which he desired to vote, or failing such an expression of opinion on the part of the voter, the Revising Barrister should have the right of assigning the voter to any division he thought right. For instance, if

  1471
  a man had a residence in one division, and did not express a desire to exercise the vote in another, an arrangement might be made by which his place of residence would be selected as a qualification. As he read the Bill, it contained no provision to meet that serious difficulty; and he thought it would be a serious difficulty in reference to boroughs divided into three or four districts, unless some machinery were provided to say where a man who possessed a qualification in more than one ward should vote.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the question raised by his hon. Friend was one rather for a Registration than for a Redistribution Bill. The point would not be overlooked, and would be dealt with in the Registration Bill.
  MR. LEWISsaid, the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Hicks) had remarked that this was the thin end of the wedge; but it seemed to him (Mr. Lewis) that a material element in the case had been overlooked. In some parts of the Metropolis the Bill would materially increase the number of votes one man might have. Take the case of Marylebone. At present an elector for Marylebone voted for Marylebone, although he might have property in Paddington and St. Panoras. By the division of Marylebone into three boroughs the same man would have a vote for each. So, also, in the case of the division of the present boroughs of Chelsea, Hackney, and Lambeth. He could refer to many cases in which there would be an increase of the franchise rather than the disfranchisement which was suggested by the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire. There were many persons in London who had establishments scattered all over the Metropolis, some of them having as many as 16 or 17, and they would be entitled to some six or eight votes, if not more.
  MR. GORSTsaid, that he had not overlooked that point; but what he contended was that this clause involved the introduction of a new principle. He was quite aware that in the Metropolis, where, as a matter of fact, the number of boroughs would be increased, plurality of votes would be very much increased, and the same man might have more votes than one. That arose from the fact that in the Metropolis the prin-
  1472
  ciple of division of wards into districts was not rigidly applied. There might be reasons for it in other cases, such as his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General had given; but certainly in Parliamentary matters and in Parliamentary voting a new principle was about to be brought in. He wished to know, as he had failed to gather any information from the President of the Local Government Board or the Attorney General, whether this principle was only to be acted upon for the day, and was to be thrown overboard whenever a more Democratic Parliament was elected? He was not inclined to carry the matter further. All he said was that he agreed with the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Hicks) that it was the introduction of the thin end of the wedge, and the establishment of a principle which might hereafter be carried very much further.
  SIR HARRY VERNEYentertained very strong objections to the principle proposed to be established by this clause. He was convinced that under the proposed plan there would be a less independent class of Members returned than was formerly the ease, and he recollected pointing that out when the Bill was first brought into the House last Session. He regretted that the division of the boroughs into single-Member constituencies had been made a vital part of the Bill. He believed that what the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Hicks) had stated was quite true, and it was a misfortune to the country that the two Front Benches had come to an agreement. For his own part, he was very much inclined to rebel, and to invite the Committee to join with him in an act of rebellion. At present the Committee were altogether without information. They were in absolute ignorance of the grounds on which the two Front Benches had come to an agreement; and if such arrangements were to be entered into, it would be absurd to discuss any question that might be submitted to the Committee. He maintained that there were several provisions in the Bill which, if they had been discussed by the Committee separately without the existence of this understanding, would not have been accepted—for instance, the Committee would have, undoubtedly, rejected the proposal to increase the total number of the Members of the House. That

  1473
  question had already been discussed all over the country, and a general opinion had been expressed that it was not desirable to increase the number of Members. Certainly he should have thought that advantage would have been taken of so good an opportunity for reducing the number of seats given to Ireland. He fully appreciated the qualities of the Irish people. He was well acquainted with them, having a large body of Irishmen always in his own employment, and he had never had the slightest occasion to complain of the conduct of any of his Irish labourers. He had known 80 or 90 of them formerly employed in his own neighbourhood to get in the harvest, numbers now reduced to 40 or 50, and reposed the greatest confidence in them. At the same time, he could not see that any good or adequate reason had been given for preserving the present over-representation of Ireland. It must be borne in mind that the population of Ireland had been brought down from 7,000,000 to 5,000,000, and it was impossible to say where the diminution would end. In the event of the population being reduced to 1,000,000, was the existing representation still to be maintained?
  THE CHAIRMAN: I am afraid I must point out to the hon. Baronet that the question of the representation of Ireland is not involved in this clause.
  SIR HARRY VERNEYsaid, he would apologize if he had, inadvertently, transgressed the Rules of the House. He would only add that he entertained a strong objection to the compulsory division of boroughs. He thought that the compulsory division of boroughs would in the future very much diminish, if not permanently injure, the character of the House of Commons.
  MR. WARTONasked whether Subsection 3 was included among the articles of agreement come to between the Leaders of the two front Benches? [Sir CHARLES W. DILKE: No; it is not.] He (Mr. Warton) would like, under those circumstances, to make this observation. He thought it was extremely wrong in drafting the Bill to have one part of the clause a part of the bargain, and another part not. It would be much more advantageous if those portions of the Bill which were matters of agreement had been contained in separate clauses, while other parts which
  1474
  were not matters of agreement were put in a separate part of the Bill.
  Clause agreed to.
  Counties.
  Clause 9 (Division of counties].
  MR. MACARTNEYsaid, ho had an Amendment upon the Paper to insert, after the word "Schedule," in page 3, line 12, the words—
  "Except such counties as shall hereinafter by the provisions of this Act he deprived of one Member."
  He believed, however, that after the arrangements that had been made between the Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition, the proposal of any Amendment was like throwing water into a sieve. He had put the Amendment on the Paper with the intention of moving it, and of ventilating the point which it involved in the Committee; but he believed that he would be able to do so at a future stage of the Bill, and, therefore, he would not put the Committee to the trouble of discussing the Amendment now.
  MR. PICTON MR. PICTON moved, in page 3, line 19, after "Schedule," insert—
  "Where any county is divided into divisions in pursuance of this section, a person shall not be registered as entitled to vote, and shall not vote, in more than one such division."
  He ventured to differ from the hon. Member who had just spoken, and who seemed to think that it was altogether useless to propose any Amendment in that House. In spite of recent occurrences he should press his Amendment, because he remembered that in the course of the Autumn Session the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister stated, in answer to a Question, that hon. Members would be just as much at liberty to discuss the various parts of the Bill and to propose Amendments as they would have been if no agreement with the Opposition had been come to. He, therefore, intended to press this Amendment upon the consideration of the Committee, and he would do so in a very few words. As he gathered from the explanations which had been given by Members of the Government, the Bill was not intended to be a measure of disfranchisement, nor was it intended to do away with everything in the shape of an anomaly; but it was not designed

  1475
  to multiply the individual power of voting, nor to increase any insidious anomalies under which the constituencies already suffered. Now, his contention was that the operation of Clause 9, as at present drawn, would be enormously to multiply the individual voting power, and that it ought to be prevented. He would take, for instance, the case of Middlesex. A voter who had one vote now might easily have seven votes under this clause. A voter in the county of Leicester, where his own constituency was situated, was at present able to give two votes for the county; but under this clause he would be able to give four votes, and even greater advantages were given in the case of large landowners, who had estates scattered over several divisions of a great county. He could not think that the Government intended, to this excessive degree, to multiply the individual voting power; and, therefore, he could not see why they should not apply to the counties the same provision which had been applied to boroughs. He had no wish to deprive the voters in separate divisions of a county of the number of votes they now possessed. For instance, if a gentleman had estates in North Lancashire, in North-East Lancashire, in South Lancashire, and in South-West Lancashire, he did not propose that he should be deprived of any of the privileges he now enjoyed; but what he desired was to prevent the separate votes he now possessed from being split up into a number of new ones for the additional constituencies created by the Bill. He thought these were sufficient reasons for urging this objection; and, therefore, without further observations, having explained what the point was he had in view, he begged to submit the Amendment to the Committee.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 3, line 12, after the word "Schedule," to insert the words "Where any county is divided into divisions in pursuance of this section, a person shall not be registered as entitled to vote, and shall not vote, in more than one such division."—(Mr. Picton.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that personally he was very much disposed in the abstract to agree with the views of his hon. Friend. ["Oh!"] He was expressing his opinion as an indi-
  1476
  vidual, and that he had a perfect right to do. ["No !"] There had been some correspondence between an hon. and learned Gentleman sitting on the Front Bench opposite and himself as to the length to which parties to the agreement on the Bill could go in expressing their individual opinions; and from the answer he had received he believed that he had satisfied the hon. and learned Gentleman that his view was right. He was simply expressing his own individual view. The Amendment was one which, in his opinion, would, if adopted by the Committee, destroy the framework of the Bill. It dealt with a question of the franchise, and had nothing to do with the redistribution of seats; and upon that ground he should strongly oppose it. It was, in point of fact, a disfranchising proposal. He himself, as he had repeatedly stated in the discussion of the Franchise Bill, shared the views of those who desired to confine a man to one vote, with the right of exercising it in any portion of the country he chose, provided that he had the necessary qualification. But that was not a proposition which the Government could accept as a portion of the settlement of the question. The existing system of property representation had been, with the approval of the House of Commons, largely retained in the Franchise Bill; and, under those circumstances, it would be a great mistake to depart from the principles of that Bill in the provisions of the Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) Bill. Therefore, as the Amendment related to the subject of disfranchisement, and had nothing to do with redistribution, he felt bound to oppose it. His hon. Friend might contend that his Amendment would not apply to counties the principle which the Bill applied to boroughs. That might be so, but it was not the argument they had to deal with. The framers of the Bill had followed the present law in drawing a distinction between boroughs and counties. By the Bill they divided the boroughs for the first time, and in effecting the division they followed the municipal law, which forbade a man from voting for two divisions for the same qualification. But the counties had been divided for Parliamentary purposes from time immemorial, and since 1832 they had been largely divided. In reality each division of a borough and

  1477
  each division of a county were separate boroughs and counties for Parliamentary purposes. Therefore the adoption of the Amendment would introduce an entirely new principle. The Bill not only followed the present law, which treated each division as a unit, but they also acknowledged the existence of a double qualification, which had for years been recognized in the case of different counties and boroughs. The county qualification, which was a property vote, had been discussed on the Franchise Bill, and the House had decided to retain it. Therefore there was another reason for drawing a distinction in the case of county divisions and borough districts. He might point out to his hon. Friend that if he were to carry the Amendment it would substantially convert the whole of Yorkshire into one county for Parliamentary purposes.
  MR. PICTONsaid, that might be expressly guarded against by the insertion of the words "new divisions."
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he had taken the words as they stood upon the Paper, together with the speech of his hon. Friend; and he failed to see how any distinction was drawn. His hon. Friend now offered to limit his proposal to "new divisions;" but in some cases a new division would not be altogether a new division—such, for instance, as the West Biding of Yorkshire. In boroughs the same condition of things did not exist, and it would be very difficult for his hon. Friend to word his Amendment in such a way that it would carry out the principle he recommended. The Amendment, however, was altogether outside the scope of the Bill; and it not only raised franchise questions, but new franchise questions, which were not raised in the discussions on the Franchise Bill last year, or in the discussions upon the Bill of the present Session. He was of opinion that if the Committee were to insert extraneous matter in the Bill they might jeopardize the settlement which had now happily been arrived at, and therefore he must resist the Amendment.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he thought the insertion of the Amendment would not only jeopardize the agreement arrived at, but would overturn it altogether. The hon. Member who proposed the Amendment supported it on the ground of what was
  1478
  called the "one man one vote" system. He (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) was certainly surprised to hear the right hon. Baronet express his approval of that system.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEremarked that he had done so in the discussions upon the Franchise Bill.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, that in those circumstances he was still more surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should, as a Member of the Cabinet, have given his adhesion to a Franchise Bill which did not carry out his own principles. That Bill avowedly retained the leasehold and the freehold, franchise. And it was essential that the right of exercising these franchises should be continued to non-residents, unless the leasehold and freehold franchise was to be abolished altogether. He had no desire to enter at length into the arguments for retaining the law as it stood, because the right hon. Baronet had fairly stated that county voters had always possessed the right of voting for different divisions of the same county; and it was perfectly clear, as the right hon. Gentleman had shown to the Committee, that if the Amendment of the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Picton) were adopted it would have a disfranchising effect of a very extraordinary character. There was hardly a county in England which was not included in the 7th Schedule referred to in the clause under the consideration of the Committee. He would take the case of his own county (Gloucestershire). At present it was divided into two divisions, and a voter was able, if he had the necessary qualification, to vote in each division; but by the Bill it would be divided into five divisions, and if the Amendment were carried, the voter, instead of being able to vote, as at present, in two divisions, would be restricted to the one in which he resided. That would be the case all over England, and would apply to the great county of Yorkshire as well as elsewhere. If such a proposal were to be seriously made it would require very grave consideration; and he thought the hon. Member would find that it would be resisted, not only in that House, but throughout the country, in a way he could hardly anticipate. He did not believe there was the slightest prospect of the Amendment being accepted, and therefore it was not worth

  1479
  while that he should detain the Committee further on the matter.
  MR. MACARTNEYwished to say a word in reference to the observation which had been made by the right hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to intimate that the conduct of right hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side of the House was different from his own. [Sir CHARLES W. DILKE: I did not say so.] He (Mr. Macartney) hoped that he was mistaken in the matter; but, at all events, the right hon. Gentleman on several occasions had taken the trouble to point out to the followers of the Prime Minister that instead of the provisions of the Bill being the result of conviction, after negotiation, he did not personally agree with some of the principles contained in the measure, although he was prepared to support them; and on more than one occasion he had foreshadowed that although he was bound now to adhere to the terms of the agreement he would be free to upset them in a future Parliament. This action on the part of the right hon. Baronet seemed to be a strong hint to Members sitting on the opposite side of the House, and especially to those below the Gangway, that they were perfectly free to oppose the Bill if they thought fit to do so, and to follow the line he had indicated. The hint had apparently been taken by some hon. Members in the case of the Amendment relating to University representation, and in another instance in which the lead was taken by the Prime Minister himself.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, he wished to point out what was the effect of the words of the right hon. Baronet. As he understood the case, the Committee were discussing part of a Bill which had been agreed upon by the heads of the two great Parties in the House for the settlement of the Reform Question, and that the right hon. Baronet himself was pledged to vote for the settlement so agreed upon. If, then, the right hon. Baronet got up and said that the Amendment was one of which, although he was bound to vote against it, he was personally in favour, it appeared to him that he was by so doing upsetting the very idea of agreement. He would endeavour to give an idea of the position by a reference to another subject. They were at present engaged
  1480
  in important negotiations with a Foreign Power. Supposing that the Russian Plenipotentiary were to say that, although a document he might sign should be represented as an agreement, yet his private opinion was opposed to it; would it not be taken that that agreement was not to be observed? He was sure that the right hon. Baronet would loyally carry out the bargain entered into; but he (Lord George Hamilton) felt bound to deprecate such language, because it undoubtedly tended to raise false expectations on the part of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. If they were to understand that these two Bills were to be a settlement of the question, that settlement ought to be a permanent one.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he thought the noble Lord might satisfy his mind on this subject; he would simply ask him to read a letter which he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had written to the hon. and learned Member for Launceston (Sir Hardinge Giffard).
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, he had stated that he was sure that the right hon. Baronet would loyally carry out the agreement; but he could not help deprecating the practice of making reservations which tended to weaken that agreement.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he might refer, perhaps, to the fact that similar reservations had been made on the other side of the House.
  MR. PICTONsaid, that the best reply to the noble Lord was that he was willing to withdraw his Amendment. He was perfectly satisfied with the expressions which had fallen from the right hon. Baronet.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Clause agreed to.

PART II.

  SUPPLEMENTAL PROVISIONS.
  Clause 10 (Qualification by occupation of premises in immediate succession in divided borough).
  MR. FIRTHsaid, the Amendments which he had put on the Paper were not exactly after the nature of Amendments, but were in the way of extending the provisions of Clause 10, so as to prevent there being in London absolute disfranchisement of a large number of persons. The right hon. Gentleman

  1481
  the Leader of the Opposition had the other night, as he understood, expressed the idea that this Bill should not be a disfranchising Bill. As it stood at present, however, it was a disfranchising Bill, and, as regarded London, to a very large degree. He believed it would affect a good many thousand votes in London in this way. At the present time the law was that there might be qualification occupation by succession within the particular limits of any borough; and with respect to large boroughs outside London—as, for example, Liverpool and Manchester—that provision and power was maintained, but with respect to boroughs in London divided on parish lines that power was not retained. At the present time it was possible for persons to move from Hammersmith to Fulham and from Fulham to Kensington and preserve their right of voting; but under this Bill in future it would not be possible for a man to move into any one of the boroughs into which London was divided without losing his qualification. Clause 10 as it now stood was not intended to preserve that right; and, therefore, so far as those who now resided in large London boroughs moved from one part to another, unless they remained in the same parish, this measure would in respect of them be a disfranchising measure, and a disfranchising measure to a very large extent indeed. With one or two exceptions, there was no common stereotyped character about the London borough boundary line as it existed now. There was an Amendment on the Paper, put down by the right hon. Gentleman the junior Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Raikes), which had apparently the object of preserving the existing boundary lines. He admitted that if that clause were passed this Amendment would not proceed; but when it was reached he believed it would be shown that it was not a practical clause which could be inserted in the Bill. Dealing, therefore, with the Bill as it stood, he thought the clause would be a largely disfranchising provision. He had suggested that there should be occupation in immediate succession with respect to parts of the Metropolis. Now, for his purpose it must be admitted that the Metropolis was as much one town as were the many towns which would re-
  1482
  tain this power. They found constantly that people who only moved from their houses one street or two lost their qualification according to the part into which they moved. He did not suggest that his proposal should be extended to the lodger qualification; it was purely a household qualification, and it was suggested in the clause that it should apply throughout the whole Metropolis. Of course, if this were a crude and vague suggestion, standing alone without any intimation of the manner in which it should be carried out, it might be urged that it had not been properly placed before the Committee. Therefore he had added a subsequent clause, by which the Committee would see that the provision would be easily and fairly carried out. The clause was as follows:—
  "Where a person qualified by occupation (otherwise than as a lodger) to be registered as a voter shall, during the period of qualification, have moved, in immediate succession, from one Metropolitan constituency to another, he may claim in succession, provided that, in addition to his claim, he shall deliver to the overseers a declaration showing the nature, description, and period of the qualification in the constituency from which he has moved, such declaration to be certified, after due inquiry into the correctness thereof, by the overseers of the parish in which such qualification was situated, who shall make and publish a list of the persons making such declarations, and in all cases where they are certified as correct the Revising Barrister shall insert the names of such persons in the list for the constituency in which they are resident. It shall be the duty of the overseers on whom the said certified declaration shall be served, immediately on its receipt, to obtain from the certifying overseers a duly certified copy thereof, which copy shall be open for inspection at such hours, and in like manner, as are claims and objections."
  That he was told by those who were more experienced than himself was a perfectly practical way of carrying his proposal into effect. Now, the number of votes his proposal would affect in London had not been exactly calculated; but according to the most reliable estimate they would amount to something like 15,000 or an average, practically, of about 1,500 votes for each of the existing Metropolitan boroughs. The Bill, therefore, was a disfranchising measure, to the extent that it divided existing boroughs. Those who were familiar with the London parish system would agree that no serious harm could accrue to the principle of his Amendment being extended to the whole of the Metropolis. He had not raised the larger question as

  1483
  to the extension of the principle to the country generally; but merely proposed to apply it to the Metropolitan area, of which he had considerable knowledge.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 3, line 35, at end of the Clause, to add the words—"The occupation in immediate succession of different premises situate within any part of the Metropolis, as defined by 'The Metropolis Management Act, 1855,' shall, for the purpose of qualifying a person for voting in any Parliamentary borough or division of a Parliamentary borough within the Metropolis, in respect of occupation (otherwise than as a lodger), have the same effect as if all such premises were situate in that borough or division in which the premises occupied by such person at the end of the period of qualification are situate.
  "Where a person qualified by occupation (otherwise than as a lodger) to be registered as a voter shall, during the period of qualification, have moved, in immediate succession, from one Metropolitan constituency to another, he may claim in succession, provided that, in addition to his claim, he shall deliver to the overseers a declaration showing the nature, description, and period of the qualification in the constituency from which he has moved, such declaration to be certified, after due inquiry into the correctness thereof, by the overseers of the parish in which such qualification was situated, who shall make and publish a list of the persons making such declarations, and in all cases where they are certified as correct the Revising Barrister shall insert the names of such persons in the list for the constituency in which they are resident. It shall be the duty of the overseers on whom the said certified declaration shall be served, immediately on its receipt, to obtain from the certifying overseers a duly certified copy thereof, which copy shall be open for inspection at such hours, and in like manner, as are claims and objections."—(Mr. Firth.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  MR. WARTON MR. WARTON rose to Order. The Committee had just passed a clause of the Bill which laid down a general principle with regard to existing occupation in Parliamentary boroughs. Now, the proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman was to extend that general principle in the case of the Metropolis; and he therefore asked whether that could be done without indicating that it was done by way of Proviso or exception? It appeared to him that some such words as "Provided that" were required, because the proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman in its present form was really contrary to the principle which had been adopted by the Committee.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, he had considered the point raised by the hon. and
  1484
  learned Gentleman with reference to the proposed Amendment, and he was of opinion that the Amendment was in Order.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he felt a considerable amount of difficulty with regard to this Amendment, because the general lines on which the Government wished to proceed were very clear, and were not easily applicable to this case. They did not wish to raise any enfranchising or disfranchising questions on this Bill, which provided solely for the redistribution of seats. But in the particular case of the Metropolis, it was difficult for them, as far as he could see, exactly to carry out that general principle. They must, he feared, either enfranchise or disfranchise as regarded the Metropolis. The difficulty was, that London was divided into four boroughs by the Bill, each having one Member. Now, at the present time, if a voter moved from one part of a borough to another he would still be on the Register; in future, if he moved from one part of Kensington, for instance, to another, he would be entitled to vote; but if he moved from any one of the four boroughs to another he would not get on the Register. The Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend would, therefore, enfranchise very largely, because it would allow any person to vote who moved from any part of London to another. For that reason he did not see his way to any middle course, which would, by the application of any provision, meet the views of his hon. and learned Friend, and keep things at the same time in their present position. It had been suggested that the Government might keep the Parliamentary boroughs of the Metropolis for the purpose of successive occupation registration; but as the Bill was not for any purpose of that kind, he thought it would be a very inconvenient course to take, and one which it would be impossible to adopt. He would like to hear the opinion of some of those who were largely interested in the Bill, as to whether this Amendment would not have a large enfranchising effect altogether outside the Bill; and, on the other hand, he would like to hear the opinions of those who objected to the Government being compelled to disfranchise, owing to what appeared to him to be unavoidable circumstances. With regard to the gene-

  1485
  ral argument of his hon. and learned Colleague, there could be no doubt that his plan, if workable, would be applicable to the whole country; and, therefore, there appeared no reason why it should be limited to the Metropolis alone, if it would work without any risk of fraud. He agreed with his hon. and learned Friend with regard to the community of interest in the Metropolis; but there was no common authority which could efficiently represent the affairs of each particular person in the four quarters of the Metropolis. There was greater risk of fraud in London than in other boroughs of the country. If a man moved from Hammersmith to Poplar, for instance, he would be as much lost sight of for registering purposes as if he were to move from St. Andrew's to Poplar. The case of Wesleyan ministers, which had been referred to, was especially hard; they were moved every three years, and the result was that they hardly got on the Register until they were about to leave the place in which they had resided for that period. But that was due to the length of residence which the present law required. They had in this country an extraordinarily prolonged period of actual residence required for qualification—nominally one year's residence, but practically a residence of two or two and a half years. That being so, it was a question whether in any future reform proposed there should not be a provision for bringing the period of residence required for registration more closely into connection with the date at which the resident came into the place. He thought that shortening the period of residence was a matter which ought to be considered. As regarded the particular Bill before the Committee, he feared there would be no general consent in all parts of the House to the introduction of such a general enfranchisement as the Amendment of his hon. and learned Colleague would cover, and without that he did not think the Government could entertain the Amendment.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, if there were no other reasons, the observation of the right hon. Baronet would be a strong reason against the acceptance of this clause, because it was very obvious that a number of questions would be opened up by it, which ought to be
  1486
  discussed and dealt with, and which could not be conveniently dealt with in a Bill of this character, which was for the purpose of a redistribution of seats. He thought, under the particular circumstances in which they were placed, having regard to the history of the Bill, that the right hon. Gentleman would agree that it would be entirely outside the object they had in view and the spirit of the agreement entered into, if they were to introduce into the Bill matter which did not properly belong to the redistribution of electoral areas, but appertained to questions of franchise or registration. Therefore he hoped the Government would decline to accept the Amendment which the hon. and learned Member had proposed. He thought it perfectly clear that such an Amendment would be to a very large degree adverse to the spirit of the principle of the Bill—he referred to the one-Member districts—and the endeavour to concentrate as much as possible the electorate which each Member was to look to. Their object had been, in this arrangement, to make the electorate as reasonably small as they could, and by that means to bring candidates into closer relation with the electors. But if they were to introduce a principle of this kind, and in such a way as would admit of the principle being carried out all over the country, they would in part destroy that which it was their desire to maintain—namely, the close connection between the Member and the electorate; because by this Amendment was given almost unlimited power of increasing the electorate, and making it what he might call an artificial electorate. Under the working of the hon. and learned Member's clause, it would be competent, for instance, for the hon. and learned Member, if he were inclined, for the purpose of obtaining a larger majority in his own borough—it would be competent for him or his agents to sweep up a number of supporters and bring them from the Tower Hamlets or Greenwich to vote in his borough, with which they had had no previous connection. That would be to destroy what he might call the domestic character of the measure, and it would be at variance with the principle of continuous occupation in the existing boroughs. The boroughs were recognized as the home of the voters who voted there according to occupation. They said to the voter—

  1487
  "If you remove from one street to another street you shall not lose your qualification, because you will still belong to the same constituency as before;" but if they adopted the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman they would be bringing in strangers from a considerable distance, who would not have the same moral right to vote which long residence conferred. The hon. and learned Gentleman had made allusion to the position of Wesleyan ministers. He said they were generally appointed to their several cures for periods of three years, and that before they were well on the Register they had to be taken off, because they had to go away. But that was the case with them, not only in the Metropolis, but throughout the country. A Wesleyan minister might be moved from Exeter to Plymouth or anywhere else, and it would be very difficult to meet such cases. If they were to meet the claim of the Metropolis in this respect, they would find it difficult to refuse to do so with regard to the boroughs throughout the country, and the result would be to bring forward that which the Bill did not encourage. They would be tending towards bringing into the constituencies the whole of England so to speak, instead of giving and maintaining to them a domestic character. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see that the clause could not properly be brought into the Bill, and that, under the circumstances, the Committee would not have to discuss it any further.
  MR. BRYCEpointed out that whatever might be the force of the argument of the right hon. Baronet the Leader of the Opposition, that the principle of the Amendment proposed would be applicable to the country at large, the Committee were then only engaged in discussing its applicability to the Metropolis. Unless the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend were adopted, this would be a heavily-disfranchising Bill so far as the Metropolis was concerned. The constituency which here presented (Tower Hamlets) was, according to the Bill, to be divided into no less than five different boroughs; and the clause, as it stood, must necessarily disfranchise the large number of persons who had recently moved from one part of the district to another. He understood the argument against his hon. and learned
  1488
  Friend's proposal to rest on the ground that persons would be placed on the Register who were unacquainted with the localities. But those who knew the people in the localities of the Metropolis knew that their migrations were mostly within narrow limits. They migrated, for instance, in the part of London which he represented, for the most part, within the range of a mile or two. In the East of London many removals took place from Poplar to Limehouse, from Limehouse to St. George's-in-the-East, and from St. Georgo's-in-the-East to Whitechapel, while hardly any took place from Poplar to Chelsea or Kensington, because the habits and occupations of the people did not lead them to migrations of that kind. Therefore, he said that the argument of the right hon. Baronet (Sir Stafford Northcote) hardly applied to the Amendment before the Committee; and he hoped that, if it was to be made a question as between disfranchisement and enfranchisement, the more liberal interpretation would be adopted, according to the well-known maxim of the civilians. It was better, in his opinion, if the Bill could not be kept from effecting enfranchisement, that it should be prevented from disfranchising a large number of the people in the Metropolis.
  MR. MORGAN LLOYDsaid, that the proposal was that a man should have a vote if he came into the borough at anytime before the 31st of July, even the day before, which was absurd. He thought there ought, at least, to be a Proviso that the individual had been resident in some part of the Metropolis. But even with that Proviso the proposal would be wholly unacceptable, as it would give the inhabitants of the Metropolis a qualification differing widely from the qualification now possessed by the nation at large.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 19; Noes 138: Majority 119.—(Div. List, No. 58.)
  MR. LEWISsaid, that one reason for looking carefully into the clause was that, under the new Act, it would be possible to manipulate votes in such a way as would allow of 300 or 400 votes to be transferred from one constituency to another just before the end of the qualifying period. It was not difficult

  1489
  to do that where the occupation related to houses, and it would be very much easier where one room would qualify. In cases where a constituency was closely divided this might be effected by Party combination easily.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 11 (Returning officers in new boroughs).
  MR. HICKSsaid, the Amendment standing in his name having been put down before the Bill was reprinted, it was no longer applicable, and he should not move it.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, before the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Carbutt) moved his Amendment, he would suggest that it would be more conveniently moved at the end of the clause.
  MR. CARBUTTsaid, the object of the Amendment he was about to move was that the Writ of Election for the Monmouthshire District Boroughs should be directed to the Mayor of the borough which had the largest population. Monmouth had hitherto been the polling place for the boroughs; but the population of Newport had, since that arrangement was made, largely and rapidly increased. It had now 46,000 inhabitants, whereas the population of Monmouth was only 6,000. The Committee would, therefore, see that there was some reason for his Amendment. But, in addition to what he had stated, the rateable value of property in Newport was eight times that of Monmouth. The arrangement he proposed would lessen both time and expense, so far as the officers were concerned who had to count the votes.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 4, line 21, at end of Sub-section (3),insert—"Provided, That, with respect to the Monmouthshire District Boroughs (notwithstanding that it may have been otherwise determined), the Writ of Election shall he directed to the Mayor of that one of the municipal boroughs which has the largest population, according to the last Census for the time being."—(Mr. Carbutt.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he had personally no objection to the words of the Amendment; but he pointed out that they raised a question which applied to other groups of boroughs, not
  1490
  only in Wales, but throughout the country. The Writ of Election had been sent to the borough of Monmouth by immemorial custom, and the hon. Member wanted it to be transferred to Newport. Newport was a very much larger place than Monmouth now, and he had no objection, if the feeling of the Committee was that the alteration should take place, to the Proviso being added; but he thought, if there was likely to be any discussion upon it or waste of time, the question was hardly worth the trouble that would be spent upon it.
  MR. WARTONsaid, it was all very well for civilities to pass between the right hon. Baronet and one of his supporters with regard to this Amendment; but he thought the right hon. Baronet himself must have a conviction in his own mind that it would not be allowed to pass without comment, and without other similar proposals being made. There ought to be some understanding how far the principle was to be applied, or the door would probably be opened to a very wide discussion on other cases.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he hoped the Committee would pause before accepting this Amendment, the adoption of which would lead to all sorts of difficulties. On the other hand, he thought it was important that the Writ should be made returnable at the place having the largest population, although the principle must not be carried too far, or many difficulties would arise. He did not wish to prevent a regulation being framed with that object, provided it did not appear in the form of a piece of special legislation, in which case some Court or authority would be required to prevent the principle thus admitted being made applicable to the innumerable county districts which might set up rival claims to be made the place where the Writ was returnable. He thought all the questions of the kind that would arise would be extremely inconvenient; and therefore he considered that the principle of the Amendment was one against the admission of which the Bill ought to be carefully guarded.
  MR. MORGAN LLOYDsaid, he did not think that any inconvenience could arise if the proposal of the hon. Member for Monmouth were adopted. Newport had not only the largest population, but it was the most convenient centre. If

  1491
  the right hon. Baronet thought it necessary to apply the principle to the other Welsh boroughs, he did not think there would be any difficulty in the way of that being done, because, although it would make a slightly different arrangement in Pembrokeshire and Glamorganshire, it would produce no change in the boroughs of Carnarvonshire, Denbighshire, Montgomeryshire, or Flintshire. Therefore, he thought there was no difficulty in the way of the Amendment.
  MR. HICKSsaid, he did not wish to express any opinion as to the desirability of removing the Writ from Monmouth to Newport; but he thought the clause of the hon. Member, in its present shape, would open the door to a very great deal of inconvenience in future by the creation of these movable centres. He thought that if they were to have any change in the present case, it ought to be made in the Bill by simply substituting Newport for Monmouth. If they were to do the same thing with regard to the other groups, the question might be raised on each group as to whether the Writ should be sent to the largest town. He was in favour of a steady and uniform system being established.
  MR. LEWISsaid, the interruptions by some hon. Members opposite were most disorderly, and he must claim the protection of the Chair. One hon. Member had indulged himself by interrupting every Member who had risen to speak on the Amendment from that side of the Committee. If the hon. Member did not want to take part in the deliberations of the Committee he could be spared. With regard to the Amendment, the hon. Member who moved it had not stated to the Committee what the Monmouth Mayor thought of his proposal. He did not understand from the hon. Member that it had received the assent of the Mayor of Monmouth; and, therefore, he thought there might be some complaints if the Committee were to take one side or the other in this particular case. Under the circumstances, he thought that the proposal should be made in some more definite form, and that it should be taken after full Notice on Report, otherwise its adoption might come as a surprise upon the Mayor of Monmouth.
  COLONEL STANLEYsaid, that if there really was an earnest desire, as there seemed to be, to make progress with the Bill, it was as well that the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) should be accepted. The adoption of that suggestion would in no way prejudice the Amendment; but it would give an opportunity of notice being attracted to the question. It might be possible that on Report the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General would see his way to deal with the matter.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he hoped the hon. Gentleman the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Carbutt) would adopt the very sensible suggestion which had been made—namely, to withdraw the Amendment now, and allow the question to be discussed on Report.
  MR. CARBUTTsaid, he would be glad to accept the advice of the Government.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 12 (As to boroughs divided into divisions).
  Clause 13 (Registration of freemen in divided boroughs).
  Clause 14 (Adaptation of 46 and 47 Vic. c. 51, to divided borough).
  MR. WARTONsaid, he had Amendments to this clause to propose which he had not had an opportunity of handing in. The first Amendment was a very small one; but he hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General would see the wisdom of accepting it. He proposed to move the omission of the word "and," in line 39, and to substitute the word "or." It was quite clear that if they meant to deal with "election agent, sub-agent, polling agent, clerk, messenger," their meaning would be better expressed by the use of the word "or" than "and" It might be that some person would discharge the functions of "clerk or messenger." Surely it was intended that the clause should, apply to election agent or sub-agent, a polling agent, or clerk or messenger? He was supported in this by line 42, where it stated "agent, clerk, or messenger."
  Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 39, to leave out the word "and," and insert the word "or,"—(Mr. Warton,)—instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the word 'and' stand part of the Clause."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he thought the word "and" was correctly used. It was desired to apply the provisions of the Schedule to all persons named. It was not at all necessary to say "or"
  MR. TOMLINSONsaid, that if the word "and" was retained, the words election agent, sub-agent, &c. should be put in the plural.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)pointed out that the word "any" meant "every."
  MR. TOMLINSONsaid, that if they had regard to the word "any" the clause was a disjunctive one. If the word "or" were used, the substantives ought to be made plural.
  MR. WARTONsaid, that in line 42 the matter was properly expressed. If it was right to say "and" here, why did not the Attorney General insert "and" for "or" in line 42? He should persist in his Amendment.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 75; Noes 13: Majority 62.—(Div. List, No. 59.)
  MR. WARTONsaid, he had another Amendment to this clause to propose. He desired to move the omission of the words "the whole of a county at large or of" in line 40; and, of course, if the Amendment were adopted, it would be necessary to propose subsequently several consequential Amendments. Up to the present it had been loudly asserted—it had been asserted that night by the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) in charge of the Bill—that county constituencies were separate constituencies, and that borough constituencies were not so separate. Union was kept up for certain purposes in borough constituencies; but county constituencies were held to be essentially different. Each division of a county was a county in itself, so to speak. That was a principle laid down so late as that very day by the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke), and that was a distinction which was particularly emphasized in
  1494
  Clause 9. It was very proper to put down corruption; but it seemed to him to be perfectly absurd that a man who happened to be employed in one division of a county as a polling agent, for instance, should not be allowed to vote, if he had a qualification, in another division of the county possibly 80 or 90 miles distant. The effect of the Amendment he had the honour to bring before the Committee was to omit all the words which related to counties, and to restrict the clause to Parliamentary boroughs so-called. The county of York was divided into 10 or 11 different divisions; surely a man who was employed and paid as an agent or clerk or messenger in one division of the county should not be debarred from voting in any other division of the county in which he might have a vote.
  Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 40, to leave out the words "the whole of a county at large or of."—(Mr. Warton.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, it was quite true, as the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Warton) had said, that for the purposes of voting divisions of counties were regarded as different constituencies. But this was a question of corrupt practices, and when they saw what might be done and the evils they had to meet he doubted the wisdom of accepting the Amendment. Some of the divisions of counties were very populous, and great organizations would be found to exist in them. Of course some divisions adjoined, and the result would be that as the elections did not necessarily take place on the same day the Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Act would be defeated if they made an arrangement by which a person should be employed in one county division and vote in another. If the arrangement made in the Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Act was right in the first instance, surely it was well now to insist that persons who were paid should not evade the provisions of the arrangement by being employed in one division and voting in another. On the whole, he wished to adhere to the principle the House endeavoured to carry into effect upon the Parliamentary Elec-

  1495
  tions (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Act, that paid persons should not vote.
  MR. MACARTNEYsaid, it had always been understood that paid persons should not vote in the county in which they were paid. Why they should not vote for persons with whose candidature they had nothing to do he really could not imagine. His own county (Tyrone) was to be divided into four divisions. If he happened to be a candidate for the Southern Division it was very possible he might employ a man who had a vote for another division. The candidates might not even belong to his (Mr. Macartney's) Party, but one might be a Nationalist and the other a Liberal. Was the man he employed to be deprived of his right to vote for one or other of these candidates because he (Mr. Maoartney) employed him in a distant part of the county? All along the Government had asserted that they did not wish to disfranchise anybody; but it seemed to him that the object of this Bill was to disfranchise as many people as possible.
  MR. TOMLINSONsaid, the real effect of the clause could only be gathered by considering what the effect of the retention of the words his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Warton) proposed to omit would be upon the different counties. He could not think for a moment that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General meant to include in this provision the whole of the county of York, for instance; the hon. and learned Gentleman could not possibly mean to prevent a man who was entitled to vote in the North Riding from voting in that division simply because he happened to be employed as an election agent in the South of the county. It was as well that before this Amendment was pushed to a division the Committee should know whether this provision was a vital part of the Bill agreed upon between the two Front Benches. ["No !"] That being so, he thought he was right in saying that this was far too wide a provision to be inserted in the Bill. He could understand the Government arguing that the proposed alteration was too narrow; but in the belief that some alteration was desirable he intended to support the Amendment.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he thought this was not quite so easy a
  1496
  matter as it at first sight appeared, and at present he was rather disposed to vote with his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Warton). If this provision was to be maintained, paid agents in county A ought to be restrained from voting in county B. What was the distinction between a division of a county and the next county? Why should a paid agent in the Lymington Division be restrained from voting in the Northern Division of the county of Hampshire, and not be restrained from voting in the county of Dorset? No doubt it would be argued that without such a provision as this there would be a colourable employment as agents in one division of electors in a neighbouring division; and if anything could be introduced which would prevent colourable employment he quite agreed it was proper it should be introduced. To say, however, that gentlemen who were employed as principal agents of candidates, and who were, as a rule, gentlemen of real political opinion and influence, should not be allowed to vote in any other constituency in which they might be qualified was monstrous. Very much the same effect would be produced by restraining an agent from voting in a distant part of the county to that in which he was employed. It seemed very hard indeed that a man who had strong political opinions should not, simply because he was his (Mr. Sclater-Booth's) agent, vote in a distant part of the county with which he (Mr. Sclater-Booth) had nothing whatever to do. This was a matter which required some consideration, and he would advise his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) to bring it up again on Report.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that the great distinction between two counties as compared with two divisions of a county was that in the two divisions of a county the organization would be the same, while that would seldom be the case in two counties. Perhaps if the question were considered of much importance it could be brought up on Report.
  MR. TOMLINSONremarked, that in Lancashire the different divisions had complete organizations of their own. It was quite clear, for instance, that there must necessarily be a different organization in South-West Lancashire to that in the Northern Division of the county.
  MR. MACARTNEYobserved, that there were organizations which took cognizance of what went on throughout the country. There were in London a Conservative organization and a Liberal organization, and they controlled what was done by the Parties in the country generally. It seemed to him that if a man was prevented from voting according to his opinions in one division of Middlesex because he happened to be employed as agent in another division of the same county, he ought also to be prevented from voting in the Orkneys.
  MR. MONTAGU SCOTTsaid, it appeared to him that this Bill was intended to disfranchise all political agents. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had suggested that the organization for different divisions of counties was the same. Now, the county of Sussex was divided into East and West. He (Mr. Scott) had the honour to represent East Sussex; but he had nothing whatever to do with West Sussex, nor had the people in the East of the county anything to do with those in the West. Was his (Mr. Scott's) political agent, who might have very considerable property in West Sussex, to be deprived of his vote in the Western Division? It seemed to him that to this matter "distance lends enchantment." He supposed that if an agent in East Sussex had property in Yorkshire he would be allowed to vote in Yorkshire? Suppose that a man employed as an agent had a vote in Sussex and another in Surrey. Was he not to be able to vote in Surrey because Surrey and Sussex adjoined? [The ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir Henry James): We allow that.] He (Mr. Scott) had understood that the different divisions of a county practically formed different counties. Now, in Sussex, there was to be a division of Rye and a division of Chichester, and these divisions were 40 miles distant. Was a man employed in one division as an agent to be deprived of his right to vote in the other division? A proposition more unjust—he was almost inclined to say tyrannical—was never made. If his hon. and learned Friend divided the Committee, he (Mr. Scott) would certainly vote for the Amendment.
  MR. WARTONsaid, it was all very well for the Attorney General to pooh-pooh this matter; it was much more
  1498
  important than the hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to imagine. He (Mr. Warton) was extremely obliged to his right hon. Friend the Member for North Hampshire (Mr. Sclater-Booth) for assisting him on the present occasion, and in support of the observations of the right hon. Gentleman he begged to remind the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General that now there could only be one paid agent; the number could not be multiplied, as it was fixed by the Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Act. He thought the Attorney General desired to draw the line very strong. An agent was to be permitted to vote at a borough election in the county; but he was not to be allowed to vote in another division of the county, which might possibly be 80 or 90 miles from the one in which he was employed.
  SIR STAFFORD NOETHCOTEsaid, that this seemed to be something like a discussion as to the prohibitive degrees of marriage—how far they might go, and how close the intimacy was. He did not understand that anybody had the least intention of casting a reflection upon the characters and fitness to vote of those excellent persons who did good service as election agents. It was, however, quite reasonable and proper that a man should be precluded from voting in the particular division in which he was employed as agent; but it would be very hard that, because a man was agent in one district, he should be precluded from voting in another district which his agency did not affect. He (Sir Stafford Northcote) thought it would be desirable to accept the Amendment which had been proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton), though he was not anxious to press anything on the Government that they did not see the reason of in that respect. As he understood the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General was willing to consider the matter on Report, he was not at all sure it would not be well to adopt the Amendment at once.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he should feel disposed to accept the view of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Stafford Northcote) if it were pressed. It was a very small matter; but if the hon. and learned Member thought it

  1499
  would be better to strike out the words he would assent to the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. WARTONsaid, a consequential Amendment, in line 41, was that they should omit the words "county or."
  Amendment proposed, in page 6, lines 41 and 42, to leave out the words "county or."—(Mr. Warton.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, ''That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  MR. HICKSsaid, he wished to say a word on that question. The Amendment he had put on the Paper went further than that of the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton), his feeling being that it was unjust to agents in one part of a borough to be deprived of the right of voting in another part for men who had not employed them. Seeing, however, that the Government had accepted the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend, he would not press his proposal any further.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 15 (As to place of election).
  MR. SMALLsaid, the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) had the following Amendment on the Paper:—
  "Page 7, line 10, after 'Election,' insert 'but in Ireland, if the returning officer, on or before the day he receives the writ, shall receive from any person intending bona fide to be a candidate for any county Division, or his authorized agent, a notice in writing requiring the Election and the counting of the votes to take place in a town within such Division, then such returning officer, on pain of a fine of five hundred pounds, shall hold such Election and counting of the votes in some central town within such Division, and such returning officer may require from such candidate or his agent a deposit, not exceeding twenty pounds, of his Election expenses."
  He (Mr. Small) did not intend to move this Amendment, although he, at the same time, considered the proposal a very fair one, and held that the clause, as it stood, put a very unfortunate power into the hands of the Local Authorities. He did not see why Local Authorities should fix the place for the counting of the votes.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must point out that the hon. Member is not in Order in
  1500
  discussing the Amendment if he does not intend to move it.
  MR. SMALLsaid, he intended to move an Amendment in line 4, to insert, after the word "said," the words "Division of the."
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member would, of course, be in Order in doing that.
  MR. SMALLsaid, that that, then, was what he proposed to move. He did not know how the clause, as it stood, would work in England; but in Ireland he had no hesitation in saying that it would work very badly indeed. The Local Authority in that country would be the Grand Jury, which was a body that, to his mind, should not be intrusted with any powers of this kind, and which was not likely to give satisfaction to the large majority of the electors or those concerned in elections. In the case of a small county, it would not, perhaps, so much matter; but in a county like Cork or Donegal—in large counties of that description—the plan would be found to work very inconveniently. His proposal, therefore, was to compel Local Authorities to fix the place for the counting of the votes inside a division of the county. If this proposal were not accepted, it might be that a place might be fixed for the counting of the votes 100 miles away from where they had been recorded.
  Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 4, to insert, after the word "said," the words "Division of the."—(Mr. Healy.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that he believed there were one or two cases in Ireland where the divisions which had been marked out in the Bill did not contain any towns. The clause was in-tended to apply to those cases, and it was not intended that it should have general application. If hon. Members opposite were of opinion that the words as they stood in the Bill were not guarded enough to show that they were not of general application, he should be glad to consider the matter, and, if necessary, to bring up an Amendment on Report. Probably the Irish Members, who were interested in this question, would favour him with their views, and assist him in the matter.
  MR. SMALLsaid, he was very happy to hear that announcement from the right hon. Baronet; and he had no doubt that either he (Mr. Small) or some of his hon. Friends would be able, on Report, to show that the words were not sufficiently guarded.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 16 (Saving of rights of voters on change of Parliamentary area if otherwise qualified), agreed to.
  Clause 17 (Detached parts of parishes).
  MR. WARTONsaid, he desired to make certain with regard to the details of this clause when considered in connection with the Divided Parishes Act. He wished to ask the right hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill (Sir Charles W. Dilke) whether certain parts of a county could be taken from certain parishes and united to another county? If that was so, what was the reason for it? How could it be done?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the Government had power in the Local Government Board, under the Divided Parishes Act, to issue Orders for the purpose of throwing divided parishes into other parishes; but their Orders at the present moment would have no power to change the voters from one county division to another. In his opinion, it was doubtful whether Parliament would like to give the power in the case of detached places of changing voters from one county to another.
  MR. WARTONsaid, he was under the impression that the Local Government Board had already issued Orders beyond the 42nd section of the Divided Parishes Act. They had issued Orders, he believed, that for all purposes certain parts of a county should be taken from certain parishes and united to others. The doubtful point of law that was raised would not affect this clause. There had been great doubt as to what Parliament meant at the time of the passing of the Divided Parishes Act. The fact was that Parliament had forgotten the question—it had local boundaries in its head, and did not provide for Imperial matters. It did not consider what should be done in the case of Parliamentary boroughs. The words in the clause would not have given the power to transfer Parliamentary voters,
  1502
  if that power was not already conferred by the existing law.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 18 to 26, inclusive, agreed to.

PART III.

  DISQUALIFICATION OF VOTERS FOR CORRUPT PRACTICES.
  Clause 26 (Adaptation of certain enactments as to disqualification of voters for corrupt practices).
  MAJOR CURZONsaid, that in the absence of his hon. Friend the Member for Southampton (Mr. Giles), who had an Amendment on the Paper to leave out this clause, he should like to ask the right hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill (Sir Charles W. Dilke) whether the Government would consent to postpone it until the Committee had dealt with Clause 27? There were a number of hon. Members in the House very much interested in several of the corrupt boroughs mentioned in Clause 27. They were not so much interested in the boroughs mentioned in Clause 26; and he was afraid that if Clause 26 were taken now, it would rather prejudice the case of those hon. Members when they came to argue it in connection with the next clause. If the Government could see their way to the postponement of Clause 26 he should be extremely glad. He was not sure that they would be able to do it. He should like to point out that in the case of four boroughs they had been already disfranchised 18 years, and in the case of the four remaining they had been already disfranchised 15 years. Perhaps the right hon. Baronet could consent to postpone the clause.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, who was not now in his place, but who, he hoped, would be in the House in the course of a few minutes, was disposed to make a concession in this matter. In fact, the hon. and learned Gentleman had already said as much. He (Sir Charles W. Dilke) did not know that there was any necessity for postponing Clause 26, as he thought that the Committee was perfectly able to deal with it now. However, to meet the views of hon. Members, he would consent to the postponement until Clause 27 had been disposed of.
  Clause postponed.
  MR. JOHN BRIGHTsaid, he had not been able to gather what the Government proposed to do with Clause 26.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: It is only postponed for the present.
  Clause 27 (Disqualification of certain voters for corrupt practices).
  MR. RAIKES: I rise, Sir, to move an Amendment of which I have given Notice with regard to this clause, and I hope that it will afford an opportunity to the Government for tempering justice with mercy in their dealing with the particular constituencies to which it relates. The Amendment is—
  "Page 10, line 17, leave out 'for ever,' and, after 'incapable,' insert 'during the period of seven years next after the presentation of the said Reports respectively.'"
  The clause, as it stands, proposes to inflict disfranchisement for life upon the persons who have been found guilty, or who have been reported in the Schedules of the Reports of Election Commissioners to have been guilty of bribery, treating, or personation, at elections held in the year 1880 for these respective boroughs—the boroughs being those mentioned in the second part of the 8th Schedule of the Act, and whose names are already sufficiently notorious. Now, I feel that this question is not, by any means, without difficulty—that the Committee will find some difficulty in dealing with it. It would certainly be difficult for the House to assent to the very severe penalty which the Government has proposed to attach to the persons guilty of corrupt practices at these elections. Perhaps, as the case of Chester is likely to be mentioned in the course of the debate, I may say that I am appearing here rather as an apologist for persons who did me very considerable injury at that election than in any other capacity. I cannot help thinking that the Committee will be unwilling to inflict retrospective penalties upon persons who on that occasion were guilty of corrupt practices. The Act of 1883 was not passed when these offences were committed; and the offenders, who rendered themselves liable to the just resentment of this House, exposed themselves, presumably, only to such penalties as the law, in its then form, might bring upon them in regard to their particular cases. The Amendment I have ven-
  1504
  tured to put upon the Paper is one which proposes to deal with these offenders exactly as they would have been dealt with if the Attorney General had in 1881 followed the precedent of Norwich and Boston, and brought in a Bill proposing to inflict certain political disqualifications upon the persons who had been scheduled by the Commissioners. The various boroughs that had been visited by Commissioners at different times have been dealt with, as we know, in more than one way. In the majority of instances there has been inflicted upon them the penalty of complete extinction. Those boroughs that are mentioned in the first part of the 8th Schedule of this Bill, the well known boroughs of Beverley, Bridgwater, Sligo, and Cashel, and, in former years, the boroughs of Lancaster and Great Yarmouth, were absolutely and totally disfranchised by the action of Parliament after the Commissioners had reported upon them. But in the case of Norwich and Boston a different and more lenient course was adopted. I will not trouble the Committee with the details of the Norwich case, which were rather special. I will only say, in passing, that in this case the Writ for the election to fill the vacancy was suspended, and certain persons—I think freemen—were disfranchised. I would rather rely upon the precedent established in the case of Boston. In the case of Boston the voters scheduled by the Commissioners were subsequently, by Parliamentary enactment, deprived of their electoral rights, with regard to their qualification in boroughs, for seven years. It will be seen that the distinction as between the course proposed in the clause of this Bill, and the course to which I am referring, is a considerable one, and that my proposalleans very much to the side of mercy. On the other hand, it differs, I believe, somewhat widely from the course which has been proposed by the hon. Member for West Cheshire (Mr. H. Tollemache), and the hon. Member for Southampton (Mr. Giles), who are disposed to dispense with this clause altogether, and to grant to these persons a complete amnesty. I have to put to the Committee this consideration. You are now passing an Act of Parliament by which, in future, it will become practically impossible to disfranchise a constituency, because the

  1505
  whole country being divided into districts in which the franchise is in the main the same, any disfranchisement which may light upon political offenders will have to be confined to them personally. How are you to set forth on a course of dealing with offenders for corrupt practices personally, if the first step you take in that course is to be one of granting a complete and absolute amnesty for offenders at the last Election? You have passed since that Election an Act which imposes very much more serious penalties for corruption, and on that you propose, for the future, to rely. I would ask you, will you obtain credit for sincerity and earnestness in doing so, if the first thing you do after passing that Act is to remove, absolutely, the penalties that attached to corrupt practices at a period a little before that at which that Act became law? Now, I do not want to dwell upon the details of corrupt practices in these different constituencies, but, at least, I may be permitted to say that you have already dealt out a somewhat severe measure to two out of the six "peccant boroughs," as they were called, by formally stigmatizing Sandwich and Macclesfield as unfit, hereafter, to retain the status of Parliamentary boroughs. Will it not look strange if, having dealt out that severe and uncompromising justice to Sandwich and Macclesfield, this House is afterwards to accept any Amendment for absolutely releasing from all penalty the other boroughs which appear to have offended, if not absolutely in the same degree, at least in the same way? I should be extremely sorry to see this House stretch too hard, too tight, and too fast a line of strict austerity in dealing with this class of boroughs. I should be very reluctant to accept any proposal which would deal with Oxford, with. Canterbury, with Gloucester, and with my own old constituency Chester, in the same way in which we have already dealt with Macclesfield and Sandwich; but I cannot help thinking, at the same time, that this House would put itself in a false position if, in its anxiety to be generous and indulgent, it should altogether remit any penal consequences whatever for offences that only varied in degree from those which have been visited by political annihilation. I feel sure that in dealing with
  1506
  this question the Government will be anxious to, as I said in the first instance, temper justice with mercy; and I very confidently appeal to the Prime Minister with regard to this particular class of persons. The Prime Minister throughout his long and distinguished career has, I think, always been conspicuous, if I may say so, for the robust common sense with which he has dealt with questions of this sort. He has never used the extravagant language which has sometimes been in favour, first upon one side of the House and then upon the other. He has regarded this evil as more or less inherent in our political system, and when it has been necessary to apply a penalty he has imposed it, but, at the same time, he has not been among those who have allowed themselves to be carried away by sentiment; and thus, I hope, he has considered the matter on the one side or the other, and that we shall hear his views on it before the discussion closes. The Committee will understand, perhaps, that in endeavouring to take the course which I have pointed out by my Amendment tonight, I have been moved entirely by a sense of public duty. It is a difficult thing for me to deal with this matter at all; but I feel that I should be unworthy of a position in this House if I shrank from dealing with a question of this difficulty, because I might be suspected of having some personal feeling in the matter. I have done my duty, I think, in proposing the Amendment that stands in my name. I hope the Committee will deal with it fairly and in a judicious spirit, and will not allow itself to be carried away by passionate appeals ad misericordiam on the one hand, or on the other by a too rigid adherence to the severe penalties of the Act dealing with corruption at elections last placed upon the Statute Book, so far as the elections that took place shortly before that Act was passed are concerned.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 10, line 17, to leave out the words "forever," and, after the word "incapable," to insert the words "during the period of seven years next after the presentation of the said Reports respectively."—(Mr. Raikes.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. MONKsaid, that in the few remarks he desired to address to the

  1507
  Committee on the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Raikes), he desired, in the first place, to express the strong sense which he entertained of the fairness and equity which had been shown by the Government in not including the borough he had the honour to represent (Gloucester) in the Penal Clause No. 3 of this Bill; and though he had been prepared to show the House very good reasons why Gloucester should not meet with the fate which it was originally proposed that it should meet with under the Bill of a previous Session, he, at the same time, was ready to acknowledge, on behalf of that city, the leniency which had been shown to it by the Government in the Bill which was now before the Committee. His right hon. Friend had pointed out, with very great force, that since the Election of 1880 a new Corrupt Practices Act had been passed which inflicted upon those who received bribes a lighter penalty than that which it was proposed to inflict by this clause; but, in moving his Amendment, his right hon. Friend had omitted to point out that the Royal Commissioners who were appointed in 1880 took every moans, and very properly took every means, in their power to ascertain who had given bribes and who had received them. They even went so far, in some cases, as to invite persons to send in lists of suspected bribers or bribees, and at the same time they called the electors before them, and, before examining them as to their complicity in these illegal acts, promised them a certificate of indemnity if they answered freely all questions which were addressed to them. In some instances, to his knowledge—and he was sorry his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General was not present, because he could have brought one of these cases very clearly before his mind—in the city with which he was connected, the Commissioners had had given to them the names of several gentlemen as bribers who certainly had nothing at all to do with bribery. There were as many as 97 electors scheduled in Gloucester, some of whom were absent from the city during the sittings of the Commission, while others had not had an opportunity of being heard before the Commissioners and of stating that they had nothing whatever to do with bribery.
  1508
  In one case especially, a most respectable man, an employé in the Post Office, attended before the Commissioners, was examined by them, and was exonerated by them from the charge which had been brought against him; yet through inadvertence his name was inserted in the Schedule. This gentleman's name having appeared as having received a bribe, the voter would be disfranchised for life. As he (Mr. Monk) had said, the Commissioners had acknowledged that this gentleman was not guilty; but the case was very difficult to deal with, for, after the Commission was dissolved, the Secretary stated, in reply to representations made to him with regard to this case, that there was no power to remove any name from the Schedule after the Commissioners had presented their Report. And this was no solitary case. There were many cases of the same nature. Another case was that of a highly respectable medical practitioner in the city. This gentleman's name was also returned as that of a person who had received a bribe, and it was needless to say that there was not a word of truth in the statement. There was another point to which he wished to call the attention of the Committee, and that was this—that if the clause passed in its present state, disqualifying voters for life, any one of these voters might come forward at the next General Election as acandidate, and would be perfectly qualified to be returned as the Representative of the borough in which he had been scheduled as a briber. Though that was an improbable case, yet the fact remained the same; and he believed that, in some cases, the fact of a man's name having been scheduled would not be considered as a disqualification for being returned to Parliament. Now, his right hon. Friend (Mr. Raikes) had proposed that, instead of a disqualification for life, these scheduled voters should be disfranchised for seven years, which was the penalty inflicted by the Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Act of 1883. He wished to point out that the electors who attended before the Commissioners and were subsequently scheduled, had no opportunity of bringing evidence before the Commissioners to show that they had not been guilty of these practices. Under the Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Act, no one could

  1509
  be convicted who had not been fairly tried; and, on their trial, accused persons could retain counsel, and bring forward evidence to show that they had not been guilty of these practices. He thought there was a strong reason why the same punishment should not be inflicted on those who had been examined before the Commissioners on the faith of a certificate of indemnity being given to them if they spoke the truth. In that case, of course, the voters had. not had the aid of counsel. There was another point in which he was sure he should be confirmed by his hon. and. learned Friend the Attorney General when he rose to reply, and that was that in the case of some of these boroughs the inquiry on the part of the Commissioners had been of a most exhaustive nature; and he was sorry to say that they would find that as many as 1,500 or 2,000, and even more, voters had in consequence been scheduled. But in the case of more than one borough the inquiry was of a most perfunctory character. He was sorry to have to mention names, but he must mention the name of one borough, and that was the City of Oxford. The Commissioners said on page 16 of their Report—
  "It is unnecessary to observe that Schedules II. and IV. do not by any means purport to contain the names of all who, under colour of payment for employment, received money for their votes.
  " So far as the employer is concerned, it is comparatively easy to detect bribery under colour of payment for services; but when the inquiry is directed to the motives and knowledge of a voter who has been employed, it is difficult to decide whether he has accepted the employment with a corrupt intent. We, therefore, did not pursue this inquiry further than was necessary for verifying the accounts laid before us by the several district agents, for testing the particulars filed in support of the Petition, and for forming an approximate estimate of the number of persons employed."
  Would the Committee bear with him when he told them the result? The result was that the Oxford Commissioners scheduled. 84 persons as bribers. How many were scheduled as bribees? In the Report it was intimated that more than 1,000 voters had received payment for their votes, but only 55 were scheduled as having been bribed. Of course, in those cases where they found 1,200, 1,500, or even 1,900 persons scheduled as having been bribed, the Commissioners had gone down into
  1510
  the borough for several weeks and had made a most full and careful inquiry into all the circumstances of the case. His right hon. Friend (Mr. Raikes) had, he thought, alluded to the case of Norwich—the election of 1875. In 1876 the Commissioners presented their Report in regard to that election. On page 29 the Commissioners said—
  "When we had ascertained, from the evidence of numerous witnesses whose examination extended over a considerable period, that a corrupt, systematic, and extensive employment of a large number of voters had been resorted to at the last two elections (1874 and 1875) by the various agents of both Parties, it became necessary to consider to what further extent, if any, it was our duty to prosecute the inquiry. Upon this subject we regretted not to have the concurrence of our late colleague, Mr. M'Mahon. He thought, notwithstanding the extent and cogency of the evidence already obtained (as to the effect of which, and the political responsibility of the constituency in respect of it, he fully agreed with us), that the Statute was peremptory, and left us no discretion in the matter; that it was, therefore, obligatory upon us to examine without exception all the persons employed at the said election, and to report to Your Majesty their names, if we should find them guilty of a violation of the law.
  "In this view, however, after full consideration, we were not able to concur. It was our opinion that under Your Majesty's commission we were at liberty to direct the course and scope of the inquiry, and that the Statute did not imperatively require us in any event, and contrary to our judgment of the expediency of the case, to submit to examination 4,000 or 5,000 additional witnesses for the purpose of ascertaining their individual responsibility.
  "Having regard, therefore, to these considerations; to the serious difficulties and objections that existed to the examination of a few, only, as a sample of so large a body; to the extent and importance of the information before us; and believing that no benefit could be obtained, commensurate with the vast expenditure of time and money which would be involved in the course proposed by our learned colleague; we concluded that it was our duty to dispense with the proposed examinations, and to present this Report without such evidence."
  The consequence was, that although 4,000 or 5,000 voters might have been bribed, there were only 56 bribers and 29 bribees scheduled in 1875. Now, no doubt his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, whether he considered it was the duty of the Commissioners to make an exhaustive inquiry or not,o knew that there were other cases in which the inquiry was, as he had said, of a perfunctory nature; and therefore the point which he wished to bring particularly before the attention of the Committee and the Government

  1511
  was this—that in the cases where there was an exhaustive inquiry they had the names in the Schedules of every person who had received a bribe; whereas, in other cases, they had only the names of some 29 or 55. After that, he thought it would be a very great hardship if the persons who were induced to give this evidence, admitting their complicity in illegal acts, were for ever deprived of their votes; whereas, a much larger number who were equally guilty, were allowed to go free. There was a further reason why he could not offer his support to the Amendment of his right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Raikes). He thought this was a case in which, after the passing of so stringent a measure as the Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Act, the two Houses of Parliament might very well over look the offences committed in 1880 in boroughs which had already suffered a certain amount of punishment. With two exceptions, all the towns where corrupt practices had occurred had been deprived of their representation during the present Parliament; and on behalf of his own and other constituencies he would urge that this was a case in which Parliament might well afford to exhibit its leniency.
  MR. H. TOLLEMACHEsaid, he thought it would be generally admitted that the Bill, as drawn by the Government, was so monstrously unjust that that House would not for a moment consent to pass it. He did not for a moment think it would he contended that the punishment of disfranchisement for life of scheduled voters ought to be adhered to. But, if that was so, then came the question as to what ought to be the punishment in these cases. For his own part, he considered that half a loaf was better than no bread; and therefore he was prepared to accept the Amendment prescribing seven years' disfranchisement, unless the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill would tell them that the Government would consent to abandon the clause altogether. In his opinion, a great many people had been unnecessarily scheduled. He understood that treating was not a corrupt practice at all, under any Act which existed at that time; and therefore the Commissioners ought not to have scheduled those persons who had merely been guilty of treating. There were
  1512
  many reasons also why some of the persons who were scheduled should be let off altogether, and the first was that they had not had an opportunity of being heard in their own defence; and it was laid down by the Act of 1854, and re-enacted in the Act of 1883, that persons should only be found guilty of corrupt practices after they had had an opportunity of being heard. Lord Blackburn had laid it down in the Bewdley Election Petition Inquiry—
  " That a person giving evidence upon the hearing of an Election Petition has not had an opportunity of being heard in a legal sense, and, therefore, unless he was tried and convicted before a jury, disqualification did not attach."
  And he would venture to suggest to the Committee that those individuals who had been brought up before the Election Commissioners had not had an opportunity of being heard in the sense laid down by Lord Blackburn. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Raikes) had pointed out that in the case of Norwich that House did disqualify those persons who had been scheduled by a special measure, although it was not necessary by the law at that time; but, for his part, he considered that the decision of Lord Blackburn was a much wiser one than that of that House, But he would give a higher authority than even Lord Blackburn. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, speaking on April 5, 1881, of the Taunton Election Petition, said—
  " There are certain disqualifications attaching to candidates in consequence of being reported personally guilty of bribery by an Election Judge. These disqualifications are imposed by 31 & 32 Vict. c. 125, s. 43; but no disqualification of any kind attaches to any person so reported other than a candidate except the prohibition of his employment as an election agent during seven years. The reason for this is to be found in the wording of the 45th section of the Act I have mentioned, which says: ' Any person other than a candidate found guilty in any proceeding in which, after notice of the charge, he has had an opportunity of being heard,' shall be subjected to certain disqualifications. It has been determined by Lord Blackburn, in the decision given by him in the Bewdley Petition case —and it seems to me quite correctly determined —that a person giving evidence upon the hearing of an Election Petition has not had ' an opportunity of being heard' in the legal sense, and that, therefore, unless tried and convicted before a jury, the disqualifications do not attach. The same rule applies with greater force in relation to the Reports of Commissioners, for even candidates are subjected to no penalties or disqualifications in consequence of being reported by Commis-

  1513
  sioners as personally guilty of bribery. The result is that unless persons be prosecuted and convicted, which they cannot be in the face of a certificate of indemnity, no consequences of any kind result directly to anyone from being reported guilty of corrupt practices by Election Commissioners."—(3 Hansard, [26o] 760.)
  The hon. and learned Gentleman laid down there that no consequences of any kind resulted to anyone from being reported guilty of corrupt practices by Election Commissioners.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the hon. Member had omitted the word " directly."
  MR. H. TOLLEMACHEcould not say what the hon. and learned Gentleman meant by the word "directly;" but it certainly seemed to him to be "direct" punishment to disfranchise those people for life. If those persons had had an opportunity of explaining their conduct by counsel, he believed that hundreds and hundreds of them would not have been scheduled. They in that House had had an opportunity of clearing their characters by the Act of 1883. They had, so to speak, held themselves up as paragons of electoral purity; they had called heaven and earth to witness that they were not as other men were; and he thought that now they could extend to those innocent persons that measure of generosity which they had claimed for themselves. He admitted that there were many people who would not have been unfairly treated by the punishment which appeared in the Government Bill; but, after this lapse of time, he did not think it was possible to discriminate between the different offences of which these people had been guilty; and it would be well that the first principle of the English law should be applied to this case—namely, that it was better that the few guilty should get off than that the many who were innocent should suffer. What was their crime after all? It was not a serious one. Their real crime was that of being found out. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had left the House; but he remembered that the hon. and learned Gentleman, who spoke with great authority on all these subjects, distinctly told the House that all boroughs were more or less corrupt. He had told them, in regard to the case of Knaresborough, that he believed that if inquiries were made in all oases, no borough would come out
  1514
  purer than Knaresborough. Well, there were about 10 per cent of the electors of Knaresborough scheduled; and if Knaresborough was, comparatively speaking, so pure, he did not think he was going too far in saying that it was not a very serious offence which had been committed. Those individuals had been hardly dealt with by being disfranchised for life; and he put it to the Committee, as a matter of justice, that those people who had not had an opportunity of explaining their conduct should be replaced on the Register. He would like to support a proposal for striking out this clause altogether; but, failing that, he should certainly support the Amendment before the Committee to limit the disfranchisement to seven years.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDwould tell the Committee, in one word, what made him place a similar Amendment to the one under discussion on the Paper. When the words " for ever " came up in the Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Bill, he had willlingly joined some of his hon. Friends in endeavouring to get them struck out, because he held very strongly indeed that those words ought not to find a place in any Act of Parliament. He did not agree with his hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk), or the hon. Gentleman opposite the Member for West Cheshire (Mr. H. Tollemache), that this was an occasion to make light of those offences. He could only say that if the prayer which had been addressed to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General were listened to, the electors of other places would have very good reason to complain. He thought, for example, that there would be inequality of treatment in the case of places like Totnes, where the scheduled electors had been disfranchised by the Act of 1867, and had remained so for 18 years, and whom by another clause it was proposed to disfranchise perpetually. He had refrained from placing on the Paper any suggestion of his own as to the punishment which ought to be awarded; but he did hope that the Committee would not take any course which might lead to the conclusion that they regarded this matter lightly.
  MR. MONKdesired to say, as a matter of personal explanation, that he was

  1515
  the last man in the House to regard these matters with levity.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)pointed out that the Government had already stated that this clause had been arrived at after consideration; but they desired to know what was the feeling of the Committee on the subject. and to leave the decision of the matter in their hands. The Government had no desire to act with any undue harshness or with any undue severity, and wished to know what was the general feeling of the Committee. Perhaps the Committee would allow him to remind them of what was the usual course in these matters. The hon. Member for West Cheshire (Mr. H. Tollemache) had stated very clearly that until the passing of the Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Act, no penal consequences attached to a person found guilty by admission of corruption, and therefore the Legislature had always dealt with each case individually. Hitherto legislation had never been tempered by those considerations which had been urged on the Committee that night by his hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk), and which had never been urged in the House before, although the considerations urged had existed before all the Reports were made by the Commissioners. The legislation which had been passed on this question had always had a certain stated purpose, and that was to check the continuance of corrupt practices. Two rules had been invariably followed, notwithstanding what had been said against that mode of procedure. Persons so scheduled had either been prevented from voting in the particular constituency in which they had their qualification, for life, or from voting anywhere, wherever they might move to, for seven years. There was one notable example of this. That was contained in the Representation of the People Act, 1867, which was not, as some of these measures were, an Act for the particular purpose of dealing with these persons. Full attention had been called to the question of corrupt practices. There were four boroughs dealt with. The electors in those boroughs would have been entitled to vote in the counties ii which the boroughs were; but, under the Act of 1867, they were disfranchised for life from voting in the county dis-
  1516
  tricts in which the boroughs had been merged. He thought that, at the time, that was the legislation of general acquiescence. Under these circumstances, he hoped it would not be attributed to the Government that in drawing up this Bill they adopted a severe course. They had thought that it would be better to follow the precedents, and then to deal with the matter as the Committee might think fit. Inasmuch as they reframed the old Act of 1867 in this Bill, it occurred to them that it would be inconsistent if they made any other rule than the one they had done. They had to approach the question that night, no doubt, with some different considerations. For instance, he was sorry to say that they had to deal with a far different number of offenders than they had to deal with formerly. They had to deal with upwards of 9,000 persons who had been scheduled. It might be argued, in consequence of the large number of persons scheduled, that a greater amount of leniency should be show them than if they were few; but he thought it might also be said that the greater the amount of the offence the less the punishment on the constituency. From all the Reports which had been received, and judging from the proceedings at recent bye-elections, there seemed to be amongst those who had hitherto had the conduct of electoral contests an earnest desire to produce, if they could, a different and a better state of things. Under such circumstances, the question arose whether the Committee would give effect to the hopes thus created, and impose a mitigated penalty? If it should seem right to the Committee to accept the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Raikes), and thus limit the punishment to seven years, the Government would offer no objection.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTErose for one moment to express his personal satisfaction at the statement that had been made by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General. It appeared to him that they had to consider the character of those who were now about to be admitted to the franchise. Considering what a very large addition had been made to the electoral roll, and considering that many of the new voters had not been trained to look upon the possession of the right or privi-

  1517
  lege of voting as a matter of trust, it was very important that at the outset of the new state of things the new electors should have before them the distinct warning that the corrupt practices of old times were at an end, and it would be impolitic to make them believe that all the sentences of the past were entirely wiped out. On the other hand, he thought the general feeling of the Committee was that it was not desirable, if they could avoid it, of keeping up perpetual punishment. Useful warning had been given as to the future, and he thought by accepting the moderate proposal of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Raikes) the Government really met the exigencies of the ease.
  MR. CLARE READcalled the attention of the Attorney General to the fact that there were some Acts still in operation for the disfranchisement of voters. He hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would introduce words to embrace the repeal of those Acts. His hon. Friend the Member for Norwich (Mr. Colman) would bear him out when he said that in 1870 there was a special Act passed for the disfranchisement of certain voters in that city. An Act for the disfranchisement of voters was also passed in 1871. Now, those Acts disfranchised voters for life, whereas the Act passed in 1876 only disfranchised voters for seven years. He hoped the Attorney General would take care that these Acts were repealed.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. RAIKESmoved to insert, after the word " incapable," in line 17, "during the period of seven years after the presentation of."
  Amendment proposed, in page 10, line 17, after the word " incapable," to insert the words " during the period of seven years after the presentation of." —(Mr. Raikes.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. THOROLD ROGERSproposed, in page 10, line 25, after sub-section (b.), to insert the words—
  " (c.) Of being a candidate for any borough or division of a county in the United Kingdom."
  The hon. Member said, he hoped that all the expressions of sympathy and kindly feeling for the illiterate voter, for the poor man, who was bribed by
  1518
  a pint of beer, or by a sum of money up to three sovereigns—that being the range of bribery as far as experience went—had not been thrown away, and that the Committee had exercised a generous consideration for parties who had been more tempted than tempters. But he thought that to include the name of a person who had been proved to be guilty of bribing a constituency in the list of scheduled voters, and then to enable the man to sit in Parliament for any constituency, was as great a farce as the House could be capable of enacting. In the case of one constituency completely disfranchised, it was perfectly clear that one person was guilty of the most widespread, deliberate, and elaborate bribery. The borough to which he referred was, he was persuaded, well known to the Committee. The gentleman to whom he referred had been described as " an agent of great experience and success;" he had recently succeeded, it was said, in returning certain Conservatives for one borough and certain Conservative Members for another borough. Hon. Members knew what the success of the man meant with regard to one of the constituencies—a constituency which had been described as the centre of the wealth of England. In the second constituency there was a large body of poor voters, and matters were so manipulated that, apparently through the agency of this person, all the electors who were susceptible to bribes received them. What was the course the man adopted? He first of all declared that he had nothing to do with bribery; next, he instructed his sub-agents to declare or swear that they were not guilty of bribery; and then he went before the Commissioners and attempted to adopt the same plan. At last he got alarmed, went into the witness-box, declared he had bribed wholesale, and then, of course, as before, snapped his fingers in the face of the Commissioners. Why the Commissioners allowed the man to get into the box and make a clear breast of his doings, he (Mr. Thorold Rogers) could not understand. It would have been quite possible for them to have got evidence against him, and then to have brought him to book. It seemed to him (Mr. Thorold Rogers) that if they were to punish persons who were guilty of accepting bribes, they should a fortiori punish the persons who had

  1519
  been guilty of bribing. He believed that hitherto the practice had been to disqualify a candidate from sitting during the existence of the then Parliament for the constituency in which he was convicted; but at present there seemed to be no means of punishing an agent except by declaring that for seven years after the presentation of the Report of the Commissioners an agent guilty of malpractices should be debarred from sitting in the House. He confessed that in a case so flagrant, so obvious, and so scandalous as the one he had referred to—and there were others of a like nature—a punishment such as even what he proposed was wholly inadequate. The Committee were aware that if legal perjury was proved against a Member, and there had been such instances in the history of the House of Commons—he did not recollect the number of cases, but there was an instance in 1787—the Member was immediately expelled. He thought that the common sense of the House ought to be strong enough to declare that if a person had not been legally convicted of perjury, but morally convicted, he should be prevented from sitting in their midst. The man to whom he had referred was practically exempted from the consequences of his own admissions, because the practice of giving an indemnity relieved him from those consequences; but he (Mr. Thorold Rogers) did not think the House as a Court—if he might say so, as a Court of Honour—ought to ignore such practices committed by agents at elections, but should visit them with very severe punishment. He begged to move the Amendment which stood in his name.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 10, line 25, after sub-section (b.), to insert the words,—" (c.) Of being a candidate for any borough or division of a county in the United Kingdom. "—(Mr. Thorold Rogers.)
  Question proposed, " That those words be there inserted."
  MR. EDWARD CLARKEsaid, he was sorry the Amendment had been defended by the hon. Member who proposed it simply by a reference to one individual case. The hon. Gentleman had used one word, at all events, with reference to that case which would scarcely be justified if the matter were fully gone into. He (Mr. E. Clarke) did
  1520
  not think there was any question of perjury in the case to which the hon. Member referred, or anything approaching perjury; but he, at the same time, cordially agreed with the hon. Gentleman in the Amendment he had moved. He should be very happy to vote with the hon. Gentleman if he pressed the Amendment to a division. He could not imagine they were justified in saying that voters should be precluded for seven years from the power of voting for Members of Parliament in consequence of having been scheduled, and that one of the persons who had been guilty of bribing should have the right to stand as a candidate for Parliamentary honours. He hoped the Amendment would be accepted by the Committee.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he did not wish to dwell too much upon the particular case which had been cited, though he agreed with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Southwark (Mr. Thorold Rogers) that it was one of the worst cases it was possible to conceive in the annals of their electoral system. The person hinted at bribed 1,100 persons, then went before the Judges who tried the Election Petition and swore there was no bribery, allowed other persons to make the same statement, and then went into the witness-box, and, under cover of the indemnity, disclosed the whole system of bribery that had been employed and the names of his confederates, against whom he subsequently appeared to give evidence. But, after all, he (the Attorney General) did not think Parliament ought to be guided in legislation by one particular case. This Parliament had imposed new penalties for corrupt practices at elections. The facts of this case occurred in 1881, and they were known to everybody who took part in the discussions on the Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Act, and, whilst the case was mentioned, the House did not then by general legislation dare to make the penalties retrospective. He thought it would be unjust to do so now. Much as he sympathized with his hon. Friend (Mr. Thorold Rogers), much as he should regret to see Parliamentary honours bestowed upon a person who had acted as the person to whom reference had been made acted, he thought the safer course to pursue, both as a matter of precedent and as a matter of

  1521
  justice, was not to introduce legislation of a retrospective character. Such a precedent might lead to great evil. To his mind, it would be a very evil precedent to impose one day a retrospective penalty for a crime committed the previous clay. Although he was in sympathy with the object of his hon. Friend (Mr. Thorold Rogers), he must look at the matter in a broad spirit. When he did that, he did not think any good purpose would be served by making the penalty retrospective.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided: — Ayes 77; Noes 90: Majority 13.—(Div. List, No. 60.)
  MR. WARTONproposed to insert, at end of line 28, page 10—
  "As if the disqualification of such person had arisen after the commencement of the said Act."
  He pointed out that in the Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Act there were the words—
  "By reason of having after the commencement of this Act been found guilty,"
  and so on. They had already disqualified certain persons by the Amendment just carried; but they had not disqualified them for ever, but for a period of seven years from the Report of the Judges or Commissioners in 1880. It was perfectly clear that when the corrupt practices took place in 1880, they did not take place after the commencement of the Act of 1883, and he was inclined to think that some of the guilty might escape unless steps were now taken to guard against their escape. It was to guard against that that he moved this Amendment. He would call the attention of the Attorney General to an effect which might be produced by the application of this section. If they looked at all to the machinery they would find that the persons who were to be included in this proposal would have the same right of being heard and of showing cause. Had they a right to be heard as to the particulars of the case?
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 10, at end of line 28, to insert the words " As if the disqualification of such person had arisen after the commencement of the said Act."—(Mr. Warton.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he was sorry that he had very imperfectly heard the observations which had fallen from the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Warton). It appeared to him, however, that the point raised was of a very technical nature, and as the Amendment was not on the Paper he was unable to express any opinion upon it. If the hon. and learned Member would be good enough to send it to him in writing, as he had described it as one of the greatest importance and which ought to be accepted, he (the Attorney General) would bestow upon it that attention which it deserved.
  MR. WARTON: On that understanding, I will withdraw the Amendment for the present.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, " That Clause 27, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  MR. H. TOLLEMACHEsaid, he wished to make one more appeal to the right hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill. He regretted that several hon. Members, who unquestionably would have given their support to the change he wished to bring about in the Bill, had they been present, and who ought to have been in their places, were not now in attendance. He would not go into all the questions he had raised in his speech a while ago; but he would draw the attention of the Attorney General to just one question which he had omitted to answer. He wished to know whether the Commissioners who were appointed to inquire as to the existence or prevalence of corrupt practices at elections in 1880, had power to inquire into practices which were not corrupt until 1883? Scores of people had been found guilty of treating and of being treated during the General Election of 1880; but in that year these things were not corrupt practices. He should like also to draw attention to another point. He did not wish to argue this question from a local point of view; but, in the case of Chester alone, there were a great many individuals scheduled for being treated. He thought he was right in saying that all the Commissioners, except those who inquired into the Chester case, had not mentioned in their Reports cases of individuals being treated. In the case of

  1523
  Macclesfield, the Commissioners stated at the head of their Report that no person who had been treated had been scheduled. He would ask, therefore, whether it was fair for the few hundred people in Chester who had been scheduled for having been treated to be disqualified for even seven years, when other people in similar cases had not been so treated? There was just one other point which he had forgotten to mention—namely, that all the Commissioners in holding their Courts of Inquiry had stated that no further proceedings, either criminal or civil, would be taken against any person who made a clean breast of the matter; and on the faith of that assurance very many persons had come forward and confessed to electoral offences. He hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General would answer his case about the scheduling of the people who had been treated in Chester, and nowhere else. If he got any support, he should ask the Committee to divide upon the question of expunging this clause.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he could hardly think the hon. Member was in earnest in asking the Committee to expunge this clause, seeing that the Amendment which he moved just now had been taken as a settlement of the question. [" No, no!"] Well, then, why did not the hon. Member divide against his Amendment? As to treating and being treated, there(could be no doubt that they were corrupt practices even prior to 1880. The hon Member was quite mistaken in supposing that a person guilty of either of them offences escaped all punishment. Ho lost his vote thereby. If some of the Commissioners had performed their duty zealously, had made an exhaustive in quiry, and had scheduled all person guilty of treating or of having bee; treated, it was not a fair plea to say that because other Commissioners had not don so, therefore the persons scheduled, in the first instance, should escape the consequences of their illegal action. That would be a very dangerous principle to lay down.
  Motion agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 26 (Adaptation of certain enactments as to disqualification of voters for corrupt practices).
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, it was necessary for him now to draw the attention of the Committee to the position in which they stood with regard to this clause. He presumed that in the opinion of hon. Members this section would now require some alteration. He presumed it would apply to the boroughs of Bridgwater and Beverley, and the other four boroughs he had already mentioned, and, to be consistent, the Committee would not desire to re-enact a light punishment for these. It only affected six boroughs, because the framers of the Bill had only to deal with the boroughs which were in the counties, and which were now in the divisions of the counties. There were other boroughs which would have to be dealt with—for instance, Norwich —which did not require to be dealt with in this clause. A clause should, he thought, be brought up in respect to Norwich on the Report. So as to make the Bill consistent, this clause should be reframed, and be therefore hoped the Committee would allow it to be struck out.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that before any of the new clauses were introduced at the suggestion of private Members, he would ask the Government to bring up the Notes to the Schedules in the form of a new clause. Taking the form of the Bill as it stood, it seemed to him that this mode of drawing up an Act of Parliament was perfectly novel. He could not help thinking it wrong, and, with all due respect to the draftsmen, he was confident that it would be more consonant with previous legislation if what were called " Notes to the Schedules" were introduced as a new clause, in order that they could be properly enacted, and would not stand as a hybrid subject, so that no one would understand what they were. He appealed to the Government to accept the suggestion he made, and bring up these Notes as a new clause. No doubt, some of the wording would have to be altered b if that were done.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKFsaid, he would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the Committee should be allowed to go through private Members' clauses. When they were disposed of—and he was very doubtful whether any of them would be added to the Bill—he should then be happy to follow the

  1525
  advice tendered to him, and to move that the Notes to the Schedules be formed into a new clause. He might say that personally he had favoured the course now proposed by the right hon. Gentleman, but that he had been overruled by the draftsmen, who informed him that the manner in which the Notes were inserted was the best form to adopt. The draftsmen, at the same time, had assured him that there were many precedents for the course pursued.
  MR. WARTONsaid, they had already passed, in Clause 22, words to the effect that the Notes should be construed as part of the Act. If the course proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) were adopted, it was obvious that Clause 22 would have to be altered.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: That will have to be left out.
  MR. AGNEWsaid, he wished, in page 3, after Clause 9, to move the insertion of a clause declaring that—
  "At a general parliamentary election the polls (if any) for the divisions in a divided county shall be taken on the same day, such day to be fixed by the returning officer of the county.
  The Committee was, no doubt, aware that already provision had been made in the case of divided boroughs that the Returning Officer should be required to order the elections to take place on the same day. The object of the clause for which he now respectfully ventured to ask the favour of the Committee for was to apply the same principle to divided counties. It appeared to him that if the principle was good in the one case it must be good in the other. They had passed a Corrupt Practices Act within the life of the present Parliament, for one purpose, at least, that they might get a full, free, and an honest expression of the people's will at the poll; and he contended that if a system of one-day elections were so partially adopted as was involved within the terms of the clause he now proposed, the Committee would have done much to promote the orderly conduct of elections, and to prevent the improper conduct which was so frequently seen in the constituencies all over the country at election times. It might be said that there were difficulties in the way of carrying out the plan he advocated. He ventured to
  1526
  anticipate one objection which might be made. Probably it would be said that it would be difficult for the Returning Officer—the High Sheriff of the county — to find a staff of officials sufficiently numerous to conduct the elections in all county divisions on one day. Well, he would remind the Committee, and those Members especially who sat for large boroughs and constituencies, that in some towns in this country—in one 18, in another 19, and in another, he believed, 20—ward elections were contested, or might be contested, on a given day—on the 1st of November. He could not for a moment suppose that there would be any more difficulty on the part of the Sheriff or the Returning Officer of a county in providing facilities for General Elections, than it was for those provided by a High Bailiff or the Mayor of a borough for taking municipal elections on the 1st of November. He was certainly of opinion, in the interests of order and of general good conduct, which, unhappily, had not always been apparent at Parliamentary elections, that if elections were conducted all over the country on one and the same day, it would be a very good thing for the public; and he had placed an Amendment on the Paper with the object of asking the Committee to consider that larger portion of the question. He did not, however, intend on this occasion to move that Amendment, because he knew that practically it would be impossible to obtain for it that acceptance which he thought it deserved; but he did hope that there were in the Committee those who would join with him in supporting the Motion which he now made—namely, that this new clause should be added to the Bill; and, certainly, if he had any support at all, he should take a division upon the point. Many hon. Members knew that he was a thoroughly loyal Party man; but he, nevertheless, felt himself considerably inconvenienced by what was popularly known as "The Compact." Yet the Motion he now made, he ventured to assert, favoured neither Party. It was just as much to the interests of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite to support it. [" No, no! "] At any rate, while he believed those Gentleman to be just as honest as he claimed to be himself, he believed it to be in their interests, as it was in the

  1527
  interests of hon. Members who sat on his side of the House, that the elections in divided counties should take place on one and the same day. It was within his experience—no; he withdrew that word, because he had no practical or personal knowledge of such things, but he had heard of a case in a borough in his own county. In a certain town, an election took place in 1880. On the following day an election took place in another town, and to that town from the town in which the first election had taken place, 200 men were drafted to take part in the electoral business—that was to say, 200 men were drafted from A to help the citizens of B to record their votes. Again, he knew a case where a political committee in a borough, which he would call C, had not scrupled to get from B, where an election had taken place on the previous day, from 80 to 100 carriages to help the free and independent electors to record their votes. These were practices that the House had in effect condemned when it passed the Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal) Practices Act. If the Committee would agree to the clause he took the liberty of proposing, he be lieved they would be still further endorsing the expression they had give in that Act of their determination, so far as possible, to minimize and limit then extraneous and corrupting influences He trusted that the Committee would pardon him—a Member who did not to frequently, or indeed, very frequently intrude himself on their attention—for having brought this subject forward; an he hoped that, however seldom they heard him speak, they would none the less accord to the proposal which he ventured to make at least a careful attention. He begged to move the clause which stood in his name.
  New Clause:—
  (Polls in divided counties.)
  " At a general parliamentary election the polls (if any) for the divisions in a divided county shall be taken on the same day, such day to be fixed by the returning officer of t county,"—(Mr. Agnew,)
  brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question propose " That the said Clause be now read a second time."
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he thought it was very possible that, sooner
  1528
  or later, some action would have to be taken in the direction indicated by the clause; but at the present moment, when Parliament was throwing on the Sheriffs of counties considerably increased duties, he very much doubted whether it would be wise for the Committee to run the risk which they would run if, as in the case of Lancashire, the conduct of two or three elections would rest upon the shoulders of one Sheriff by the acceptance of this proposal. He thought the acceptance of the clause would strain the powers of the Local Authorities almost as greatly as the acceptance of the proposal which was in the name of the hon. Member lower down on the Paper, to the effect that all elections at every General Election in the United Kingdom should be held on one and the same day. Looking at the great difficulties in the way of the working of the new Franchise Act and of the new Registration Act in every case, he was afraid of doing anything which would add to those difficulties, and which might possibly lead to a breakdown. It was on this ground, more than on general grounds of principle, that he would appeal to the Committee not to accept the clause.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid, that if he might be allowed to make a few remarks on this subject, he would say that he thought the objection taken by the right hon. Baronet the President of the Local Government Board was really hardly sufficient, because, after all, by the very Bill which they were now about to pass, by Clauses 11 and 12, the Returning Officer had power to depute his duties in several parts of the divisions to his Deputies, who were to be paid according 1 to a certain scale, and were practically to be responsible for the election. Though it might be said that the Sheriff was to be responsible for them, they would each, in their own part of the county, have to carry out the duties of the election itself, and undertake all the responsibilities. Therefore, he thought that, so far as the Sheriff was concerned, the adoption of the proposal would not throw additional work on his shoulders, or, at any rate, would not throw responsibilities upon him which a he could not undertake. If that objection did not hold, he thought there were some very strong advantages which would spring from the adoption of this

  1529
  proposal. In the first place, it appeared to him to be too much lost sight of that the Returning Officer was an official, and that it ought to be absolutely out of his power in any way to influence the election. It was notorious, however, that the dates of elections at present were constantly fixed by Returning Officers in a manner and on a day that they believed would tend to the advantage of the Party to which they belonged, and put to disadvantage the Party to which they did not belong. If anyone would take the trouble to look at the dates on which the different elections in the different portions of the counties took place in 1880, he would see that it must have been largely personal influence which had caused particular dates to be chosen, and that such a system could not possess the confidence of the electors themselves. To give an instance of the evil to which he alluded, he found that in 1880, in the county of Cheshire, in which there were three divisions, in one division the Returning Officer fixed the nomination day on the 2nd of April, and the polling day on the 3rd. In another division he fixed the nomination day on the 5th of April, and the polling to take place on the 9th, which was a difference of four days; and in the third division he fixed the nomination day on the 6th, and the polling to take place on the 13th, or a difference of seven days. It must have been some personal influence which caused that enormous discrepancy between the nomination day and the day of polling, and he did not think it could be said that the arrangement had been quite legitimate, and without bias or influence. Then, again, they had now passed the Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Act, which had fixed a maximum scale of expenditure for elections; and a fixed amount should surely involve a definite time for the period of election. In some cases, by the action of the Returning Officer, the election might be spread, as occurred in some cases in 1880, over a period of a fortnight; while in other cases only a single day might be allowed in which it could take place. He thought that Parliament having passed the Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Act was a very strong argument for fixing—he would not say the poll to take place on
  1530
  the same day throughout the country, though he should be in favour of such an arrangement as that—but the poll to take place on the same day in the various divisions of a county. There were several matters in regard to conveyance, bribery, &c., which were arguments in favour of the proposal; but he did not wish to detain the Committee, and, therefore, would allow them to pass. It seemed to him that the only possible objection which could be taken to this proposal was that the Returning Officers would have too much to do; but, as he had suggested, that difficulty could be got over by appointing an efficient Returning Officer for each division, and seeing that they did their duties.
  MR. GRANTHAMsaid, he was afraid that the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken knew very little of the practical effect of the Amendment he proposed. He had said that the right hon. Baronet the President of the Local Government Board could take no practical objection to the clause; but, as a matter of fact, the difficulty would be in working out the principle of the clause in practice. Those who knew anything about the working of county elections must know that it was almost impossible for the various County Sheriffs at present to carry out the duties which Parliament had imposed upon them, without being considerably out of pocket by so doing. The hon. Gentleman had forgotten that, in all these cases, the Sheriff did not know until the day of the nomination whether there was to be a contest or not. This difficulty existed in many counties. In some cases, no doubt, it was known whether or not contests were to take place; but in others it was not known until the certain period allowed by Parliament had passed; and it was, therefore, impossible for the Sheriff to make his arrangements within a day or two of the election, when all at once a contest was sprung upon him. The right hon. Baronet who had the management of the Bill knew the difficulty there was at the present time in the way of Sheriffs obtaining their Deputies. They were named in the Act of Parliament as if it were easy to get them; but he would remind the hon. Member that they were only allowed three guineas, and that for this remuneration they had to give up sometimes two days and three nights to the work. The proposal was

  1531
  an impracticable one, and he was quite sure the Committee would do right in refusing to read it a second time.
  MR. LEAKEsaid, he did not understand the objection of the hon. and learned Member for East Surrey (Mr. Grantham), because it was well known that the Sheriff, or other Returning Officer, could find as many Deputy Returning Officers as were required. At present, under the redistribution scheme of the Government, it would be necessary for the Returning Officer to find several Deputies in a place like Manchester. He admitted the difficulty pointed out by the Government. They were on the eve of a very great change, and no doubt it was as well that the difficulties which would have to be faced in connection with the extended franchise and the redistribution scheme should be minimized as much as possible; but he failed to see what greater difficulty there could be than this—that was to say, to have in such a place as the South-Eastern Division of Lancashire, eight consecutive elections on eight consecutive days. Anyone who knew the excitement of electioneering could well understand what a rush there would be of the electors from one division in which the work of polling had just finished to another in which it was just commencing. Anyone who had had practical experience of elections, and who understood what this difficulty was and was likely to be under the new Bill, would without doubt do all in his power to endeavour to remove it. Formerly, there was a 14 days' poll, which, however, gave way, for the convenience of electors, first, to a two days' poll, and then from a two days' poll to a one day's poll. The tendency of legislation had been to simplify all proceedings connected with elections, and throughout the United Kingdom there would be very little difficulty in appointing the polling for the borough on one day, and that for the counties on another day. He certainly thought the proposition of his hon. Friend (Mr. Agnew) was well worth the consideration of those who occupied the two Front Benches, who had already done so much towards securing a settlement of these matters.
  MR. H. S. NORTHCOTEsaid, the hon. Member (Mr. Sidney Buxton) had quoted a case of a division of the county of Cheshire, in which, as he had stated,
  1532
  the Returning Officer had fixed the 2nd of April as the nomination day, and the polling day on the 3rd. If the hon. Gentleman were accurate in his statement, he (Mr. Northcote) maintained that such a procedure was entirely contrary to the law, and he should like to ask the hon. Member whether he would state which division of the county of Cheshire he referred to?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONreplied, that he was sorry he had not taken down the particular division to which he had referred; but he had obtained the information in the Library, and he should be very glad to supply it to the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Northcote) afterwards.
  SIR JOSEPH BAILEYopposed the clause, and said, that if the same Returning Officer were called upon to manage several elections on the same day, he could not see how, in some cases, especially in his own, it was possible that this could be done. He thought that such a consideration ought to decide the Committee against the adoption of the proposal contained in the Amendment.
  MR. R. N. FOWLERsaid, there was one point to which he desired very briefly to call the attention of the Committee. At a General Election there were all sorts of local circumstances, of which the Sheriffs of counties were cognizant, that would render it exceedingly difficult to carry out the proposal involved in the Amendment. For instance, markets in different parts of the county were generally held on particular days, and if the Committee were to draw a hard-and-fast line, by fixing the election for the different divisions on the same day, it would be found that this would seriously interfere with the convenience of the electors by clashing very much with their market arrangements.
  MR. ECROYDsaid, the hon. Members for South-East Lancashire, who had proposed and supported the Amendment, did not appear to appreciate the difference that existed between the two cases—of voting for boroughs, and voting for the divisions of counties. But the right of those who possessed property in different divisions to vote for that property had been recognized by the measure, and any attempt to hold the elections for all the divisions of such a county as Lancashire on the same day must necessarily disqualify a

  1533
  large proportion of those who were thus entitled to vote. He would not take up the time of the Committee further; but it was important that they should understand what was the real meaning and motive of the Amendment before them. For his own part, he should certainly vote against the proposal of his hon. Friend.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 62; Noes 155: Majority 93.—(Div. List, No. 61.)
  SIR EARDLEY WILMOT, in rising to move the following Clause:—
  "The number of 3lembers of the House of Commons shall be fixed at six hundred and fifty-eight."
  said, in proposing the clause of which he had given Notice, he desired briefly to state the reasons upon which he founded it.
  MR. BUCHANANrose to a point of Order, upon which he desired the ruling of the Chair. The House, he said, at an earlier stage of the measure, had negatived a Motion involving a similar proposition that had been brought forward by the hon. and gallant Member for the Wigtown Burghs (Sir John Hay), although in other words—namely, "It is inexpedient that the numbers of this House should be increased." He (Mr. Buchanan) wished to ask whether, after the House had negatived that proposition, it was competent for the hon. Baronet (Sir Eardley Wilmot) to raise the same question in a new clause in Committee?
  MR. RAIKRSasked whether the Chairman did not consider that the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for the Wigtown Burghs (Sir John Hay), to which the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Buchanan) had just referred, did not materially differ from the clause now proposed by the hon. Baronet (Sir Eardley Wilmot), inasmuch as it was expressly intended to diminish the representation of Ireland and Wales, whereas the clause now before the Committee need not, if adopted, have any effect in such a direction? He therefore submitted, as a point worthy the consideration of the Chair, whether there was not a very material difference between the Amendment negatived on the proposal to go into Committee, and the clause now moved?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he remembered the Amendment moved by the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for the Wigtown Burghs (Sir John Hay), with the view of preventing an increase in the numbers of the House. That Amendment was negatived.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, he would point out to the Committee that they were now in a different stage to that in which the decision referred to had been given. He must say, however, that he had had great doubt as to whether he could accept the Amendment submitted by the hon. Baronet (Sir Eardley Wilmot), as it appeared to him to be much more in the form of an abstract Resolution than of a new clause, and, to a certain extent, it seemed to be in contradiction of some of the decisions to which the Committee had already arrived. The hon. Baronet, in moving this as a new clause, ought to have stated the Schedule by which effect was to be given to it, and how he proposed to dispose of the number of Members so as to reduce them to 658. He (the Chairman) had not thought proper to stop the hon. Baronet, nor should he do so, if the hon. Baronet chose to go on after hearing this expression of his opinion.
  SIR EARDLEY WILMOTsaid, after the ruling just given by the Chairman of Committees, he would state the reasons that had induced him to propose the clause. He was quite aware of what had been done on a former occasion by his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Wigtown Burghs (Sir John Hay), and he remembered that that proposal, being one that had a double effect involving two distinct propositions, he (Sir Eardley Wilmot) had been prevented from giving his vote for it, as he could not vote for both proposals. Therefore, he had thought he should be in Order in moving the clause he had put upon the Paper. As he was allowed to proceed with his proposition, he would take the opportunity of offering a few observations in explanation of why he had brought it forward. He was not aware exactly how far he was acting in opposition to what they all understood to be the compact between the two Front Benches of that House in moving this new clause. He should be sorry to do anything that would appear to violate the solemn compact which had

  1535
  hitherto bound hon. Members on that side of the House in a hard-and-fast bond in regard to this Redistribution Bill. He also begged to say that, in moving his new clause, he had no wish to say anything in opposition to what he considered to be the just claims of the Scotch Members to an addition of 12 Members to the present representation of Scotland. It was not his object in any way to prevent such an addition being made to the representation of North Britain. He would, therefore, state as briefly as possible what his object really was. He considered that the present constitution of the House, which had consisted of 658 Members throughout the whole of the present century, was quite sufficient to meet the requirements of the country. Last week, he had ventured, in addressing the House, to give it as his opinion that if they could have reduced the number of Members of that House to 600, they would have done much better than in accepting the proposal to increase their number to 670. At the beginning of the present century the number of Members of the House of Commons was, as he had already indicated, 658—namely, 513 for England and Wales, 45 for Scotland, and 100 for Ireland. Previous to that period the number had been 558; but at the time of the Act of Union an addition of 100 Members was made. When, in 1832, a new Reform Act was passed, they found that no alteration whatever was made in the number of Member, constituting that assembly. Lord Grey added five Members to the Irish constituencies, and also increased the number of Scotch Members; but he retained the total number of 658—namely, 500 for England and Wales, 53 for Scotland and 105 for Ireland. Proceeding further in the direction of Reform—and he only wished that, in the present Bill Her Majesty's Government had followed the memorable Acts to which he had referred, as closely as the Conservative, Government had followed the precedents before them—he found that under the Act passed during the Government of Mr. Disraeli, afterwards Lord Beaconsfield , the number of Members which had, up to that time, composed the House—namely, 658, was still retained. The number returned by Ireland was allowed to remain—105—as it had previously been; but 15 Members were
  1536
  added to Scotland, by which the number of Representatives for that portion of the United Kingdom was raised from 45 to 60, that addition being obtained by the sacrifice of a corresponding number of seats in England and Wales, the total number of English and Welsh seats being thereby reduced from 513 to 493, thus making a total for the Three Kingdoms of 658. The proposal of the present Bill went, however, on a totally different principle. It was now proposed that Ireland should have 103 Representatives, that the number in Scotland should be increased to 72, and that England and Wales should have 495, making, together, a total of 670. In order to arrive at a just appreciation of this question, he would ask the Committee to take into consideration the way in which the various other Representative Chambers in Europe and America were constituted. It would be found that, comparing the number of Representatives with the population, as well as with the number of registered electors, the amount of representation in the different European countries and in the United States was very much less than in the United Kingdom. He would, first of all, take the German Chamber. He found that in Germany there was a population of 45,324,161, and a total of upwards of 9,000,000 of electors, of whom, at the last General Election, upwards of 5,000,000 voted, while the number of Representatives returned to the Reichstag was 432, the number having been increased from 397 at the time the different States of Germany became united. Turning from Germany to France, he found the result of the comparison with this country pretty much the same. The French Chamber of Deputies, at which he had been present during some of the debates, was composed of only 537 Members, the population of the entire country amounting to 37,405,290, and the number of electors at the last General Election to upwards of 10,000,000. So that, with this enormous population, E and under the system of universal suffrage which prevailed there under so large an electorate, the French people were content with 537 Representatives, as against 658—or, as was now proposed, 670—in the United Kingdom. The next example he would take was s that of the United States, which, to the

  1537
  present occupants of the Treasury Bench, would appear to present such a wonderful model for imitation in the present measure. Up to the year 1870, there were only 293 Representatives in the Lower Chamber of the United States; but it was then increased to 395, at which number it now remained, which gave one Representative to every 104,325 of the population, which, in 1880, was nearly 50,000,000, while the number of electors who voted at the last Election of President was 10,500,000. At the Census of 1880 the population had actually increased in 30 years by 37,118,743. He quoted these examples for the purpose of showing that in all the other Chambers of Representatives, both in Europe and America—and he had with him, and could quote if necessary, similar statistics to those he had already given, for Belgium and Italy—the representation of the people was much smaller in proportion to population than it was in this country. This might not go for very much; but he had still another argument which, he thought, would weigh with hon. Members of that Committee; and it was that, whether as affecting the opportunities for speaking and transacting the general Business of that Assembly, or the question of finding places in a Chamber which was already too small to accommodate all its Members, the proposed addition to the number of Members would not add to the difficulties already experienced. It was true that 12 was not, in itself, a large number to add to the existing total; but if the principle of increasing the numerical composition of the House were once admitted, it would be very difficult on any future occasion to resist the appeals that might be anticipated from different boroughs in which the population increased, as no doubt it would, for an increase in the number of Representatives sent to that Chamber. Therefore, he submitted, the number of Members of that House ought not to be increased. He based his proposal on the various reasons he had urged with regard to the practice pursued in other countries, and especially with reference to the fact that in no other Reform Bill since the beginning of the century had any attempt been made to increase the number of Members constituting that House. In view of all these examples, he con-
  1538
  tended that they would not be justified, even for the purpose of adding to the present number of Scotch Representatives, which he freely admitted was a desirable procedure, in adding to the total number of the House. It was not for him, an humble individual, to point out how the additional Members were to be obtained for the purpose of giving extra representation to Scotland. The examples he had quoted showed that great statesmen who, on former occasions, had introduced and carried Reform Bills, found opportunities for increasing the representation of Scotland. He acknowledged that Scotland was entitled to a larger representation than it had at present; but it ought not to obtain it at the expense of an addition to the numbers of the House. Therefore, with great confidence in the justice and reasonableness of his suggestion, he begged to move the new clause which stood in his name.
  Clause (Number of Members of the House of Commons,)—(Sir Eardley Wilmot,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, " That the said Clause be now read a second time."
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The hon. Baronet says it is not for him, a humble individual, to show how the additional Members for Scotland ought to be obtained without increasing the number of the Members of the House.
  SIR EARDLEY WILMOT: I said I would not take it upon myself to do so, as I considered that incumbent upon the Government.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I am quoting the hon. Baronet's words. He said he, as a humble individual, would not say how the extra Members to be given to Scotland should be found. Now, it is an essential part of the hon. Gentleman's case—for not only on this occasion, but on former occasions, he has announced it—that there should be no diminution in the representation of Ireland.
  SIR EARDLEY WILMOT: I say that now.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Then he wishes to obtain the seats for Scotland from England.
  SIR EARDLEY WILMOT: On former occasions framers of Reform Bills

  1539
  have found means of adding to the representation of Scotland. I think it would be quite within your power to do that now.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The only effect of the hon. Gentleman's proposal would be that seats should be taken from England and Wales and given to Scotland. I do not think the Committee generally would desire to take that course, for I am bound to say that on the two former occasions on which this matter was discussed—namely, on the Motion of the right hon. and gallant Admiral the Member for the Wigtown Burghs (Sir John Hay), and also on the Motion of the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold)—there did not appear to be any general feeling in the House against the proposal that is made in the Bill. The practical result of the proposal of the hon. Gentleman (Sir Eardley Wilmot), if adopted, would be that we should have to do exactly what he strongly protests against—that is to say, to take three Members from Ireland. The hon. Baronet has argued that if we now fix the number of Members at 670, we shall probably, at some future time, go further, and increase the number still more. That is not my opinion. I venture to think that if you look at the framework of this Bill, you will find that it is unlikely that in the future any proposal to increase the number of the House will be made. All that it wit ever be likely to do in the future wit simply be to increase the quota of the population.
  MR. RAIKESsaid, he was not at all disappointed to hear what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill (Sir Charles W. Dilke), because the right hon. Baronet was unable to vote in support of the Amendment which was moved when the Motion was made that " The Speaker do leave the Chair." With regard to taking a certain number of Members from Irelan1 and a certain number from Wales, he (Mr. Raikes) wished to explain why he thought the proposal which his hon. Friend (Sir Eardley Wilmot) had made now deserved the serious consideration of the Committee. It seemed to him was a proposal which, apart from political exigencies, would probably command the adhesion of every Member of the Committee; he did not suppose that
  1540
  even the Members of the Treasury Bench, or of the Front Opposition Bench, would dissent from this proposition, if it were not for special and particular circumstances which had led hon. and right hon. Gentlemen to a different conclusion. But they were told that it would be impossible to deal with this Amendment so as to incorporate it in the Bill, without altering the scale in a way which would be distasteful to the Committee. He, however, differed from that view. He quite accepted the necessity that it would entail the taking of three Members from Ireland. He had always felt that it would be extremely undesirable—if not, indeed, unjust—to reduce Ireland to a representation below the Act of Union number of 100; but he believed that between 100 and 103 it was open to the Committee to consider whether they should not find an opportunity—if they could do so in accordance with the scale—of reducing the representation of Ireland to the amount prescribed by the Act of Union. He ventured to point out that, in dealing with Ireland, the scale had been departed from. There were several of the Irish counties which received from this Bill representation to which they would not have been entitled had they been English counties. There were two or three Irish counties which obtained four Members, but which, had they been in England, would only have obtained three Members; and there was at least one county in Ireland which received three Members, but which, if it had been in England, would only have received two—he referred to the county of Armagh. Now, that county contained only 162,000 inhabitants, and it was, therefore, below the limit of 165,000 entitling to three Members.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEremarked I that, in order to keep up the balance between boroughs and counties, large counties were better treated than large boroughs.
  MR. RAIKESsaid, he had no doubt that the statement just made by the right hon. Baronet was perfectly consistent with the rest of his argument but he (Mr. Raikes) did not see that it bound the Committee. He understood that no constituency under 165,000 inhabitants was entitled to three Members—that was to say, that there should be a Member for a little over every 50,000

  1541
  people. He could not see why Leicester, for instance, was to be content with two Members, while some Irish counties, scarcely exceeding it in population, and immeasurably inferior to it in wealth and every other ingredient which went to make up an important town, should have three and four Members. There were one or two Irish counties which were now to return four Members to which the same argument applied. There were Tipperary and Tyrone for example. Both these counties were over-represented as compared with English constituencies of the same population. He did not think it would be very unjust, therefore, if three Members were taken from the Irish counties he had named, and by that means the Irish representation would be brought down to 100, as prescribed by the Act of Union. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold) received very little encouragement when he proposed to raise the limit of disfranchisement above 15,000 as regarded single boroughs. He (Mr. Raikes) observed, however, that most of the proposals made in that House by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Salford received very little encouragement, and he did not think, therefore, that they ought to argue too far on that particular case; but, at the same time, the particular question was settled by a very decided and overwhelming vote so far as the representation of the small towns was concerned. He (Mr. Raikes) wished to ask whether there was not another way of dealing with the towns containing 15,000 inhabitants otherwise that by disfranchising them; was it not possible that some arrangement should 13 made by which the small constituencies should be grouped together and enjoy representation conjointly with each other, but in such a manner as to create constituencies which would still fall short of the quota for a single Member? Peterborough, for example, had no particular claim that he knew of on the House to return any excessive number of Members. It contained some 22,001 inhabitants, and it was within half-an-hour, by the Great Northern Railway of the town of Grantham, which had a population of 15,000. He could not see why these towns could not be grouped together; in that way one Member would be gained. He thought other
  1542
  constituencies might very easily be found capable of being grouped. He did not know whether grouping was objected to by the present Government, although it was invented by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister; he knew that the Government disliked the phrase, but he did not see why they should not accept the fact. They might well combine a certain number of constituencies containing populations which, in the aggregate, would amount to somewhere about 55,000, and thereby obtain three or four Members more. He was speaking now both of England and Wales. Then there came another part of the question which had not yet been raised in the Committee, but which was deserving consideration, and that was the question of the boroughs above 50,000 which still retained two Members. He had put down upon the Paper an Amendment, which he should not at all attempt to discuss now, dealing with the smallest of these boroughs—he meant the town of Ipswich. He put that Amendment down, having special regard to the fact that if the quota of representation of one Member was fixed at 54,000 or 55,000 there could not be any shadow of a reason for giving two Members to any constituency which was not, by population, even entitled to one Member. There were one or two other boroughs to be found in the same category—for instance, Stockport and Northampton. No doubt, hon. Members would be sorry to deprive the House of the ornaments which those boroughs contributed to their Assembly; but still it might be possible, with the view of public necessity, even to make a sacrifice of that description. He certainly could not see why this proposition, which was based on experience of foreign countries and supported by the experience of this Assembly, should be put aside as wholly unworthy of consideration when the materials were at hand for giving it immediate effect. Of course they heard a great deal about the compact, and he would quite admit that the scheme, as a whole, was a fairly reasonable one. He also readily admitted that the compact was an arrangement which, of course, afforded the only opportunity of passing through this House any Redistribution Bill which would have any approximation to justice; but even the best of rules admitted of exceptions, and he could not c see why it should not be possible so far

  1543
  to infringe on this scheme in the direction proposed. He could not for the life of him understand why they should not be allowed to alter the scheme in any one single particular. He hoped the Committee would pause before rejecting the new clause which his hon. Friend (Sir Eardley Wilmot) had proposed. He believed that if the Committee was free from those bugbears which were constantly paraded before it, there would be very little difference of opinion as to the desirability of accepting this clause. He appealed to the judgment of the Committee as to whether, before they started upon the Schedules, it was not proper to deal with this question, and retain, if possible, that number of Members which had been found to work so well throughout the whole of the present century.
  SIR. STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I consider that the question whether the number of Members of the House should be increased is a question which the Committee itself must deal with and decide upon; but my opinion is that undoubtedly the easiest and simplest way of dealing with the difficulty which presents itself is by making an addition to the number of the Members of the House. If you enter upon a business like that of recasting the representation of the people in this House, recasting it as far as you can upon the principle of equalization, you will find that you have to go into very difficult and complicated questions; and, undoubtedly, if you had to begin with reducing the number of Members allotted to any particular part of the United Kingdom, you raise the question of equalization in a much more difficult form than you would if you add to the number of the House. Undoubtedly, the criticisms that would have been applied to your scheme would have been very great if the scheme were one involving the taking away Members from England and Wales for the sake of adding to the representation of Scotland; they would have been of such a very difficult and complicated character, that I think the Government have acted wisely, and that we are right in agreeing with them. I myself feel perfectly at one with the Government in the proposal they make with regard to the mode of dealing with the increase in the representation of 'Scotland.. It has been said that what is
  1544
  to be now done will establish a precedent for further increasing the number of the House if at any future time an occasion arises; but we must bear in mind the particular circumstances under which this increase is proposed. We have just admitted no less than 2,000,000 voters to the electorate, which has thereby been raised from 3,000,000 to 5,000,000. The large addition of 2,000,000 voters does supply a reason for the addition to the number of the Members of the House. Upon the whole, it is the easiest method of dealing with this question, and it is one which is most likely to produce a satisfactory result. I think the Committee may well be content with the proposal of the Government.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILRE: After the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Raikes), perhaps I may be allowed to make one observation. The right hon. Gentleman says that the scheme is undoubtedly favourable to the Irish counties; but that is not the case. If the right hon. Gentleman will look at the scheme after the adjustment of boundaries which took place after the Bill was first introduced, he will see that the only two counties which are out of their place in the scale, so far as population is concerned, are two English counties—namely, Worcestershire and Wiltshire. The right hon. Gentleman mentions two counties—namely, Tipperary and Tyrone, from each of which a Member might very properly be taken. Now, the populations of these counties are 197,000 and 199,000 respectively; while Dorsetshire, with a population of 191,000, has the same number of Members allotted. The other case the right hon. Gentleman mentioned was the county of Armagh. Now, it has 157,000 of a population, and is to have three Members; while the East Riding of Yorkshire has 145,000 of a population, and also three Members. I have not mentioned the cases where we have left counties with a certain number of Members; but I have specially confined my remarks to where additional Members have been given.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: I am anxious to say a few words on this question, because I regret to find myself in entire disagreement with what has just fallen from my right hon. Friend

  1545
  (Sir Stafford Northcote). My right hon. Friend argued in favour of the proposal to increase the number of the Members of the House by 12, on the ground that it was the easiest way of dealing with the necessity of giving 12 Members to Scotland. I am quite ready to admit that Scotland ought to have 12 additional Members, and in nothing I should say or do in the Committee would I seek to deprive Scotland of the proposed additional representation. But I entirely demur to my right hon. Friend's argument that we ought to adopt the course of adding 12 Members to the House, merely because it is the easiest way of getting over the difficulty. I must say, with all respect to my right hon. Friend and the Government, that it appears to me to be a piece of timidity which this House ought not to sanction. It appears to me that in making this addition to the House we are establishing a vicious, because a totally unnecessary, precedent. The hon. Baronet the Member for South Warwickshire (Sir Eardley Wilmot) has stated to the Committee that this is the first occasion since the Act of Union, at the commencement of the century, on which an addition has been made to the Members of this House. Of course, the Act of Union was a very great measure, which dealt with exceptional circumstances, requiring exceptional provisions. Sir, it cannot be necessary to add to the numbers of the House for the better transaction of the Business of the country. Why, the vice of this House is too much talk, and the more Members you add to the House, the more certain it is that the talk will be increased. It may be said that the addition of 12 Members will make no material difference; but if you once, make this increase, because you have to, meet the claims of Scotland to additional representation, another occasion may arise 10 or 20 years hence, when some other part of the United Kingdom may make a similar claim; and the you will have this precedent established —that the only way to meet the claim is to add to the number of Members. The addition of 2,000,000 voters to the const tuencies of the United Kingdom is, to my mind, no reason for making this addition of 12 Members to the House. It cannot be argued that 658 Members are not sufficient to represent the constituencies
  1546
  of this Kingdom, however numerous the voters in the constituencies may be. Well, then, the simple and sole reason for this addition of 12 Members is, that it is the easiest way of meeting the claims of Scotland. Well, but have the claims of Scotland never had to be met before? They were met in the Act for which my right hon. Friend himself was responsible in 1867. Scotland then received an addition of seven Members, and those Members were taken from English constituencies. What have you now to do? The Committee are aware that there are at present six vacant seats, owing to constituencies in England and Ireland having been disfranchised for corruption. Cannot Scotland have those six seats? Then there would only be six more to provide, towards which we might take the three from Ireland, to which my right hon. Friend (Mr. Raikes) refers. Why should Ireland have more Members than was fixed by the Act of Union? I can see no reason at all. And surely the remaining three might be found out of the excess of Members which you propose to lavish on the Metropolis and great towns; or out of the constituencies between 50,000 and 55,000 inhabitants, who certainly have no right whatever to two Members, when larger towns than they are only to have one. These are propositions which I say, if Her Majesty's Government and the Committee are willing to deal with this question courageously, might meet the difficulty. By the means I have shown, it would be perfectly possible to find the increase for the representation of Scotland without any addition to the number of the Members of the House. I hope that my hon. Friend) (Sir Eardley Wilmot) will press his Motion to a division, and that, if unsuccessful, he will raise the question again; because, by so doing, he will do his best to free the House from the establishment of a precedent which, in my opinion, may lead to great mischief in the future, and which ought not to be sanctioned now, because there is not the slightest necessity for it.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I am perfectly amazed at the speech we have y just heard. The right hon. Gentleman a raises objection to the quota of 50,000, which is au essential portion of the agreement that was made. I cannot s understand how he can have made that

  1547
  speech, if he recollects what the agreement was. He has spoken of six seats which are at present vacant as if they were permanently vacant. By this Bill they are filled up; and, therefore, he would have to find nine seats, even if the Committee consented to take away three seats from Ireland—from Tyrone, Tipperary, and Belfast—which, I presume, they would not do. The nine seats would have to be taken away England—would have to be taken, as the right hon. Gentleman says, from the Metropolis and the larger towns of the country. The first county on the list which would necessarily suffer or lose a seat would be the county of Wiltshire, in which the right hon. Gentleman is a very large landowner. I do not know whether the inhabitants of Wiltshire would be satisfied with the decrease of their number of seats; anyhow, that would be the first consequence of the adoption of the Amendment. Worcestershire and Wiltshire would be the two English counties which would stand first on the list to lose seats. The Amendment before the Committee has been seconded by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Raikes) Now, that right hon. Gentleman complained the other night that we only allowed two seats to the City of London; and that, generally speaking, the Metro. polis was badly treated by the Bill; and now we have the right hon. Baronet (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) supporting this proposition, and telling us that seats ought to be taken away from the Metropolis.
  MR. GORSTsaid, he wished to say word or two in support of the compact which had been arrived at by the nigh hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote) and Her Majesty's Government, which appeared to him to be receiving a great deal of undeserved censure in this matter; undeserved, because they were followings precisely the precedent set in 1867 by the late Mr. Disraeli. On that occasion: it was necessary to increase the representation of Scotland. The representation of England was settled by the Bill of that year; but no Members were provided in the scheme for the increase in the representation of Scotland. He (Mr Gorst) remembered very well that when Mr. Disraeli was pressed as to where he was going to get the additional Members
  1548
  for Scotland, he said he had no doubt the wisdom of Parliament would provide. In 1868 the Representation of the People Bill for Scotland was brought in, and by the operation of that Bill the number of Members of this House was greatly increased, and the Bill was read a second time and was proceeding in the House with an increase of the number of Members of the House. The increase, however, was so repugnant to the sense of Parliament, that the wisdom of Parliament did provide for the emergency, for by the 43rd section of the Representation of the People (Scotland) Act there were no less than seven English boroughs disfranchised for the purpose of providing seats for Scotland. Therefore, it appeared to him (Mr. Gorst) that the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Stafford Northcote) and Her Majesty's Government, in putting before the House this scheme for increasing the number of seats, were following the precedents of 1867 and 1868 and if Parliament was desirous of limiting the number of Members of the House to the magic number of 658, it must be for the wisdom of Parliament to discover where the 12 seats could be saved. There were a good many proposals made for the taking away of seats from different persons and places. There were some small boroughs even yet returning Members; and he had no doubt that if an Amendment were proposed to take away from these the 12 Members which were required for Scotland, Parliament would desire to accept such a proposal if it were before the Committee. No doubt the Government and the right hon. Baronet the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote) would act as Mr. Disraeli acted in 1868, and recognize the wisdom of Parliament by accepting a very rea1sonable proposal.
  Dr. LYONSprotested against any proposal for the reduction of the number of Representatives for Ireland. The representation of Ireland was fully and carefully considered at the time of the Union, and the opinion of such great statesmen as Lord Castlereagh in this matter should have attached to it the weight it deserved.
  MR. BRODRICKsaid that, for his own part, he could not support the right hon. Baronet the Leader of the Opposition (Sir Stafford Northcote) on this occasion. He could not but regret to

  1549
  See such an instance of absolute pusillanimity as that, when the Leaders of the two Parties had come together, an obvious measure of justice, based on population with regard to the Three Kingdoms, had. not been carried out from the fear of offending a Party in the Committee. He regretted to see that the Government should have entered on the task in such a spirit and taken this step, not on grounds of absolute justice, but on the ground that hon. Members forming that section of the Committee might consider themselves aggrieved. There was not an hon. Member in the House who bad ventured, during the whole course of these discussions' to assume for one moment that it would be possible to carry on Public Business in the next Parliament with the large and preponderating influence which would be given to one class of Irish Members in the House. If, with their present numbers, the fear of them was so great as to induce the Government to depart in their interest from the lines on which the measure was framed, what did the House suppose would be the state of affairs in the next Parliament? The whole power of dictating the course of Business would be placed in the hands of that section _of Members by the action the Government had taken; and, for his own part, he felt it necessary to vote against an increase of the number of Members of the House. He could not help feeling that the opportunity of cluing justice to all parts of the United Kingdom had been missed, and that the attempt which had been made to give extra representation to Scotland, at the expense of the numbers of the House, was one which would still leave Scotland at a disadvantage in view of the preponderating influence giver to Ireland, and that the proposition before the Committee might have beer avoided if justice had been done with out fear or favour to all parties in the country.
  MR. H. S. NORTHCOTEsaid, he had voted in favour of the reduction of the number of Irish Representatives; but it appeared to him that if the Amendment were carried, the only effect would be that England would lose a number o Members, while Scotland would get he increase. He could not support the principle of giving Scotland that increase at the expense of the English
  1550
  constituencies. In refusing to vote for the proposal, he was simply refusing to vote for the reduction of English Members by nine.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 47; Noes 149: Majority 102.—(Div. List, No. 62.)
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that in consequence of a communication which had been sent across the Table to him by the right hon. Gentleman opposite the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) to move the notes to the Schedules as a new clause he had given an undertaking to do so, and he now wished to give effect to that undertaking. He merely wished to say that he had been quite right in his assertion that many Bills had contained notes to the Schedules in the form in which they had appeared in this Bill. The Artizans' Dwellings Act was a case in point, and a similar form had been adopted in connection with other measures, although, so far as he was personally concerned, he preferred to have the notes in the form of a clause.
  New Clause (Notes to the Schedules,)—(Sir Charles W. Dilke,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Question, " That the Clause be now read a second time," put, and agreed to.
  Amendment proposed, in line 1, to leave out the words " Notes to the."—(Sir Charles W. Dilke.)
  Question, " That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
  Amendment proposed, after the word " Schedules," to insert the words " to this Act."
  Question, " That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, that in line 6 of the Schedule the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Charles W. Dilke) appeared to him to define obscurum per obscurius. He said " the word county means county at large." What did that mean?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he had thought that surely the right hon. Gentleman would have been capable of understanding that the phrase " county at large " was a phrase commonly used

  1551
  to describe the whole Parliamentary county.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: It distinguishes between a county and a division of a county.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Yes; that is so.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 12, line 29, after " eighty-five," insert "for the purposes of municipal elections."—(Sir Charles W. Mice.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, it seemed to him very absurd to put in as a definition of a Parliamentary polling district those which existed on the 1st of January, 1885, seeing that they were going to alter the Parliamentary districts in this Bill.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, it had been impossible to leave to Local Authorities the power of altering the dates of elections. It was necessary to fix them by law, and it was necessary also to have some past date. They could not take some future day. It would, of course, be very easy to alter the date on some future occasion.
  Question put, and agreed to; words inserted accordingly.
  MR. CAUSTONsaid, he wished to move a new clause to the effect that at any General Election the elections in all cities and boroughs of the United Kingdom should be held on one and the same day. The same objection could not be raised to this clause that was raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross); and he might say that he moved this Amendment in the interests of the electors, candidates, and Returning Officers. Such an arrangement as he proposed would be fair to all parties. No uncertainty as to the day of election could possibly prevail; no pressure could be put on the Returning Officer to fix a day; and the Party opposed to the political views of the Returning Officer could not be damnified by that person's choice of date for the election. He was sure that it would be much more agreeable to the feelings of the Returning Officer himself to have the day fixed in this way, and also that it would be greatly to the interest of commerce throughout the United King-
  1552
  dom to have all these contests taking place simultaneously. He could see no possible objection to adopting this course. He could see that in the case of the counties there might be some difficulty in carrying out a similar proposal; but in the case of the boroughs he maintained that the clause would be found to work to the interests of Returning Officers, and would avoid pressure or Party feeling being brought to bear on the Returning Officer by either side. As to who was to fix the day for a General Election, that would have to be made the subject of another clause. There would be no difficulty in adopting a plan for fixing that day. It might be made a certain number of days succeeding the issue of the Writ, or they might say that if Parliament dissolved on such and such a day the election in all boroughs should take place on such and such a day. He could not see any serious obstacle in the way of carrying out this proposal. He, therefore, hoped that the Committee would give its careful and favourable consideration to his plan. He moved the clause in no Party spirit. He thought it was a fair and reasonable proposal, as he had said before, in the interests of the electors, candidates, and Returning Officers.
  New Clause (General Elections,)—(Mr. Causton,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, " That the said Clause .be now read a second time."
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that this Amendment seemed to him to be a little wide of the object of the Bill. It was a mere declaration of principle also, and did not provide any machinery for carrying out the principle it laid down, and it would require a considerable amendment of the law in order to carry it out. The Rules were issued to the Returning Officers, but there was an Act which allowed elasticity with regard to distance and so forth; and provision would have to be made to enable places at a distance from London, such as those in the North of Scotland, and in the extreme West of Ireland, to receive the Writs and to arrange the elections. The Writs took much longer time to reach some places than others. But his main objection to the proposal was that it was wide of the object of the Bill.
  MR. CROPPERsaid, that, in spite of the remarks of his right hon. Friend (Sir Charles W. Dilke), he could not help thinking that it would be of very great value at the present time to assert the principle of the Amendment. It seemed to him that, in addition to other advantages which would be given, the Amendment would obviate the great inconvenience which arose from the dislocation of business, the excitement, and the troubles to a candidate resulting from the present want of uniformity in the dates of elections. They should have this very important fact before them—that in a General Election the losing Party lost a great deal more through this want of uniformity for the reason that when a few elections went against a Party the electors at subsequent elections were influenced by what had already taken place. The losing Party in 1874, and also in 1880, lost more than they otherwise would have done by reason of the effect of one borough election upon another. The result of winning some seats resulted in a considerable number of other victories being gained. There were many men who had so little political principle that they would seem to allow their opinions to be decided by the success which one or other of the Parties was obtaining around them. It seemed to him that by fixing one date for all elections they would get over all the trouble, all the excitement, and all the causes that at present existed. They themselves as candidates would be immensely benefited, and as electors they would also feel it a great blessing. He could not conceive how anyone could object to the proposal, except the newspapers, which reaped a great harvest from recording false and true reports as to the results of various elections which were going on for a considerable period. It seemed to him that the difficulty as to counties would not hold in regard to cities and boroughs. There could be no objection on the score of the Returning Officer having the work to do, because that official would not be called upon to do any more work than he would have to perform at present. As to the difficulty assumed by the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) in regard to the distance and the difficulty of communication, it seemed to him that in the days of quick posts and telegraphs
  1554
  the difficulty was reduced to almost nothing. He was convinced that if it could be stated that on the "Wednesday or the Thursday after the Dissolution of Parliament a new Election should take place, quite sufficient time would be granted, and it would be possible in all boroughs to carry out the arrangement. It seemed to him that the amount of trouble that was caused by persons who went from one borough to another—by platform orators, men in the moon, and the various other notorious persons who exercised some influence on election days being unable to carry on their operations in various districts at various times—would be done away with, and that they would have a much more simple, a much less expensive, and a much less exciting method of carrying on a contest at the time of a General Election than they had at present. He hoped the hon. Member (Mr. Causton) would go into the Lobby, because he believed he would see that there were a great many hon. Members in the Committee who had found from their own experience the immense difficulties which attached to not having all the elections on one day.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he wished to point out what an enormous inconvenience would follow from the adoption of this clause, because the same day would have to be appointed for elections, not only in all the boroughs of England, but throughout the Kingdom, iucluding the far distant Wick Burghs. Not a single borough election could take place in England until the day appointed for the election in the Wick Burghs arrived. That would involve an enormous inconvenience; and, certainly, there was nothing that could add more to the turmoil of an election contest.
  MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, he thought there were certainly some strong reasons in favour of the proposed clause. It had always seemed to him—and the last two General Elections had greatly supported the view—that an undue amount of weight was attached to those elections which took place on the first day of the contest; and when the result of the first day's elections, in what he might call a few petty boroughs was in favour of one particular Party, that Party gained an undue advantage in the contests still pending in the more important consti-

  1555
  tuencies. However, circumstances had occurred since the last General Election which materially affected the matter, and greatly modified that view. In the first place, these small boroughs had been got rid of—the Parliamentary boroughs of the country would now be of a much larger size than those he had referred to. In the second place, he did not think that the subsequent elections would, for the future, be affected to so great an extent by those which were decided at the very beginning of the contest. Therefore, although there might formerly have been good reason for the adoption of such a course as was now proposed, there would not be the same necessity for it now, especially as the larger boroughs were now to be divided into divisions.
  MR. ILLINGWORTHthought the drawback of the proposal would outweigh its advantages. One day might be more convenient than another for election in one particular borough; but it might be just the opposite in the case of another borough.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, he wished to say one word. This question appeared to him to contain a balance of inconveniences. It was inconvenient, no doubt, for any gentleman, who had five, six, seven, or eight votes in different constituencies, and who wished to utilize them all. He could quite understand why the proposition of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Colchester (Mr. Causton) should not be likely to be received with very much gratification by hon. Gentlemen who were placed in that position. But if the Committee would look at the matter fairly, they ought to consider, not alone the inconveniences of those who were surfeited with votes, but the convenience of those hon. Gentlemen who had one constituency to stand for. He spoke as an Irish Member, who would not be at all sorry if hon. Gentlemen opposite, who spoke with a power of language to which he never could pretend, and who followed the Leadership of the hon. Member for the City of Cork—(Mr. Parnell)—could be concentrated together in some small bailliewick. He had heard it said to-night, in reply to the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie), who moved the first Amendment, that the essence of this Bill was the representation of diversity of interests and of local feeling, so that the people of a locality should be al-
  1556
  lowed to express their opinions fairly and freely without interference. It appeared to him (Sir Patrick O'Brien) that a system such as had been proposed by the hon. Member for Colchester would be of advantage in Ireland. Although on other occasions he would be delighted to hear those hon. Gentlemen opposite, to whom he had already referred, and who had made their names famous all over Europe by their oratory, still, for his own part, and notwithstanding the fact that he himself in his humble person had the honour of having five votes in Ireland, he would be very willing to sacrifice four of them for the purpose of obtaining the absence of those hon. Gentlemen during his election. He did not think, in saying that, that he was pursuing a course which was very different from that of many hon. Gentlemen—he would, not of course, call them professional politicians—who believed that they occupied a status in society, which numbers of people might give to them, but which the whole community might not; and who, if they lost a seat in one place, had a chance of what he might call "trying back" in three or four others. Under these circumstances, he would be disposed to support the Motion of the hon. Gentleman; but there was one consideration which, perhaps, might remove the difficulty, and that was that there were such gentlemen as Returning Officers and Sheriffs, who looked after the returns; and it was a question for the consideration of the Committee whether, instead of laying down a hard-and-fast rule, such as that proposed by the hon. Member for Colchester, they should not leave the matter to the discretion of these Returning Officers and Sheriffs. It would, no doubt, be a good thing in Ireland to have all the oratory in one day—one orator in Mayo, another in Galway, another in Cork, another in King's County, and others in other places—and then the people in the morning who read all these efforts, which were to be admired or deplored as people might think fit, would, have the advantage of getting all these orations in one morning's journal, which would be a great gratification, instead of having them spread over four or five weeks.
  MR. CAUSTONsaid, he would not trouble the Committee to divide, as the Government did not find it possible to

  1557
  fall in with the suggestion he had made.
  Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  First Schedule.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Sir Charles W. Dilke.)
  MR. MONKsaid, he wished to know whether, before the Schedules came on for discussion, it would not be as well to have the Bill reprinted, so that the Committee might see clearly what alterations had been made in it?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that hardly any Amendments had been made to the Bill; and certainly none had been made that were of the slightest importance. There would, therefore, be nothing to reprint.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

MOTIONS.
  ARMY (COMMISSARIAT AND TRANSPORT SERVICES).

    MOTION FOR RE-APPOINTMENT OF SELECT COMMITTEE.
    COLONEL STANLEY: Perhaps, Sir, the House will allow me to say a few words in explanation of the Motion which it is my duty to make, and particularly as the circumstances under which I have to make it are somewhat peculiar. The Motion is one for the re-appointment of a Select Committee which was appointed last year to inquire into the Commissariat and Transport Services. The Committee was appointed, I believe, on the Motion of the non. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron), and the appointment was at that time assented to by the Government. That Committee sat during last year, and took a large amount of very valuable evidence, which remains in the form of a very voluminous Blue Book. But we were not able to conclude our inquiry; and it was particularly desirable, before the inquiry was concluded, that the evidence of Lord Wolseley, and of one or two other officers, should be taken in regard to statements which had been
    1558
    made before the Committee. The Committee, therefore, concluded their labours for the year by only reporting the evidence, and not entering into the consideration of a Report; and I, as the official channel of communication between the Committee and the House, had laid upon me by them the duty of asking that in the next Session of Parliament the Committee should be reappointed. Speaking, if the House will allow me, from a personal point of view, I feel that the duty laid upon me by the Committee collectively is one from which I cannot free myself, even though there are the individual expressions of opinion from almost every Member of the Committee that it would be better that the recommendation should not be made. I, therefore, feel myself officially bound to make this Motion; and it must be for the House and for the Government to determine how, under the circumstances, it had better be dealt with. I speak without any bias one way or the other. The Committee was one of great importance, and I hope that even in the time it was sitting it may have produced some good. No doubt, with the assistance of the able Members who formed the Committee, we should have produced a Report which, without being unduly sanguine, I may say might have been of some value; but I am bound to say that if, as I have some reason to believe, the Government are now going to oppose my Motion, I must admit that the circumstances under which we sat last year, and those in which we find ourselves now, are widely dissimilar. Many of the officers whom, for my own part, I should have wished to call to give evidence are now serving in Egypt and elsewhere; and it is obvious that at the present time a very great strain is laid upon those Departments at home, the attendance of whose Representatives we should have had to require before the Committee. I can easily conceive that the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War (the Marquess of Hartington) may find it his duty to oppose the re-appointment of this Committee; but, at the same time, I think that I am only fulfilling my duty in bringing the Motion before the House, and I am only fulfilling the duty which the Committee laid upon me in asking the House to re-appoint this Committee with the Instructions which

    1559
    are usual in such cases. I hope, Sir, that I have made my explanation of the rather remarkable position in which we are placed as briefly as possible under the circumstances. I must now leave the Motion to be dealt with by the Government and the House. Of course, I shall move the re-appointment of the Committee; and if a division should be taken, I shall certainly, for my own part, divide in favour of the proposition.
    Motion made, and Questian proposed,
    "That the Select Committee appointed to inquire into the Commissariat and Transport Services of the British Army in the recent Egyptian Campaign (1882), and to consider what changes, if any, are required to secure increased efficiency in these Services, he reappointed:—That Mr. BRAND, Dr. CAMERON, Colonel MILNE HOME, Mr. CARINGTON, Mr. BROWN, Mr. JACKSON, Sir HENRY FLETCHER, Lord EDWARD CAVENDISH, Colonel NOLAN, Mr. EARP, Mr. HERBERT, Dr. FAKQUHARSON, and Colonel STANLEY he the Members of the said Committee: That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records: That Five he the quorum of the Committee."—(Colonel Stanley.)
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I am not able to assent, as I should under ordinary circumstances have done, to this Motion, as a matter of form; and perhaps the House will think it right, after the observations just made by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, that I should state why it will be my duty not to assent to it. I will give the House some reasons why I think this Committee should not be re-appointed. The inquiry which was undertaken by the Committee last year was one which had to deal not only with the present state of facts and details connected with the Expedition to Egypt in 1882, but also with the much larger question of the organization of the Supply and Transport Service of the Army, and also of the Transport branch of the Admiralty. Well, Sir, at the present moment the energies of all these Departments are taxed to a very considerable extent by the operations now in progress in connection with the Expedition to the Nile and the Expedition to Suakin, and to a minor but still to a great and sufficient extent by the operations going on in Bechuanaland. Under these circumstances, it is quite impossible for the officials connected with these Department to devote all the care and attention which they ought to do to the general business of the Departments, and, at the
    1560
    same time, to give as much time and attention as they would desire to the inquiry which it is sought to renew before the Committee. Either they would have to devote less time than at present to the duties of the Departments, or else they would have to give less time to this inquiry, which not only involves matters of great public importance, but also, to a certain extent, their own conduct. In addition to all this, there is another consideration which has been mentioned by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman—the consideration that at this moment some of the most essential witnesses whom the Committee would have to examine in order to conclude their inquiry and make their Report are not in the country. Lord Wolseley is the principal of these, and I think the House will agree That, he having been principally concerned in the operations into which the Committee have been inquiring, it would be impossible for them to finish their inquiry and agree to their Report without his evidence. Not only is that the case, but of other officers are also absent at the present time, and many of those whom file Committee would wish to examine could not be examined at all. Well, Sir, if this inquiry had developed any very great defects of administration, or if it had brought to light any serious breakdown on the part of any of the Departments, the re-appointment of this Committee would not be opposed by the Government, even although the inquiry had been, as I have said, in some degree inconvenient under the circumstances. But I do not think that, in the opinion of the majority at all events of the Committee, that is the case. The evidence of the various witnesses who have already been examined has clearly established the fact that there was nothing in the campaign or in the arrangements made by the Supply or Transport Departments which led to anything in the nature of a breakdown. Sir John Adye, as Chief of the Staff, was examined, and he gave evidence to show that the officers and men of all ranks did their duty remarkably well, and that there was no breakdown of any kind. Commissary General Watt, who was one of the witnesses on whose evidence the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) chiefly relied, stated the same thing—that there was no breakdown and no

    1561
    great failure, except in one matter. The chief Medical Officer of the Expedition stated that the supplies were excellent and abundant, and that they never suffered from the want of anything except during the first week, when there was some defect; but that vanished very speedily. Lord Wolseley has not been examined; but his opinion also is that there was nothing in the Commissariat and Transport arrangements which amounted to a breakdown, and he thinks that such difficulties as arose were not attributable to defective organization, but arose from military exigencies of an exceptional character. A great deal of evidence has been given before the Committee as to what the present system really is. There has been great diversity of opinion, and it has been fully inquired into. The system and organization which have been in existence since 1880 have been more dearly defined; and I do not think there will be in future any falling off in their efficiency. In addition to these considerations I may mention that since the Committee closed their inquiry last Session three Expeditions have been sent out. There has been an Expedition to the Nile, an Expedition to Bechuanaland, and an Expedition to Suakin; and a great deal of attention has necessarily been directed to the working of the Supply and Transport Services, and I am able to say that the arrangements made by them have worked with perfect smoothness up to the present. The organization has been the same as that of 1882, and it seems to me that, considering that there has been no hitch and no complaint, anything wanting in the arrangements made in 1882 was due not to defective organization, but rather to those subsidiary matters which always will occur under exceptional circumstances, and which no system of organization could possibly alter or amend, and that we may be reasonably satisfied with the result. Before the Committee was appointed Lord Wolseley had himself tested some of the arrangements in the Supply and Transport Departments, and especially the regulations for the governance of the lines of communications. A Committee had already been appointed, under the Presidency of Lord Morley, consisting of several officers and War Department officials—officers of military knowledge and very great
    1562
    experience—who were directed to inquire into these matters. That inquiry was suspended; but I would humbly suggest that an inquiry by that Committee would be quite as efficient as an inquiry by this House. Looking at the inconvenience which would be sustained by the Public Service if the heads of these Departments were to be taken off from their present duties to attend upon an inquiry—a controversial inquiry—like that now proposed; looking also to the fact that no case of any deficiency or breakdown has been established by the evidence already laid before the Committee, and looking to the absence of many important witnesses, I am inclined to think that the House will agree with me that there could be no advantage, but rather a disadvantage, to the Public Service if this Committee were re-appointed. I trust that, under these circumstances, the House will not agree to the Motion.
    DR. CAMERONsaid, that every Member of the Committee must be greatly obliged to the noble Marquess for the Report with which he had supplemented their labours. The only drawback to that eulogistic and whitewashing Report was, that the noble Marquess was not a Member of the Committee, and did not hear the evidence. He (Dr. Cameron) could quote any amount of evidence to prove that there was the very greatest breakdown; but, before he dealt with that point, he would advert to the remarks of the noble Marquess on the injury to the Public Service which would result if this Committee were re-appointed. They had been a long time discovering that injury. At the conclusion of the labours of the Committee last year, it was unanimously agreed that they should ask for re-appointment this Session; and it was an unprecedented thing that the Government should now come forward and oppose the re-appointment of a Committee which had gone through an immense amount of work, and which had unanimously recommended its re-appointment. It was understood that the re-appointment of the Committee would be moved for in the Autumn Session; but representations were made to him, asking him to postpone the matter while war preparations were proceeding, and he did so until the commencement of the present Session. He was then asked to wait a

    1563
    fortnight, when the stress of work on the Department would be passed, and the reappointment of the Committee might be moved for. He did that; he had no wish to do anything unreasonable. But then, when the Notice was put down with the assent of all Parties, a docile adherent of the Government put down a blocking Notice; then, upon his (Dr. Cameron's) representation that he would take every opportunity of bringing the matter forward unless the blocking Notice was removed, without anything being said by him (Dr. Cameron) to the hon. Member who had put down the block, that Notice was removed, and now they had the Government unmasking itself and opposing the re-appointment of the Committee. The noble Marquess had told the House that everything was working well. Thanks to the labours and exposures brought about by the Committee, immense improvements had been effected, numerous reforms had been carried out, which were declared by witnesses before the Committee to be impracticable or perfectly impossible, and these had been adopted in relation to the present Expeditions with the best results. But everything was not all right; as much reform as could be got with the present system of administration had been effected, he admitted; but the system made perfect arrangements impossible. Was the noble Marquess aware that a large portion of equipments for troops going out to Bechuanaland, owing to want of combination between Departments, were not available until five weeks after the troops arrived? Was tie noble Marquess aware that quantities of stores sent up with the Nile Expedition were destroyed, simply because of want of co-operation between Departments? That a quantity of biscuits went bad, because the tins were not soldered? The noble Marquess told him that they were inspected by the Commissariat at Woolwich. Why, the heads of the Commissariat Department had no control there; the practical control lay in a different Office altogether. Twenty-five per cent of groceries were destroyed by wet; that was undisputed; and the reason was because of the divided responsibility and want of co-operation in furnishing supplies. Was the noble Marquess aware that a large proportion of the Members of the Committee were
    1564
    military men, who knew the difficulties and exigencies of active warfare as well as anyone? Such a Committee might be very well trusted not to do anything which would militate against the good of the Public Service. The noble Marquess said they had not the evidence of Lord Wolseley. Lord Wolseley was available last year; but it was a remarkable fact that, after one of the official War Office witnesses had declared that Lord Wolseley was blameworthy for the bad organization of the regimental transport, the eagerness of the Government to get Lord Wolseley's evidence before the Committee visibly cooled. Lord Wolseley might have been examined. Why was he not? Was it because, in protecting himself against the charges which the Assistant Director of Supplies and Transport had brought against him, he might have exposed some of the weaknesses of the Department? He could not help thinking, under the circumstances, that a desire to "burke" further disclosures had a good deal to do with the refusal of the Government to re-appoint the Committee. The noble Marquess said nothing about the supply of flour that, when taken out of the bags, stood up like pillars of Plaster of Paris. He did not say anything about a large quantity of hay purchased and sent out to all Departments of the Service by a contractor, and declared by numberless witnesses to be of the most execrable quality. That contractor was actually complimented by the Director of Contracts on the way in which he had performed his work. When, thanks to the labours of the Committee, the affair had been exposed, they had been told that it was the intention of the Department to postpone proceedings against him until they saw what the Committee reported. That contractor had reason to congratulate himself upon the action of the Government. He (Dr. Cameron) could go over a list of failures in the Campaign of 1882, which would totally overturn what had been said by the noble Marquess. He wished the House to understand that nobody appreciated more fully than he did the military success of the Expedition; and that military success reflected all the greater credit upon Lord Wolseley because it was achieved in spite of the maladministration at home—in spite of the action of officials who did their best to render success impossible.

    1565
    There was another element in the matter. If the Committee were certain to report as the noble Marquess had reported, he (Dr. Cameron) did not believe there would have been any difficulty in obtaining their re-appointment; but he (Dr. Cameron) was by no means certain that the Committee would agree to a "Report" such as that of which the noble Marquess had submitted a draft to the House. He (Dr. Cameron) had reason to believe that the majority of the Committee were in favour of reform, and thought a case for it had been abundantly established. If the Committee adopted that view, they would have made recommendations of reform which would be unpalatable to some of the parties concerned. If the Government could stave off inquiry this Session, they would not only get rid of further disclosures—and such he could, if more were necessary to persuade them, bring before the Committee—but they could reconstitute a Committee in which they would have a chance of securing a Report more in accordance with their way of thinking. He could not help suspecting that was the object of the Government, not only from their conduct that night, but from their action all through—their excuses for postponing, postponing, and postponing, on pretence of inconvenience to the Departments, their action in suppressing evidence last year, on pretence that it would be more convenient at a later stage of the inquiry, and in giving the Committee Correspondence so edited as to leave out the most compromising parts. It would have redounded more to the credit of a reforming Government, anxious to provide for the welfare of the State, if they had agreed to the re-appointment of the Committee, even had they done so with the foregone determination to disregard its recommendations, as the recommendations of similar Committees were so often disregarded in case of their proving unpalatable to the official who controlled the War Office.
    COLONEL MILNE-HOMEsaid, as he took a somewhat prominent part in the debate which preceded the appointment of the Committee he thought it right to say a few words, more especially as he had attended most of the meetings of the Committee over which his right hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Stanley)
    1566
    presided. All that the House of Commons was cognizant of was the fact that the Committee reported they were only in a position to present their voluminous evidence to the House, and to ask leave to sit again. There could be only, to his mind, one conclusion for not re-appointing the Committee, and that would be that there was nothing more to inquire into. The scheme of the Committee divided their inquiry into two portions—one part being an inquiry into matters of fact as to what did or did not happen in the Campaign of 1882, and the other part was whether it was or was not desirable to change anything in the organization of the Commissariat Department. As was well known, the Committee took voluminous evidence upon matters of fact; but, as the noble Marquess just now stated, that evidence was not complete. Lord Wolseley's evidence was anxiously looked for, but it never came. But the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War would like to have that evidence before the Committee. Well, it was not for him (Colonel Milne-Home) or for anyone to say what would transpire in Egypt during the next few months; but he knew from the newspapers that the troops were going into summer quarters, and would remain inactive for some time; and surely it would be possible to find a General to relieve Lord Wolseley for a time; meanwhile the latter could come home and give the Committee the desired evidence. As to the second portion of the inquiry, whether there should be any alteration in the Commissariat Department, it was the almost unanimous opinion of witnesses before the Committee that, whether they were agreed there was a breakdown in the Egyptian Campaign or not, there were many alterations that should be made in the organization of the Commissariat establishments. He knew himself of many officers in the Service who would be extremely glad to see some alterations carried out, and who would be happy at a future time to give evidence in that direction. There was, then, every reason for the re-appointment of the Committee, not only to finish the evidence on matters of fact, but also to go on with the second portion of the inquiry. He was sure he could speak for every Member of the Committee in saying that if it appeared

    1567
    that officials at the War Office had dearly not time to attend the inquiry—and he could well imagine that at the moment of the organization of a new Expedition there was a great deal to do at the Office—he was sure that would be taken into ample consideration, and time would naturally be given for the pressing work to be finished. After all the troops were settled in Egypt the pressure on the Department would be relaxed. But, at all events, there were many officers in this country who had seen much service, both in the combatant ranks and in the Commissariat, who would come forward and express their opinions as to what should be done in the way of making alterations. On all grounds, he thought the House would do well to re-appoint the Committee; he thought it would be wrong indeed not to do so, and, though with considerable diffidence after the strong opinion expressed by the noble Marquess, he thought it right to support the Motion.
    MR. A. H. BROWNsaid, he wished to say a few words as a Member of the Committee. The hon. and gallant Member who had just spoken (Colonel Milne-Home) thought it expedient to have Lord Wolseley's evidence; and would he recall him from Korti for the purpose of attending the Committee? Surely that was altogether out of the question. He was sure the House would wish Lord Wolseley to remain in his present position. As an illustration of the way in which the work of the "War Department was increased by the inquiry, he could not do better than point to the Blue Book itself, fully half of which, some 300 pages, consisted of Reports and Statements prepared by the Department, apart from the mass of other evidence submitted to the Committee. It was obvious these must have cost the heads of Departments much time and exhaustive labour, many of the Papers having been procured in Egypt to be submitted to the Committee for consideration. Considering the difficulties they had to contend with in connection with the Expedition now in progress, it was utterly unreasonable to take the heads of the Departments from their proper work to give information before the Committee. The Members of the Committee would, he was quite sure, demand still more Papers, and another big Blue Book would be produced. The
    1568
    evidence of Lord Wolseley had been referred to as important to the question whether the losses of stores and omissions of transport were really due to military exigencies or not. It was, in his opinion, absolutely necessary. Sir John Adye said, in his evidence, that certain orders were given, because there were conditions of military operations to comply with, a sudden advance had to be made; and as a result it followed that the transports were not in the Canal, and stores not landed; therefore they were late, and could not supply the troops in front of Ismailia. But the military reason which led to this was the necessity of obtaining possession of the Sweet Water Canal, and therefore the troops had to go without proper stores; but all this came back to the question of military necessity, and upon this point the evidence of Lord Wolseley was all-important, and to leave out the evidence of the principal witness would be to reduce the Report of the Committee to little value. That being so, he thought it was not necessary or wise to proceed with the inquiry at the present time, though he hoped the Committee would sit again at some other time.
    SIR HENRY FLETCHERsaid, that as one of the Members of the Committee, and as deeply interested in military affairs, he hoped the House would allow the re-appointment of the Committee. He attended almost every Sitting of the Committee, and had studied the whole of the evidence in relation to the Commissariat and Transport. The country was now embarked in another war in Egypt, where the Transport Service signally failed in 1882; and from the reports in the newspapers, and from official accounts, it seemed the Service was not sufficient for the Soudan Forces. Something like 7,000 camels had been purchased for the Expedition, and, through the failure of the animals to do the work expected, the troops had many miles of weary desert marching. He had also heard of other matters in which the Commissariat had been unsuccessful in connection with the whalers' boats in the Nile Expedition. Notwithstanding what had fallen from the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War, he thought the country would require that thorough inquiry should be made, and, if necessary, a reorganization should take place in the Commissariat

    1569
    and Transport Departments. He should certainly support the proposal that the Committee should sit again.
    MR. CARINGTONsaid, he would only intervene for the purpose of asking a question—whether the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War would object to the re-appointment of the Committee after Easter, when, if we had no further complications with Russia, and if our troops in the Soudan went into summer quarters at Suakin and elsewhere, the War Office officials might with a very little pressure assist at the inquiry?
    DR. FARQUHARSONsaid, he would also ask the question if the Department would be satisfied if the inquiry were resumed after Easter, when the hurry of preparation would have passed, and the Department would have sufficient time for the evidence required? He did not see how the Department could be better worked than by supplying information to the public, clearing up the doubts and difficulties that had arisen in connection with the various expeditions undertaken. A good deal had been said about the evidence of Lord Wolseley; and, no doubt, it was important, though he should not have thought it of extreme importance, for the Committee had already had the evidence of Sir John Adye, the Chief of the Staff during the late campaign in Egypt, who would know a great deal more about the matters to be inquired into than Lord Wolseley—as, indeed, had been admitted by Lord Wolseley himself; and that witness certainly, so far as he could, laid the whitewash upon everything to please the Government. The labours of the Committee would be thwarted if they were not allowed to report. Without a Report the Blue Book would have no real authority. It must be remembered that the case of the Committee was very much prejudiced by the statement—probably inspired—which appeared in The Times some time ago. That might be regarded as the Government Report, and it was followed by a Supplementary Report from the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron); but what the House wanted was the Report of the Committee holding the judicial balance between these—the summing up of the long inquiry. The contention had been put forward that the breakdown, if breakdown there was, was due to the exigencies of
    1570
    military operations, and he was not disposed to deny that much might be said upon that view; but they must also consider whether somewhat was not also due to faults in the system which had been indicated by military officers. As had been pointed out, there were two sections of inquiry—the facts in regard to the present system, and the question of organization. The second part of the inquiry did not depend on the success of the first; the second inquiry followed the first as a mere matter of sequence. It would be much better if the Committee were allowed to meet again to consider their Report on the first part of the inquiry, and then to discuss whether it was necessary to go on with the subject of organization or not. The Committee had been almost unanimous in their desire for re-appointment; and he hoped the Government, on consideration, would see fit to grant the request.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 49; Noes 68: Majority 19.—(Div. List, No. 63.)
    DR. CAMERONgave Notice that, in consequence of the Vote just taken, he would call attention to the matter again on the Motion to go into Committee on the Army Estimates.

  TOWN PARKS (IRELAND).

    MOTION FOE A SELECT COMMITTEE.
    MR. T. A. DICKSON,in rising to move—
    "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the tenure of holdings known as Town Parks in and near towns in Ireland; how they are affected by the Land Acts of 1870 and 1881; and to report if any changes on the existing Laws could be beneficially made,"
    said, his object in moving for the Select Committee was to obtain an inquiry into the law which now regulated Town Parks in Ireland. At present conflicting decisions were give in the Law Courts, and, as a consequence, great uncertainty existed. He did not intend to take up the time of the House at that late hour (1.30) by going into details; but he might observe that the question of Town Parks had been an open question ever since the passing of the Land Act in 1881. When the Land Act was being passed, the Prime Minister said that the whole question connected with Town Parks in Ireland was one deserv-

    1571
    ing of inquiry; and the right hon. Gentleman promised that an inquiry should be made into the question. And, again, in 1882, the Prime Minister, on being questioned as to Town Parks, said that some legislation was desirable. Another object he (Mr. T. A. Dickson) had in moving for a Select Committee was to give tenants of Town Parks, and those who lived in the smaller towns and villages in Ireland, an opportunity of stating their grievances; and, if necessary, to have the law more clearly defined. He would move for the Committee of which he had given Notice.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the tenure of holdings known as Town Parks in and near towns in Ireland; how they are affected by the Land Acts of 1870 and 1881; and to report if any changes in the existing Laws could be beneficially made."—(Mr. T. A. Dickson.)
    MR. BRODRICKsaid, he was quite astonished at the way in which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Tyrone (Mr. T. A. Dickson) had brought this question before the House, considering its extraordinary importance, and the effect it would have in raising again all the questions connected with the Irish Land Act, which the House had been told, time after time, from the Ministerial Front Benches, were not to be re-opened. He thought the hon. Gentleman the Member for Tyrone would have done well if he had made some excuse or apology to the House for re-opening a matter which had been decided on several occasions in the House by large majorities adverse to the view the hon. Gentleman himself took. But, on the contrary, the hon. Gentleman came before the House, and introduced this question of a Select Committee in a very few words, as if it were the most ordinary operation in the world, and without explaining, in the smallest degree, to the House the necessity which had arisen for entering into, and again opening up, the large questions which were embraced. He (Mr. Brodrick) proposed to enter into the subject at some length even at that advanced hour of the morning—1.35—["Oh, oh!"] He could assure hon. Gentlemen that if they thought the question could be passed over, because it was brought forward at that late hour, without adequate discussion, they were very much mis-
    1572
    taken. They, on the Opposition side of the House, could not forget what the position of the question was. On several occasions—he believed he might say in each year since the passing of the Irish Land Act—measures had been brought forward by hon. Members sitting on the Ministerial Benches, and by hon. Gentlemen sitting below the Gangway on the Opposition side of the House, which proposed to re-open questions connected with the Irish Land Act. On those occasions matters of a very conflicting character were brought forward from that and from this side of the House. He and his hon. Friends thought that there were a large number of questions which ought to be discussed, and which were deserving of the consideration of the Government; but the position in which they were placed was that the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, while admitting that certain hardships had been inflicted upon the landowning class in Ireland, and while admitting that there were matters which might require to be re-opened—matters of minor importance—said distinctly that he would not be a party to re-opening, in any sense, any of the questions dealt with by the Land Act. Moreover, the right hon. Gentleman particularly directed himself to the point which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Tyrone had raised that evening; and he warned the House against allowing a narrow opening to be made which would subsequently be widened, and lead to the introduction of subjects of great importance connected with the Land Act. He was sure that if the right hon. Gentleman were now present he would bear him out in the quotation he was about to make; indeed, in the absence of the right hon. Gentleman the House ought not to take the course which it was now proposed they should take. On the 14th of March, 1883, the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury distinctly said—
    "It is an essential part of our duty to make it clearly understood, that we can give no encouragement, either on the ground of crime, as stated by the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin), or on any other ground, for entertaining hopes of the disturbance of the provisions of the Land Act contained in this Bill."—(3 Hansard, [277] 483.)
    Those provisions more particularly included the subject introduced by the hon. Member for Tyrone, and the Prime

    1573
    Minister was most careful not to limit himself to matters of organic structure in the Bill, but distinctly covered the whole ground. Even more recently than that the late Chief Secretary (Mr. Trevelyan) pronounced himself on this subject. Last year that right hon. Gentleman said that Her Majesty's Government, after a full and final consideration of the subjects at issue, had come to the conclusion that it would not be safe for the Government to reopen the question, and that there was only one essential particular in which the Government had not said its last word, and that was the question of the purchase of holdings. He (Mr. Brodrick) therefore concluded that this was an entirely new departure on the part of the Government—he would not say that it amounted to a breach of faith on the part of the Government, but it amounted to a distinct change in their former determination. He believed that the pledge, of which this Motion was the outcome, was given by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman), whom he did not now see in his place, at an advanced hour of the morning, when it was not known even that the Motion on which he was speaking was about to come on. It would have been but courteous to the House for the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland to have been present on this occasion, to explain this extraordinary change of policy on the part of the Government. If the Government were prepared to allow the Select Committee, he (Mr. Brodrick) and his hon. Friends would have a perfect right to move for Select Committees to inquire into half-a-dozen subjects on which they felt they had been grossly ill-treated, and in which their interests had been equally neglected. He did not wish now to enter into these subjects; but if they were to be re-opened at all, he and his hon. Friends would get their heads in at the door as well as other people, and they would introduce questions on going into Committee of Supply—and, indeed, on every occasion when they could occupy space and time belonging to the Government. If the hon. Gentleman the Member for Tyrone succeeded in passing his Motion, he (Mr. Brodrick) would certainly move for a Select Committee
    1574
    to consider the position, status, and occupation of the Sub-Commissioners appointed under the Land Act; and he believed in such a Motion he would receive support from the Irish Gentlemen sitting below the Gangway. Again, he saw no reason why they should not open up the question of the Purchase Clauses of the Land Act, and ask Parliament to consider why those clauses had been wholly inoperative. He did not see why the Emigration Clauses, on which so much stress was laid by the first of the numerous Chief Secretaries (Mr. Forster) who had officiated under this Government, had not been put into operation; and why the absurdly inadequate sum advanced by Parliament to promote emigration had not been used and needed. Parliament would require to be assured that every effort had been made to carry out what they were told were the most important and necessary clauses of the Bill. Now, these were a few of the questions which he and his hon. Friends certainly would raise if the Government showed any signs of giving way in this particular. This Motion was only in a very minor degree directed to the needs of the tenant-farming class in Ireland. It was chiefly directed to the needs of the well-to-do butchers, who drove their cattle to the market towns, and who occupied the town parks, sometimes by the year, and sometimes for a shorter period. He submitted, therefore, that this was not a question which, even from the point of view of those whom the Land Act was chiefly intended to benefit, should be re-opened and resettled. If the deficiencies in this immortal piece of legislation—the Land Act—which they were told was to gratify the pockets of the tenant farmers, and amuse their minds with litigation, were responsible for the present disaffection of the Irish people, most unquestionably the Motion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Tyrone was wholly inadequate, and absurdly inefficient to supply the need. To re-open the question in a manner which could not possibly tend to any good end it would be most unwise for Parliament at this moment to do. So far as this immediate Motion went, he should give it his most sincere opposition. He had referred to the speech in which the Prime Minister expressed his view of the question. The

    1575
    right hon. Gentleman was not able to be present now to repeat that view. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, who had gone back from the pledge given to Parliament, was also absent, and the late Chief Secretary (Mr. Trevelyan), who was formally committed on the subject, was not present on this occasion; and, therefore, at that advanced hour of the morning—1.45—the House was not in a fit position to deal with the question raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Tyrone. For that reason, he (Mr. Brodrick) begged to move that the debate be now adjourned.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Brodrick.)
    VISCOUNT CRICHTONpointed out that the Committee moved for was altogether unnecessary. He supposed the object of the Committee was to collect evidence with regard to Town Parks; but, as a matter of fact, evidence had already been collected and laid before Parliament. A Commission had taken evidence on holdings in towns as well as in regard to other holdings; and if legislation was desirable on this subject——
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR,rising to Order, asked if the noble Viscount was justified in discussing this question on the Motion for the adjournment of the debate?
    MR. SPEAKER: The noble Lord must confine himself strictly to the Question of the adjournment of the debate. He cannot now enter into the subject-matter of the Motion made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Tyrone (Mr. T. A. Dickson).
    VISCOUNT CRICHTONsaid, he thought the grounds his hon. Friend (Mr. Brodrick) had brought forward afforded a very good reason why the debate should be adjourned. His hon. Friend had drawn attention to the fact that the Prime Minister, as well as the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman), and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Trevelyan), the late Chief Secretary, were all absent. It was not very long ago that the latter right hon. Gentleman made a very strong speech in the House on this subject, in which he practically said that the Government had said their last word
    1576
    upon the subject of the Tenure Clauses of the Land Act; the Government were ready to reopen the question of the Purchase Clauses; but on the Tenure Clauses they had said their last word. He (Viscount Crichton) hoped that, in the absence of that right hon. Gentleman and of the Prime Minister, the House would accede to the Motion of his hon. Friend (Mr. Brodrick).
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 21; Noes 45: Majority 24.—(Div. List, No. 64.)
    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. TOTTENHAMsaid, that it appeared to him much too late to consider a matter of this importance; therefore, in order to give hon. Members a better opportunity to go into the affair, he begged to move the adjournment of the House.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That this House do now adjourn."—
    (Mr. Tottenham.)
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he supposed it was scarcely necessary to call the attention of the House to the nature of the proceedings upon which they had now entered, and the nature of the plea put forward by the hon. Member above the Gangway (Mr. Brodrick). If this was the first time this subject had been brought forward, there would have been some sense and use in moving the adjournment of the debate and of the House; but the hon. Member who had just made the latter Motion had attended so little to the proceedings of the House, that he was probably ignorant of the fact that the hon. and gallant Member for the County of Galway (Colonel Nolan) had, a short while ago, moved for an inquiry into the subject of the tenure of houses in towns in Ireland. His Motion had included the terms of the present proposal, and the views of the Government were given upon the whole question then. The hon. Member probably did not know that the Government had signified their readiness to agree to the appointment of a Committee such as that now moved for. Therefore, the whole question had been before the House. The Government had proclaimed their views, and hon. Gentlemen who now tried to bring about either an adjournment of the House or an adjournment of the debate on that plea,

    1577
    pleaded only their inattention to the proceedings of the House, and a conspicuous manifestation of dulness. As a reason for the adjournment of the debate, and for not proceeding with the consideration of this question at the present moment, it had been said that the Bessborough Commission had, some time ago, considered the question, and that it was desirable that the effect of their inquiry should be ascertained. Well, he (Mr. Sexton) would ask the House to bear in mind that this subject bad been dealt with already during the present Sittings; that the Government were present when it was considered, and had declared their views fully upon the subject; and that hon. Members who did not care to attend the proceedings of the House, and who were not present on that occasion, were not entitled to plead their own ignorance.
    MR. PLUNKETsaid, he hoped the Government would now consent to the adjournment of the House. He ventured to say that there was no hon. Member present who remembered a proposal so important as that which had been made by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. T. A. Dickson) being assented to in a thin House, and under circumstances such as the present. No explanation whatever had been given upon the subject; and he (Mr. Plunket) contended that, under the circumstances, it was most unusual, and would be an evil precedent, to grant a Committee on a subject of this kind at such an hour. The Motion now before the House was not for the rejection of the proposal for the appointment of the Committee, but that an adjournment of the House should be taken, and that the debate upon the Motion of the hon. Member for Tyrone should be postponed until such time as a fair opportunity could be afforded for the discussion of the questions which arose upon the Re-solution.
    MR. FINDLATERsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down (Mr. Plunket) had evidently forgotten the observations of the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton). He (Mr. Findlater) had been present during the last occasion this question was before the House, and he distinctly recollected every circumstance which had taken place, and which he could vouch had been most correctly detailed by the
    1578
    hon. Gentleman. It could not be fairly contended that the House was now taken by surprise, as the matter had been fully discussed on the last occasion.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, that everyone knew perfectly well what the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Plunket) meant by asking the House to postpone the consideration of this subject. Next time this question came on, they would find themselves confronted by a blocking Motion putagainst the proposal by one of the many Conservatives whose sole occupation in the House seemed to be the putting down of Motions of that kind. ["Oh, oh!"] He did not refer to the hon. Member for Cambridge shire (Mr. Hicks), who seemed to occupy his time that evening in making inarticulate utterances. He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) must express his surprise at the language of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Dublin University, who had given a lecture in taste to the hon. Member for Sligo. The right hon. and learned Member had declared that the hon. Member had not conducted himself in a mannerly fashion——
    MR. SPEAKER: I must say that the remarks of the hon. Gentleman seem to me to have nothing to do with the Question before the House.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he was simply replying to the remarks the right hon. and learned Gentleman had thought fit to make upon the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for the county of Sligo; but as Mr. Speaker had ruled that he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) had no right to reply to those observations he would drop that part of the subject. He hoped the Government would strenuously resist the attempt of Conservative Members to defeat the appointment of this Committee. The Government had pledged themselves to support such a Motion as that now brought forward by the hon. Member for Tyrone. As the hon. Member for Sligo had pointed out, the Government had practically stated, when a kindred Motion to that of the hon. Member for Tyrone was before the House, that if such a Motion as the present were brought forward it would receive their support. Well, the Government had now an opportunity of carrying out their pledge, and he should be very much surprised if they allowed themselves to be intimidated from the course they had

    1579
    alleged it to be their intention to take by such Motions as were now being made by Members on the Conservative Benches. He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) was afraid he should be violating Parliamentary usages if he were to characterize these Motions as they properly deserved, and as he characterized them in his own mind; but to say that, at 2 o'clock in the morning, the hour was too late for them to proceed with a Motion of this kind was really to show a most lamentable ignorance of what were now the established usages of the House. Why, the most important Business of the House was now done at a much later hour than 2 o'clock in the morning; and if hon. Members representing the Conservatives were in the habit of attending the House as much as some other hon. Members, they would know that 2 o'clock in the morning was a most reasonable hour for the conclusion of Business like that now under consideration. The House had expressed its view in a most decisive manner upon the question of adjournment. The Motion for Adjournment had been defeated by a majority which any reasonable minority would accept as final. But the minority to-night had not thought fit to do so, and they were now repeating the Motion which had already been successfully and triumphantly defeated. He trusted the Government would not yield to such opposition.
    MR. LEAsaid, he was glad that hon. Gentlemen opposite had thought fit to oppose this Motion for Adjournment. The matter was now ripe for consideration, having been thrashed out over and over again. The Prime Minister himself had on two occasions said that this was a subject for inquiry. A debate had taken place in the House the other day—a debate which had been referred to by the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton)—the outcome of which was that the Government stated that they would not grant a Committee such as was then proposed; but that they would grant a limited Committee such as was asked for on the present occasion. It was, as everyone knew, impossible for the hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. T. A. Dickson) to get another day for his Motion. If the Motion were put off, hon. Members on the opposite side would put a block to it, preventing its coming on after half-past 12 o'clock at night, which
    1580
    would practically have the effect of shelving it for the Session, notwithstanding that it had been occupying the attention of hon. Members for five or six years; and the result of shelving it for the Session would, of course, be to shelve it for the present Parliament. He hoped hon. Members below the Gangway opposite, together with all hon. Members on the Ministerial side of the House, would resist the present Motion, the object of which was to prevent the Motion of the hon. Member for Tyrone being brought on. He looked upon the course taken by hon. Members on the Conservative Benches opposite as being nothing more nor less than an act of absolute Obstruction.
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, he thought the Government ought to say something about this matter. It was difficult—in fact impossible—to argue the matter in question on a Motion for the adjournment of the House; but the Prime Minister had solemnly pledged himself not to re-open the Irish Land Question. The other night a Motion was made for an inquiry into the system of house tenure in towns in Ireland, and some Member of the Government had given some sort of expression of opinion that they would not oppose it—that the Government would assent to some inquiry of this kind. At the same time, that in no way released them from the pledge they had given over and over again that they would not re-open the Land Question. ["Order, order!"]
    MR. SPEAKER: I must remind the noble Lord that he is not now speaking to the Question before the House.
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: Then I would ask the Members of the Government I see present if they propose at this hour of the morning to take on themselves the granting of this inquiry, when all their Colleagues, who previously gave an expression of opinion that the Land Question shall not be opened, are absent?
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: It is impossible, on a question of the adjournment of the House, to discuss the point raised by the noble Lord. So far as I am aware—not knowing that this question was coming on, and, therefore, not having had an opportunity of informing myself upon the subject—I believe those Members of the Government who are especially responsible for Irish

    1581
    Business think that this Motion can well be agreed to, and the question disposed of, if desired, at once. At the same time, I would advise the hon. Member for Tyrone, seeing that the Government agree to the appointment of the Committee, to consent to a postponement, on the understanding that hon. Members opposite will abstain from obstructing the Motion on future occasions. I would not press my hon. Friend to take that course until such a disposition on the part of hon. Gentlemen opposite is more clearly manifested than it is at present.
    MR. BRODRICKsaid, that if there were a disposition on the part of himself and his hon. Friends clearly manifested, it was the disposition for them to oppose the Motion for the appointment of this Committee, at that hour and under existing circumstances, as strenuously as lay in their power. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. T. A. Dickson) had simply a bare quorum of the House at his back—a bare quorum which at any moment might be reduced below a quorum. He put it to the hon. Member if it was not a most unusual course to take, when those whose opinions had been quoted on both sides of the House as being opposed to the Motion were not able to be present—was it not a most unusual course, under such circumstances, for the hon. Member to press the matter forward? Hon. Members on the Conservative side of the House were bound to offer to the course the hon. Member seemed determined to pursue all the opposition they could, and they would continue to offer that opposition until they could show the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) that their's was a substantial and a genuine objection. If the noble Marquess would take the side of reason in this matter, he would see that the ends of reason would best be served by adjourning the discussion until it was possible for those who were in authority to consider the matter. An expression of opinion had not been yet received from that quarter. He could not say that he thought that a single argument had yet been brought forward against the adjournment of the discussion except that of the hon. Member (Mr. Lea), who said that the Motion might be blocked on a future occasion. "Well, if that were so, the very object of blocking a Motion was to prevent its coming on at a time when justice could
    1582
    not be done to it. For his own part, he would continue to resist the Motion, if necessary, till 5 o'clock in the morning, in order to secure its coming on at a time when it was possible to have a full and fair discussion upon it.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 18; Noes 43: Majority 25.—(Div. List, No. 65.)
    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. HICKSsaid, he begged to move that the debate be now adjourned. It would be in the recollection of those Members who were present on Friday night that at a much earlier hour than this—in fact, at only a little after half-past 12 o'clock—the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) had said that it was too late to answer Questions. Now, if it were too late to answer Questions at half-past 12 o'clock, surely it was much too late, at nearly half-past 2 o'clock, to go into a question of such importance as that involved in the Motion of the hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. T. A. Dickson). The House could not forget that this was a part of a great question which had occupied the attention of the House for a whole Session—a question compared with which all other Business was insignificant; and it appeared to him that it was much too late, particularly in the absence of the principal Ministers of the Crown, to go on with the discussion. Further than that, when they bore in mind the late hour at which the House was kept up this morning, and when they remembered that they had to meet again at 12 o'clock at noon to-morrow, consideration for the officers of the House ought to induce them at once to agree to the adjournment of the debate, which he now begged to move.
    MR. TOMLINSONsaid, he begged to second the Motion. The lateness of the hour was such that they ought not to go on with a discussion of this kind. They all knew that one result of carrying on debates at this hour in the morning was that there were no proper reports of them in the newspapers, and that the public outside consequently had no means of knowing what their Representatives were doing. Those hon. Members who belonged to England did not know as well as some other hon. Gentle-

    1583
    men what the exact points of this inquiry were; but he himself had heard enough to know that some very important matters were involved, and that questions would be opened which had been, to a great extent, disposed of by the Land Act.
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is wandering from the subject before the House, and is out of Order.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Hicks.)
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, he could not help thinking that the time which had been occupied in taking the last two divisions, on a subject upon which the sense of the House had been fully expressed, might have been advantageously devoted to the discussion of the Motion of the hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. T. A. Dickson). Indeed, on a subject like that, upon which, he supposed, everyone had formed his opinion, probably by this time the debate might have terminated, and a division might have been taken. Without going further into the merits of the case, he would merely observe that when the hon. and gallant Member for the County of Gal-way (Colonel Nolan) had brought his Motion forward the substance of the present proposal had been fully discussed.
    MR. STUART-WORTLEYsaid, that the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down had been good enough to inform the House that, in his opinion, this was a question upon which hon. Members had all made up their minds. He (Mr. Stuart-Wortley) would ask the hon. and learned Gentleman in which direction the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had made up his mind on this subject, and if it was for the Motion, for what reason?
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 16; Noes 41: Majority 25.—(Div. List, No. 66.) Original Question again proposed.
    MR. HALSEYsaid, it was with great reluctance that he rose to move that the House do now adjourn; but he really thought that, at that time in the morning, it was not proper to go on with the discussion of such a question. In spite of what had fallen from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor
    1584
    General for Ireland (Mr. Walker), he (Mr. Halsey) was not in the position of having made up his mind on the matter. He was not well acquainted with the question, and wished to have some enlightenment, so as to be able to form an opinion upon it. He was distinctly of opinion, however, that at that hour of the night he was not capable of receiving that enlightenment. He had understood from the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Hartington), before the last division but one, that after the division which was then about to take place, if hon. Members still desired an adjournment, the Government would not oppose it. He appealed to hon. Members opposite to allow the adjournment to be taken. Hon. Members on the Conservative side had a right to discuss the question, and to endeavour to enlighten their minds as to the merits of the subject, which it was impossible for them to do properly at such an hour as that.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Halsey.)
    MR. HICKSsaid, that he, too, sincerely hoped that Her Majesty's Government would now carry out the almost positive promise of the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War, that when the Opposition had clearly expressed their wish that the debate should be adjourned they would consent to those wishes, more particularly when they bore in mind the statement with which the noble Marquess had begun the few observations he had addressed to the House, which were to the effect that he had come into the House perfectly unprepared to deal with the question. If the noble Marquess had come into the House unprepared to deal with the question, how could he expect that hon. Members on the Conservative side could be prepared to go into the question at that hour of the night? He (Mr. Hicks) earnestly trusted that Her Majesty's Government would see the propriety of yielding to the very reasonable demand made by the Members of the Opposition.
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
    House adjourned at half after Two o'clock.