Commons Sitting of 20 March 1885

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE — Postal Service (Great Britain and North America), appointed.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee — Resolutions [March 19] reported.
WAYS AND MEANS —considered in Committee — Resolutions [March 19] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered —First Reading —Army (Annual)* [104]; Consolidated Fund(No. 2)*; Royal Irish Constabulary Redistribution* [105]; Burial Boards (Contested Elections)* [106].
First Reading —Marriages Validity* [103].
Second Reading—Referred to Select Committee—
Post Office Sites* [72].
Select Committee — Registration (Occupation Voters)* [63], nominated.
Committee —Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution (re-comm.) [49] — R.P. [SEVENTH NIGHT]

QUESTIONS.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)— COLONEL FORBES, R.M., BELFAST.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he will issue a Special Commission, on an early date, for the examination of five or six independent witnesses, in Belfast (whose names shall be furnished), who are prepared to controvert and disprove, on oath, the statements made by Colonel Forbes when his magisterial conduct and character were impeached in a recent Police Court prosecution in his district; and, if so, would the Commission be authorised to receive general evidence as to his alleged partisanship on the occasion in question?
  MR. CAMPBELL - BANNEEMAN: The Government see no necessity to issue any such Commission.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—COOTEHILL UNION—ROBERT GRAHAM, CLERK TO THE GUARDIANS.
  MR. BIGGAEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What is the result of his inquiry to the Poor Law Guardians of Cootehill regarding the conduct of their clerk, Robert Graham; what action will the Local Government Board take with regard to the tenure of his office by Graham; and, whether he will order a prosecution for perjury against Graham irrespective of the decision of the Local Government Board?
  MR. CAMPBELL - BANNEEMAN: The Guardians have fixed the 3rd proximo as the day on which they will take into consideration the conduct of Mr. Graham. Any further action must await the result of their deliberations.

  IRELAND—REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS, BELFAST.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that the registrar of deaths in Belfast keeps his office open only after seven o'clock in the evening, consequently the burial societies do not pay amounts insured of parties who die
  42
  on Friday till the following Monday, and the relatives, in many cases, have not the means to pay the funeral expenses; and, whether he will try to have cause of complaint removed?
  MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN: I directed a letter to be written to the hon. Member on the 15th instant, informing him that there are 10 registration districts in Belfast, and that before inquiries could be made it would be necessary that he should specify the name of the particular district or of the particular registrar to whom his Question referred. The hon. Member has not since replied, nor has he amended his Question. I am, therefore, unable to answer it.
  MR. BIGGAR: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the clerks in the Local Government Offices in Dublin are so very hard worked that they really could not find time to write 10 letters in order to get important information?
  MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN: The hon. Member first put down his Question without saying what part of Ireland it was in which this registration had been misconducted. I then elicited from him that it was in Belfast. There are 10 registrars in Belfast, and I asked him which was the registrar he referred to.

  PHARMACY AND POISONS ACTS (IRELAND)—LEGISLATION.
  MR. GIBSONasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council, Whether Her Majesty's Government intend, this Session, to introduce a Bill embodying the suggestions of the Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland for the amendment of the Pharmacy Act (Ireland) and the Poisons Act (Ireland)?
  MR. MUNDELLA: A Bill has already been introduced in the House of Lords dealing with the sale of poisons, and it was read a second time last night. The recommendations of the Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland relate to two subjects—namely, some changes in the constitution of the society, and some in the law affecting the sale of poisons. The Government have thought it right to limit the Bill they have introduced to the latter branch of the subject, and it will be found that some of the recommendations of the society have been adopted. The draft Bill was referred to the Irish Government, and the clauses

  43
  applying it to Ireland were prepared by them.
  MR. WARTONasked whether the Bill included poisons contained in patent medicines as well as other poisons?
  MR. MUNDELLAsaid, he must refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to the Bill itself.
  MR. WARTONwished to know, in that case, when the Government intended to redeem the pledge they made last year upon the subject?
  [No reply.]

  THE ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY— FISHING IRREGULARITY, LISBURN DISTRICT.
  MR. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that the Killavullen (county Cork) policemen, or any of them, have received anglers' salmon licences gratis from the Fishery Conservators or their inspector, on condition of prosecuting poor fishermen fishing for salmon without the written authority of the riparian proprietors; and, if so, whether such a practice is legal?
  MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN: It is the fact that some sergeants and constables in the Lismore district have received free licences from the Fishery Conservators in consideration of their services in protecting salmon during the annual close season. No condition such as mentioned in the Question, nor any condition has been imposed, and the Constabulary do not, and could not, prosecute for fishery trespasses. I am advised that the licence may protect the person fishing, but that it is questionable whether the Conservators are not bound to charge themselves with the licence duty. That, however, is a matter between them and those interested in the funds derived from licences.

  EGYPT (WAR IN THE SOUDAN) — OFFERS OF MILITARY CO-OPERATION BY INDIAN PRINCES.
  DR. CAMERONasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether he would inform the House of the answer returned to the mediatized Indian Princes who offered troops to the British Government for employment in the Soudan; or if, as has been done in the case of similar offers from the Colonies,
  44
  he would lay the Correspondence on the subject upon the Table?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: We have not yet received from the Government of India any despatch on this subject; but, as I stated the other night to the House, the Nizam of Hyderabad, the Begum of Bhopal, and the Rajahs of Patiala and Jhind, have most loyally offered military assistance to the British Government. These offers have already been cordially acknowledged in both Houses of Parliament.

  EGYPT (WAR IN THE SOUDAN)— THE INDIAN CONTINGENT—VETERINARY ARRANGEMENTS.
  DR. CAMERONasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether any remonstrance was received by the Indian Government as to the inadequacy of the veterinary establishment sent with the Indian Contingent to Egypt in 1882, and the dangers thereby entailed upon the British Forces with which it cooperated; and, whether any arrangement has been made, in connection with the Indian Contingent about to be despatched to the Soudan, to prevent the disregard of veterinary superintendence, characteristic of Indian Army administration, from neutralising the elaborate system of veterinary superintendence characteristic of the administration of a British Army in the field?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: The Correspondence which passed between the War Office and the India Office on the subject referred to by my hon. Friend was forwarded to the Government of India for such action as might be necessary; and the Commander-in-Chief issued instructions for such periodical veterinary inspection as would guard against the possibility of the recurrence of an oversight such as that which took place in 1882. To make this quite sure, the precaution was taken of telegraphing to the Government of India to remind them of their Regulation, which required the veterinary inspection of all animals before embarking them for Suakin. A first-class veterinary surgeon accompanies the Force in charge of the brigade transport mules. The regiment of Cavalry has its own Native Establishment. I cannot admit the sweeping charge brought by my hon. Friend that a dangerous disregard of veterinary superintendence

  45
  is a characteristic of Indian military administration. On the contrary, I believe that in this, as in all other branches of the equipment and administration of an Army in the field, the Government of India have attained a high degree of efficiency.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—ELECTION OF PETTY SESSIONS CLERK, TOOME BRIDGE DISTRICT, CO. ANTRIM—MR. KELLY.
  MR. SMALLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that, on the 4th February, the magistrates of the Toome Bridge District, county Antrim, appointed as Petty Sessions clerk, notwithstanding that there were several suitable candidates, a Mr. Kelly, who is non-resident in the district, who is believed to be over forty years of age (the limit fixed by the regulations), and who is insolvent; whether, notwithstanding that, at the time of the election, Mr. Kelly undertook, if elected, to take up his residence in the district, he has not done so; whether Mr. Kelly gave any evidence of his age, and what was the character of the evidence; and, whether it is intended to sanction the appointment of a person to whom these objections lie?
  MR. CAMPBELL - BANNEEMAN: Mr. Kelly has been appointed on the condition that he resides within the prescribed distance-—1½ miles—of the Court House. He has made arrangements for doing so in May next. Mr. Kelly was not disqualified by any act of insolvency, and he submitted evidence of his being within the limit of age. His appointment has been approved by the Lord Lieutenant on the condition I have stated.

  INLAND REVENUE (IRELAND) — MR. RICHARD HARVEY, STAMP DISTRIBUTOR AT DROGHEDA.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the Government are aware that Mr. Richard Harvey, Stamp Distributor at Drogheda, has been appointed Secretary to the Board of Conservators of Fisheries of the Drogheda District; whether the district in question extends from Drogheda to the most distant part of the county of Meath; whether the performance of the
  46
  duties of the office of Secretary to the Board will require Mr. Harvey's frequent presence at places distant from Drogheda; whether the performance of the duties of the office of Stamp Distributor at Drogheda requires Mr. Harvey's daily attendance at the stamp office in that town; and, whether Mr. Harvey will be permitted to hold both offices?
  MR. HIBBERT: I believe Mr. Harvey has accepted the office in question. It is not under the control of any Government Department. This is not contrary to the Regulations of the Service as long as his duties as Head Distributor of Stamps are properly performed. The hon. Member may rest assured that the Board of Inland Revenue will take good care that they are attended to. The Board of Inland Revenue are aware of the case.

  FRIENDLY SOCIETIES (IRELAND)— DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS.
  MR. SEXTONasked the President of the Board of Trade, If he is aware that the fund remaining, after the dissolution of the Great Southern and Western (of Ireland) Railway Company Friendly Society, has not yet been distributed; whether, as the notice of dissolution was published on the 25th of June 1884, the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies was bound by law to proceed to distribute the fund at the end of last December; why the delay has occurred; and, whether the fund will now be at once distributed?
  MR. HIBBERT: The delay in this case is due to the difficulty which has been experienced in obtaining the necessary particulars as to the ages and dates of entry and the contributions of the various classes of Members. These particulars are essential to an equitable division of the funds amongst the members; and in order to deal justly with the interests of all concerned, every effort has been made to obtain these particulars as soon as possible as a basis for apportionment. The delay is not due to any Government Department.

  THE ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—SERGEANT M'CANLEY AND OTHERS.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, in a letter written in July 1883, the Lord Lieutenant highly commended the conduct of Sergeant M 'Canley

  47
  and Constables Cronin, Grey, and Mi-nogue, of the Doocastle (county Sligo) Constabulary Station, who, finding that a girl named Margaret Raftery was lying ill of an infectious fever, with no one to attend upon her, "attended her at the risk of catching the infection, ministered to her wants, and used their utmost exertions to save her life; "whether, although the Lord Lieutenant caused to be conveyed to the men the expression of his satisfaction and commendation, they had not received a favourable record in recognition of their humanity and courage; and, whether a favourable record will now be made in their regard?
  MR. CAMPBELL—BANNERMAN: It is quite true that the Lord Lieutenant did, in September, 1883, express high commendation of the humanity and courage displayed by these four men in the circumstances set forth in the Question, and such commendations have always been regarded as distinguished marks of approval for those who receive them. I believe it is usual for the recipients of such communications, or for their immediate officers, to take the steps necessary to bring the case under the notice of the Board who adjudge favourable records, and that this has not been done in the present instance.

  INTERNATIONAL LAW — HOSTILITIES BETWEEN FRANCE AND CHINA — THE RIGHT OF SEARCH.
  MR. GORSTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government have recognized the right of French ships of war to detain and search on the high seas British ships bound to Chinese ports and to Hong Kong; whether the German Government has, on the contrary, abstained from recognising similar rights in reference to German ships; and, whether the different action in this respect of the British and German Governments is having the effect of transferring Chinese trade from the British to the German flag? He also wished to ask a further Question of which he had given the noble Lord private Notice—whether he had observed in The Times of yesterday a telegram from Hong Kong as follows:—
  "The right of search interferes seriously with the natural flow of trade. Several English lines discharge at Singapore everything
  48
  which possibly may be considered contraband destined for Hong. Kong. British steamowners fear the Courts at Saigon, but the German do not. German bottoms are rapidly supplanting the English."
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Her Majesty's Government have recognized the belligerent right of France to search neutral vessels on the high seas for contraband of war destined for China during the existing hostilities. The German Government have made no public notification to the effect stated by the hon. and learned Gentleman, and Her Majesty's Government are not aware that such is their intention. Her Majesty's Government are unable to return an answer to the third Question put by the hon. and learned Gentleman, as they have no information on the points referred to.
  MR. GORST: Does Her Majesty's Government recognize the same rights on the part of the Chinese to search English vessels?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: The question has not arisen. There has been no public notification.
  MR. BOURKE: Will the noble Lord ascertain from the French Government whether that Government has given the same instructions to their officers with respect to German ships as they have with respect to English ships? I do not expect that the noble Lord can give me an answer now. I only ask him to make inquiry.
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAUEICE: I will be glad if the right hon. Member will put his Question on the Paper.

  THE NEWSPAPER PRESS (IRELAND)— THE"UNITED IRELAND"—OFFENSIVE CARTOONS.
  MR. BERESFORDasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to a cartoon representing the death of Earl Spencer, published in the last weekly edition of United Ireland; whether he is aware that the proprietors of this newspaper are Members of the House of Commons; and, whether, in view of the prevalence of crime in Ireland in recent years, he proposes to take any steps to check attacks of such a character upon Her Majesty's representative in Ireland?
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that

  49
  Question, I would like to ask him whether his attention has been called to the cartoon in The St. Stephen's Review representing the death of the Prime Minister, with the ghosts of General Gordon and others accusing him of murder; whether the Conservative Press has not accused the Prime Minister of this and other crimes; if the gentlemen who are the proprietors of these journals are not Members of the House of Commons; and, whether any steps will be taken to prevent attacks of such a character upon the First Minister of the Crown?
  MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN: I have not seen the publication to which the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) alludes; but I have seen the cartoon referred to by the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. Beresford). It is entitled "A Political Deathbed Scene." Even when viewed in the comparatively favourable light suggested by the title, it would be condemned by most people as offending against good taste and decent feeling. On the general question, however, of the treatment of publications of this sort, I can only refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave to a Question of the hon. Member for Wicklow County (Mr. M'Coan) on the 4th of December last.
  MR. SEXTON: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether he is aware that English journals are constantly in the habit of representing the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) wearing a mask and engaged in acts of arson and assassination?
  [No reply.]

  ARMY (AUXILIARY FORCES)—EXAMINATIONS.
  LORD ARTHUR HILLasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is a fact that, at an examination in tactics for Officers of the Auxiliary Forces, held in January last at Chelsea Barracks, Officers were directed to bring their own pens, ink, and blotting paper; whether it is a fact that no arrangements for the examination had been made; whether the Officers were kept waiting in the barrack yard for more than an hour; and, whether they were finally huddled into a cold building, which was without fire or any suitable arrangement?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: On the occasion referred to officers were
  50
  required to bring pens and blotting-paper, but not ink. Arrangements for the examination had been made; but a misunderstanding arose as to the hour when the room would be required. As a result, the officers were kept waiting for 40 minutes, which time was not deducted from that allowed for the examination. During the interval the candidates were, it is believed, invited into the officers' quarters; and ultimately the examination took place in a room duly prepared, with fire, &c.
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELLasked whether the noble Marquess could inform the House what amount of saving was effected by compelling the officers to provide their own stationery?
  [No reply.]

  ARMY—THE 5TH ROYAL IRISH LANCERS.
  SIR JOSEPH BAILEYasked the Secretary of State for War, If any of the twenty-five men of the 5th Royal Irish Lancers, who were reported to have deserted at Kingstown on the embarkation of the regiment for the Soudan, have been apprehended, and what was their nationality?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: There were no desertions on the occasion referred to.

  POST OFFICE—THE PARCEL POST HORSES.
  MR. ONSLOWasked the Postmaster General, If his attention has been called to the bad condition of a large number of the horses used in the Parcel Post vans; and, what is the system employed by the Post Office for a proper periodical inspection of these horses?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: In reply to the Question of the hon. Member I beg to state that the horses employed in the Parcel Post vans are the property of the contractors for the conveyance of parcel mails in the Metropolis; and I am not aware that there is anything in the condition of the horses which prevents the service from being conducted efficiently, and would justify the Department in making a complaint.

  NAVY—THE ERICSON TORPEDO BOAT.
  SIR JOHN HAYasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, If an officer has been sent to inspect the torpedo boat of Cap-

  51
  tain Erieson; and, if the Report, when received, will be submitted to the House?
  MR. CAINE: A naval officer has been ordered to make inquiry on the spot respecting Captain Ericson's submarine gun and the torpedo boat in which it is fitted. It is not desirable in the public interest to lay Reports in cases such as this on the Table of the House.

  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (REDISTRIBUTION) BILL—THE BOUNDARY MAPS.
  MR. FRANCIS BUXTONasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether the maps and reports of the Boundary Commissioners under the Seats Bill, which he promised to have prepared separately for each county division and borough, are yet ready; and, when they will be obtainable?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE, in reply, said, he was informed that a considerable number of the maps and Reports for separate counties and boroughs of the Boundary Commissioners had been prepared.

  CENTRAL ASIA—RUSSION MISSION TO CABUL—M. LESSAR.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the M. Lessar, now acting in London on behalf of the Russian Government, is the same M. Lessar who was with General Stolieteff's secret Mission to the late Amir Shir Ali at Kabul in 1878?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: There is no reason for supposing that any gentleman of the name of Lessar accompanied General Stolieteff on his Mission to Cabul; but if the hon. Member will kindly furnish me with his authority for his supposition, I will take steps to ascertain whether it is correct.

  EGYPT (WAR IN THE SOUDAN)—PRISONERS OF THE MAHDI.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he has received confirmation of the following statements made by the Correspondent of The Daily Telegraph:—
  "A messenger from Omdurman, a suburb of Khartoum, which he left on February 10th, has just reached Dongola. This messenger brings the following news:—' Slatin Bey (formerly Governor of Darfur) is in chains at Omdurman. The misfortunes of those in his (the Mahdi's)
  52
  toils, the writer declares, have reached an unfathomable depth.' The closing sentences of the letter are as follows:—'Khartoum has been sacked, and its people massacred. We calculate the number of victims at over 2,000. The Consul Hansal was murdered, with all the Europeans and General Gordon. This account of the massacre bears out what George, Sir Charles Wilson, and others have told me of having seen Europeans and other bodies floating down the river, some corpses being tied back to back;"
  and, whether Her Majesty's Government have taken any steps to ransom Slatin Bey, and M. Cuzzi, General Gordon's agent at Berber, and the women and children of the loyal inhabitants of Berber and Khartoum, who were sold into slavery after the sack of those cities?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: All the information in the possession of Her Majesty's Government with regard to Slatin Bey and Khartoum has been laid before Parliament. Her Majesty's Government have taken no steps to ransom Slatin Bey or M. Cuzzi; but one of the main objects of Lord Wolseley's Expedition will be to secure the safety of those who have remained loyal to the Egyptian Government, and he will take every step which is likely to secure that object.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked whether Lord Wolseley had been authorized to offer any ransom for those unfortunate prisoners who, according to his information, were now in great suffering?
  LORD EDMOND EITZMAURICE: Lord Wolseley has received full powers to take whatever steps he considers desirable.

  THE DYNAMITE EXPLOSIONS AT WESTMINSTER HALL — CONSTABLES COLE AND COX.
  MR. PAYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is the intention of the Government to at once put Constables Cole and Cox upon full pay pensions, and make some provision for those depending upon them for support, having regard to the fact that in consequence of the injuries sustained by them in the dynamite explosions within this House, their lives have been rendered miserable; the result of their having been loyal and true to their trust?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I am happy to say that Constables Cole and Cox have left the hospital, and they are

  53
  now promoted to the rank of sergeant, besides receiving pecuniary rewards. I am also happy to say that there is no question of pension, because I hope that with advanced rank they will soon be able to return to their duty. I have heard that they have received leave of absence on full pay for three months, to enable them to go to a convalescent home.

  SOUTH AFRICA—SIR CHARLES WARREN'S MISSION.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether Her Majesty's Government have any further information with respect to Sir 0. Warren's Mission in South Africa; and, whether the Government have any information as to the likelihood of a peaceable understanding being come to with the Boers about the disputed territory?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: From the latest information received, it appears that Sir Charles Warren, after having established a satisfactory state of things in Stellaland, has reached Rooi Grond, in the Land of Goschen; and there seems good reason to hope that he will be able to settle matters there peacefully.

  CENTRAL ASIA—THE RUSSIAN RAILWAY FROM THE CASPIAN TO SARAKHS.
  MR. ONSLOWasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he could not obtain reliable information from our Minister at Teheran as to how far the Railway from the Caspian to Sarakhs has been completed; and, how soon it is probable that the whole line will be made?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Her Majesty's Minister at Teheran has informed Her Majesty's Government that the railway, as I stated on Tuesday, is being pushed on to Askabad, and that his correspondents on the frontier report that it is not open beyond Kizil Arvat, the point up to which I some time ago informed the House it was finished. I have, however, seen other statements to the effect that it was open to Bami.

  CENTRAL ASIA — THE RUSSO AFGHAN BOUNDARY.
  MR. ONSLOWasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs,
  54
  Whether Her Majesty's Government communicated, as soon as it was made, the substance of the new agreement to Sir Peter Lumsden, with instructions that he should inform the Ameer without delay that such an agreement had been arrived at?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: The assurances received from the Rus-sian Government were communicated to Sir Peter Lumsden, and he has been instructed to inform the Ameer's Repre-sentative that the policy of the Afghans should be to maintain the status quo pending the negotiations which are still proceeding with the Russian Government.
  MR. ONSLOW: When was that notification sent to General Lumsden?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: All important communications are at once telegraphed to Sir Peter Lumsden.
  MR. ONSLOW: Was it sent on March 10, the day the Agreement was made?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: If not on March 10 it was sent immediately afterwards.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: May I ask the noble Lord whether this Agreement with Russia will be embodied in a formal document, to be signed by any responsible Representative of the Russian Government?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: That does not arise out of the Question on the Paper.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: Then I will ask it on Monday.

  EGYPT (AFFAIRS OF THE SOUDAN)— LORD WOLSELEY AND THE SOUDAN.
  MR. PULESTONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is a fact, as telegraphed from Cairo, that it has been proposed that Lord Wolseley should be made Governor General of the Soudan, in place of the late General Gordon, and that Lord Wolseley himself approves of this plan, and that the necessity of adopting it has been urged upon Her Majesty's Government?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Lord Wolseley has not been appointed Governor General of the Soudan. It is not consistent with the public interest that I should enter into the confidential communications which may have passed

  55
  between him and Her Majesty's Government.

  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (REDISTRIBUTION) BILL—REPRESENTATION OF THE CITY OF LONDON.
  MR. J. G. HUBBARDasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether his attention has been drawn to recent Returns giving the rateable values of the newly-proposed boroughs, in some cases equal only to £3 per head of the population, showing that the population as a whole is liable neither to House Duty nor Income Tax; whether he would consider if the difficulty of providing four Members for the City of London, assessed at £38,000,000 to the Income Tax and having a rateable value of £4,000,000, might not be overcome by taking the second Member from boroughs to which two have been assigned, whose population is not one-half of the waking working population of the City, and whose rateable value is from £300,000 to £360,000; and, whether he will also consider if the consideration shown to the Universities, in deviation from a strict night population basis, might not be extended to the City of London, concentrating the important interests of Manufactures, Commerce, Colonies, Shipping, and Finance?
  MR. GLADSTONE, in reply, said, that the purport of the Question of his right hon. Friend would seem to be an investigation as to the state of his mind and the extent of his information; but this 19th century was the century of examinations. He did not intend to enter upon the merits of the case as to the Redistribution of Seats Bill. He understood the Question of his right hon. Friend as one which invited discussion upon a matter which had been decided by the House.
  MR. J. G. HUBBARDsaid, that the information to which the Question referred was only issued on Saturday last, and subsequent to the discussion on the subject, and therefore could not have been in the mind of the House when it came to its decision.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that the case cited was an extreme one, and could not possibly be made the basis of any general conclusion with regard to the structure of the measure of redistribution. And, further, even if it were the fact that in any particular borough the
  56
  rateable value did not amount to £3 per head of the population, it would not at all follow that there were not a great many persons in that population who were liable to House Duty and Income Tax. In fact, the answer to this Question would lead him simply into a renewal of discussion upon a multitude of points which had been already discussed; and he hoped his right hon. Friend would accept the assurance that Her Majesty's Government were not prepared to re-open the question with respect to the representation of the City of London. His right hon. Friend, however, might re-open it, and then it would be the duty of the Government to answer him. As to the injustice of the night Census of which his right hon. Friend complained, he had only to point out that the Government had not taken that as the basis, but that they had given the City double the representation to which it was entitled on that ground.
  MR. J. G. HUBBARDgave Notice that he should raise the question again when the Fourth Schedule of the Seats Bill should be under discussion.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.
  MR. LEAKEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he can inform the House if there is any indisposition on the part of the Heads of Government Departments, when applied to, to give full and direct information to Members of the House who, in the performance of what they conceive to be their duty, may seek such information; and, whether, if there be no such indisposition on their part, he will recommend his Colleagues to discountenance the consumption of public time in putting questions on local, personal, and trivial matters, during the Sitting of the House by declining to answer them, and trusting to the sense of the House to support them in their action?
  MR. GLADSTONE: The permanent Heads of Departments, I can assure my hon. Friend—and the experience of Members generally will confirm me—are very much disposed to give information to Members who seek for it in the prosecution of what they deem to be their public duty; and undoubtedly, as far as the political Heads of Departments are concerned, they have every

  57
  disposition to encourage that method of action, which, it is evident, if it were more largely followed—it is often followed, but if it were more largely followed it would very considerably save the time of the House and increase its opportunities for the transaction of Public Business. Beyond saying that I will not go, because I think it would be too strong a measure on the part of Members of the Government to decline to answer Questions on the ground that such refusal was the most convenient course.

  THE WESTERN PACIFIC—NEW GUINEA.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether Her Majesty's Government have agreed to the annexation by Germany of certain portions of the island of New Guinea, and whether the Colony of Queensland was anxious to obtain possession of these same portions of that island; and, whether Her Majesty's Government, in the negotiations with Germany about this matter, consulted the wishes and views of the Government of Queensland?
  MR. GLADSTONE: The Question of the hon. Member invites some verbal criticism. There has been no annexations by Germany in New Guinea, and Germany has not declared its intention of proceeding in that method. They have proceeded rather by the proclamation of a Protectorate. The Question assumes that the Colony of Queensland has indicated, in some particular manner, a desire to obtain those portions of New Guinea which have been made the subject of a Protectorate by Germany. But Queensland did not indicate any such intention. What has happened is this—that the Government authorities did contemplate and did what lay in them to proclaim the annexation of the whole of the non-Dutch portion of New Guinea, without distinguishing between one part and another. Then the hon. Member asks whether, in their negotiations with Germany, Her Majesty's Government consulted the wishes and views of the Government of Queensland? My answer is that there have been communications between the Colonial Office and the authorities connected with the different Colonies, and not with the Government of Queensland exclusively,
  58
  which has no peculiar or exclusive title to be heard in the matter. But it is impossible, as the hon. Member will perceive, to do more than consult the wishes of these Governments. In our transactions with foreign countries we must endeavour to act for the best, securing the interests of the Colonies as well as we can, and with regard to New Guinea we have endeavoured to secure every fair consideration for them.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDasked whether, before further annexations by Germany, the Government would undertake to consult the views of the Governments of the interested Australian Colonies?
  MR. GLADSTONEreplied, that it would not be possible to give an undertaking of that kind.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDgave Notice, that in consequence of the extreme dissatisfaction that existed in many parts of Australia in consequence of the action of Her Majesty's Government, he should on the first opportunity call the attention of the House to the extreme injustice that had been done to the Australian Colonies by the Government in allowing Germany to hoist her flag over a portion of New Guinea, to which Queensland had made previous claim.

  EGYPT (FINANCE, &c.)—THE INTERNATIONAL ARRANGEMENT.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury what will be the course of Business next week; and also whether he is now able to state when he will proceed to the discussion of the Financial Arrangement for Egypt?
  MR. GLADSTONE: We propose to proceed on Monday and on the following days, Tuesday and Wednesday, with the Seats Bill. We have thought that, on the whole, that would probably be the course most convenient to the House. With regard to the question of the Egyptian Agreement, I have considered the matter, and have had an opportunity of consulting my Colleagues upon it; and I have to say that if this were a matter simply between the Government and the House of Commons, or between the Government and the Opposition, our duty and desire would be to comply with every request that was made, because I have more than once expressed my sense

  59
  of the great forbearance of the House and of the Opposition in accepting what, after all, were but dilatory answers, when we could not expedite the matter as we could have desired. But, unfortunately, I am not in that position, but am obliged to say that we shall feel ourselves compelled to ask a definite judgment of the House. There are various stages when the House may reopen a subject of that kind. But we must ask a definite judgment of the House before the Easter Recess. The state of the case stands thus. We are able either to ask for that judgment on Thursday next, or, if three days are thought too short a period for the examination of the Papers, we should be compelled to ask for it on Monday week. In the latter case, we shall have to take two preliminary stages on Thursday and Friday next, and not to take the definite vote until the Monday immediately before the Recess, with the intention if the discussion should go beyond Monday, of asking the House to continue it in lieu, I am afraid, of commencing the Easter Recess. Although it has not happened within recent memory, there are cases when the House has sat in Passion Week till Thursday. Having made this declaration with reluctance, but after full consideration, I must point out to the House how the case stands. Practically it is a question between taking the first stage of the Bill, say, on Thursday, and a definite decision not later than the Monday following, and putting that decision off until April 13. It may seem that, in ordinary circumstances, it would be a very unhandsome proceeding to make a difficulty about such a delay, but the difficulties in this case are of the severest and most practical kind. In the first place, I have ascertained, beyond all doubt, that the proceedings of other Legislatures will depend upon the definitive vote in the House of Commons, and that no arrangements will be made until that vote has been come to. That is a very serious fact in itself; and any considerable postponement of the consideration of the question by the House of Commons would not only insure additional delay in other countries, but might have an undesirable result in producing a disagreeable effect upon the public mind in those countries. But what I have to look to especially is the state of things
  60
  in Egypt. It has been frequently remarked that, during the last Session of Parliament, we represented, from time to time, the urgency of the financial condition of Egypt as being even then extreme. That was no exaggeration, it was extreme; and what has since happened is, first of all, that a large sum has been obtained by the diversion of the Sinking Fund; and, secondly, that another considerable sum has been obtained by the withholding of payments which were due to the Exchequer of this country. In that way Egyptian finance has been able to limp along, and there has been no absolute scandal or mischief, though there has been a great deal of hardship in consequence of the great prolongation of the period during which people entitled to indemnities have been kept out of their money. But now those expedients are quite exhausted, and very early in April, I am in a position to say, unless the judgment of this House has been given, which I have no doubt will produce quite a sufficient degree of confidence to enable arrangements of a temporary kind to be made, that there will accrue demands of a high character, which there will not be the means of meeting. These are the circumstances in which the Government have arrived at the conclusion which they think to be fair, and so strongly has the condition of persons entitled to indemnities been felt that it is arranged in the Agreement that payments to them shall rank as the first charge. They will be taken preferentially in order of time, so far as circumstances may permit. The right hon. Gentleman, I am sure, will see that I have not announced this conclusion of the Government upon any light or trivial grounds; and I hope he will be disposed to consider—though, of course, he can exercise a free choice—the question whether the vote of the House shall be asked for on Thursday next or on the Monday following.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Everything which the right hon. Gentleman has now said seems to me to greatly strengthen the case for delay—for allowing a sufficient time in which to consider this most important question. What the right hon. Gentleman has told us shows that not only the action of this country, but that the action of other countries also, depends largely upon the

  61
  nature of the first vote to be given in this House. Though he says there will be other stages of the Bill, it is perfectly obvious from the manner in which he referred to the first vote that the result of that would be of the first importance.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I referred to the vote that is understood to be the first substantive vote, not necessarily to the first vote.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Quite so. I do not stick at words. What I mean is that I understand from the Prime Minister that the first vote of a substantial character that is given in this House will have great influence in determining the action of other countries as well as of Egypt. I also recognize the very great importance of the decision to which we shall come. That being so, I cannot be satisfied with the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, or with the offer which he makes. I regret extremely that there should be any inconvenient delay in connection with this matter; but if there should be, it will not be the fault of the House of Commons. The right hon. Gentleman himself bears testimony that we have been studiously careful not to worry the Government about this matter. We were prevented from discussing it in the summer, and we have never been able to go thoroughly into it. I, therefore, trust that the right hon. Gentleman will see, on reconsideration, that it is all important that in a matter of this character we should have more time given us. I will repeat my Question on Monday in the hope of getting a better answer.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am bound to say that the belief of the Government is that if the Papers are produced on Monday, hon. Gentlemen will by the Monday following have had sufficient time to make themselves acquainted with them. In view of the prospect of what can be called nothing less than financial confusion in Egypt the Government think the course which I have sketched to be imperative, and that the question is practically closed.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, when he speaks of the inconvenience of postponing the consideration of this question and of the necessity of its being settled before Easter, he has not omitted to take this fact into consideration—that the
  62
  sanction of Parliament has yet to be obtained, and that it is quite possible that that sanction may be refused altogether?
  MR. GLADSTONE: That is the reason why we wish to take the discussion before Easter. We want to ascertain as soon as possible whether the assent of Parliament will be given, or not.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: I wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a Question, of which I have given him private Notice—that is, whether the statement that he made on Wednesday that the proposed international guarantee does not involve international interference with the affairs of Egypt rests on any statement made or assented to by the Great Powers, because nothing upon the subject appears in the Papers; secondly, I wish to ask whether the Papers which are to be circulated next week will contain an explanation of that reservation on the part of Russia, to which he also referred, as to which there is nothing in the Papers circulated this morning; and, thirdly, whether the Papers will contain the Report of Lord Northbrook?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): I have only received a minute or two ago across the Table the Questions which the right hon. Gentleman has asked. The third Question has been already answered by my noble Friend the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs. As to the other Questions, I should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman would be so good as to ask them again on Monday with Notice after he has read the Papers.
  MR. ONSLOW: Are we to understand that we are to get Lord North-brook's Report in full, or only an expurgated edition of it?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GUILDERS): It is not my business to give an answer in explanation of my noble Friend's answer as to Papers which are Foreign Office Papers, as I have nothing to do with them; but if the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to wait till Monday, he will see that the answer given by my noble Friend is confirmed by the Papers.

  ISLANDS OF THE PACIFIC—SAMOA.
  MR. GORSTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he could contradict a statement

  63
  which appeared in some of the papers that morning that the Germans had hoisted their flag in the Island of Samoa?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: No such information has reached the Foreign Office.

  SUPPLY—SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES—WAYS AND MEANS.
  MR. W. H. SMITHasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it was his intention to make any statement as to the mode in which the money was to be found for the Estimates that had been voted?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): No, Sir; it is perfectly plain that between this day and the end of the financial year it would be impossible to impose fresh taxes, and no one knows that better than the right hon. Gentleman. I shall, therefore, certainly not make any statement at present; but in my Financial Statement, after the holidays, I shall give full information on the subject.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Will these payments be provided for by taxation this year?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): As far as taxation between this and the 31st of March is concerned it is quite out of the question. I am not to be drawn now into any explanation of the Budget.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—IRISH BILLS.
  MR. LEWIS: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary, How it is that the Registration of Voters (Ireland) Bill, which was on the Paper last night, is not down for to-day?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It is a clerical error. I will put it down for Monday.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to give Notice that, on the Report of Ways and Means, I will call attention to the course pursued in recent Sittings of the House by the Chief Secretary with regard to Notices of Motion standing in his name to bring in Bills relating to Irish affairs.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I can make an explanation now, and save the hon. Member the trouble of putting down this Notice. There were three Bills on Irish matters last night, and one of them I found was a Money
  64
  Bill, which should be introduced in Committee; and so I put that down for to-night. There were two Bills on the Paper; but the hon. Members maintained a pretty active discussion until past 3 o'clock this morning, and, when it came to that hour, I thought the best thing we could do was to go home to bed. The two Bills were to be put down for to-night; but by a clerical error this was not done. They will be put down for Monday.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Irish Members could not at any time for an hour and a-half last night have counted out the House, but that, partly with a view not to inconvenience the Government by rendering the vote of the Report of Supply futile, and partly to enable the Chief Secretary to bring in these Irish Bills in which they were interested, they did not do so; and why, under these circumstances, after promising to bring in the Bills, the right hon. Gentleman deliberately left the House the moment before Mr. Speaker would call on him to move them?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I have already explained that I intended to bring forward the Bills; but the hon. Members, as I have said, kept up a pretty long discussion, principally amongst themselves, upon various Irish subjects, on which discussion was impossible, for everyone who could reply had long previously exhautsed his power of debate, and by the Rules of the House could not speak again. After that was over, I thought everyone would be anxious to go home to bed. The hon. Members were not kept waiting for these Bills, as they had provided themselves with abundant other matters for discussion.

  EGYPT (EVENTS IN THE SOUDAN)— MR. FRANK POWER.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDasked the Prime Minister, Whether it was under the consideration of the Government to make some provision for a recognition to the family of the late Mr. Frank Power, who had died standing by General Gordon in Khartoum, and who, he thought, the House had generally agreed, was quite as worthy as General Gordon?
  [No reply.]

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—THE EAST INDIA (LOAN) BILL.
  MR. E. STANHOPEasked the Under Secretary of State for India, If he would undertake that a proper opportunity should be given to the House on the Second Reading of the East India Loan Bill of discussing the whole subject?
  MR. J. K. CROSSsaid, he quite agreed that it would be very necessary to discuss the subject properly, and he would undertake that a proper opportunity should be afforded after Easter.

  NAVY—H. M. S. "INFLEXIBLE"—THE 81-TON GUN.
  MR. FRENCH-BREWSTERasked the Surveyor General of the Ordnance, Whether the statement in The Times newspaper of the 18th instant, with reference to the proposed removal of one of the 81-ton guns on board H.M.S. Inflexible for the purpose of re-tubing, is correct; if so, whether it is considered that it would be dangerous to use the gun in question in its present state; how long the gun referred, to has been in the Service, and how many rounds has it fired; what will be the expense of the proposed repairs, including the cost of dismounting the gun, its carriage to and from Woolwich, and its remounting on board H. M. S. Inflexible; what time must elapse before the repairs are completed and the gun remounted; what was the original cost of the gun; and, whether the remaining three 81-ton guns on board H.M.S. Inflexible are, at the present time, considered to be in good order and thoroughly fit for service?
  SIR ARTHUR HAYTER: The statement in The Times as to the removal of one of the 81-ton guns of the Inflexible is correct. A few rounds might be fired from the gun in its present condition without risk, but it is not considered serviceable. The gun has been in the Service since 1880, and has fired 86 rounds. It is estimated that it will take about four months to repair the gun. It will be replaced at once on board the Inflexible by the reserve gun. The original cost of the gun was £10,075. The remaining guns on board the Inflexible are considered to be in good order, and thoroughly fit for service. We have the spare tube, and the cost of the repair of the gun is estimated at a few hun-
  66
  dred pounds; we cannot at present exactly state the sum. The transport to and fro will be by Government store steamer.

  PARLIAMENT — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—THE CAPE OF GOOD HOPE (ADVANCE) BILL.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHasked when the Cape of Good Hope Advance Bill would be taken?
  MR. HIBBERTstated that the Bill was printed, and when he put it down for to-night he had hoped that it would have been distributed this morning; but owing to the very late hour to which the House sat last night that was impossible. He therefore thought it would be more convenient to the House that it should be postponed until Monday.

ORDER OF THE DAY.

  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (REDISTRIBUTION) (re-committed)BILL.— [BILL 49.]
  (Mr. Gladstone, The Marquess of Bartington, Sir Charles W. Dilke, Mr. Attorney General, The Lord Advocate, Mr. Campbell-Bannerman.)
  COMMITTEE [prohress 18 March
  [SEVENTH NIGHT.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  FIRST SCHEDULE.
    PART I.

      BOROUGHS TO CEASE AS SUCH.
      THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR), who had a number of Amendments upon the Paper, said, he wished to explain to the Committee in a few sentences the course which he proposed to take. It must have been observed by hon. Members that the principle underlying the whole arrangement upon which the Amendments proceeded was that certain boroughs with a population of less than 1,000, and also a certain number with a population above that limit, should be taken from the groups to which they at present belonged and merged in the counties, under a plan of re-arrangement proposed in another Schedule. From communications, however, which had been received, it appeared that some of the Leaders of the Party opposite considered that the Amendments were not in accordance

      67
      with the spirit, at all events, of the arrangement which had been come to. That was certainly not the view of that (the Ministerial) side of the House, and he was sure that right hon. Gentlemen opposite would accept his assurance that there was no such intention on their part. If they had violated in any way the spirit of the agreement, they had certainly not failed to carry out the terms of the agreement. It had been the desire of the Government to carry the arrangement out in the most complete manner; not to introduce any provisions that were likely to be open to objection; but to make the Bill, as between the two Parties, acceptable to the House, and not to press anything in regard to which an adverse opinion was expressed by right hon. Gentlemen opposite. The discussions and divisions which took place on Wednesday last indicated, undoubtedly, that there was considerable difference of opinion in the Committee as to the merging of the smaller burghs. That being so, it might be inferred that as regarded the proposal to merge some of the larger burghs, the feeling would be still more unfavourable. It was in deference to an indication of opinion that it was desirable to undertake a re-arrangement of the burgh groups, that the Government had submitted the scheme contained in the Schedules to the Committee. It was well known to hon. Members that that scheme was put forward to give effect to what was believed to be a prevalent desire, altogether apart from the agreement not to introduce anything that was likely to lead to contention or serious difference of opinion between the two sides of the House, or among Gentlemen sitting in different parts of the House. It was, practically, a "consent" Bill. Moved by these considerations, the Government had resolved — indeed, they had no other alternative but to resolve—not to press any Amendment that involved the merging of any burgh in the counties. As that resolve would really take away a large part of the basis on which the scheme was framed, and leave exceedingly little further for the consideration of the Committee, they thought it would be hardly worth while, or that they would be justified in, occupying the time of the House with the consideration of anything that
      68
      would be left. In point of fact, nothing would remain except the re-arrangement of the Stirling and Falkirk groups. That might be done without merging any burgh in the county, but it might involve proposals which would give rise to a difference of opinion. Accordingly, it was not the intention of the Government to detain the Committee by moving any of the other Amendments which stood on the Paper in his name; and as regarded the Amendments which had already been moved, and which would now be upset by the course the Government proposed to take when the Bill came up on Report, they would be withdrawn, and the Bill would be restored, as far as the Government were concerned, to the position in which it stood when it was introduced. He believed that this course would meet with the general approval of the Committee. The Government regretted, themselves, that they had found it necessary to take it; but he hoped the Committee would be satisfied that it was their desire to make no proposal that was not likely to meet with general assent.
      SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: As there is no Question before the Committee, it is only by the indulgence of the Committee that I can be allowed to say a few words. I do not for a moment doubt the bona fides of the Government and the Lord Advocate in placing the Amendments on the Paper; but I certainly think that, having regard to the proceedings of last Wednesday, and looking at the matter in the light and spirit of the arrangement with regard to this Bill, the Lord Advocate has put a correct interpretation upon the understanding, and is right in withdrawing the Amendments.
      MR. A. R. D. ELLIOTrose to continue the discussion, and was received with cries of "Order!" He said, that if he were out of Order he would move the adjournment of the House.
      THE CHAIRMAN: At present there is no Question before the Committee, and if the hon. and learned Member moves the adjournment of the House, he must confine himself to the Question of Adjournment.
      MR. A. R. D. ELLIOTsaid, he would move to report Progress, in order to enable him to call attention to the very remarkable statement which had been made by the right hon. and learned

      69
      Gentleman the Lord Advocate in reference to the Amendments now standing in his name upon the Paper. He had listened to the statement of the Lord Advocate with the greatest astonishment and apprehension. It was hardly-conceivable, after what had happened, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman, on behalf of the Government, should now come down to the Committee and tell them it was the deliberate intention of the Government to give up all the Amendments which they had met there to discuss that very evening. The Lord Advocate had, at some little length, entered into an explanation. He had told them that the Bill was substantially a "consent" Bill, and that he, in putting the Amendments upon the Paper, had, to some extent, gone beyond the arrangement. If that were so—and as the Lord Advocate said that it was, no doubt it was so—why, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote) had pointed out, had the Lord Advocate brought down the Scotch Members to discuss Amendments which were contrary to the spirit of the arrangement between the Leaders of the two sides of the House? Scotland and the Scotch Members had been treated with very scant respect. They had been invited, for two days together, to consider the very elaborate scheme which had been submitted by the Lord Advocate. The scheme itself had been prepared by the right hon. and learned Gentleman after great trouble and consideration. It had been published in all the Scotch papers, circulated among all the Scotch Members, and published all over Scotland. A copy must have been addressed to the Prime Minister, as a Scotch Member; it must have been before the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Border Burghs (Mr. Trevelyan), the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Campbell-Ban-nerman), and the hon. Member for Banffshire (Mr. E. W. Duff). These Gentlemen were all of them Members of the Government and Scotch Representatives, and must have been fully aware of the scheme of the Lord Advocate. The manner in which the Scotch Members had been dealt with in the matter was, upon every ground, much to be regretted. They had been brought down to discuss certain proposals which had already been discussed in all the
      70
      Scotch newspapers, and which were allowed to be put before the Scotch Representatives by a Member of the Government who was responsible for them. They were now told, at the last moment, without any word of explanation whatever, that the Government proposals were contrary to the stipulations of the compact between the Leaders of the two sides of the House. Why was that circumstance not stated last Wednesday, when the Scotch Members were allowed to discuss, without restraint, the Amendments brought forward by the Lord Advocate? He much regretted that it should have become necessary to make strong and disagreeable remarks upon the conduct of the Government; but he felt keenly that the Scotch Members had been trifled with in the matter. They were now told that the whole scheme of the Government was to be given up, notwithstanding the discussions and divisions which took place on Wednesday last. Scotland and the Scotch Members ought not to be treated with so little respect. It would be out of Order to enter into the merits of the question upon a Motion to report Progress; but he regretted that the Scotch Members, as a sort of Grand Council, had not been taken into the confidence of the Government by those who were responsible for that part of the Bill which dealt with Scotland, before it was originally submitted. He much regretted the course which had been taken by the Lord Advocate in the matter—in dropping his scheme. He was sorry that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had introduced the Bill, so far as Scotland was concerned, without having placed it, in the first instance, upon a firm and settled basis. He begged to move that the Chairman report Progress.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. A. (Mr. A. R. D. Elliot.)
      MR. BUCHANANsaid, he joined in the protest which had been made by his hon. and learned Friend as to the conduct of the Government in the matter. The Amendments of the Lord Advocate were intended for the practical improvement of the Bill, and it was upon the ground that the door was open for the practical improvement of the distribution of Scottish representation that these

      71
      and other similar Amendments had been proposed. Only a few days ago the Committee were told by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon, replying to the speech of the Chancellor of the Duchy, that the question of the arrangement of the Scotch burgh groups was not included in the compact, but was left open as far as this—that there was no obligation, no agreement, no compact, which in any way bound the Government or the Committee or anybody else. The first intimation that the re-arrangement of the Scotch burghs was to come under the terms of the compact had just been made by the Lord Advocate. The Scotch Members had, therefore, a great grievance against the Leaders of the Opposition for withholding that information, and a still greater grievance against Her Majesty's Government for the course they had pursued in the matter. He was surprised that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill, the President of the Local Government Board, was not not in his place, because he would recollect that on the second reading, when the hon. and learned Member for Roxburghshire (Mr. A. E. D. Elliot) drew attention to this subject, it was by him that the Scotch Members were invited to explain their views, in order that the Bill might, if necessary, be amended in this regard. It was distinctly stated at that time by the right hon. Gentleman that the question of the burgh grouping was wholly outside the compact. Consequently, during the Recess a variety of suggestions were made in the Press and on the platform by Scotch Members and others, by which a considerable concensus of opinion on certain points was elicited. Afterwards, on the 28th of January, the Scotch Members received an intimation from the Lord Advocate that he had drafted a scheme, and a copy of it was at once circulated and published all over Scotland. On the 19th of February, the day on which the House re-assembled after the Christmas Recess, the Scotch Members met upstairs to consider the Government scheme; they deliberated upon it for two days, and, to a large extent, it was accepted. On the 5th of March attention was called by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Roxburghshire (Mr. A. E. D. Elliot) to the fact that no Amendments had as yet been put on the Paper with a view to
      72
      carrying out the Government scheme. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy (Mr. Trevelyan) thereupon informed the House that the Government had found themselves compelled to abandon part of the scheme, but that they would put down Amendments to carry out the remainder. Last week the proposals of the Lord Advocate, in compliance with that intimation, were placed on the Paper, and the discussion of them was commenced on Wednesday; yet they now found that the whole of these Amendments—the last remnant of the scheme—were now to be withdrawn. He did not think that this was the way in which the Scotch Business should be conducted in that House, and he was convinced that the course pursued by the Government would give rise to grave dissatisfaction throughout the country. It was not only the Scotch Members, but the House of Commons, that had been treated disrespectfully in the matter. It was a perfect farce to require hon. Members to come down to consider Amendments, imagining that they were at liberty to discuss them and to endeavour to get an impartial opinion upon them from the House, and then, after they had devoted a considerable amount of attention to them, the right hon. and learned Gentleman in charge of them was to get up and say that as the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Lords looked upon them as not forming part of the compact, they must not be pressed. He cordially joined in the protest of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Roxburghshire (Mr. A. E. D. Elliot).
      SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he was more astonished than he could express at the statement which had been made by the Lord Advocate. Was he to understand that all the Amendments now on the Paper in the name of the right hon. and learned Gentleman would be withdrawn?
      THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): Yes.
      SIR JOHN HAY: Then in what position would those Amendments be which had already been discussed and adopted?
      THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): When the Report is brought up they will be withdrawn.
      SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he understood now, from the statement of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, that the

      73
      small burghs were not now to be merged in the counties. He was very glad that that should be so; but he wished to know what course was to be taken with regard to the large burghs in Haddington shire and the Wigtown Burghs, which he had the honour to represent? He could not understand how the Lord Advocate proposed to deal with them. In Wales, the town of Pembroke, with a population of 17,000, was grouped, by the provisions of the Bill, with another Parliamentary borough with a population of 6,000 or 7,000—namely, Haverfordwest. In that case there was to be a re-arrangement of boundaries, and both boroughs would remain as contributories. He could not understand how small towns like Stranraer and Fortrose were to remain merged in the counties in Scotland, while towns of a precisely similar character in Wales were to form part of borough groups. He had proposed to the House, on a former occasion, to add Stranraer to the Dumfries District of Burghs. By this arrangement the population would be raised from 25,000 to nearly 40,000, thus forming a most respectable group of burghs. The Lord Advocate declined to accept the proposal on the ground that he was asked to make an arrangement by which all the smaller boroughs were to be dissolved and merged in the counties. But as he found that a distinction was now to be drawn between the Scotch and the Welsh boroughs, he wanted to know how the Lord Advocate proposed to deal with the question of the smaller burghs in Scotland? He wished to know how it was that a considerable town like Stranraer was going to be dealt with differently from Port-rose, and that boroughs in Wales, such as Pembroke and Haverford west, which were in an identical position with the Dumfries Burghs, were going to be treated in a different way? He thought he had a right to ask whether Her Majesty's Government would not reconsider this decision?
      DR. CAMERONsaid, that though he did not care very much about the abandonment of this part of the scheme, for it was a very small matter and scarcely worth talking about, he must complain most bitterly of the way in which the whole matter had been managed. The Scotch Members were asked by the Lord Advocate, at the in-
      74
      vitation of the President of the Local Government Board, to meet and discuss the question of the arrangement of the grouped burghs. They were further invited to draw up schemes for themselves, suggesting any Amendments they might think proper to make in the matter of those groups of burghs. Luckily, they did not take the trouble to draw up any scheme, and it was evident that if they had done so they would have found that they had wasted their labour. They had a discussion, and agreed to ask the Government to formulate its proposals, and submit them to their criticism. The Lord Advocate prepared a very much more elaborate and extensive scheme than was put on the Paper. That scheme was widely circulated throughout Scotland and discussed. The Scotch Members were then asked to come up to the House of Commons on the first day of the Session, and hold a meeting to consider the question. They did so, and he was bound to say that at that meeting of the Scotch Members an amount of unamiability was called into evidence which was not at all pleasant. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Roxburghshire (Mr. A. E. D. Elliot) fell foul of the hon. Member for Wigton (Sir Herbert Maxwell), whom he was perfectly ready and willing to sacrifice, and he believed his hon. and learned Friend had been at loggerheads with the hon. Member for St. Andrews (Mr. Williamson) ever since. Even on Wednesday last they had the unusual picture of the amiable Member for the Border Burghs (Mr. Trevelyan) tempted into applying the most savage lines to the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell). After having wasted all this time, the Wednesday before last was devoted to a discussion of the important principle whether any populous places in counties were to be added to these groups of burghs. The whole Wednesday was wasted upon that matter. Then they resumed last Wednesday, when they had the principle again discussed at great length, and the outcome of it all was whether two wretched burghs under 1,000 population each should be merged in the county population of Scotland, or retained in their anomalous burgh system. He did not care much about those burghs. It seemed to him the only principle worth talking about would be to apply to each

      75
      of the undivided burghs the 15,000 population principle, and to say that if any burgh did not come up to that it should be merged in the counties. But since it was determined to leave them as they were, he did not think it made much difference. It would leave an anomaly which would be got rid of at some future day. He believed they were in a fair way in the direction of equal electoral districts, and the fact that some glaring anomalies were left in the present scheme would not at all impede the onward march towards equal electoral districts. But if anything could show the lack of consideration which Scotland enjoyed in that House, it was the manner in which they had been treated upon this subject. Two days' discussion had been wasted on the matter in Committee, and when the Lord Advocate proposed to restore those interesting burghs of Fortrose and Kintore, they might have another discussion and a fight as to whether they should be restored or not. He again emphatically protested, not against the abandonment of the scheme, but against the very improper manner in which Scotland and its Representatives had been treated.
      MR. DICK-PEDDIEwished to express his entire concurrence in the expression of disappointment on the part of his hon. Friends at the action taken by the Government in this matter. He felt more than astonishment, he felt indignation, at the conduct of the Government towards the Scotch Members. He differed entirely from the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron), who said he did not care about the grouping. He represented a group of burghs (Kilmarnock, &c), and his constituents felt strongly the gross way in which their interests were neglected. The hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Buchanan) had quoted some words which fell from the Leader of the Opposition on Wednesday last, indicating that ho, at least, was not indisposed to consider the question of the re-arrangement of groups. But he might have quoted still stronger words used by the right hon. Gentleman, in which he distinctly stated—
      "That the arrangements of the Scottish burghs was deliberately excluded from the Bill in order that it might be considered afterwards:"
      and the whole action of the Government, up to this moment, went to show that
      76
      that also was their sense of it. This was a matter of very great consequence. The Lord Advocate wanted to get rid of the inconvenience of getting into the counties two burghs like Fortrose and Kintore, and for that small reason he had come down and wished to set aside the arrangement in regard to grouping. What he complained of was, that after the scheme had been before his constituents—and they were entirely satisfied with it—after it had been accepted by everybody except, perhaps, the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell), for some altogether trifling reason, the Government now came down and withdrew it. In point of fact, the Scotch Liberal Members, who numbered 50, were really sacrificed to the nine Scotch Tory Members; and for the convenience of three Members, the Government consented to withdraw a scheme that was entirely satisfactory to the 50 Liberals, and not only to them, but to the general community of Scotland. He trusted the Lord Advocate would reconsider this matter. As regarded his (Mr. Dick-Peddie's) own burghs, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not propose the Amendment which stood in his name, he should do so himself, and, though there was no chance of carrying it, he should press it on the Committee as a protest on behalf of his constituents against the extraordinary conduct of the Government.
      MR. RAIKESsaid, that as he was the only Member on that (the Conservative) side of the House who supported the Government in the last division on Wednesday—[An hon. MEMBER: No!]—well, nearly the only one, he felt bound to join in the protest made by hon. Members opposite. He had listened with nothing short of amazement to the statement of the Lord Advocate, and the extraordinary course he proposed to take. The Government had invited the House to enter into the consideration of the question of the redistribution of the Scotch burghs, and it had engaged the attention of the Committee for nearly two Sittings. They had half gone through the scheme, and now the Government turned round and discarded it altogether. Even in the case of the burghs which the Lord Advocate had already obtained the sanction of the Committee to place in the Schedule, they were on the Report to be struck out, and the only

      77
      question left would be the fate of two burghs—two of the smallest groups—which were to be left in the cruel position of being thrown into the counties. Their case, however, was of infinitely less importance than that of the remaining burghs. For his own part, he was bound to say that, of all parts of the United Kingdom, the Scotch groups of burghs seemed to him to imperatively require a redistribution scheme. Yet they were going to leave them, as they were, absolutely undealt with. By leaving such a chaos, such a scandal, and such an anomaly as was afforded by the Scotch system of grouping, they would invite a re-opening of this question at the very earliest possible time, and would strike a fatal blow at the settlement which both sides of the House were committed to.
      MR. TREVELYANsaid, he frankly owned that he expected that protests would be made in consequence of the statement of his right hon. and learned Friend; but he was not prepared altogether for the quarters from which those protests had come. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Dick-Peddie), the last Gentleman who had spoken from that side of the House, had expressed his general satisfaction at the proposals of the Government, and had stated that he could understand an objection coming from the other side of the House to the merging of small burghs. Now, they had only had the opportunity of taking one division on the merging of small burghs, and that was on Wednesday afternoon, but in that division the hon. Gentleman himself voted against the merging of small burghs. The same was the case with the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron), though he did not observe the same inconsistency in that hon. Member's speech. The hon. Member put the practical side of the question very plainly when he said that what remained of the original scheme was not worth fighting for, or words to that effect. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Raikes) who had just sat down talked of the extremely anomalous character of the Scottish burgh system, and of the very great importance of reforming it; but his right hon. Friend had altogether exaggerated the machinery of that Scotch burgh system which was being given up. What it had now come down to was, that there were at present
      78
      three groups of burghs—one of 31,000 population, another of 49,000, and a third of 49,000; and those three groups were going to be re-arranged in such a manner as to turn them into three groups—one of 43,000, another of 49,000, and a third of 29,000. He thought it was impossible that any hon. Member could describe this as fulfilling the needs of Scottish burgh reform which the right hon. Gentleman desired. He thought the hon. and learned Member for Roxburghshire (Mr. A. E. D. Elliot) and the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Buchanan) had been rather hard on the Lord Advocate. He could not but recollect that those two Gentlemen, when speaking of this scheme, which they now described as so desirable, had damned it with faint praise. The hon. and learned Member for Roxburghshire said it was cut down until it was comparatively insignificant; and he remembered the hon. Member for Edinburgh making an attack on the scheme, in which he said it was sacrificing the single burghs to the groups of burghs in a most unjustifiable manner. The fact of the matter was, that in a great Bill of this sort, for the purpose of getting it through the House in a satisfactory shape, or perhaps in getting it through the House at all, from time to time certain alterations must be made in minor matters of detail, and this alteration had now come to a very small one. The original scheme which was brought before the Scotch Members was—he must speak plainly—a scheme which it was impossible to carry out without the consent of hon. Members opposite. The main and prominent features of that scheme were the giving of a Member to the Western Isles, the junction of Bute with Argyllshire, and the junction of Caithness with Sutherland. It was absolutely necessary to get the consent of hon. Members opposite to this arrangement, and that consent could not be obtained; and when that was lost, most of what was valuable and what was worth fighting for in the scheme disappeared. Then came the question whether they could carry the scheme through the House in its mutilated form? He thought they could not. It was quite evident to anyone who had followed the debates and divisions on Wednesday that they could not. It was quite true that there was a certain sort of languid consent on the

      79
      part of hon. Members to the general principle of merging the small burghs, of which there were 10; but when it came to the particular burghs, that languid consent turned into the most ardent opposition, and out of the faithful phalanx of Scotch Liberal Members who always stood by the Government in their troubles, no less than 10, he thought, on the very first opportunity for considering this question of merging the burghs, voted against the Government. He would ask the Committee whether, upon this Bill, the importance of the passing of which was beyond words, when such opposition was given on a preliminary stage of the first of these moderate propositions, there would be any chance that the opposition, increasing as the Bill went on, would not have hampered the Government to a very serious degree? He put that before the Committee, not expecting that it would satisfy those Gentlemen who had an ardent and disinterested desire to reform the burgh system of Scotland, but in the hope that it would excuse the Government to the great body of Members. He would only add that he thought hon. Members exaggerated very much the time that had been wasted. On Wednesday week there was very little time spent over the Scotch burghs; and though, last Wednesday, a good deal of time was spent over them, yet it was spent very much over the question whether considerable towns like Jedburgh and the fragments of the Wigtown constituency should be added to other groups. That was a question which was well worth discussing and threshing out, because the Government had an opportunity of saying that they were absolutely opposed to such a proposition. The time spent upon that part of the scheme which was abandoned had been very little. He was very sorry that the Government could not carry it through, and thereby gratify hon. Gentleman who took an interest in the question; but he was convinced they had taken the wisest course.
      MR. ORR-EWINGsaid, he thought the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy (Mr. Trevelyan) had been somewhat severe on the Scotch Members in regard to that portion of the redistribution of seats which had been brought before the House. He did not think the
      80
      way in which the Scotch Members had been treated by the Government was at all fair, seeing that they would have been content with the smallest concessions, and would then have allowed the provisions of the Bill to be passed. The Government complained of the opposition which had been raised to their proposals; but it must be remembered that they had laid down extraordinary principles, which were not at all part of the Bill, and which, of course, created the greatest opposition from this side of the House, and did not give entire satisfaction to their own supporters. He was sure that in regard to the only things upon which they had made a stand they had had justiceon their side. He thought it was most unfair that the Government declined to entertain proposals to include populous places or burghs in any old group. They did not ask for the formation of any new group; but still the Government would not allow any burgh that was not previously enfranchised to be included in any group. That was a most astounding principle, and he should like to inquire why it "was adopted? He had not the slightest doubt that the Government desired to follow the same course as that which they had pursued in Ireland—namely, to weaken the Conservative Party and strengthen their own. He should like to ask why Scotland was exempted from the arrangement between the two Front Benches as to the redistribution of seats only? Why was it not dealt with in the same way as England, Ireland, and Wales? It surely must be for some reason. It certainly could not have been to enable the Government to deal less fairly with the Conservatives of Scotland. Then what was the reason? It must be acknowledged by both Parties that the system of grouping burghs, which only existed in Scotland to any extent, was so peculiar that it required to be differently arranged in order to carry out those strong professions, so frequently made by the Prime Minister on the part of the Government, that every care should be taken to separate the urban from the rural popolution.
      THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is now discussing the Amendments to the Bill, and not the Question of reporting Progress, which is now before the Committee. Of course, some latitude is allowed to an hon. Member in giving

      81
      the reasons why he thinks it is desirable to report Progress.
      MR. ORR-EWINGsaid, he understood that he was disoussing the Amendments on the Paper.
      THE CHAIRMAN: No; the Question before the Committee is the Motion to report Progress.
      MR. ORR-EWINGsaid, he would apologize, but he had been under a misapprehension. He would probably be able to find another opportunity for alluding to this subject.
      MR. R. PRESTON BRUCEsaid, he was not very much surprised at what had occurred that day, and at the abortive result which had followed all the trouble and discussion which had taken place in Scotland during the Recess, and during the early part of this Session among the Scotch Members; but he was sure his hon. Friends the Members for Edinburgh (Mr. Buchanan) and Roxburghshire (Mr. A. R. D. Elliot) never intended to convey what the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy (Mr. Trevelyan) had stated—namely, blame to the Lord Advocate personally for what had happened. Blame, in his opinion—and, he believed, in the opinion of others—most distinctly fell upon the Government. It fell upon the Government, because, in the first instance, they neglected to deal in their Bill with this matter of the grouping of burghs. It was quite true, as was said by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Raikes), that these groups of burghs in Scotland presented some of the most extraordinary anomalies, or rather absurdities, which could be found in the electoral system of this country; but the Government neglected to take up this question, and to propose any reform on the subject in their original Bill. But that was not all. If they had told hon. Members frankly that they did not intend to deal with this subject, and that they must be content with the very substantial and much more important advantages which they acknowledged were conferred by this Bill upon Scotland—if they had been told that, as practical men they would have accepted the position. But that was not what the Government did. They invited the Scotch Members to attempt to deal with and make suggestions in regard to the grouping of burghs, and they allowed their Law Officer (the Lord Advocate) to make
      82
      proposals, which, of course, were accepted by the Scotch Members and accepted in Scotland as practically the proposals of the Government, although he must say that these proposals had received extremely little advocacy from the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Charles W. Dilke) who was in charge of the Bill. The scheme certainly had been reduced to very small dimensions. Nevertheless, he believed it was such as would make a substantial improvement upon the existing state of affairs. But because a little difficulty had been found in pressing this matter, because a little local feeling was excited here and there, which no doubt accounted for one or two of those votes of Liberal Members which had been referred to—because that happened, the Government were at once prepared to throw the scheme over altogether. The plain fact was, that they did not care to devote the little time that would be necessary to enable them to carry out these proposals. Therefore, he must say that he thought the protest which had been made by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Roxburghshire was perfectly justifiable; and if his hon. and learned Friend went to a division he should certainly vote with him.
      MR. MACFARLANEsaid, he did not rise to enter into a discussion of the grievances of the Scotch Members, but to express his personal satisfaction at the state of matters which had arisen. He did so on this ground. On the Wednesday before last, when this question was first discussed, the Government appropriated the favourable opportunity which he would have had for bringing on the second reading of the Suspension of Evictions (Scotland) Bill. The Government took that day away from him with the silent acquiescence of all the Scotch Members—a day set apart for a very important purpose. The consequence was that they went on discussing and dividing upon critical Amendments which the Lord Advocate had thrust into the Bill, and he supposed they would now have the satisfaction of supporting the right hon. and learned Gentleman when he moved to get rid of them on the Report. It certainly was a most profitable way of spending the time of the House, and he hoped that it would be fully appreciated by the Scotch. Members. For himself, personally, he

      83
      enjoyed a certain malicious satisfaction at the whole business.
      MR. CEAIG-SELLARsaid, that as one of the phalanx of Scotch Liberal Members who usually supported the Government at a pinch, and who had been spoken of somewhat cavalierly by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Trevelyan)—
      MR. TREVELYANasked what it was he had said that was objectionable?
      MR. CRAIG-SELLARremarked, that the right hon. Gentleman had spoken of the Scotch Members on that side of the House as a phalanx of Liberal Members who always supported the Government on a pinch. He had thought that the right hon. Gentleman by his tone seemed to treat them with less respect than they were entitled to. But, be that as it might, he begged to add his protest to that of the hon. and learned Member for Roxburghshire (Mr. A. E. D. Elliot) against the manner in which, not the Lord Advocate, but the Government, had treated the Scotch Members and the whole House. From the moment this transaction of compromise in secret conclave was entered into, the Scotch representation had been disregarded. No attention had been paid to it from the beginning. His own burgh (Haddington) and that represented by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Sir John Hay)—Wigtown—were struck out and merged in the counties; but, with that single exception, not a moment's attention was given to Scotch affairs at all in this matter. He wished to join his protest with that of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Raikes) against the manner in which the small burghs, such as those which were talked of the other day, were to be retained, and large, influential, important, and growing burghs, such as Stranraer and Dunbar, were to be merged in the counties without any reason given. But his main reason for rising was to ask the hon. and learned Member for Roxburghshire (Mr. A. E. D. Elliot) to mark his protest against the manner in which the Government had treated the Scotch Members and the House by going to a division. If he did so, he (Mr. Craig-Sellar) would certainly support him.
      SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he wished hon. Members would say in public what they had said in private. Did the hon. Gentleman deny that he had said that the scheme should be withdrawn?
      MR. CEAIG-SELLAR: I made no such statement. I have not requested the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw the scheme. I never cared for the scheme, but I certainly did not ask him to withdraw it.
      SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I am very much astonished at the statement of the hon. Member. I was certainly under that impression.
      MR. SEXTONsaid, he thought that it was not the Scotch Members alone who had a right to complain upon that occasion of the course which the Government had pursued. Their conduct was certainly most extraordinary. The Lord Advocate, whatever his desire might have been, had succeeded with most admirable completeness in offending everybody concerned. Every Whig and Tory Scotch Member seemed to be competing as to which had been most offended by the Government. He did not know whether the Tory Scotch Members had much claim upon the forbearance of the Government; but after the eloquent testimony which had been borne by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy (Mr. Trevelyan) to the fidelity of the Liberal Scotch Members, he should have thought that the Government would have been prepared to treat them with greater consideration. What was it they had seen? After repeated conferences between the Lord Advocate and the Scotch Members, a scheme had been prepared, discussed, and practically settled. Public opinion had been collected, and it affirmed the main features of the scheme; and now the Lord Advocate came down to the House, and, without giving a moment's Notice or the slightest hint to the Scotch Members, announced that the whole policy of the scheme was to be thrown over. It was said that the Scotch Members had been treated with lack of consideration; but there was one body of Members who had been treated with even less consideration, and that was the Members for Ireland. He thought they had strong reason to complain of and protest against the action of the Government. What had happened? The Lord Advocate proposed to cancel a number of Amendments which now appeared on the Paper—10 in all, he believed. But the Irish Members had calculated that the discussion of those 10 Amendments would occupy the whole of the evening,

      85
      and they were now suddenly told by the Lord Advocate that the whole of the Scotch scheme had fallen through, and the Committee wore suddenly thrust into the middle of Irish Business. That was certainly not a position which the Irish Members were prepared to accept. The Government ought to know their own mind, and if they found it necessary to change it, it was incumbent on them to give ample Notice to the Scotch Members and to the House. He was afraid that some of the Scotch Members were professing against the Government an indignation they did not in reality feel; but if their anger was real, there was a simple method they might pursue—namely, to follow the suggestion of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Dick-Peddie), and move all the Amendments abandoned by the Lord Advocate, one after the other.
      MR. BAXTERsaid, he had no intention whatever of taking part in the discussion. He merely rose to express a hope that the advice of the hon. Member for the Haddington Burghs (Mr. Craig-Sellar) would not be taken by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Roxburghshire (Mr. A. E. D. Elliot), who had been invited to divide on reporting Progress, and thus stopping the progress of the Bill. No doubt the Scotch Members had just cause of complaint, both against the Government and the Front Opposition Bench, for having let this matter go so far. He was one of those who had always been strongly in favour of merging the small burghs in the counties; but he had had doubts, from the beginning, whether it was wise on the part of the Government to attempt to take this course. It appeared to him that there had been no distinct understanding between the Front Benches and the Government. By adopting the course taken by the Lord Advocate they were pursuing a rather hazardous experiment, and blame was attachable to them for not giving fair warning of this at the beginning. Still, he could not blame the Government for the course they had taken that night, and he was not disposed to censure the Lord Advocate in the strong manner indulged in by some of his hon. Friends. The Lord Advocate had found that the simple fact was, that to go on with the proposals contained in the Amendments would necessitate very many days of
      86
      long and, perhaps, angry discussion. This Bill was a Bill of "consent;" and although it might be amended in some small particulars, he had been afraid from the commencement that any such great amendment as this could not possibly be carried into effect without substantial agreement on both sides of the House. He was sorry to be placed in this position; but he thought the Government had had no alternative but to take the course they had now taken.
      MR. RENEST NOELsaid, that, as one of those who agreed with what the Government had done, he would like to say a few words in answer to what had fallen from several hon. Members on that (the Ministerial) side of the House. The Government had been blamed very seriously for withdrawing these Amendments at a critical time, and they had been strongly blamed by his right hon. Friend on the other side (Mr. Raikes). One of them said that in a very few hours the Note would have been passed if the Government had been prepared to make certain concessions. What were those concessions? They were concessions which every single Scotch Liberal Member on that side of the House would have spent days, weeks, or any amount of time to prevent being passed. That was what the Government was blamed for—because they would not give in. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Raikes) also condemned the Government; yet he (Mr. Noel) ventured to say that if the right hon. Gentleman were in the House there was not one single Amendment brought forward by the Lord Advocate which the right hon. Gentleman would not have voted against. [Mr. RAIKES dissented.] The right hon. Gentleman shook his head; but he (Mr. Noel) was perfectly certain that that would have been the course taken by the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Representative of the Wigtown Burghs (Sir John Hay) was also opposed to most of the Lord Advocate's Amendments. He wanted the small towns taken out of the counties and added to the groups of burghs. That was just what the Liberal Members for Scotland did not wish to see done. On the contrary, an hon. Friend who sat behind him was going to ask the Committee to put a town that was not already a burgh into the county.

      87
      He thought the Government did right, and were quite justified when they found a great difference of opinion among Scotch Members on this subject, to return to the original condition of the Bill. He would only make one observation more, and it was in answer to what had been said on that (the Ministerial) side of the House. There was a complaint that nothing had been done for Scotland. Why, more was done for Scotland by this Bill than for any other part of the United Kingdom. By this Bill the same principles were being carried out for Scotland as were being carried out in other parts of the country—that was to say, it disfranchised the burghs below 15,000.
      THE CHAIRMANreminded the hon. Member that he was now discussing the merits of the Bill.
      Mr. ERNEST NOELresumed his seat.
      MR. A. GRANTsaid, he was astonished at the part taken by the Government that night, and he must take his share in protesting against the way in which they had behaved towards Scotland all through this business. He took this opportunity of saying that his hon. Friend the Member for the Haddington Burghs (Mr. Craig-Sellar), who by the Forms of the House could not say it himself, while disapproving of a great portion of the Lord Advocate's scheme, and having no great wish or desire that it should be carried out, wished him to say that his object when he rose that night was not to speak in regard to the Lord Advocate's scheme, but to join his protest with that of other Scotch Members against the way in which Scotland had been treated. It seemed to him that they had just ground for complaining that the Scotch Members and the Scotch people had been trifled with in this matter. What had been the course of events? Before they separated in the autumn they were told distinctly by the Government that the question of redistribution, as regarded the grouping of burghs in Scotland, was an open question, and that they might take counsel with their constituents and the people of Scotland generally, and endeavour to elaborate a scheme, which scheme would have the full consideration of the Government and of the House. That idea was strengthened by the fact that the Lord Advocate, as the Representative of the Government, afterwards
      88
      submitted a scheme to the Scotch people and the Scotch Members in such a way as to justify them in the belief that the Government were in earnest. They, therefore, gave their support to the proposals of the Government contained in that scheme. The House was allowed to take up parts of the scheme, and take divisions — yet, now, the Government turned round and told them that all that had been make-believe, and that they were not going to have any part of the scheme. It seemed to him that this was only another illustration of the mischief and inconvenience arising from the practice of legislating by means of private compacts between the two Front Benches. He presumed that the statement of the Lord Advocate that night would prevent the Government from supporting the Amendment he (Mr. A. Grant) had to make in regard to his own (the Leith) District of Burghs; but he would nevertheless feel it his duty to his constituents to go on with the Amendment.
      MR. PENDERsaid, he thought the Government should be commended for their courage in coming forward and abandoning what seemed a hopeless task. He entirely concurred in the course pursued by the Lord Advocate, and he trusted that the Scottish Members would continue to be loyal to the Government now as in the past, and that the good sense of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. A. E. D. Elliot) would be shown by the withdrawal of the Motion.
      MR. RAIKESsaid, that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Ernest Noel) made a statement concerning him (Mr. Raikes) which he wished to refute. The hon. Gentleman said that he (Mr. Raikes) was prepared to vote against any of the Amendments which the Lord Advocate proposed. On the contrary, he had voted for those Amendments which had been proposed, and he was prepared to vote for those still on the Paper in the name of the Lord Advocate.
      SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEsaid, he could not allow that conversation to close without expressing his opinion that, after what hon. Members had said, he was not surprised at the course the Government had taken. He was one of those who had taken a prominent part in pressing that this subject should be

      89
      taken up. A very moderate scheme was brought forward—the extinction of smaller burghs—one which he regretted they could not have carried much further; but the scheme, as it was, had a favourable reception from the Scottish Members. When it came down to the House, however, and it was announced that some of the best parts of it were abandoned, it met with some very severe criticism on the part of hon. Members on Wednesday. In the face of the very unexpected opposition to the rejection of the small burghs, he began to despair of the thing going on. He must say he did not feel surprised that the Government had given the scheme up. He said so with the greatest regret, because he felt that the state in which the Scottish burgh system was left was one which would invite severe criticism and encourage agitation for reform. If the Government had taken up this question earlier and in a larger spirit, he thought it would have been more easily carried; but with only the small burghs taken out, he did not think the matter was worth fighting for. He hoped the hon. and learned Member for Roxburghshire (Mr. A. R. D. Elliot) would not put the Committee to the trouble of a division.
      MR. MARJORIBANKSsaid, he could not congratulate the hon. Member for the City of Edinburgh (Mr. Buchanan) and the hon. and learned Member for Roxburghshire (Mr. A. R. D. Elliot) on the course they had taken that night. After all, they had only succeeded in raising a storm in a teapot, and had buckled on their armour and worked themselves into a great state of indignation for nothing at all. The Amendments on the Paper amounted to nothing, and really did nothing to remove any anomalies in the burgh representation of Scotland. Most of all, was he surprised at the advice given by his hon. Friend the Member for the Haddington Burghs (Mr. Craig-Sellar) in urging the hon. and learned Member for Roxburghshire to divide the Committee on this most obstructive Motion.
      MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I rise to a point of Order. I wish to ask, Mr. Chairman, whether the hon. Member is justified in characterizing any Motion which you have allowed to proceed as obstructive, and whether he has not, therefore, come under the censure of the Chair?
      THE CHAIRMAN: It has already been decided that the term obstructive is not out of Order.
      MR. MARJORIBANKSsaid, he was about to say, when he was interrupted, that when obstructive Motions were made by hon. Gentlemen opposite, no Members on the Ministerial side of the House were more eager to denounce such Motions than the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Buchanan) and the hon. and learned Member for Roxburghshire (Mr. A. R. D. Elliot). He hoped those hon. Gentlemen would see the error of their ways before it was too late. He did not think their course that night would appear in a very favourable light to their constituents, and he would strongly advise them, for their own sakes, to withdraw this Motion.
      MR. MACARTNEYsaid, it was quite refreshing to him, and he was sure to many other hon. Gentlemen, to see a little independence displayed on the other side of the House. For the last four years, they had seen nothing but slavish submission; but he was glad now to see a little exhibition of the per fervidum ingenium Scoturum. The performance of the Government on this occasion was very like a balloon party, who, finding their balloon was not soaring so rapidly as they expected, threw over some ballast; the ballast on this occasion was composed of the Amendments of the Lord Advocate. He trusted that the Scottish Members, who were only expressing the dissatisfaction they all felt at the way the Government were attempting to thrust the Bill down their throats with alteration, would persevere in their opposition.
      MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, he was not at all surprised at the course the Government had adopted on this occasion, because the Amendments which had been put on the Paper were of such a trivial character that they were not worth the time of the Committee to discuss them. The pity was that the Government did not discover this sooner, because they must know that small and trifling Amendments provoked from hon. Members quite as much opposition as very much larger changes did. What the Scottish Members did object to was the manner in which these proposals had been dangled before them, and afterwards abandoned by the Government. The Scotch Representatives would like

      91
      to know who was responsible on this occasion for the manner in which Scotland had been dealt with. Was it the Lord Advocate or the Members of the Government who were responsible for this Bill? If the Lord Advocate had the authority of the Government to submit to the Scottish Members the proposals which he did submit, he thought the Lord Advocate was entitled to expect from the Government the support necessary to carry them through when they had received the support of a large majority of the Scottish Members. But the manner in which Scotland had been dealt with in this Bill was like what they were accustomed to with regard to all measures for Scotland. Measures were dangled before them, and then withdrawn without explanations. What Scotch Members had to complain of was that influence was used in dealing with Scottish Business which was not publicly disclosed in the House. What explanation, for instance, had been given of various Bills which had been spoken of—
      THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
      MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, he would not go into that subject, or beyond the limits of the debate. He thought the objection he had indicated would be quite understood by the Scottish Members, and it was more on that account than on the account of the wretched Amendments to which the Lord Advocate's proposals had been reduced, that his hon. Friends desired to take the opinion of the Committee. The Scottish Members wished to indicate that they were not at all satisfied with this mode of conducting Scottish Business; and that if there was to be some one specially in charge of Scottish Business, he should have certain powers and responsibilities, such as the Lord Advocate did not appear to have under the present system.
      MR. GORSTsuggested that this conversation might now be brought to a conclusion, and the Committee allowed to proceed with the real Business of the evening. It was not often that the Members who represented Scotch constituencies broke out in clamorous rebellion against the Government; and, therefore, he thought that on this occasion the Committee would be ready to receive their complaints with indulgence. But the conversation had now been going
      92
      on for an hour, and the Committee were perfectly possessed of the feeling of Scotch Members; they knew how bitterly the Representatives of Scotland resented the manner in which they had been treated by the Lord Advocate—["The Government!"]—and how worthless they considered the relics of the scheme the Government were now about to withdraw. Under the circumstances, would it not be as well to withdraw the present Motion, and allow the Committee to proceed with the real Business before it?
      SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, it was not his business to defend the Government, and on that occasion he could not if he would; but he must say it seemed to him that they had here the principle of better late than never, and that the Government had been wisely advised in dropping a bad scheme. He thought the Government could not have done otherwise. The real truth was that almost every Scottish Member wanted something done, and no two were agreed as to what should be done, and they had got into such a mess that the Government would never have been able to make a satisfactory scheme unless they had devoted weeks to the subject. It seemed to him that the Government had in this matter two courses open to them; they should either have produced a complete scheme, making things fair all round, or have confined themselves to one or two small changes, in regard to which there would be general agreement. They had taken neither course. They had taken a middle course, and proposed a partial scheme—a scheme of no principle whatever—and he was not surprised that there had been rebellion against it on all sides. He must, however, join in the expression of surprise at some of the statements made by hon. Members. He was not surprised that his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Roxburghshire (Mr. A. E. D. Elliot) should have expressed his indignation, for he rather thought the whole scheme was hatched in the brain of his hon. and learned Friend; and it was natural that he should be indignant at the prospect of its being addled. The hon. Member for the City of Edinburgh (Mr. Buchanan) had throughout condemned the scheme as one without a principle, and one which created greater inequalities than existed before. Now, however, the

      93
      hon. Gentleman expressed his indignation at the withdrawal of the scheme. Under all the circumstances, he (Sir George Campbell) thought the Government were quite right in taking the step they now proposed.
      MR. BOLTONsaid, the conduct of the Government and of the Lord Advocate had been animadverted upon by many of his hon. Friends. He did not join in that animadversion. The Lord Advocate and the Government had endeavoured to make arrangements which they thought would be satisfactory to the Scottish Members; but he was afraid that, taking each of these Amendments by itself, the reverse of satisfaction had been the result. Every Amendment had had a supporter; but, unfortunately, every Amendment had also had a great many opponents. He was, therefore, satisfied that the Government had done the right thing in withdrawing these Amendments, and he should give them his support.
      MR. FRASER-MACKLNTOSHdrew the Lord Advocate's attention to the peculiar position of the Inverness Burghs, which he had the honour to represent, for, by an Amendment passed last Wednesday, those burghs had been dissolved. He was not present when the Lord Advocate began his statement that night; but he hoped to hear that his right hon. and learned Friend would take the very earliest opportunity of reconstituting the Inverness Burghs.
      THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)remarked, that if the hon. Member (Mr. Fraser-Mackintosh) had been in the House when he (the Lord Advocate) made his statement, he would have heard that as regarded the Amendments which had been already passed, the Government intended to propose on Report to delete them.
      MR. CRAIG-SELLARsaid, that before going to a division he desired to say a word of explanation in regard to a question which had been addressed to him by the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke). He had never disguised his opinion in private that he considered the Lord Advocate's scheme, in its present curtailed form, of little value, and that it was a waste of time to go on with it, and he might have stated that in the Lobbies and Tea Room in the hearing of the right hon. Gentleman. But the value, or worthlessness,
      94
      of the scheme was not the point at issue. The point at issue was the manner in which Scotch Members had been treated in regard to this Bill from the beginning. His reason for taking part in the discussion was to protest, and to beg his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. A. R. D. Elliot) to go to a division in order that they might protest, against the general manner in which the Scottish Business had been conducted in this matter. He was glad the scheme had been withdrawn.
      SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he was glad the hon. Member had made the explanation, because he had made the statement to himself (Sir Charles W. Dilke), and the hon. Member was one of those whose names he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had mentioned to the Lord Advocate as being opposed to the scheme.
      MR. T. P. O'CONNORapologized to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Berwickshire (Mr. Marjoribanks) for calling the Chairman's attention to the use by the hon. Member of the word "obstructive." He ought to have known that the epithet was legitimate, because it was used so frequently and with much gusto by Scotch Members in respect to Motions introduced by Irish Members. Now, Scotch Members seemed to think that the abandonment by the Government of the Scotch scheme concerned them alone. That was not the case. Anybody who would take the trouble to look at the Paper would find that the removal by the Lord Advocate of all his Amendments had the effect of launching the Committee upon a discussion of the Irish portion of the Bill, which no one expected would come on for some considerable time. The general expectation of the Committee, certainly the expectation of the Irish Members, was that the earliest opportunity of arriving at the Irish portion of the Bill would be next Monday or Tuesday; but now, at 7 o'clock on Friday evening, they were compelled to begin a discussion on the Irish part of the Bill, one of the most important and debatable portions of the whole measure. He and his hon. Friends had every reason to expect that the Scotch debate would have gone on for a much longer time than it had. In the first place, they had every reason to believe that the scheme was one which had been carefully con-

      95
      sidered by the Government and the Scotch Members. They had been informed over and over again by many Scotch Members that they had gone down to their constituents to consult them as to the merits of the scheme. They had heard that the scheme was the result of an understanding between the Representatives of Scotland and the Government, and in the face of all that the scheme was suddenly dropped and the Committee were plunged into another part of the Bill. While he and his hon. Friends would support the hon. and learned Member (Mr. A. R. D. Elliot) if he went to a division, they protested against being called upon so suddenly to discuss matters which affected so seriously their own country.
      MR. J. A. CAMPBELLsaid, that so much had been said on the other side of the House expressing dissatisfaction with what the Government had done, that it might be thought they on the Opposition side were gainers by this new move on the part of the Government. So far as he was able to form an opinion, they were not gainers at all. There had been a mistake, and for that mistake the Government must bear the blame. But he must say he and his hon. Friends would have supported some of the Amendments of the Lord Advocate so far as they went, and he thought it was to be regretted if nothing should be done to improve the grouping of some of the Scotch burghs. Although the Government withdrew their Amendments, he believed it was still open to private Members to bring forward Amendments in the same direction, and he hoped advantage would be taken of that opportunity. He and others wished Amendments of a different kind, in addition to many that the Lord Advocate had proposed; but he wished particularly to say that they did not consider themselves in any way gainers by the course the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate now proposed to pursue.
      Question put.
      The Committee divided:—Ayes 45; Noes 242: Majority 197.—(Div. List, No. 70.)
      MR. DICK-PEDDIEproposed, in Schedule 1, page 13, column 2, line 49, to insert, at the end of the foregoing Amendment—
      96
      "Kilmarnock (District of Burghs)/Ayr, Lanark, Renfrew, and Dumbarton."
      The hon. Gentleman said, he had not expected that it would devolve on him to move this Amendment; but as the Lord Advocate, in whose name it stood on the Paper, had been obliged to give it up in consequence of the decision of the Government to leave the Scottish group of burghs unaltered, he was obliged to take it up. He might explain that his object in moving this Amendment was to bring about a re-arrangement of the burghs, which would reduce to some extent the population embraced in the Kilmarnock group. That group was the largest group of burghs in Scotland, with the exception of that of Leith. The 13 groups of Lurghs in Scotland had an average population of 40,000; Kilmarnock had a population of 69,500. If, however, they took Kilmarnock out of the list, they would find that the average population of the remaining 12 groups of burghs was 37,883. The population in the Kilmarnock group was, therefore, out of all proportion to the average population of the other groups of burghs. If Kilmarnock be altered, as proposed in the scheme of the Government, it would be reduced to a population of about 58,000, and the remaining 12 groups of burghs would have an average population of about 38,800, still leaving to Kilmarnock a very large number in excess of any other group of burghs. What Kilmarnock wanted—and in asking this all the Members connected with Ayrshire agreed—was that two groups of burghs should be formed in Ayrshire—one in the North, having Kilmarnock as the returning burgh, and the other in the South, having Ayr as the returning burgh. Ayrshire would then have four Members — two county Members and two burgh Members — and considering that the population of the county was 217,000, that would be by no means an excessive representation. At present, the Kilmarnock group consisted of five burghs, and these burghs were scattered over four counties, and they had hardly the slightest connection or interest one with another. What the Government scheme proposed, and what his Amendment proposed to do, was to take out of the group which consisted of Kilmarnock, Renfrew, Port-Glasgow, Dumbarton, and Rutherglen, the last-

      97
      named burgh, and add it to another group, composed of Hamilton and Airdrie, in Lanarkshire. If that were done, the population of Kilmarnock Burghs would be reduced from 69,000 to 58,000; and, in his opinion, the groups would be very materially improved. Now, the scheme of the Government had, for months past, been before the burghs. Large public meetings had been held in every one of the burghs to consider the scheme, and, without exception, the burghs were unanimously in favour of it. Rutherglen was quite agreeable to be taken out of the Kilmarnock group and added to Hamilton and Airdrie; and Hamilton and Airdrie were quite pleased to be joined by Rutherglen. Now, this, there for 9, was a case in which no burgh concerned had the slightest objection to the proposed change; indeed, every one of them approved of the change. The proposal did not touch the principle at all of merging burghs in counties, or affect in the slightest degree the representation of counties; and yet, for the sake of the idea which had been started that night, that very necessary reform, which would have been hailed with great satisfaction, was to be thrown overboard. He did not intend to detain the Committee longer. He trusted that the Government would be able to find the acceptance of his Amendment quite consistent with any arrangement they had made with the Front Opposition Bench.
      Amendment proposed,
      In Schedule 1, page 13, column 2, line 49, to insert at the end of the foregoing Amendment—

      "Kilmarnock (District of Burghs)

      Ayr, Lanark, Renfrew, and Dumbarton."

      —(Mr. Dick-Peddie.")
      Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
      THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)scarcely thought that his hon. Friend could have been in the House when he (the Lord Advocate) made his statement a short time ago; because, if he had been, he would hardly have spoken of an arrangement being arrived at with the Front Opposition Bench. He (the Lord Advocate) need hardly say that if the Amendment were not associated with anything else he should not offer any opposition to it. In fact, it was a very similar Amendment to one he (the Lord Advocate) had proposed
      98
      himself. The Amendment which he (the Lord Advocate) proposed would, in his own opinion, have been an improvement; but he must point out to his hon. Friends that the way in which the Government proposed to get a Lanarkshire group was by creating a new group, and that new group was to be created by, amongst other things, dissolving the present Stirling group of burghs, a group which comprehended no fewer than three small burghs—namely, Culross, Inverkeithing, and Queensferry, which it was proposed to merge. If the merging of the smaller burghs had been carried out, a re-arrangement would have been possible; but as the merging had not been agreed to, the matter would have to be dropped.
      MR. COCHRAN-PATRICKsaid, he agreed with everything that had fallen from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock Burghs (Mr. Dick-Peddie). Scotch Members were originally informed by the Government that it was proposed to merge Kilmarnock, Irvine, and Ayr together. That was a proposal which was not assented to. The proposal, however, which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate had that day withdrawn from the Committee was one which was agreed to by both sides in the House—which was agreeable to the wishes of the constituencies, and had been supported by public meetings, and by everybody in the districts; and he (Mr. Cochran-Patrick) could not help expressing his extreme surprise that the agreement come to on this matter should have been so summarily dropped. It was only the other day that an important deputation came up to London, and, after interviewing their Members, expressed themselves perfectly satisfied that the re-arrangement should be carried out. The deputation went home fully impressed that the re-arrangement would be effected. He could not say what their feelings to-morrow would be when they learnt that the scheme had been so suddenly withdrawn. He hoped his hon. Friend would persevere with his Amendment.
      MR. BEYCEwished to say a word to the Committee with regard to the case of one of the burghs to which the Amendment had reference — namely, Rutherglen. Rutherglen had now practically become a suburb of Glasgow, and

      99
      there was no reason for keeping it as a separate burgh. The obvious course was to merge it in Glasgow, or in one of the divisions of Lanarkshire, which might be called by its name. If English and Irish Members realized how preposterous the present condition of the Scotch districts of burghs system was, they would feel some sympathy with Scotch Members when they expressed regret that the scheme of the Lord Advocate for its improvement had been dropped.
      SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he thought that Rutherglen ought to be consulted before anything was done in this matter.
      MR. R. PRESTON BRUCEsaid, he hoped that his hon. Friend the Member for the Kilmarnock Burgh (Mr. DickPeddie) would not press his Amendment to a division. He agreed with his hon. Friend that Scotch Members had been very badly treated in this matter; but it seemed to him quite impossible, on the spur of the moment, to construct a re-arrangement of the burghs upon a new basis. He thought it would be better, under the circumstances, to be content with the protest they had made, and to leave the groups as they stood.
      MR. DICK-PEDDIEsaid, that no rearrangement could be more unsatisfactory to Rutherglen than the one suggested by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce). Rutherglen was one of the oldest Royal Burghs in Scotland; it was a very much older burgh than Glasgow; and while it was anxious to be joined to Hamilton and Airdrie, it had no desire to be swallowed up by Glasgow. He could not agree with the suggestion of his hon. Friend the Member for Fifeshire (Mr. Preston Bruce) to withdraw his Amendment. His constituents attached great importance to the matter; they had been under the impression that a satisfactory scheme had been arranged, and now that this change had been suddenly sprung upon them they had great reason to complain.
      Question put, and negatived.
      MR. A. GRANTsaid, the Amendment which he had now to move, with the intention of altering the mode of representation in the burgh of Leith, must be taken in connection with an-
      100
      other Amendment which appeared in his name upon Schedule 4. His object in the two Amendments was to remove a very great hardship and injustice of which his constituents complained. That hardship and injustice consisted in the burgh of Leith being compelled to re-main in its present unsatisfactory and unfair position of forming one of a group of burghs, and only sharing with the other burghs of the group the privilege of returning one Member to Parliament, and the services of the Member when returned. The people of Leith contended, and very justly so, that whether trade, population, electors, wealth, or commercial importance be taken as the test, they were fully entitled to a Member of their own. For the information of English Members, who perhaps had a very vague idea of localities in Scotland, he might say that Leith was a large flourishing seaport with 60,000 inhabitants, and with an electorate of 9,000. The rateable value of the property in the town amounted to £384,000, and there was in Leith a large and extensive system of docks, with a revenue of £83,000 per annum. He might say further that the Customs collected during the course of 12 months amounted to close upon £500,000 sterling—in short, Leith was fairly entitled to rank amongst the most important seaports of this Kingdom; and yet for all that, with all her claims to that position, she was relegated to the inferior and subordinate position of being only one of a group of burghs; while with the burghs to which she was allied she had very little, if any, interest at all in common. Now, with these strong claims to separate representation which she had, the people of Leith felt perfect confidence that justice would be done them in this Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) Bill, and this confidence was strengthened by representations which they received from time to time from Members of the Government in answer to Memorials from them, presented previous to the introduction of this measure. He need hardly say that when the Bill itself appeared, and when it was found that all the new Members had been otherwise appropriated, and that the redistribution scheme for Scotland had been so arranged that the claims of Leith were entirely ignored, it gave rise to a large amount, he would not say of

      101
      astonishment and dissatisfaction, but of just indignation and of bitter disappointment on the part of the people. He thought that when the people of Leith read of what had taken place that night, when they learned that the Government had confessed that all along it had been under agreement with hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side of the House that nothing should be done to redress injustice with regard to the grouping of burghs in Scotland, the indignation of the people would be vastly increased. The people of Leith trusted even yet that the innate spirit of fairness which characterized the House of Commons would redress the injustice which had been done them, and give them what they were entitled to. The Prime Minister himself had told the House that one of the fundamental principles of this Bill was equality of treatment in all the constituencies in the United Kingdom. He (Mr. A. Grant) asked if there was any proof that Leith had been treated on an equal footing even with other places in Scotland? Leith was the sixth town in Scotland as regarded population, and all the burghs before her had one or more Members of their own. Paisley, with a smaller population than Leith, had a Member of its own. The City of Perth, with one-half the population, and with a much smaller rateable value, had the privilege of returning a Member to Parliament; and, looking at the question from another point of view, he might say that there was not one other grouped town in Scotland which had anything like one-half the population of Leith. Now, if they compared the treatment which was accorded to Leith with that accorded to similar places in England, it would be found very difficult indeed to reconcile the treatment of Leith with the principle of the Bill. He found that in England the following seaports, analogous to Leith, had each a separate Member of their own — Whitehaven, with 20,000 people; Hartlepool, with 47,000; Tynemouth, with 44,000; Scarborough, with 30,000. He might be told that those were all places which had long had representation; that they were what the Prime Minister described as historical communities. Well, that might be so; but they found that the Government had thought fit in this very Bill to give separate representation to various
      102
      places in England on account of the importance and population of those places. Amongst the new boroughs created, still taking places analogous to Leith, he found Barrow-in-Furness and Great Yarmouth, the one having 47,000 of a population, and the other 40,000. Now, what became of the principle of equality of treatment when such places as those were given separate representation, and Leith, with its 60,000 and with its varied and great interests and rapidly increasing size and importance, was denied such representation? He might be told that this Bill had avoided, as much as possible, interfering with the present electoral arrangement of Scotch burghs. Now, was that so? The Bill, in the first place, took away representation from two of the Scotch burghs, applying the English rule with regard to the limit of 15,000; and, in the second place, it had satisfied the claims of various large towns in Scotland to increased representation, solely on the grounds of their population and importance. Why, he asked, was not Leith treated in the same spirit? It would not open up any great question, for the case of Leith was perfectly unique, and there was no other burgh which could present anything like so good a claim to separate representation. Now, with regard to the other burghs in the Leith group, they, perhaps, had even more reason to complain of the present arrangement than Leith, and very naturally so, because they at present were so overshadowed by their larger neighbour, that they could not exercise their just influence in connection with electoral or Parliamentary matters. He was speaking for those burghs when he said that they would infinitely prefer to be merged in the county of Mid Lothian rather than remain under their present condition; and that was the solution of the difficulty which he suggested as the most feasible under the present circumstances. If the Government, however, did not see their way to that solution of the difficulty, he was perfectly willing to accept any better scheme which they could propose, and which would carry out the object he had in view. He was bound to say that there was a certain section of people in the smaller burghs of Portobello and Musselburgh who would prefer to be joined with some other smaller places more like themselves, and form a group

      103
      of burghs; but that would involve the difficulty, which apparently was insurmountable, of finding another Member. He must admit that there was a feeling in Mid Lothian that if Portobello and Musselburgh were merged in the county, the county would form such a large constituency that it would be entitled to an additional Member. Mid Lothian would, undoubtedly, under such circumstances, have a fair title to another Member, if another could be obtained. At the same time he must point out that even at present Mid Lothian was a very large constituency to have only one Member; and that the addition he proposed to make would not amount to any large increase, though, of course, it would make the county larger than at present. Assuming that it was impossible to get another seat, he would put this question to the Committee—"Are you not doing a greater injury to Leith by keeping it in its present position, than you would do if you provided that these two small burghs should be thrown into the county?" Now, if he were to take into account the number of inhabitants subtracted from the county by the alteration of the boundaries of Edinburgh, he might show that the addition of these two burghs to the county would not make any appreciable difference in the balance of Parties in the country; and he might also show that, although the constituency would be enlarged, it would not come up to the limit which had received an additional Member by the Bill. It was not necessary, however, for him to take up the time of the Committee by going into those details. Let him say, in conclusion, that public opinion in Scotland generally was all in favour of the claims of Leith. Those claims had been discussed in the Press, at public meetings, and by associations of both sides of politics; and at a large and enthusiastic meeting lately held in the burgh of Leith itself, attended by people of every shade of politics, the treatment dealt out to Leith was animadverted upon in very severe terms, and the hope was expressed that even yet Parliament would see reason to give effect to the fair and just claims Leith put forward. He appealed to the Government, and to the feeling of justice which existed in the Committee, to do what was fair and right in this matter, espe-
      104
      cially when that could be done with so little interference with the Bill, and with so little, if any, real hardship to anyone concerned.
      Amendment proposed,
      In Schedule I, page 13, column 2, line 49, at the end of the foregoing Amendment, to insert the words—
      "Leith (District of Burghs)/Mid Lothian."—(Mr. Andrew Grant.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
      SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, his hon. Friend had very fairly stated the case of Leith, and he was quite justified in saying he had had a certain amount of encouragement at various times for bringing the matter before the Committee. What his hon. Friend asked was just one of the things which he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had always very much wished to see his way to do. He had told his hon. Friend so; but he had, at the same time, put frankly before him the difficulties which stood in the way. The hon. Gentleman admitted that if an additional Member had to be got to make the scheme workable, there would be no difficulty in finding that Member. Therefore it was that his hon. Friend, on the whole, thought it most expedient to propose to throw the burghs which were grouped with Leith into the county of Mid Lothian, and to leave matters otherwise as they were. But, on the other hand, it must be remembered that this was the case of a group of burghs with 72,000 population, and that the county of Mid Lothian, when reduced by 8,000 by the extension of the boundaries of Edinburgh, would still be a county of 78,000 population, and, he might add, a rapidly increasing county too. Now, the proposal to take 14,000 away from a group of burghs of 72,000, and throw them into the county of Mid Lothian with a population of 78,000, would make 92,000, which would be an enormous constituency for one Member, especially having regard to the fact that the population was rapidly increasing. The Bill gave the county of Perth, which had about that number, a second Member, and the Government would have been glad to carry out the same idea in regard to Mid Lothian if they had seen their way to find a Member. But although they had not been able to do so, he could not ignore the fact that the

      105
      single-Member counties in Scotland were at the top of the single-Member counties. The Isle of Wight, which was a very large and populous county in England, was, nevertheless, smaller than Mid Lothian. The reason of that was that there were in Scotland, in proportion to the total number of Scotch Members, a considerable number of small county constituencies, and unless they were to carry the principle of grouping counties further than the Government proposed to carry it, in oases such as the grouping of Caithness with Sutherland, they could not find additional Members for the larger counties. If that were done, no doubt a strong demand would be made for a Member to be given to the Western Islands, so that he fancied that the hon. Member would not succeed in getting a second seat for Mid Lothian; and he certainly did not think that the Committee would be willing to take away the second seat which it was proposed to give to Perthshire in order to give it to Mid Lothian, because, although Mid Lothian was undoubtedly increasing faster than Perthshire, its population was at present less than that of the county of Perth. Under these circumstances, it would be objectionable to take away a population of 14,000 from the Leith Burghs, in order to add them to a county which already possessed a population of 78,000; and he regretted that, on the whole, he must ask the Committee to reject the proposal of the hon. Member, although it was one the Government would be glad to see their way to accept.
      MR. BUCHANANsupported the Amendment moved by his hon. Friend behind him, believing that it would remedy one of the chief practical defects in the Bill. He felt, however, that the position of affairs was very much changed by what had happened that evening, and that the prospect of his hon. Friend being able to carry the Amendment, or to get support for it, had been considerably diminished by the action of the Government and the Leaders of the Opposition. Before the Bill came out, it was recognized that one of the first defects to be remedied was the fact that Leith had no separate representation. Since that time every speaker had had but one voice in the matter, and every public body the same. Both political Parties
      106
      were agreed, and it would be found that the National Union of Conservative Associations for Scotland put the claim of the burgh of Leith to have independent representation as the leading feature of their programme for redistribution. Very recently a deputation from Leith waited upon the Lord Advocate, and this was what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said to the Provost—
      "It is unnecessary that you should come to convert me to your views. I think as strongly as you that Leith should have a Member to itself. I have always thought so."
      Even more recently the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy (Mr. Trevelyan), when the question was raised in the House, speaking from the Treasury Bench, said—
      "Notably they (the Government) earnestly hoped to meet the case of the burgh of Leith, which was, perhaps, the strongest case of the many which had been put forward by the Lord Advocate, and viewed favourably by the Scotch Members."
      The separate representation of the burgh of Leith also stood first among the suggestions of the Lord Advocate, which were submitted to the Scotch Members upstairs. He (Mr. Buchanan) asked the Committee to imagine the surprise and disappointment of the Scotch Members after the prominence which had been given to Leith by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, the statement he had himself made in regard to it, the further declarations of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy on Wednesday, the 4th March, and on the following Tuesday, March the 10th, to find, when the Lord Advocate's Amendments appeared, that Leith was dropped out of the scheme altogether. It was not necessary to add to what the Government had themselves said of this burgh. Its population, its commercial importance, and its shipping fairly entitled it to separate representation; and if Portobello and Musselburgh were taken away, Leith would still remain one of the largest constituencies in the United Kingdom with a single Member only. He certainly thought that, having regard to the circumstances of the case, and to the wishes of the constituency, that it was advisable to merge Portobello and Musselburgh in the county, although, undoubtedly, in that case, the county would require an

      107
      additional Member. It was a great blot upon the Bill that this strange anomaly should be allowed to exist, and it was only right that it should have been removed by the action of the Government themselves. For his own part, he was prepared to merge Portobello and Musselburgh in the county, even although Mid Lothian did not obtain additional representation. But he acknowledged the strong grounds there were for giving that county additional representation. With that object, and in order to obtain a Member for a new Highland constituency, he had put down Amendments to merge in the counties the Wick and the St. Andrew's Burghs, the two smallest district groups. That seemed to him a reasonable and practical way of meeting the difficulty; but after what had taken place that evening he would not proceed with these Amendments. In conclusion, he wished earnestly to impress upon the Committee the great disappointment and regret which would be felt in Scotland in regard to this question of the separate representation of Leith. He was unable to say what occult influences had been at work; but, whatever the cause might be, it was very disheartening that, after the statements made by the Government before the Bill was introduced, and the approval which had been unanimously given to the promised proposals of the Lord Advocate, all the good intentions of Her Majesty's Government were now to be frustrated.
      SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEwished to say a word on the subject, because, a short time ago, he had the honour of receiving a deputation from Leith with respect to this arrangement. He could only say—and he thought it was the feeling of the Committee on both sides—that it would have been a very great satisfaction to him and his hon. Friends if it had been possible to do what was desired—namely, to separate from Leith the other boroughs which were now associated with it. He was bound, however, at the same time, to say that Leith so completely dominated the group of burghs, and they had been so much in the habit of talking of "the Member for Leith," that until recently he was hardly aware that there were any other burghs associated with it. He had always looked upon Leith
      108
      as possessing predominating influence over the group, and he was quite sure that it would aways be so considered. Still, it would have been a matter of great satisfaction if that which was so much desired in Scotland could have been done. The question had been urged ably and temperately by the gentlemen who did him the honour to wait upon him, and at one time it appeared as if some arrangement might be made by which what hon. Members desired could be accomplished. But the difficulty which the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Buchanan) had acknowledged, and which the President of the Local Government Board had pointed out, did arise, and would not be easy to deal with—if they were to throw Musselburgh and Portobello into the county of Mid Lothian, and thus greatly increase the population of that county, it would follow as a matter of course that they must provide a second Member for Mid Lothian. How were they to do that? Various plans and suggestions had been made; but, on the whole, it seemed to him that the Government had arrived at a right conclusion in the matter— namely, that the only possible way of dealing with Leith, and giving it a separate representation, was to give the county into which Musselburgh and Portobello would be thrown an additional Member.
      MR. DICK-PEDDIEsaid, he was glad to find, from the statement which had just been made by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, that the claims of Leith to separate representation were equally acknowledged on both sides of the House. It was a very curious matter, then, that when an injustice was acknowledged by everybody, and admitted to be of a glaring character, the combined ingenuity of the Government and the Front Opposition Bench was not sufficient to find a remedy. He thought it was possible, however, to make some arrangement by which the principal seaport in Scotland, next to Glasgow, should obtain a Member for itself instead of being in the position of having only partial representation. If the Bill were allowed to stand in its present shape, it would not be long before some Government, perhaps a Government composed of Gentlemen now sitting on the Opposition

      109
      Benches, would be compelled to bring in a plan to remedy the gross injustice which would exist in regard to the Scotch burgh groups. He would certainly support his hon. Friend the Member for Leith (Mr. A. Grant) if he went to a division, if it were only by way of entering a protest.
      MR. DALRYMPLEsaid, he regarded it as very unfortunate that Scotland was not dealt with by itself, instead of being included in a Bill of this kind embracing the whole of the United Kingdom. If Scotland had been dealt with by itself, such a case would not have occurred as a place like Leith not having a Representative for itself, and a county like Mid Lothian not having a second Member. It ought to be a matter of some consolation to the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. A. Grant) to recollect that at a meeting of the Scotch Members, little as was now thought of it, although it lasted for two days, a unanimous expression was put on record that Leith ought to have a second Member; but it was coupled with the condition that Mid Lothian was to have a second Member. The hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Buchanan), who addressed the Committee a few minutes ago, told them that that was also the recommendation of the National Union of Conservative Associations in Scotland; but that it was coupled with the same condition. He desired to express his sympathy with Leith, on account of its not having obtained separate representation for itself; but he thought there would be less injustice in Leith remaining as it was than there would be if a considerable additional population were thrown into the county of Mid Lothian without giving it a second Member. It must be admitted that it would be less hard for Leith to remain as it was, especially after the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote)—that in that House Leith was always spoken of as the returning burgh, but never as the Leith Burghs—than to create a hardship which would undoubtedly be much greater by making a large addition to the constituency of the county of Mid Lothian. Reference had been made by the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill to the case of Perthshire. It was true that Perthshire, according to
      110
      the last Census Returns, contained a somewhat larger population than Mid Lothian would have, even by including within the latter the burghs of Portobello and Musselburgh. No one could for a moment doubt that in the next Census the population of Mid Lothian would be considerably greater than that of Perthshire. In one place, on a farm in the West part of the county, the population, in the course of a few weeks, was increased by 600, owing to works which were being erected in the neighbourhood. While he sympathized very much with the case of Leith, and would gladly have seen an arrangement made by which that burgh could have obtained separate representation, he did not see that any advantage would be derived from dividing the Committee on the subject.
      THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, that this was a very important matter, and reference had been made to the opinion he had already expressed upon it. He had not gone back in the slightest degree from that opinion; and so strong did he consider the claim of Leith to be that, in the scheme submitted for the consideration of the Scotch Members, a separate Member for Leith was proposed, even although Mid Lothian was only to get one Member. Leith was of great importance as a seaport, and the special character of the burgh certainly marked it out for separate representation. But when the scheme came to be considered by the Scotch Members, while considerable sympathy was expressed for Leith, it was thought, for reasons which were perfectly intelligible, that to put 94,000 persons into the county of Mid Lothian, and leave only 58,000 in the burgh, would scarcely be fair. Consequently, a rider was attached to the resolution in favour of Leith, which made that point perfectly clear. The Scotch Members were unanimous in assenting to that rider, and the effect of it was to provide that a separate Member should only be given to Leith on condition that the county of Mid Lothian got a second Member. That being so, the question was carefully considered by the Government, and the reconsideration lasted until yesterday, various schemes being suggested by which a second Member might be obtained. Reference had been made to

      111
      the county of Perthshire. The claims of that county were fully considered when those of Mid Lothian for a second Member were put forward. Although Mid Lothian was numerically somewhat under Perthshire in its present population, it was felt that it would very soon be equally as large, seeing that the population of Mid Lothian was increasing at a much greater rate than that of Perthshire; but as a second Member had already been appropriated for Perthshire, and the necessity being laid upon the Government of taking the existing population as their basis, it was found impossible to appropriate a second Member to Mid Lothian. Therefore, as there were no means by which a second Member could be obtained for Mid Lothian in any other way, the Government were left in the position, which he admitted to be a most unfortunate one, of not being able to do that which in itself was most desirable.
      MR. A. R. D. ELLIOTremarked that, if all they could do was to separate Portobello and Musselburgh from Leith and throw them into the county, without giving a second Member to Mid Lothian, the arrangement would be a very unsatisfactory one for the county of Mid Lothian. He therefore hoped that the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. A. Grant) would not put the Committee to the trouble of a division, but would rest content with the protest he had made.
      MR. A. GRANTsaid, he was obliged to his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. A. R. D. Elliot) for the advice he had given to him; but, at the same time, he regretted that he was unable to take advantage of it. He should certainly feel it his duty to take a division upon the question. In regard to the difficulty which his hon. and learned Friend had named, he might say that his proposal would be the taking of the initial step for securing a second Member to Mid Lothian. If the Committee adopted his proposal, he thought the Government would be compelled to find some way of giving a second Member.
      MR. C. S. PARKERdesired to say, in the absence of his hon. Friend the Member for Perthshire (Sir Donald Currie), that that county would feel much aggrieved if, in consequence of the acceptance of the proposal of his hon. Friend the Member for Leith (Mr. A.
      112
      Grant), it were arranged to give a second Member to Mid Lothian, with a smaller population than Perthshire, and to deprive Perthshire of the second Member already promised to it. He had no doubt that much dissatisfaction would have been expressed in Perthshire if the proposal of the Lord Advocate had been accepted, and an exception to the rule of taking the present population as a basis of representation had been made to the prejudice of Perthshire.
      THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): I only stated that the suggestion was made and considered.
      MR. C. S. PARKERsaid, he hoped that it would not, as sometimes happened, be reconsidered. He regretted that it had not been found possible to give a separate representation to Leith, and to allot a second Member to Mid Lothian as well as to Perthshire.
      MR. M'LAGANsaid, he could not understand what those who framed the Redistribution Bill were thinking about when they made so egregious an omission as to leave Leith in the unjust position it occupied now—of not having a Member to itself. As a division was intended to be taken, he felt bound to express the regret he felt at being obliged to vote against the Amendment of his hon. Friend. At the meeting, upstairs, of Scotch Members, a Resolution was distinctly passed that it was not desirable to give separate representation to Leith unless a second Member could be got for Mid Lothian. As the claims of Mid Lothian to a second Member were even greater than those of Leith to separate representation, he should feel compelled to vote against the Amendment if it were pressed. At the same time, he thought the time had arrived when the claims of Leith to separate representation should be fully considered. He hoped the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. A. Grant) would content himself on the present occasion with the discussion which had taken place; and seeing the position in which many hon. Members would find themselves, who deeply sympathized with his hon. Friend, but who could not vote with him, because a second Member was not to be assigned for Mid Lothian, he hoped his hon. Friend would withdraw the Amendment.
      MR. CALLANsaid, he was surprised to find that the unanimity which generally prevailed among the Scotch Members had been broken up. They often heard of dissensions among the Irish Members; but they rarely found the Scotch Representatives adopting the attitude of the Kilkenny cats. He felt bound to complain that the Government had not shown as much deference to the opinions of the Irish Members as the Lord Advocate had shown to those of the Scotch Members in these matters. He failed to see why similar attention should not have been paid to the Irish Members by the Chief Secretary for Ireland as that which had been paid to the Scotch Members by the Lord Advocate. Both the Irish National Representatives and the Conservative Members had a right to complain, because if the same deference had been shown to their opinions they might have arrived at some amicable understanding. The present fight was upon some unintelligible system of the grouping of Scotch burghs. In point of fact, they had been in a Scotch mist, all the evening, about this question of the grouping of burghs; and he wished to know why the vital limit of 15,000 for the purposes of enfranchisement, which had been extended to England and Ireland, had not been applied also to Scotland? It was quite evident that the system of grouping burghs in Scotland had saved numerous burghs in that country from being extinguished. That was not the case in Ireland; but, on the contrary, nearly the whole of the borough representation in that country had been extinguished; whereas, if the system of grouping had been adopted, the Irish boroughs would have been saved. He maintained that it was neither a fair nor an honest proceeding on the part of the Government to have refrained from consulting, either formally or informally, the Irish Members in the same way as the Scotch Members had been consulted. He intended to vote with the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. A. Grant), in order to show that the different system upon which the Irish borough constituencies had been treated by the Government was fully appreciated, and further to express the discontent and dissatisfaction of the Irish Members at not having been consulted as to the arrangements in regard to Ireland in the same way
      114
      as that in which the Scotch Members had been consulted by the Lord Advocate.
      MR. BIGGARsaid, that he differed from the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, and was disposed to think that the principle of private consultation with regard to the provisions of a Bill, when the interests of the different parties were not identical, was not a good one, nor one calculated to be attended with any great success. He thought that, taking it for all in all, the Scotch Members would have had every reason to be perfectly satisfied if they had not had this opportunity for private consultation. He doubted whether the Front Opposition Bench would not themselves have been satisfied if they had refused to enter into a private conference, and to enter into the loving embrace of the Government. His own impression was that the arrangement which had been entered into was far from being a satisfactory way of doing business, having always been of opinion that explanations of all matters on the floor of the House was fairer to the House generally than the practice of entering into private consultation. It was perfectly impossible in a private consultation to consult all Members, and it was always possible for someone to be left out who took great interest in the question. It was possible for many Members to be left out who took much more interest in the question at issue than many of those who were taken into consultation; and altogether he thought that consultations between individuals and the Government were far from satisfactory, and things to be avoided. If he had any influence with hon. Friends near him, he would press them to vote against the proposal.
      Question put.
      The Committee divided: — Ayes 15; Noes 89: Majority 74. —(Div. List, No. 71.)
      MR. J. A. CAMPBELLsaid, he wished to move the Amendment standing on the Paper in his name, in order that he might have an opportunity of adding Kirriemuir to the Montrose Burghs under Schedule 4. It certainly required some courage to make a proposal of that kind after what they had heard the other day from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy

      115
      of Lancaster (Mr. Trevelyan). The right hon. Gentleman had declared the opposition of the Government to adding any new town to an existing group of burghs. Indeed, he had said that he could not find words to express how strong the opinion of the Government was upon that subject. At the same time, this question of adding to the existing groups of burghs was perfectly open to the Committee. It was not included in the agreement of which they had heard so much. The discouraging fact which he could not get over was that the Government appeared to be opposed to any proposal of the kind. He (Mr. Campbell) might be excused for stating on what grounds such a proposal as this was advanced. They heard the other day that the main principle of this Bill was that representation should be given as much as possible in proportion to numbers. That no doubt was one principle, but it was not the only principle of the Bill. There was another, of which he thought they had not heard quite enough—namely, the principle of keeping different interests separate. That principle was not a doctrine of that (the Opposition) side of the House only, but was one which had been recognized as a general principle of legislation by both sides. Allusion had already been made to the Instructions to the Boundary Commission for Scotland, in which attention was called to the proper way of dealing with populous localities of an urban character in counties. But they had something more definite than even a general instruction given to the Boundary Commissioners; and with the permission of the Committee he would venture to remind them of a few words which they heard about that time last year—namely, on the 28th of February, from the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister. The right hon. Gentleman, when introducing the Franchise Bill, said that in a sound measure of redistribution the distinction between town and country, known to electoral law as borough and shire, ought to be maintained; that although the franchise was identical, that was not the question; that the question was whether there was not in pursuits and associations and in social circumstances a difference between town and country, between borough and shire, which it was expedient, becoming, and useful to maintain. The object of his
      116
      (Mr. Campbell's) Amendment was simply to carry out this principle in the case of the county of Forfar. At present they had a group of five burghs, four of them in Forfarshire, and one small burgh in Kincardineshire. The population of these was 59,654; and his proposal was to add to that group the manufacturing town of Kirriemuir, which had a population of 4,390. In that way they would have all the manufacturing towns in Forfarshire outside of Dundee grouped together for representation. Their aggregate population, including the town of Inverbervie in Kincardineshire, would then be 64,064; and this addition of Kirriemuir to the Montrose Burghs would still leave for the constituency of the county of Forfar a population of 63,083. It was on these grounds that he proposed the Amendment, which he submitted to the Committee as a reasonable and proper one, which would place the electoral arrangements in the county of For far on a fair basis. He had the honour to move his Amendment.
      Amendment proposed,
      In Schedule 1, page 13, column 2, after line 49, insert—

      Montrose (District of Burghs.)

      Forfar and Kincardine."

      —(Mr. J. A. Campbell.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
      THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, that the arguments against proposals of this kind had already been urged with such emphasis and clearness that he would not repeat them. He would merely say one or two words with regard to the particular case before them. His hon. Friend had referred to a speech delivered by the Prime Minister in which the right hon. Gentleman had spoken of maintaining the distinction between borough and shire. Well, he (the Lord Advocate) must point out that certainly, in reference to a case like the present, they were maintaining the distinction between borough and shire. That statement of the right hon. Gentleman did not refer to a case like this. It merely had reference to what was occurring in England, and not to the creation of groups or the making of additions to groups. The place in question was not a burgh at all. It was a prosperous village in the county of Forfar. It had none of the qualities of a

      117
      burgh; and unless, therefore, it was to be laid down that wherever a population was in excess of a particular number, say of 2,000 or 3,000, it was to be added to the nearest group, in which case it would be maintained that there could be no reason for dealing with one town in a different manner to another, there was no ground for favourably considering the present proposal.
      MR. DALRYMPLEsaid, it might be convenient to the Committee that he should say a few words upon his hon. Friend's Amendment, because, if he did so, he might in the result feel it unnecessary subsequently to move an Amendment which stood on the Paper in his own name. He should not be content to deal with this Amendment and other Amendments of a similar kind, even if they were defeated or negatived by the Committee, without making some remarks. He spoke more freely of the present Amendment because he had no connection whatever with that part of the country to which his hon. Friend had alluded, and he only took this case as an illustration of the cases that the Scotch Members had had very much in their minds. He did not understand from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate on what authority he gave them his interpretation of the words of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government. The Scotch Members were entitled to their own view of those words, and he had never until that moment heard any doubt thrown upon the interpretation given to the words of the Prime Minister by his hon. Friend (Mr. J. A. Campbell). Those words had been referred to before that day. They were referred to very frequently, both in the House and outside it, and yet he had never heard of any interpretation differing from that of his hon. Friend. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate maintained that the Prime Minister had not meant what he said; whereas he (Mr. Dalrymple) had a very strong authority for the interpretation which his hon. Friend (Mr. J. A. Campbell) had given of the words used. He held that the declaration made by the Prime Minister gave encouragement to the various Amendments which the Scotch Conservative Members proposed to the Committee, and it had never yet been disputed that the words entitled them to the attention
      118
      of the Committee in respect of every Amendment of this character. He must refer to what had happened on a former occasion in reference to this Amendment. The hon. Member for Stirlingshire (Mr. Bolton), in reference to an Amendment on this question, had said that he wondered what would be said when this became known in Scotland. Why, there was nothing in the whole world to be more desired than that the subject should be made known all over the country. There was nothing in these Amendments, and there was nothing in the opinions that Scotch Members entertained upon any political question, for which he did not desire the utmost publicity. Their opinions, political and otherwise, were not of an exotic character, and would stand the full scrutiny of the people of Scotland. He was prepared to defend the principle upon which they had put this Amendment on the Paper on every occasion, and desired for such defence the utmost possible publicity. Reference had been made to the general expression used when any attempt was made to amend the county representation by adding towns that were not at present Parliamentary boroughs to the existing groups. He need not refer to the expression always used in that connection; but he was perfectly content, however they were described, so long as the proposals made were thoroughly understood, and so long as hon. Members had an opportunity of vindicating them in that House. He supposed no one would dispute that it was open to them to propose these Amendments. Certainly the statements of Her Majesty's Government had conflicted most sharply the one with the other upon this subject. In a debate which took place on Wednesday week the right hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill had used these words—"If it was possible to extend, break up, and reconstitute the groups, he would be glad to hear the opinion of the Scotch Members upon it. "Then the next thing they heard on the following Wednesday was from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancester (Mr. Trevelyan). That right hon. Gentleman said that this was a vital question—and it was almost ludicrous, in view of the statement of the right hon. Baronet the President of the Local Government Board in the previous week, that the right

      119
      hon. Gentleman should have used these words. He said—
      "I do not want to emphasize this by adding words at this moment; but it is quite impossible that any form of words which I can use should exaggerate the strength of the opinion which the Government entertain on this subject."—(3 Hansard, [295] 1611.)
      That statement reached almost the highest point of force that any words could convey; and yet, in the previous week, they were given to understand that this was an open question. He wished to recall, for one instant, the attention of the Committee to the fact that when the extension of the franchise to the counties was resolved upon, the class to whom it was proposed to give the franchise, who had been, as it was stated, kept a long time out of their rights, was the agricultural class—the class of country voters. And he (Mr. Dalrymple) said that it was a strange comment on the statements that were so frequently made at that time that by the measure that was now before the House the very class to whom they gave their votes by the Franchise Act would have no say whatever in time to come in the counties in which they resided. They would have their votes, no doubt; but the votes of the counties would be swamped out of sight by the existence all around them of these towns which, by their numerical superiority, would outweigh them to the utmost possible extent. Who would have thought that the Party opposite would have so arranged matters that the suffrage which had just been given to those country districts would have no practical value for those receiving it? He knew that in some minds there existed the notion that there was some spell or charm about the possession of a vote; but his contention was that it was not in the least important to bestow it unless it in some way influenced political feeling and the result of elections. He desired to offer one word of explanation on the character of the proposals now made. The case just brought before the Committee was a good illustration. They might be quite open to the charge that they had not gone on any principle in the selection of towns, because it was sometimes without explanation difficult to state the principle on which they had acted. But it was simply this. They had not in all cases proposed to take the largest
      120
      towns out of the counties. They had not proposed to take what he might call the capital towns out of the county. Far from it. They had held that in some oases a mixture of urban and rural voters was thoroughly good. There was often a county town which was essentially a country town, where people went to church and to market, so to speak, and where the inhabitants were related in every possible way to the country districts. But the principle on which they had gone in the selection of the burghs which they proposed to add to the existing groups was that of taking out places that were essentially foreign to the districts in which they were. He was scarcely out of Order in referring, by way of illustration, to the case of Stirlingshire, especially as he did not intend moving the Amendment which he had put on the Paper. In Stirlingshire two of the towns which they proposed to group were busy manufacturing places of 4,000 or 5,000 inhabitants, and they were a distinctly foreign element in the districts in which they were. They would never have proposed to take out what were in any sense considered as country towns, and they would have avoided doing so even although the population of such towns had been larger than those of the manufacturing places they proposed to take out. It was said two or three days ago, in answer by anticipation to this Amendment, that all the grouping system in Scotland was unpopular, and that they were proposing to aggravate it. Well, if it had been proposed to abolish the grouping system altogether he could have understood the principle upon which it was proposed to act. He could have understood the complete abolition of the grouping system in Scotland. Then there might have been a redistribution indeed, and the counties, in his judgment, would have had a fairer share of representation than they would have under the present partial system of grouping. But here they had been met, as they had been met elsewhere, by the conviction, forced upon them from every quarter, that the case of Scotland in regard to redistribution had never received adequate attention, and that what they had been favoured with had all along been an extremely inchoate and imperfect scheme, altogether inadequate to the ciroumstances

      121
      of the case. As matters stood, the condition in which this measure would pass would leave the grouping of burghs in neither one state nor the other, but in a most anomalous condition, only greatly aggravated by the large measure of franchise extension which had been passed. He would not detain the Committee longer, having said these few words in defence of the position which they had taken up. He, for one, had never been in favour of the creation of purely urban and purely rural constituencies. He was in favour of what the hon. Member for North Lanarkshire (Sir Edward Colebrooke) had called a mixture of the constituencies; and it was only where boroughs were of a foreign character, had grown up in a short space of time, and had been increased by manufactures, or works, or mining operations, and so forth, that he called them foreign elements in counties; and he maintained that those were places which ought, from their character, to have been added to the existing groups of boroughs. He cordially supported the proposal of his hon. Friend so far as it went, and was glad that he had had an opportunity of supporting it, and of expressing his opinion on the whole question, though he did not propose to trouble the Committee with his own Amendment.
      Amendment negatived.
      VISCOUNT CRICHTONsaid, he did not intend to trouble the Committee with the two Amendments which stood in his name. They were consequential on the Amendment he moved on the 2nd clause of the Bill, reducing the limit from 15,000 to 10,000. The same remark applied to the next group; but when they reached the Amendment referring to Lisburn, that stood on a different footing, and he proposed to proceed with it.
      MR. CALLANsaid, that, on rising to move to leave out Drogheda from the Schedule disfranchising certain one-Member constituencies, he had, in the first place, to call the attention of the Committee to the declaration made by the Prime Minister in introducing the Bill, which was to the effect that the limit of 15,000 as affecting Ireland was not to be taken as a hard-and-fast line. His (Mr. Callan's) attention was, during the very first week of his knowledge of
      122
      the Bill, directed to the case of Drogheda, mainly in consequence of the substitution of one Bill for another, through an amended Bill having been circulated shortly after the original Bill was introduced. In the amended Bill he found that in the case of Warwick this hard-and-fast line had not been adhered to. In the case of this old historic English town of some 8,000 population, the Commissioners had gone beyond the municipal boundary for a distance of five or six miles in one direction for the purpose of bringing in a population sufficient to bring the constituency within the requirements of the Bill. He found at the same time that, with regard to Drogheda, a hard-and-fast line had been laid down. The 15,000 limit having been insisted upon, and no measure having been taken to extend the boundary, although only 338 people, according to the Census of 1881, were required to bring the population up to 15,000. He could not but think that the Government, when considering the representation of Ireland, had acted—and he said it with all due deference, but, at the same time, he did not think he should be contradicted in the statement, upon imperfect information in including Drogheda amongst the disfranchised boroughs. Although he happened to be a Member for the county in which Drogheda was mainly situated, he did not know, until two years ago, that he had constituents in that town. Two years ago, when he went to Drogheda, it was pointed out to him that he had passed his own constituents in the main street of the town. This street ran from east to west, and was the main street, and he was entirely at a loss to make out why one-half of it had been cut off and thrown into county Louth. It had been done evidently for some inscrutable reason. There could be no doubt that if the whole of the borough were included within the boundary Drogheda would have a population of 17,000, or 2,000 above the limit of 15,000. An inquiry into the circumstance of Drogheda had been held a short time ago; he referred to the inquiry of the Boundary Commission. Captain Purchas, R.E., one of the Boundary Commissioners, had sat in the assembly room of the Tholsel on the 17th of January for the purpose of considering the Parliamentary boundaries

      123
      of Louth. Captain Purchas had taken some important evidence; hut, looking at the Report of the Commissioners, he found that this evidence was not set forth. The evidence, however, given on that occasion was to the effect that some years ago a Royal Commission sat and took evidence in reference to the borough of Drogheda. That was called Mr. Exham's Commission. He believed a Borough Commission was also appointed in England at the same period; but of that he was not quite sure. At any rate, a Commission had sat in Ireland. The Government had adopted the Report of the Exham Commission for Belfast for the purpose of a jerrymandering arrangement between the two Front Benches. The Boundary Commissioners had accepted the Report of the Exham Commission for the borough of Belfast in order to give it four Members; but they had disregarded it in the case of Drogheda. The Exham Commission had made a Report recommending the extension of the borough boundary; but unfortunately for Drogheda no Bill had ever been introduced into Parliament to carry out the recommendations of the Commissioners. It appeared from the Report of the proceedings of the Boundary Commission on the 17th of January that the population of Drogheda now stood at a figure short only by 338 of the 15,000 required by the Bill, although, if the recommendation of Mr. Exham's Commission were carried out to-morrow, Drogheda would have a population which would exceed by 3,000 the number required to entitle it to a Member. Belfast, as he had said, was to be dealt with in the way in which he now asked the Committee to deal with Drogheda—that was to say, Mr. Exham's recommendation had been accepted in the one case, and he hoped the Committee would accept it in the other. All he asked was that the Report of the Exham Commission should be adopted; that the main street of the town, both east and west, should be included in the borough of Drogheda; and that no portion of it should be included in the county. He (Mr. Callan) had been present at the investigation in the Drogheda Tholsel, and had heard the evidence given. Amongst those who had given evidence were a number of the leading residents in Drogheda. Mr. Alderman Whit-worth, a brother of the present Member,
      124
      had expressed the opinion that it would be manifestly unjust to disfranchise the borough. Then he had been asked—
      "Is it not a fact that portions of the town connected with streets within the borough are excluded from the Parliamentary boundary of the borough?—Yes; and most unaccountably—no one knows why."
      Mr. Whit worth had said that if the Commissioner walked from the Court, a distance which he would reach in a few minutes, he would come to that portion of the town the exclusion of which was complained of. This gentleman went on to state that he was born and bred in Drogheda, and never could get the slightest information as to who cut off that part of the borough, or why it was done. He had added that the part of the town excluded was as much part and parcel of the town as any street within the borough. Mr. Pelham J. Mayne, Clerk of the Peace for Drogheda, had stated that he considered the exclusion of a portion of the main street of the town a most unmeaning act, and for which no rational justification could be offered. It had, he said, the effect of unjustly limiting the population of Drogheda so as to reduce it below the number which under the Bill would entitle Drogheda to representation in Parliament. He (Mr. Callan) believed he was not incorrect in saying that if the Government had been at the time the Bill was drafted in possession of the information they now had they would not have proposed to disfranchise Drogheda. But the question arose, if Drogheda were allowed to retain a Member, where would he be taken from? That, he confessed, was the difficulty; but the Government had created the difficulty, and it was for them to extricate the Committee from it. It was not for him (Mr. Callan) to say where the Member was to come from. All he wanted was that Drogheda, which was one of the oldest and most historic towns in Ireland, being a town in which an Irish Parliament had once assembled, and a town whose historic associations were more identified with the past of Ireland than those of any other town in the country, should not be disfranchised. The town was endeared to Irishmen by the recollection of the massacres of English oppressors. The town was one which recommended itself to all Catholics, and, at the same time, recommended itself to

      125
      Irish Conservatives as having been the one through which ran the river which gave its name to the great battle between the Loyalists and the Catholics—a battle which the Loyalists never won although they claimed it—namely, the Battle of the Boyne. The only cotton factory in Ireland was in this town, and Drogheda was a more industrial place than any other town outside Ulster. Moreover, it was an improving town. From the Income Tax Returns they would find that it was one of the wealthiest towns in Ireland. If he were allowed to go into those Returns, and into the Valuation Returns, he would be able to deduce ample reasons why Drogheda should not be disfranchised. He had no particular fancy for any method of retaining the franchise in Drogheda; they might group it with another town, or do what they pleased. All he asked for was that Drogheda should be saved. He had questioned the right hon. Baronet the President of the Local Government Board, the other day, as to his reasons for his leniency in the case of Warwick, and he had not been able to give any. He would again ask the right hon. Baronet on what substantial ground he could extend the boundary of Warwick, with its population of 8,000—what reasonable justification there was for extending the boundary of that town some five miles, in order to save its representation, if not for a partizan of the Government, at any rate for a supporter of the Government, when he excluded Drogheda, with its population of 14,614, and its large number of other urban residents who, through some accident, had not been included within the borough boundary? Why should one be enfranchised and the other disfranchised? He asked that the same rule should be applied to both. If they enfranchised the one, let them enfranchise the other. If they disfranchised Drogheda, they must be consistent and also disfranchise Warwick. Of course, he knew that this was the result of an arrangement between the two Parties in the House. The Government were totally disfranchising 22 towns in Ireland, and partly disfranchising three others. They had cut down the borough representation of the country by 25 Members. They left only three boroughs enfranchised—namely, Newry, Londonderry, and Kilkenny — and
      126
      clipped the wings of Galway, Limerick, and Waterford; and he must say, county Member as he was, that the counties of the country had got an unfair and preponderating representation as compared with the boroughs. Some of those boroughs were the life and soul of the districts in which they were situated. They were the very gems of Irish commercial life; and yet the Government had swept away with one stroke of the pen substantially the entire Irish borough representation. He thought the Government would give satisfaction to both sides of the Committee and to all parties if they gave Drogheda a Member, or added Lisburn to it and gave a Representative to the group. In his opinion, it would be very easy to find a Member for each of the two boroughs he had named. Tyrone would yield one for Drogheda.
      Amendment proposed, in Schedule 1, page 14, column 1, line 13, leave out "Drogheda"—(Mr. Callan.)
      Question proposed, "That the word proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
      SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the hon. Member (Mr. Callan) had stated his case very fairly to the Committee, and he had no fault to find with the manner in which he had brought it forward. The hon. Member had made one observation with regard to the treatment of Irish boroughs, which was a matter the Committee had already discussed at considerable length on an earlier stage of the Bill; but it was just as well that he should remind the Committee that even now the Irish boroughs were very much over-represented at the expense of the counties. The Irish borough population was 756,000, and the county population 4,418,000. The counties had 85 Members by the Bill, and the boroughs 16. The result was that the Irish counties had one Member to every 52,000 population, which was much the same as in England and Scotland; and the Irish boroughs had one Member for every 47,300. So that when they spoke of the ill-treatment of the Irish boroughs it should be explained that though, no doubt, there were but a few Irish boroughs left, yet that Ireland was an agricultural country, that most of the population dwelt in the counties, and that the Irish boroughs were better

      127
      represented than the counties. They had decided not to reduce the Irish University representation, and therefore a seat for Drogheda could only be found by taking a county seat; and, looking at the fact that the counties were not so well off as the boroughs, it would be regarded as rather a hardship to counties in general, as well as to the particular county which might be selected for the loss of a seat, if a Member were found for Drogheda in this way. On the earlier stages of the Bill, when this matter was fully discussed, and when they were considering the desirability of grouping Irish boroughs, a suggestion was thrown out by an hon. Member on the opposite side of the House who was not at present in his place. The hon. Member proposed that some arrangement should be come to by general consent with regard to the Irish boroughs. He (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had said that, so far as he was concerned, he would throw no difficulty in the way of such an arrangement. Since then he had carefully examined the papers and the details of the question; and he was bound to say that he doubted very much if any other Irish borough could make out so strong a case as Drogheda, or whether the hon. Member who had brought that case forward could justify any argument for giving a couple of Members to Drogheda and Lisburn, as he had for the enfranchisement of Drogheda. It would be very difficult to extend the two places to the population which was recognized as the general limit. Even though it might be thought desirable to make an exception in the case of Ireland, on account of the small number of borough Members it possessed, it would be difficult to find boroughs over the 15,000 line to be represented at the expense of the agricultural districts. Enormous agricultural sections of the country would have to be added to the boroughs in order to bring them up to the required population. In the case of Lisburn, in order to bring its population up to the required 15,000, it would be necessary to bring in a very large acreage indeed. He had gone through the cases of Dundalk, Wexford, Armagh, and Carrickfergus. In Armagh, in order to add the necessary number of 5,000 to bring up the population to the 15,000 limit, it would be necessary to increase the
      128
      borough, which now consisted of 1,000 acres, to 16,000 acres, or one acre to each person, and it would be impossible to call that an urban population. In Carrickfergus, in order to add 6,000 population to make up the 15,000, they would have to include 22,000 acres. In Dundalk, in order to get in 3,000 or 4,000 population, they would have to add 9,000 or 10,000 acres; and even in Lisburn, for which the hon. Member (Mr. Callan) had to some extent pleaded, both now and on a previous occasion, it would be necessary, in order to add 4,000 population, to take in 8,000 acres. In Wexford also, in order to add 3,000 electors, it would be necessary to include 10,000 acres. [Mr. CALLAN: How about Drogheda?] He was speaking of the others first, and was showing that it was difficult to pair off any other borough against Drogheda. He had promised to look into the matter, and do what he could to meet the wishes of the Irish Members at a later stage of the Bill. With regard to Drogheda, the hon. Member had made out a very strong case, except on one point. If it were desired to make an exception in Ireland, and to keep in one additional borough, in spite of the argument of over-representation of the boroughs at the present moment as compared with the counties, no doubt the hon. Member had made out a strong case; but a point which the hon. Member had not borne in mind was that in Drogheda the population had steadily decreased of late years. [Mr. CALLAN: How about Warwick?] Well, he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) should be prepared to defend what had been done in the case of Warwick at the proper time; but he might here state that the population of Warwick had been one which had been very steadily increasing—that was to say, the population of the borough which it was proposed by the Boundary Commissioners to include within the district.
      MR. CALLAN: How much has Warwick increased during the last 10 years?
      SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that Warwick was a small place, and the increase had not been so remarkable there; but the increase in the borough included within the boundary by the Commissioners had been going on with extraordinary rapidity. Warwick was a little over 12,000 by itself; but Leamington, which was included with it, was making

      129
      tremendous strides. Now, they found that the population of Drogheda had very largely decreased. The decrease was larger than the average decrease in Irish boroughs. If the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Callan), however, wished to make a special exception with regard to Drogheda, he had a fairly strong case, a far stronger case than could be made with respect to any other Irish borough. In the case of Drogheda it would only be necessary to add 410 people to bring the population up to 15,000; and, therefore, if the Committee wished to make an exception in the case of one Irish borough, undoubtedly Drogheda had the strongest claim; but he understood from the previous discussions in the House, when the proposal was made to pair off two boroughs one against the other, that there would be no probability of a general consent with regard to this matter. That being so, they had to consider the case of Drogheda as standing by itself. Standing by itself he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) thought there was very little to be said for it. It would be necessary to take Members from counties which were large and populous; they would have to take a Member from constituencies which, on the average, had something like a population of 50,000 each, and give it to a town where there were not 15,000. That seemed impossible; and he doubted whether the Irish Members generally would approve of such a step. The counties which would stand first for reduction would be the counties of Tyrone and Tipperary; those would be the counties which would stand first for reduction in the event of any general agreement as to giving separate representation to Drogheda. He doubted whether it was possible to arrive at a general agreement, therefore he asked the Committee to adhere to the general principles of the Bill.
      MR. WHITWORTHsaid, the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke) went a long way to prove that Drogheda was entitled to retain its separate representation, and he (Mr. Whitworth) did not think the county of Louth would object at all to have one Member and let Drogheda have another. The population of Louth was only about 70,000, and a portion of that was in the borough of Drogheda, so that if there could be no other means
      130
      of retaining the representation of the town, he thought it would be well to adopt the suggestion he had now made. He was quite certain that Drogheda had now a sufficient number of inhabitants to entitle it to separate representation, for at the present moment the actual population was something like 18,000. It ought to be considered that Drogheda was becoming a large manufacturing town. It was the site of a very large active manufacture, and he did not think Parliament would be doing justice to Ireland if it were to shut out altogether representation of the commercial element. Drogheda was one of the oldest boroughs in Ireland, and he hoped the Committee would allow it to retain its separate representation.
      MR. SEXTONsaid, he thought that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Whitworth) who at present occupied the position of Member for Drogheda had not added any wisdom to the debate on this subject. The proposal of the hon. Gentleman was not a very wise one certainly, because he proposed that one of the two Members should be taken away from the county of Louth and given to Drogheda. His proposal, therefore, amounted to this—that 14,600 or 15,000 people in the town of Drogheda should have one Member, and that the county of Louth, with a population of something like 63,000, should have another Member, or, in other words, that the citizens of Drogheda, who had proved their wisdom by returning the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Whitworth), should each of them be of the same value as five ordinary persons in the county of Louth. There was some inconvenience in discussing this question in the absence of the particulars which the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had promised. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would say how soon the Committee might expect the Reports made by the Commissioners to be laid on the Table.
      SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he hoped to lay the particulars to which the hon. Gentleman referred on the Table on Monday, and to circulate them on Tuesday. He spoke with some doubt, because Sir John Lambert was not very well, and was absent from London. It ought to be borne in mind, however, that what he had promised had special reference to the case of counties.
      MR. SEXTONunderstood that they were to expect Reports as to what had been said in the ease of Drogheda.
      SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the promise he made was in answer to a specific question put to him by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy), and the particulars were to relate principally to counties.
      MR. SEXTONsaid, it was unfortunate that the Committee were obliged to discuss the case of Drogheda with such meagre information as they were possessed of. The Commissioners reported that applications were made to them on behalf of Lisburn and other towns, but that they had not thought it necessary to take any action upon those applications, as they were confessedly made in the hope of retaining for those towns their present separate representation. The Boundary Commissioners might have felt themselves absolved from making inquiries into the circumstances; but it was certainlyr elevant—indeed it was indispensable—that when the Committee were called upon to consider the case of towns like this that Captain Purchas and the right hon. Gentleman should lay before the Committee the evidence which had been given.
      SIR CHARLES W. DILKEremarked that it was no part of the business of the Commissioners to take evidence.
      MR. SEXTONsaid, he had read the Instructions given to the Commissioners in England and Ireland carefully, and he quite admitted that that was so. He (Mr. Sexton) had understood that the Instructions to the Commissioners were that if in any case it might be shown to be desirable that the boundaries of a borough should be extended they must take evidence.
      SIR CHARLES W. DILKEremarked that it was quite within the power of the Commissioners to take evidence where they thought it was desirable for the purpose of taking urban populations out of counties to bring up a borough to a particular line.
      MR. SEXTONaccepted the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, but thought that it was clearly elliptical; it must have been by private conversation, and not from absolute instructions, that the Commissioners arrived at that conclusion. No doubt it was by a stretch of condescension that Captain Purchas was led to consider the case of Belfast. Now,
      132
      while agreeing with the right hon. Gentleman on the general question that Ireland was in the main an agricultural country and that its interests laid in rural representation, he must admit that there was a very special and exceptional case to be made for Drogheda. He could discover no parallel between Drogheda and the towns which had been aimed at by a previous Amendment, moved by the noble Viscount the Member for Fermanagh (Viscount Crichton), for those were towns of only about 10,000 inhabitants. Lisburn, for instance, had only a population of 10,000; it was an inland town, it had no particular ancient municipal position, and its manufactures were not very considerable; and, therefore, on the whole, the interests of Lisburn might be fairly and adequately represented by a Member who would sit for the division of the county in which the town was situated. Drogheda, on the contrary, was a corporate town; it was a county town; and, besides having manufacturing and industrial interests, it had a shipping trade. He (Mr. Sexton) noticed that, in this connection, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board evaded the case of Warwick. On each occasion, however, when he did approach it he tried to impress the Committee that, in contradistinction to the decay of Drogheda, Warwick had increased considerably in the course of the last few years. Now, at the last Census, the population of Warwick was only 11,800, and the increase since 1871 had only been 800. Surely there was nothing in an increase of 800 to entitle the place to any special consideration. Now, he (Mr. Sexton) had said that Drogheda had very special claims, and he should be glad indeed if any means could be found whereby the separate representation of Drogheda could be continued; because he agreed with those people who said that though it was true the proportion of representation for counties in Ireland was lower than in the boroughs, still, no doubt, the representation of boroughs in Ireland had been minimized. He was bound to say that if he could see his way to give a Representative to Drogheda he should be very glad to do so, because he considered that the 2,000 men who would have to vote in that town would take at least as intelligent and as common sense a view of the interests of Ireland as the 2,000 learned

      133
      gentlemen who returned a Member for Trinity College.
      VISCOUNT CRICHTONsaid, he did not think the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had stated the case fairly with regard to the urban population of Ireland. If they were to take the urban populations preserved by the Bill, the people in towns numbered upwards of 700,000; but if they were to take the people residing in towns having 3,000 inhabitants and upwards, they would find there was in Ireland an urban population of 1,200,000. That population would be very much under-represented by the proposed arrangements; and, therefore, if the hon. Gentleman the Member for Louth (Mr. Callan) went to a division, he (Viscount Crichton) would certainly vote with him.
      MR. WHITWORTHventured to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill (Sir Charles W. Dilke) a proper solution of the difficulty—namely, that Drogheda and Dundalk should be constituted one constituency, and the county of Louth another. The county would then have 52,000 inhabitants, and the two boroughs between 25,000 and 26,000. He thought the adoption of some such solution as that would meet the difficulty.
      MR. BIGGARsaid, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Drogheda (Mr. Whitworth) was no doubt very anxious that the separate representation of the borough of Drogheda should continue. He (Mr. Biggar), however, was opposed to the formation of small boroughs, because he thought the tendency of them was towards corruption. It was his opinion that the argument that the boroughs in Ireland were over-represented was, after all, almost unanswerable. It was idle to talk of boroughs of 3,000 inhabitants, because, in point of fact, such populations were purely rural. The interests of such populations were entirely mixed up with the interests of the rural population; indeed, there was no practical difference between the interests of the two populations. It was very properly said that Drogheda was a manufacturing and seaport town; but manufacturing places would be very fairly represented under the Bill. Belfast was to have four Members, Dublin four, Cork two, Derry one, and Newry one.
      134
      These were all more or less manufacturing and seaport towns; and, seeing that Ireland was a much more agricultural country than a manufacturing or mercantile country, he thought the different trades were very fairly represented by the Bill as it now stood. He was somewhat timid about making such changes as the one now proposed. If they were to give Drogheda a seat, a difficulty as to where they were to get the seat from would arise. He thought that, under all the circumstances, it would be well to take the Bill for better or worse, and let Drogheda be thrown, as proposed, into the county.
      MR. MACARTNEYsaid, he was glad he had had the advantage of hearing the speech just delivered by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar), because it appeared that the great fear of the hon. Members for whom the hon. Member spoke was that the retention by the smaller boroughs of Ireland of separate representation would open the road to corruption. The hon. Gentleman could not be afraid of corruption from the landlords, because they had been deprived of the means of corrupting anybody. The right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had said that Ireland was an agricultural country, and really had a very small commercial and manufacturing population; it was an agricultural country, he said, and would remain so. He (Mr. Macartney) had always thought that the English who wrote on the subject of Ireland lamented the fact that Ireland was so completely an agricultural country. Whatever strictly urban population there was in Ireland they were to be deprived of proper representation in Parliament by being handed over to the mercy of the counties. It had been said that if Drogheda were to retain its own Member a seat would have to be taken from Tyrone or Tipperary. He would like to know which? ["Tyrone."] On behalf of Tyrone and Ulster generally he should object to such a proceeding, and he supposed that if it were proposed to vote a seat from Tipperary hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway would object equally strongly. It would be perfectly unfair to deprive Tyrone of a Member. At present Ulster was not properly represented as compared with the Province in which Drogheda was situated. Under the Bill Leinster would return one Mem-

      135
      ber for every 43,000 people, while Ulster would return one Member for every 55,000 inhabitants. If hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway would agree to the Members to which Leinster was not entitled being distributed over the other Provinces it would be a great boon. Hon. Gentleman, however, were not likely to agree to that, because their bête noire, or enemy, Ulster, would receive fair treatment. If the present proposal were to be carried out by taking a Member either from the county of Antrim, in which the borough of Lisburn was situate, or any other Ulster county, he should certainly oppose it.
      MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid, he could easily understand the very natural desire there was upon the part of certain Members of the House, and certain persons outside the House, to keep for Drogheda the privilege of separate representation. The right hon. Gentleman who was in charge of the Bill (Sir Charles W. Dilke) said very truly that perhaps there was no borough, certainly in Ireland—he (Mr. W. Redmond) was sure there was no borough in England—that came so near to the required limit of 15,000, and that, consequently, would have a better right to have an exception made in its favour, than Drogheda. While he (Mr. W. Redmond) fully recognized and sympathized with the hon. Member (Mr. Callan), who moved for the retention of the separate representation of Drogheda, he (Mr. W. Redmond) could understand why the Government would not consent to the Amendment. He could not see, if Drogheda were to be allowed to retain its Member, how the Government could very well refuse to allow other boroughs, with almost equal populations, to have separate representation. He did not know whether the noble Viscount the Member for Fermanagh (Viscount Crichton) intended to move an Amendment which stood in his name farther down on the Paper, with reference to the borough of Wexford. ["No!"] Of course, he supposed it would depend upon the reception which the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Louth (Mr. Callan) obtained whether or not the noble Viscount would propose his Amendment; but he (Mr. W. Redmond) did not see very well how the Government could make an exception in the case of Drogheda, and refuse to
      136
      make it in the case of Wexford. Wexford was also a town upon the sea-board, and it had many claims which Drogheda also possessed. It was true that Wexford was not as near the required population as Drogheda; but still he felt that if Drogheda were to be made an exception of, a great many people in the South of Ireland would consider that there was an almost equal claim for an exception to be made in the case of Wexford. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Drogheda (Mr. Whitworth) proposed to solve the difficulty by grouping Drogheda and Dundalk together, and giving them one Member, and the county of Louth one Member, instead of two. Perhaps he (Mr. W. Redmond) might be allowed to offer a suggestion. That suggestion would be to take the two Members from the University of Dublin, and give one of them to Drogheda and the other to Wexford. Certainly, if that were done, nine-tenths of the people of Ireland would be highly delighted.
      MR. CALLANsaid, that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Drogheda (Mr. Whitworth) had suggested, as a means of giving a Member to Drogheda, that a Member should be taken from the county of Louth. Although he (Mr. Callan) was very sorry that Drogheda and Dundalk were not to continue to retain their Members, in order to show that with the extended franchise they could be as true to the cause of Irish nationality as any other part of Ireland, he could not consent to Louth being deprived of its fair share of representation. Hitherto Drogheda and Dundalk had returned Whig supporters of the Government; but with an increased electorate of 700 in the one case, and 600 in the other, he was fully persuaded that if they were allowed to retain separate representation, they would return Members whose hearts beat as true to the cause of Ireland as any other constituency in Ireland. In view of the arrangement arrived at between the two Front Benches, he would not now take a division upon this question. He would, however, certainly do so on Report, and hoped that, in the meantime, they would be able to arrive at a fair solution of the difficulty. The right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had compared Drogheda and Warwick; but he regretted that he had not given any rea-

      137
      son why the former should be included in the Schedule, and the latter excluded from it. The right Baronet had applied a hard-and-fast rule in one case, but not in the other; and although he would not divide the Committee on his Amendment, he (Mr. Callan) should take the opinion of the House upon it on the Report, unless some explanation was given.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      VISCOUNT CRICHTONsaid, he felt bound to oppose the retention of the name of Lisburn in the list of boroughs to cease as such. Lisburn was a somewhat smaller borough than Drogheda, and it would require a larger extension of area in order to bring it up to the requisite limit. But while they were told that Drogheda was decreasing in population, Lisburn was increasing steadily. In 1871 the population was 9,356; and in 1881 it was 11,083, the increase being about 1,700 in 10 years. And he was informed that it was calculated that there had been a further increase, amounting to nearly 1,000, since 1881. Now, he thought, although Lisburn was not historically of such importance as the borough of Drogheda, for which the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan) had asked exemption from the Schedule, yet, taking it as a fair representative of the manufacturing interest of Ireland, he might claim for it representation. It was one of the boroughs inquired into and reported upon by the Exham Commission which sat in 1881, and which recommended that its municipal boundaries should be considerably extended. That recommendation, if it had been carried out, as he believed it was at one time intended it should be, would have prevented the borough occupying its present position with regard to the Bill. He was told that the population within the boundaries recommended by the Commission would have been 16,800. Under those circumstances, he thought he might be excused for urging the claims of this borough upon the Committee, and he hoped the right hon. Baronet would see his way to the adoption of the Amendment which he now begged to move.
      Amendment proposed, in Schedule 1, page 14, line 8, to leave out "Lisburn."—(Viscount Crichton.)
      Question proposed, "That 'Lisburn' stand part of the Schedule."
      SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he had already referred to the case of Lisburn on the previous Amendment, because it had been suggested that the position of the two boroughs—Lisburn and Drogheda—was the same. With regard to the population of Lisburn, while admitting that it was increasing, Lisburn was still but a very small place, and in respect of population considerably below 15,000. The noble Viscount had spoken of the extension of area recommended by the Commission which sat in 1880; but he would point out that even that extended area would not bring up the population to the required number of 15,000—that was to say, according to the Census of 1881. But even if it were so, he must remind the Committee that the principle of the action of the Commission was not that of a Boundary Commission; the idea was that of extending the boundaries, not for the purpose of bringing in an urban population, but for the purpose of bringing in the scattered suburban population lying around the town itself. Again, in order to add 4,000 to the population, which would bring it over the 15,000, it would be necessary to add an area of 8,000 acres to the area of the borough, and it was upon that fact that his main answer to the noble Viscount rested. There were other reasons which occurred to him; but for those he had stated he did not see his way to make an exception in the case of Lisburn.
      MR. MACARTNEYsaid, that one of the places proposed a short time ago to be added to Lisburn was named Pill-burn, where there were extensive works belonging to Messrs. Barbour and Co. There were besides a great number of manufactories, employing many persons who were paid wages, and had nothing whatever to do with agriculture. [Dissent.'] Hon. Members below the Gangway made assertions about the trade and manufactures of the North of Ireland which were palpably erroneous. If they took the manufacturing interest of Lisburn alone, it would probably be found that the exports exceeded those of Drogheda. Lisburn was the seat of the damask manufacture in Ireland, which industry was founded there by a colony of Huguenots, who took refuge in Ire

      139
      land from the persecution of Louis XIV. If the case of Drogheda was to be considered at all by the Government, be thought it would be a very extraordinary thing if that of Lisburn was not considered also.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      MR. RAIKESsaid, he proposed to move that Boston should be included in Part III. of this Schedule, which dealt with boroughs disfranchised for corruption. He did not suppose there was any borough in the Kingdom which could show so bad a history as Boston with regard to electioneering malpractices. The borough of Boston had a population of 19,000, and it had been the subject of inquiry at the hands of two Election Commissions. The House had decided to retain a special part of this Schedule in which to include the names of two boroughs which the Government proposed absolutely to disfranchise on account of malpractices in connection with Parliamentary Elections. The names of those boroughs were Macclesfield and Sandwich. The borough of Boston, like the borough of Sandwich, was very ancient; it had rather dwindled in importance, and had been passed in the race by other more thriving and enterprizing neighbours. It lay at a distance from the sea, a circumstance which had diminished its prosperity; and being a place of departed importance, yet retaining a considerable population, it was just one of those places in which it was found that electioneering malpractices most extensively prevailed. He wished to put before the Committee the disparity which existed between Macclesfield and Boston, which he believed was not altogether in favour of the latter. Macclesfield was a town of 40,000 inhabitants, and which had never been visited by a Royal Commission until after the last election. The malpractices which had taken place at Macclesfield were, after all, of a description which, although corrupt, was not corrupt in the strongest sense. They consisted chiefly of small sums paid freely and openly to the poorer voters on both sides, who regarded them only in the light of remuneration for services on election day rather than as the price of their voting for a particular candidate. He did not want to apologize for those malpractices at Macclesfield; but
      140
      there were, no doubt, many parts of the country in which those practices had become almost a recognized part of the system of electioneering; and although it was the wish of Parliament to put a stop to them, they did not argue the same amount of accessibility to corrupt influences as was to be found in Boston, Sandwich, and other places where the election was determined by the weight of the candidate's purse. At Boston the Commissioners' Report stated that they had ascertained and reported the names of about 300 persons, many of whom were not of the impoverished class, and who directly received money in respect of their votes. It was stated that the persons who came before the Commission had an imperfect recollection of the persons to whom they paid money; but they remembered enough to give the names of 300 persons. But not only was that the case. The Commissioners admitted that if they had felt themselves warranted in pushing the inquiry to its full extent, they would probably have had to give an account of a great mass of bribery; and they went on to say, with regard to previous elections, that although no bribery had been proved to have been practised, several witnesses had informed them that all elections at Boston, both Parliamentary and municipal, had for a long time been corrupt. The vicar stated that the municipal elections had materially contributed to produce corrupt practices in the borough, and the Commissioners reported that they had formed emphatically the same opinion. They added that there was a large number of persons in the borough living by precarious employments; that of that class about 600 were voters, and their votes were sufficient to determine an election in favour of and candidate. He did not know what the Committee might think; but it appeared to him that never had there come from any Commission appointed to examine into the position of a borough a stronger statement as to the hopeless condition of corruption in which it was found to be. The number of voters proved to have received money in respect of their votes was 300; and that of the persons who the Commissioners were satisfied gave their votes corruptly was 600, a number which they said was, in their opinion, sufficient to determine every Parliamentary and Municipal Election which

      141
      had taken place for a long time past. The whole tenour of the Report was to suggest a condition of habitual and absolute corruption. The population of Boston, again, was little more than the limit determined upon in the case of pure boroughs; and the Committee were still to allow Boston to retain its electoral franchise. They were to leave other places, like Birkenhead and Cardiff, without second Members, in order to preserve this beggarly and corrupt borough from disfranchisement. He trusted the Committee would not hesitate to do justice in this matter. The Government had shown a disposition to do rather more than justice in the severity with which they dealt with Macclesfield, although he did not feel himself free to vote against the action of the Government in that case. As Boston had been, so it was proposed it should continue to be—one of the sinks of iniquity, which was to disgrace the Parliamentary system whenever an election took place by the continued application of parties in that constituency to reverse the result of the polling. He thought there would be no harm if the House were to save itself from these recurring scandals. He would not argue or make any precise suggestion as to whether the seat which his Amendment proposed to take away should be given to restore in some degree the electoral privileges of the City of London, or to some other deserving borough. He had only to say that if it were a question of distributing the seat of any constituency, they could hardly do worse than give it to Boston.
      Amendment proposed, in Part III, page 14, line 26, before the word "Macclesfield," to insert the word "Boston."—(Mr. Raikes.)
      Question proposed, "That the word 'Boston' be there inserted."
      MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid, as he had the melancholy satisfaction of exposing, by his Petition, the corruption which took place at Boston in 1880, he was sure the Committee would assent to this proposition—that he, for one, was as anxious as any Member of the House of Commons in no way to palliate malpractices which might have taken place in Boston or elsewhere. In fact, he would even go so far as to say that if the Government had thought fit to include in this Schedule all those boroughs
      142
      against which the Election Commissioners had adversely reported he should have supported their proposal. But that was not the object of the right hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Raikes). The right hon. Gentleman proposed, unjustly as he thought, to single out Boston, as against Chester, Gloucester, and other corrupt but unscheduled boroughs, and place it in the same category as Macclesfield and Sandwich. The right hon. Gentleman practically challenged comparison between Macclesfield and Boston; and it was there that he (Mr. Sydney Buxton) would directly meet his argument. He said that, as regarded disfranchisement, Boston was not in the same category with the boroughs which the Government in their discretion had thought fit to disfranchise, and for these reasons. There were several points of difference between them. In the first place, there was no case of gross corruption proved against Boston before 1880, and the bribery in the election of 1880 was confined to one side. Although no one denied that there was a corrupt element in the borough, that did not represent the corruption of the constituency as a whole; whereas anyone who studied the case of Macclesfield would see, by the Report of the Commissioners, that there had never been a pure election there. As regarded the elections of 1865, 1868, 1874, and 1880, the Commissioners reported definitely that—
      "Corrupt practices do extensively prevail in Macclesfield."—(Report, page 16 [C.—2853.] 1881).
      Then there was no question, as far as Macclesfield was concerned—and the right hon. Gentleman himself had acknowledged the fact—that both sides had been equally lavish in their bribery, and equally responsible for what had taken place; while it appeared also that corruption was not the exception, but the rule, in Macclesfield, seeing that the Commissioners reported that out of a total of 5,500 electors who voted in 1880 some 1,000 were bribed. He thought he had shown that Macclesfield compared very unfavourably with the constituency which the right hon. Gentleman desired to place in the same category with it. Now, with regard to the corruption in Boston, the right hon. Gentleman had quoted a passage from the Report, which showed the individual opinion of a

      143
      clergyman at Boston, and the individual opinions of one or two other persons, that some of the elections there had been corrupt; but the right hon. Gentleman had omitted to quote the Report of the Commissioners themselves, where they said they accepted the Report of the Commission of 1874 to the effect that—
      "Gifts of coal had been made corruptly, but that direct bribery of a grosser form had not taken place at the elections of 1874 and 1868."
      That, he thought, showed clearly that, although, undoubtedly, there had been some corruption at Boston, it had not been so extensive, or in anything like the same degree, as the corruption which took place at Macclesfield. Then, with regard to the second point, that the direct bribery was entirely confined to one side; no single case of direct bribery had been produced against the Liberals even after 30 days of exhaustive examination. There was the allegation that the Liberal Party employed too many persons, and that he did not deny; on the contrary, he was clearly himself of that opinion, although he was sure the Committee would acquit him of any personal knowledge in the matter, and he was equally ready to acknowledge that the Election Judges were entirely justified and right in unseating Mr. Ingram. There was, however, absolutely no allegation of any sort or kind of direct bribery proved against the Liberal Party. But in every way—and this was his point—the two sides were entirely different. On the one hand, the Liberals spent £1,860 in all; on the other hand, the Conservatives returned their expenses as £4,000, of which £1,100 was put under the head of "employment," and, in addition, they spent some £3,300 in acknowledged direct bribery—money spent with the knowledge and at the instigation of one of the Conservative candidates, and by the son and son-in-law of the other. That he mentioned to show that the bribery, such as it was was, all on one side. Then, as regarded the last point, that there was an element of corruption in the borough. That no one could deny; but this element did not extend to the constituency as a whole; it did not, as in the case of Macclesfield, include the majority of the electors. The Commissioners scheduled 300 out of 3,000 electors. But granted that many escaped; granted that the whole of the 600
      144
      "needy persons" mentioned in the Report were all corrupt, that, after all, was nothing like the proportion of corrupt voters which was acknowledged to exist in Macclesfield. Even then nothing approaching to the half of the number of voters were corrupt, and there remained the large balance of the constituency unaffected. Then as to the point which the right hon. Gentleman endeavoured to make, that it was not so much the number of persons who were corrupt, but the amount of money spent, which constituted the real corruption of a constituency, he (Mr. Sydney Buxton) entirely dissented from that proposition. He took an opposite view; for it seemed to him that it showed a greater virtue in the constituency that it should require a greater amount of money to overcome its scruples. No doubt the bribers were the worse in the latter case; but the bribees were less bad, and it was for the sins of the bribees, more than of the bribers, that disfranchisement was inflicted. It appeared to him that a constituency was more corrupt if the vast majority of the electors were ready to receive bribes than it would be, as in the case of Boston, in which a large sum of money was spent upon a small number of electors. Moreover, in that case, it was clear from the Report of the Commissioners that it was not, as at Macclesfield, the voters who importuned the bribers, but the bribers who had arranged a carefully prepared plot to corrupt the place. The Commissioners reported (page 5, Report [C.— 2784] 1881) that—
      "It appears to us that Mr. F. Rowley and his agent Mr. George Wise intended at an early period to procure votes corruptly,"
      and so on, showing how the matter was arranged. That, he thought, proved that it was the bribers who prepared a carefully laid scheme in order to corrupt the constituency of Boston. The blame was on the bribers in this case more than on the bribees, and that was a matter which he thought ought to be taken into account in the question before the Committee. He had no desire in any way to whitewash Boston, or to blacken Macclesfield; and if it were a question of all corrupt boroughs being disfranchised, he would vote with the right hon. Gentleman with that object. All that he urged was that the case of Boston was not so bad as that of Mac-

      145
      clesfield; that, comparing Boston with Macclesfield, the former came out well in comparison with the latter in the points which he had endeavoured to lay before the Committee—namely, that it had a better record in the past; that, in 1880, the corruption was mostly confined to one side; and, that while there was a corrupt element, the constituency as a whole was not corrupt. On these grounds, he trusted the Committee, if they were not going to disfranchise all the peccant boroughs, would not accept the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman.
      MR. EDWARD CLARKEsaid, he thought it unfortunate that in a discussion of this kind such a speech should have been made as that which had been delivered by the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. He regretted that the hon. Member should have taken the opportunity of making the question a political one, and attacking one political Party.
      MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I did not desire to make any political attack. It was necessary for my argument to show that one side was worse than the other. I referred to the Report of the Commissioners; but I assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that there was no intention of making any Party attack.
      MR. EDWARD CLARKEsaid, as he wished to be perfectly fair, he also would refer to the Report of the Commission. The hon. Member had repeatedly stated that the bribery at Boston had been all on one side, and that it had been the deliberate intention of the candidates of the Conservative Party to corrupt an unwilling constituency. He (Mr. Edward Clarke) thought it a pity that charges of this sort should be introduced into the debate; but in order to make things fair he would read one passage in the Report—
      "In addition to the acts of bribery above set forth it appears that Mr. E. W. Staniland, Mr. J. Lockwood, Secretary to the Boston Liberal Association, Mr. G. Wise, and others, endeavoured to procure votes corruptly by paying voters and the children or friends of voters for unnecessary work, and on a scale of remuneration at least double the ordinary rate of wages in the town. The total number of persons employed was certainly not less than 1,200 (variously estimated at 1,200 or 1,500), of whom the large majority were voters, the whole number of voters in the borough being about 3,000, including 66 freemen, almost all of whom are otherwise qualified. Of those employed 150
      146
      Boston men and 20 persons imported from Lincoln were appointed by Mr. Staniland as watchers to detect and prevent the bribery which he states that he had reason to believe would be resorted to. We are satisfied, however, that there existed no excuse for the number of watchers, or for the number otherwise employed by that gentleman and his sub-agents. As it is proved that Mr. W. T. Ingram and Mr. S. C. Buxton were in consultation with Mr. Staniland on the subject of this employment, we have had very grave doubts whether we ought not to report to your Majesty that they were guilty of bribery; but, it not being certain that the scheme of employment was corrupt in intention and in extent at the time when they approved it, we have omitted their names from the Schedule appended to this Report. Both these gentlemen have stated to us that the watchers were employed by them in order to prevent and detect bribery, which they believed would exist, and that their intention was thoroughly honest in employing them. We find, however, that in fact the watchers, with few exceptions, used their position simply as an excuse for taking bribes, which they did not, except in a few cases, report, and which they were allowed to keep even when they did report them."
      He hoped that, so far as the charge or counter-charge of the hon. Gentleman was concerned, this passage would be considered by the Committee as a sufficient answer to the speech they had just listened to. He did not say that Boston should be added to this Schedule; he thought there was a good deal to be said on both sides, and it was true that there were some considerations with regard to Boston which might have justified the decision of the Government with regard to it. But, knowing something of the electoral corruption which had taken place in this country, he did not think there was a worse case than that of Macclesfield. That borough was created by the Reform Act of 1832; it was a borough of the ideal size, and out of about 5,000 voters there 3,500 had received payments in money; it showed on both sides the most outrageous system of corruption that anyone could conceive, and it would be a disgrace to the House of Commons if the name of Macclesfield were retained as an enfranchised borough.
      MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman had no wish to misrepresent the case. As the hon. and learned Gentleman, however, represented it, the employment was entirely on the side of the Liberal candidates. But that was not so, because anyone who has read the Report will know that Mr. G. Wise was the agent on the other

      147
      side. I only wish to make a personal explanation.
      MR. EDWARD CLARKE: I read the Report as it stands.
      MR. GREGORYsaid, he thought that the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Sydney Buxton) had adopted an unfortunate line in his defence of the borough in question; nor had he improved his position by what had just fallen from him, as he had adopted a paragraph in the Report of the Commissioners which not only showed that his agent had been guilty of bribery, but nearly brought it home to the hon. Member himself. As regarded the proposition of his right hon. Friend behind him (Mr. Raikes) he was not prepared to accede to it. The Schedule referred to was of a highly penal character, as entirely disfranchising the boroughs at present in it, and ought not to be extended beyond the necessity of the case. The two boroughs scheduled were in flagrante delicto. The bribery there was notorious and universal; but if they were to insert Boston on the Report of the Commissioners, he pointed out that they must deal with seven or eight other boroughs at least in the same way as they had dealt with the state of things which existed at Macclesfield and Sandwich. He would point out that some of the statements in the Commissioners' Report—such, for instance, as to there being 600 men in the town open to bribery—were somewhat of a hearsay character, and rested on very little or no evidence. For these reasons he could not support the Motion of his right hon. Friend.
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he was very anxious to keep the discussion apart from Party politics. He would point out that the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Sydney Buxton), although he contended that the bribery was all on one side, had admitted that Mr. Ingram was rightly unseated. With regard to the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, he would acknowledge that the right hon. Gentleman had made out a strong case against Boston, and that his heart was not with that constituency. But he could also make out a very strong case against the eight towns which had been the subject of inquiry, with the exception of Knaresborough and Canterbury. The amount of corruption in those cases was
      148
      a matter of degree, and the Government had endeavoured with regard to them to draw a somewhat rough-and-ready line. In respect of Macclesfield and Sandwich, they found a number of persons reported for bribery which exceeded half of the constituencies. In Macclesfield the number amounted to 53 per cent, and in Sandwich it was 60 per cent of the constituency; and, inasmuch as more than one-half of the electors who voted had been detected in voting corruptly, the Government thought that on the side of clemency at least the 50 per cent limit was a safe line to draw. If they were to schedule Boston they must also schedule Gloucester. In the case of Gloucester, 40 per cent of the constituency was reported to have been bribed. In order to draw the line referred to, the Government had, however, to strike Gloucester out. The number of persons bribed at Boston amounted to 12 per cent. He would not enter into the details of the Report in any way. He repeated that the Government had drawn a rough line at 50 per cent, and that if they were to schedule Boston they would have to schedule all the other boroughs reported upon also.
      Question put.
      The Committee divided:—Ayes 37; Noes 136: Majority 99. —(Div. List, No. 72.)
      Schedule agreed to.

  SECOND SCHEDULE.

    BOROUGHS TO LOSE ONE MEMBER.
    MR. JERNINGHAM, in the absence of his hon. and gallant Colleague (Colonel Milne-Home), wished to move the Amendment which stood in his name, which was in effect to insert Berwick-on-Tweed in the Schedule, in order that it might retain one Member.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKErose to Order. He wished to point out that Berwick-on-Tweed had been retained in Schedule 1, which had now been passed.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid that, Berwick-on-Tweed having been retained in Schedule 1, it was not competent for the hon. Member to reopen the question on Schedule 2.
    MR. JERNINGHAMremarked that, that being the case, it would be his duty to bring the matter forward on Report.
    MR. H. S. NORTHCOTErose to move that "Exeter" should be left out

    149
    of the Schedule of boroughs which were only to return one Member. The hon. Gentleman said he would not have troubled the Committee with matters of a sentimental character if it had not been that the Government had laid stress on the fact that in bringing forward this Bill they desired to have regard to the historical character of the constituencies, and they also wished to have regard for electoral continuity. Now, with regard to the sentimental side of the question, he would point out that Exeter had for several centuries returned two Members to that House; it was the county town, it was an Assize town, a considerable seaport town, and was commonly known as the Metropolis of the West. If it had been a decaying town, however, he would not have mentioned even those matters; but, as a matter of fact, it was a steadily growing town, and although it might not be increasing as rapidly as some of the great Northern manufacturing towns, it was gradually increasing. There were considerable railway works in Exeter; further railway extension to it was contemplated, and at the present moment it had a population of some 48,000 inhabitants; so, as he had said before, it was growing steadily. On this occasion he fully agreed with the remarks of the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton), with whom it was seldom his good fortune to agree on matters in that House, in regard to the Boundary Commissioners. He found that the Instructions to the Boundary Commissioners contained the following:—
    "The Commissioners will, therefore, previous to making any recommendation, take the necessary steps for satisfying themselves whether there are any considerable number of houses beyond the boundaries, but contiguous thereto, the occupiers of which, either from community of interests with the borough or from other circumstances, form part of the town population proper."
    Now, he ventured to assert that if the Boundary Commissioners had carried out those instructions in the spirit and the letter, he would not have been then standing there to advocate the claims of his constituency, because Exeter would at the present moment have been entitled to two Members. There was no question of having to add thousands of acres to the borough in order to bring it up to the dimensions of a borough returning two Members. When the representa-
    150
    tive of the Boundary Commissioners went down to Exeter, Petitions were presented to him signed by more than 90 percent of the population of those portions of the city which were just outside the present boundaries, praying for inclusion within the City limits; and they were utterly unable to ascertain why the Boundary Commissioners had reported against the inclusion of those parts of Exeter within the Parliamentary borough. Very great weight must, of course, be given to the question of numbers; but he contended that the mere question of numbers should not alone determine the amount of the representation to be given. Rateable value ought also to be taken into account. Now, the rateable value of Exeter was £230,000, whereas the rateable value of Plymouth was only £205,000, and that of Devonport £97,000; and yet both the latter places were to return two Members, as against one Member for Exeter. Then, again, Exeter had an unusually large number of electors in proportion to its population. In a population of 48,000 there were 7,523 electors, while in Devonport there were only 5,421 electors in a population of 63,000; and again in Bath, which had just over 50,000 of population, there were only 6,231 electors. It appeared to him that these were reasons which ought to have some weight with the Government to induce them to look favourably on the proposal he now submitted. Moreover, Exeter had many varied interests. It had a very large clerical population owing to the existence of the Cathedral there; and, at the same time, in the town and its neighbourhood they had a large number of retired officers of the Army and Navy, well-to-do tradesmen, as well as a great quantity of the working classes. For a borough of its size also it represented an unusually large amount of agricultural interests. He did not wish to speak disparagingly of the boroughs of Plymouth and Devonport; but he was obliged to (point out, in contradistinction to the varied interests involved in Exeter, that the interests of those two places were very much of an uniform Dockyard character. The Government had not taken into ac-count, moreover, the probable position of Exeter within the next few years. If he could induce the President of the

    151
    Local Government Board to consider this matter, he thought he could prove to him that there need be only five instances in which boroughs at present returning two Members might claim to keep them, and that Exeter might easily be enlarged so that its population would be raised over the necessary 50,000. Then, again, he would remind the right hon. Gentleman that the constituency of Exeter was evenly balanced in political feeling, and he believed that for nearly the last half-century it had returned one Member of each particular shade of political feeling; and if it was now to be deprived of one of its Members, there would be a number of citizens in Exeter who, according to the 15,000 population test, would be entitled to a Member, who would be absolutely unrepresented in that House. He admitted that in the South-West of England there were a large number of small constituencies which, under anything like a drastic Reform Bill, would have to be disfranchished; but that was a stronger reason for retaining any borough constituency the population of which nearly approached the limit laid down by the Bill for double-Membered constituencies. Under this Bill he believed there would be only two borough Representatives left in Cornwall, three in Somerset, and five in Devon. Now, he had the greatest respect for the Gentlemen who would represent the counties in the South-West of England; but he was not inclined to give up the proper representation of the South-Western boroughs. If the President of the Local Government Board would listen to his appeal, he was quite certain he could show him where the population of Exeter could be increased to upwards of 50,000 without making any serious inroad upon the county constituency. As he commenced by saying, if this Bill was to recognize the existence of historic associations, and if such associations were to have any weight at all, he thought the City of Exeter was a place which deserved to be treated with some leniency.
    Amendment proposed, in page 15, line 15, to leave out "Exeter."— (Mr. H. S. Northcote.)
    Question proposed, "That 'Exeter' stand part of the Schedule."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the City of Exeter had been the subject of
    152
    careful inquiry by the Boundary Commission of 1868, and if hon. Members would refer to the Report of that Commission they would find it contained a large map of the borough of Exeter, and they would also find that the city had not yet reached the limits of the boundary which was shown thereon. In the extension of boundaries in 1868 the Commissioners had provided for the possible increase of the population; but, as a matter of fact, the increase of the city had never come beyond the Parliamentary limits. Although not touching the boundary of the city, there was a collection of railway employés houses, about 93 of them, and the only reason for bringing them into the Parliamentary boundary would be to raise the number of the constituency to upwards of 50,000 persons. But, looking at the matter from the hon. Member's point of view, they would have to consider where they were to get the extra seat from? By the arrangement which had been arrived at it would be impossible for them to take seats from constituencies of 50,000 to give them up to constituencies which had less than that number. Suppose they decided to give extra seats in cases such as this, where would they have to be taken from? They would have to be taken from great English borough constituencies like Wolverhampton and Sheffield, whose representation was to be increased by the Bill; but he did not believe the Committee would consent to take seats away from constituencies like that, where each seat represented, in some cases, something like 65,000 or 70,000 people, in order to give them to towns like Exeter, where, although they represented great historical associations, each Member would only represent about 24,000. The hon. Member had said that the South-West of England suffered by the Bill. That might be true; but under that Bill it would still be more represented than was Wales, although Wales was over-represented as compared to all the other parts of the Kingdom.
    MR. THOROLD ROGERSremarked that there was an observation made by the hon. Member opposite, in support of his claim, derived from the historical associations of Exeter, and the fact that it divided its representation. That argument seemed to him to go

    153
    against the hon. Member himself, because, in his opinion, any constituency which could not make up its mind in politics ought to have but one Representative. If the Government had determined to reduce all Cathedral towns to the position of one-Member constituencies they would have found in him a warm supporter. He considered that the explanation of the division in the representation was due to the corrupting influences of the presence of a Dean and Chapter. If there was one part of the Bill which was settled it was this—that boroughs with 15,000 inhabitants and over should have one Member, and boroughs with 50,000 and over should have two Members. What, then, was the good of discussing a thing which was already decided? The whole of that debate reminded him of two lines of Pope, which summed up the whole case—
    "Thus, well-bred spaniels civilly delight
    In mumbling at the game they dare not bite."
    The hon. Gentleman had dwelt on the opulence of the Exeter citizens. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer told him yesterday that Exeter was too poor to buy silver spoons, and therefore it had lost its Assay Office. If that was so, it appeared to him that the City of Exeter was a decaying and not a progressive city. His (Mr. Thorold Rogers') own city had lost its representation; but that must be because it had a Dean and Chapter. The City of Oxford was a great manufacturing town however, for they were just as much a manufacturing town for the manufacture of graduates as the City of London was for the manufacture of fagot voters. He considered that it was idle to discuss this question further, because they had already arrived at a decision upon it.
    MR. INCEsaid, he had listened to the very able and interesting speech of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. H. S. Northcote) with much interest, and as he went on he (Mr. Ince) felt less and less inclined to take the course which he was about to take. He thought those large towns like Exeter and the large town which he had the honour to represent, which at the time of the last Census had less than the number of electors which would entitle them to two Members, but which would be now entitled to two Members, having regard to their present population, had some cause
    154
    to complain. But he felt that after the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who had charge of the Bill, it would be absurd to persist in this Amendment; and as he could not prophesy what would be the result, in any of these cases, of a division, he would not persevere with the Amendment which stood in his name.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSremarked that his hon. Friend (Mr. H. S. Northcote) had put the claim of Exeter in the strongest possible way, and therefore he would not attempt to add to its force; but he rose to say a few words in consequence of the general answer given by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board. The general answer which he gave really came to this—that however strong the case it could not be entertained, because if it were the House would have to take away seats from places like Wolverhampton and Sheffield, or other large towns. Now, he entirely objected to that proposition. His observations alluded more particularly to an Amendment which would be moved presently; but as the right hon. Gentleman had made that general statement he felt bound to protest against it at once. He saw no magic in the number 658 as the number of Members in that House. There had been no magic used in order to add 12 to the number of Members, and it was nothing to the purpose to give a general answer to a strong case, for there was no reason why the 12 should not be made 13. He objected altogether to the proposition that if a Member could not make out a good case for taking away a seat from one constituency that that was to preclude him from getting an additional seat for another constituency. That was no answer to the argument. If a case of hardship was made out they ought to deal with it upon its merits
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the view of the right hon. Gentleman was not in accord with his on this matter. He (Sir Charles W. Dilke) did not consider that an increase of the number of Members of the House would be in accordance with the agreement which had been entered into between the two Parties.
    MR. H. S. NORTHCOTEsaid, he proposed to do what he believed to be his duty to his constituents in this mat-

    155
    ter, regardless of what might be the opinion of the hon. Member for Southwark. In regard to the observations that had fallen from the hon. Member, he might remind him that if there had not been a very able and very Radical Bishop at Exeter they would very probably have returned two Conservatives. He had hoped that he might have conveyed the suggestion that there was an alternative besides taking a Member from Sheffield or Wolverhampton; Plymouth and Devonport would group exceedingly well, and spare a Member. He could not accept the recommendation of the hon. and learned Member for Hastings (Mr. Ince) to withdraw his Amendment; but he did not think there would be any advantage in troubling the Committee with a division, and therefore he should simply move it and allow it to be negatived.
    Question put, and negatived.
    SIR EARDLEY WILMOTsaid, that notwithstanding what had fallen from the hon. and learned Member for Hastings (Mr. Ince), he felt it his duty to move his Amendment, which was to leave Hastings out of the Schedule of towns which were to have only one Member. Now, he protested in the strongest manner against the doctrine that they were to leave all those matters in the hands of the Treasury Bench. When the compact was made between the Leaders of the two Parties in that House he understood that, although the general principles of the Bill were agreed to, they, as Members of the House, were still entitled to discuss the details of the Bill. He defied the Prime Minister to show a single case in which great fundamental principles had been settled by a compact between the Leaders of the two Parties in that House. He did not say that the compact might not have been desirable; but he did say that they, as Members of that House, had a perfect right to exercise the privileges conferred upon them by their constituents of moving Amendments. With regard to the claims of Hastings to two Members, he might mention, in the first place, that it was perhaps the most ancient borough in England, and he thought he was right in saying that there was never the suspicion of corruption having existed within it. He might
    156
    also remind the right hon. Gentleman who was in charge of the Bill (Sir Charles W. Dilke) that Hastings had had many distinguished Representatives. It had been represented by the Earl of Liverpool, when Sir Charles Jenkinson, by Mr. Canning, by Lord Palmeraton, and others; and, although this might be what his hon. Friend (Mr. H. S. Northcote) had called a sentimental consideration, still he thought it was a ground upon which it could be urged that they should be allowed to continue their present representation. Now, with regard to the manner in which the seats for these constituencies were to be supplied, he did not think that they, on that side of the House, were called upon to show the method in which seats were to be supplied under the scheme of the President of the Local Government Board. He believed it to be that right hon. Gentleman's measure, because he could not believe for a moment that the right hon. Gentleman who presided over the destinies of this country could be the father of such a measure as that before them. If the right hon. Gentleman would not give him his attention he would sit down.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I am very happy to listen to the hon. Baronet.
    SIR EARDLEY WILMOT: The right hon. Gentleman was talking to the Prime Minister and laughing.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he was very sorry if the necessary conversation which he was obliged to hold with the Prime Minister had led the hon. Baronet to believe that he was offering him any disrespect.
    SIR EARDLEY WILMOT: The right hon. Gentleman laughed.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEcould only repeat that there was no discourtesy intended.
    SIR EARDLEY WILMOT: I beg to withdraw my Amendment, Sir.
    MR. RAIKESbegged to move the insertion of Ipswich in the Schedule, and thought that in this particular ease they might make an exception to the rule that had been laid down. He ventured to think that the limits had been rather inconsiderately laid down. The limit of 15,000 population was too low for boroughs to retain one Member, while 50,000 population was not sufficient for

    157
    two. He could not help thinking that if the Committee had been free to exercise its own judgment in the matter it would have declined to fix the number at 50,000, but would have raised it to something higher. He believed the proper figure would have been 75,000 or 80,000. He would not ask the Committee to raise the limit; but he would ask them not to extend any exceptional privilege to Ipswich. He was not biased in this matter. The hon. Members who represented Ipswich both represented very interesting views in that House; but he could not help believing, apart from personal considerations, that it would not be difficult to make out a case for depriving Ipswich of one Member. It was a place with a population of scarcely 50,000 inhabitants. It had seen its best days, and was rapidly declining. It had been a much more important place than it was ever likely to be again, and there was no reason to suppose that it would make a fresh start and become a centre of population. The neighbouring borough of Cambridge, which was a much more important place, had but one Member; the great City of Exeter, which they must admit was the capital of the West of England, and his old constituency (Chester), which, although a little smaller, was, at least, as important as Ipswich, and he believed more so, had only one Member each. He would like the Committee to remember that this Bill perpetuated the extreme inequalities of the system by which great towns like Birkenhead, Cardiff, Huddersfield, Dewsbury, Walsall, and others, with 60,000 to 100,000 population, were still to be contented with one Member, yet which conferred upon a broken down old town like Ipswich two Representatives. He thought the Government might fairly make this concession, even if they adhered to their first rule in other matters, because it was impossible in the case of Ipswich to justify the two Members for a borough which, as he had said, was below the electoral quota for one Member. Although the right hon. Baronet who was in charge of the Bill would probably be too discreet to say that he agreed with him in this matter, he believed he did so in his heart, and he begged to move the Amendment which stood in his name.
    Amendment proposed, in page 15, column 1, after "Hereford" (line 19), insert "Ipswich."—(Mr. Raikes.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'Ipswich' be there inserted."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the line must be drawn somewhere, and Ipswich came within the limit fixed for two Members. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman was hardly fair to Ipswich, for it left in the minds of the Committee the impression that Ipswich was a decaying borough. Now that was not so at all. It was, on the other hand, a rapidly increasing place. In 1871 the population was only 42,000 odd, in 1881 it was 50,000 odd, and it was calculated that at the end of the present year it would be 54,613. Ipswich had a very much larger population than either Cambridge or Chester, and was very steadily, he might say rapidly, increasing. It was not by any means a decreasing place, and under these circumstances the Government considered it was fairly entitled to retain its two Members.
    MR. RAIKESsaid, he did not propose to put the Committee to the trouble of a division; but he wished to point out that he had at least obtained from the right hon. Baronet an important admission. The right hon. Baronet had laid stress on the fact that Ipswich had increased since 1881, and when they came to consider the case of other towns which were growing that would be an important argument. He could only attribute the argument which the right hon. Gentleman had used to the popularity of Ipswich on the Treasury Bench. He begged leave to withdraw his Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. LEWISsaid, he thought it would not be convenient for him to raise the question he was about to raise—namely, the propriety of omitting Warwick from this Schedule; but he would raise it on the 5th Schedule, which he supposed they would approach before very long.
    MR. ECKERSLEY, in moving an Amendment, said, he would ask the indulgence of the Committee while he briefly submitted for consideration the very exceptional case of the borough of Wigan. In the few observations he proposed to make he hoped to be able

    159
    to prove to the satisfaction of the Committee that the population properly belonging to Wigan at the Census of 1881 considerably exceeded the prescribed number of 50,000, and that Wigan ought to be left out of the Second Schedule of this Bill. According to the Census Returns of 1881, the population of Wigan was 48,196; but the Committee must remember that the town was at that time suffering from the effects of a very serious colliery strike, which had caused many persons to leave in search of employment in other places; some migrated to Oldham, and other towns in Lancashire, others went to South Yorkshire, Derbyshire, Staffordshire, Shropshire, and North and South Wales, the result being that the empty houses of Wigan, at the Census of 1881, amounted to the large number of 1,287, being 842 more than there would have been if they had formed the same proportion as was the case at the Census of 1871. Now, if the greater part of those 842 houses had been occupied at the time of the last Census, as they would have been under any ordinary circumstances, the population would have exceeded 51,000. Again, the population of Wigan, according to the Census of 1871, was upwards of 39,000, and between the Census of 1871 and the Census of 1881 there were 2,760 new houses erected, as against only 200 that were destroyed. If the greater portion of those new houses had been inhabited at the Census of 1881, as they would have been under ordinary circumstances, the population would have exceeded 51,000. These statements were fully corroborated by an estimate which was made by the Registrar of Births and Deaths, at the end of May, 1881, about two months after the Census was taken, which clearly demonstrated that at least 3,000 persons had returned to the town, many of them to the same houses which they had occupied previous to the strike, and a large number of them had resumed work under their former employers. The Committee should bear in mind that this estimate was made in May, 1881, for the information of the local authorities. The basis on which the estimate was founded was worthy of notice. In one street, consisting of 60 houses, only six were occupied during the strike; when the strike was over every one of them became tenanted; and many other instances
    160
    of a similar character were found in the districts where the colliers resided. The return of the 3,000 persons to the town brought the population to over 51,000 at the end of May, 1881. It might be stated that absentees were not enumerated in the Census of seaport towns. That must be admitted; but he contended that the two cases were not analogous. The absentees in seaport towns did not vary very materially at one Census from another; but the case of Wigan, where there was a temporary migration of large numbers at the time of the Census of 1881, the population was reduced below the prescribed limits only for a period of two or three months. In his opinion, the migration by these sturdy, independent Wigan colliers was a movement which deserved the highest commendation from Her Majesty's Government, for it showed the fixed determination of the colliers to support themselves and their families by their own exertions, rather than rely on the poor rates or on public charity in times of great difficulty and distress. Wigan was one of the three towns in Lancashire which was ordered to return two Members to the first Parliament, which was convened in the Kingdom upwards of 600 years ago; and during the whole of that period the duties and obligations attendant upon that privilege had, he believed, been faithfully performed. He himself felt very strongly upon this question, and so did all the inhabitants of Wigan, irrespective of politics. All the employers and employed were very desirous that this privilege of returning two Members should be preserved to them. They felt that they ought not to be deprived of one Member simply because the Census happened to be taken at a time when the town was suffering from a great public calamity. He appealed to the Committee to meet this exceptional case in that spirit of magnanimity and justice which was the great characteristic of our Parliamentary proceedings; and he asked them to act up to the spirit and intention of the Bill, which, as they had been assured over and over again by the Prime Minister, was one of enfranchisement. He hoped the Bill would preserve to Wigan that right of returning two Members to Parliament which it had always possessed, and to which he firmly believed it was justly entitled under this Bill.
    Amendment proposed, in page 15, column 2, line. 16, to leave out "Wigan."—(Mr. Eckersley.)
    Question proposed, "That 'Wigan' stand part of the Schedule."
    MR. A. F. EGERTONwished, before the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke) rose, to say a few words in support of the Amendment proposed by his hon. Colleague. He did not think he need speak at any great length in support of it, for he hoped it would easily commend itself to the Committee, and it appeared to him that his hon. Colleage had satisfactorily made out that Wigan had a claim, as of right, still to continue to return two Members to Parliament. It might be said by the right hon. Baronet that the Government could not go behind the Census Returns; but surely this was an altogether exceptional case. It might be said that seaport towns were in precisely the same position; but he would put it to the Committee to say whether there was not a great difference between the case of Wigan and that of the seaport towns? The exodus from Wigan was one of a purely temporary character. It so happened that there was a great strike, which emptied a vast number of houses, and, as his hon. Colleague had pointed out, after a short time those houses became full again. But it so happened that during the precise period at which the Census was taken those houses were empty. He maintained that that formed a very strong ground for some relaxation of the determination of the Government with reference to the claims of Wigan to have two Members. He based those claims not only on the fact, which was well known to everybody, that Wigan had returned two Members for upwards of 600 years, but also on the conditions and nature of the industries and trades which were carried on there. All who knew Lancashire knew well that Wigan was a sort of capital of the coal trade for South-West and also, to a great extent, for South-East Lancashire. It had been in that position for a long time. It was also concerned directly with the iron trade—in fact, it was a manufacturing and a colliery town, and worthily performed the duties of a centre of those important trades, because he believed that the only mining school in Lancashire, which was of the greatest
    162
    possible value, was conducted in that town. Under those circumstances, he hoped his hon. Friend would not be met by a non possumus, for that was the only argument that could be used against him. He might be asked, "Where are you to get the Member from?" But he would humbly suggest that there was more than one place from which a Member might properly be taken. There was one flagrant case—the case of Warwick—where a Member might be obtained, for he contended that the claims of Wigan most completely outweighed those of Warwick and Leamington. On all those grounds he asked the consideration of the Committee for the Amendment which had been placed on the Paper by his hon. Colleague.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The hon. Member who has just spoken has argued the matter in such a way as to almost amount to a breach of the agreement, just as the right hon. Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir E. Assheton Cross) was also going to argue a little while ago. As a matter of fact, there are two different proposals to keep the second seat for Wigan. The proposal which was made by the Corporation of Wigan, and which has been circulated generally among Members of this House, was one of a different kind from the one made now. The Corporation of Wigan proposed, by extending the boundaries of the borough, to bring it up above the 50,000 limit. I do not quite know which of the two proposals it is that I have to meet. If the proposal is to leave the borough as it is with a Census population under 50,000, and to give it a second Member, I should say that that was a great departure from the lines of the agreement; but if the proposal is that of the Corporation, to largely extend the boundaries, and give a second Member to the borough so extended by the addition of considerable surrounding districts, then no doubt we might do that and give the other Member. But that proposal, which the Corporation made and circulated among Members of the House, is open to objection upon other grounds. Committees of the House of Commons of late years have proceeded upon a very intelligible principle in regard to the extension of municipal boundaries, and they have acted in such a way as not to take in Local Board areas outside the municipality

    163
    except in cases where the Local Board district desired to be so absorbed. The borough of Wigan is surrounded by an urban population. That is the case, not only of Wigan, but of the Lancashire towns generally, and you get the same thing in other parts of the country, as, for instance, in Staffordshire. The towns stretch towards one another along the roads, and almost every town is connected by rows of houses along the roads with almost every other. We have thought the best way to deal with these urban populations is by the single-Member county division system, and even before that we thought of dealing with special cases in that way. If you propose to extend the borough of Wigan you are met by the fact that all round it this urban population is in Local Board districts. There is a complete ring of Local Board districts all round the borough of Wigan, and these Local Board districts are strongly opposed to being absorbed by Wigan. They wish to remain as county divisions, and they altogether object to being swallowed up by the borough. The Mayor of Wigan says he hopes to diminish the opposition of these districts by giving them a strong pledge that no attempt will be made to extend the municipal boundaries of Wigan, but only the Parliamentary boundaries; but still the places affected express a strong preference for being left as county divisions. I am, therefore, not quite certain what is the case which we have to meet—whether it is the extension of the borough boundaries so as to get above the 50,000 limit, or leaving the boundaries alone and thus going below that limit. If Wigan were extended, it would be extended like a star-fish, with long arms all round running into different parts of Lancashire. It would certainly be more like a star-fish than an ordinary borough. If it is to be left as it is, without the necessary population, then that would certainly be a distinct breach of the agreement arrived at with regard to the 50,000 limit. There is also another question. If Wigan is to retain its second Member, where is that Member to come from. The right hon. Member for South - West Lancashire (Sir E. Assheton Cross) told us that if the House is to be increased by 12 new Members, he did not see why it should not be increased by 13. I am bound to
    164
    say that that would be a breach of the agreement, because we agreed that the number of the Members of the House was only to be increased by 12, to meet the claims of Scotland. The hon. Member who has just spoken (Mr. A. F. Egerton) says we might do what is asked by taking a Member from Warwick, and other Members in the course of the previous discussions have mentioned other places from which Members might be taken. But there are 37,000 people in the new borough of Warwick and Leamington. The hon. Gentleman opposite laughs; but if he will look at the recommendations of the Commissioners of 1868, he will find that the Government were only carrying out those recommendations in regard to Warwick and Leamington. With so large a population it is clear that even if one seat were taken away from the borough, it would have to be given back again in the shape of a county district, for the boundaries would have to be re-arranged, and a county district would thus be created which would certainly require a Member to represent it. In that way Warwick and the neighbourhood could not lose a seat, so that the case is not much advanced. Under these circumstances I must ask the Committee to reject this proposal.
    SIR E. ASSHETON CROSS: I am sorry to trouble the Committee again; but I would point out that no one knows the condition of this district better than the Prime Minister himself. I am not at all prepared to assent to the doctrine just laid down by the right hon. Baronet, that it would be any breach of the agreement to allow Wigan to retain its two Members. The right hon. Baronet says that the limit of 50,000 was settled by the two Parties. But it was never settled between the two Parties that this question of the 50,000 limit was to be regulated simply by the Census of 1881. The real question is whether, as a matter of equity, the borough of Wigan had not 50,000 inhabitants even in that very year? It was only by the particular accident of a particular strike that the inhabitants of Wigan were not far over the mark laid down at the time the Census was taken. The right hon. Baronet himself, when answering the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. H. S. Northcote), alluded to the increase which had taken place in certain cases since

    165
    1881, and spoke of what was the population at the present time.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: That was only in answer to the hon. Member, who spoke of a particular borough as a declining place.
    SIR. R. ASSHETON CROSS: Well, at all events, here we have the case of a very thriving borough and a very old one, which has sent Members to Parliament for hundreds of years. It is a very thriving borough, and if the right hon. Baronet will look at the Census for several decenninal periods, he will see how it has been growing. In the Census of 1871 there were 7,000 houses in the borough. In 1881 there were 9,700 houses, and at the present time there are 10,000. Therefore, it is very largely growing, and the inhabitants were only reduced below the number of 50,000 when the Census was taken by the accidental circumstance that a strike happened at that particular moment. It is not the fact that the population of the borough had permanently decreased at all, and, as the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Eckersley) has pointed out very sensibly and properly, it was to the credit of these poor colliers that, instead of staying in the borough to rely on the relief of charity or the rates, they all went out to other towns to seek other work, and so were enabled to retain their self-respect and independence. I think the case of the borough is a very hard one indeed, and it is no answer whatever to say that the limit of 50,000 is a bargain between the two Parties, because the question is, whether Wigan had not really and practically the full number of population to carry her above the limit? Simply for a few months, owing to a particular strike, there was a sort of exodus of between 2,000 and 3,000 people; but they all came back. You cannot say that the permanent population of Wigan has been below 50,000, and therefore the answer is good as to any compact between the Parties, because in equity and fairness the borough has bad, and it has at the present moment, a population of more than 50,000. I think this is a very strong case indeed to press on the consideration of the Committee. I hope my hon. Friend will go to a division, and I shall certainly support him. The right hon. Baronet said he was not quite aware which case he had to meet—whether it
    166
    was the case as presented by my hon. Friend, or the case as presented by the Mayor of Wigan for the incorporation into the borough of certain large populous districts just outside. But the case presented by the Mayor of Wigan is not the case which we are arguing now; and it is possible when we come to the latter part of the Bill, if we fail in this Motion, which I hope we shall not, there may be others submitted to the Committee as to what ought to be the boundaries of Wigan. But, taking the matter as it stands at present, the right hon. Baronet must see that the particular point which we are arguing, and none other, is that the borough of Wigan, for all practical purposes and in all equity, has not had a population of less than 50,000. Therefore, we are in equity entirely within the limit laid down in the compact between the two Parties, and it would be a very hard case indeed if the borough should be excluded from the benefit of having two Members, as it always has had, simply because of that temporary exodus of a portion of the people who went away with the intention of returning, and who did return.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has not, I think, added much to the strength of the case presented by the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Eckersley). The sole point he relies upon is that a certain portion of the population deserted the borough in consequence of a strike, and returned to it afterwards. Well, in what way does that differ from the case of towns which have been rapidly increasing since the Census was taken? Take the case of Hastings, for instance. Everybody knows that Hastings has greatly increased since the Census Returns of 1881, and the same principle, if adopted in the case of Wigan, would demand consideration in Hastings. My own constituency—that of Reading—affords another example. It had a population, according to the Census of 1881, of 47,000—that is to say, the Bill proposes to extend its boundaries, and when they are so extended the population of the district covered was 47,000 in that year. But everybody knows very well that the population of that district is now far beyond the limit of 50,000, so rapid has been its increase. What difference is

    167
    there, then, in principle between the case of Reading and that of Wigan? The right hon. Gentleman (Sir B. Assheton Cross) says he makes this claim as a matter of equity. But what possible equity can arise in the matter? Who is the equity between? Is it between Wigan and some other constituencies? I must say that I altogether fail to understand how the term can in any proper sense be applied to the question. The right hon. Gentleman has been totally silent on the point as to whore the second Member for Wigan is to come from. Is the total number of Members of the House to be increased by one? If so, that is contrary to the agreement between the Leaders of the two Parties, and it would be very undesirable to re-open the question, because if we once break through the rule in order to meet the case of Wigan, we shall have other cases raised on behalf of other towns such as Exeter, Hastings, Heading, and others, and we might be called upon imperceptibly to increase the total number of Members of the House until that increase wont to a very extraordinary extent. The case made out for Wigan is not substantially different from that of Exeter, Hastings, Reading, and many other towns that might be named, and if we once give way to the appeal now made to us, we should be led into further changes. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. A. F. Egerton) says we might take the Member asked for From Warwick; but the hon. Gentleman did not avail himself of the opportunity which occurred a few minutes ago of proposing that the reduction should be made in the case of Warwick. The House has therefore decided the matter so far as Warwick is concerned, and has resolved that Warwick and Leamington, with a population of 37,000, shall have a Member. Even if separate borough representation were not given to these towns, you would have, as my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board has said, to make them into a county district. The towns in Lancashire, I think, have less claims than many of the Southern boroughs, such as Hastings. All round Wigan the population is practically an urban population, and Lancashire is divided into one-Member districts. The whole population there is practically urban, and therefore there
    168
    is no reason for increasing the representation of Wigan itself. It appears to me that the case made out by the right hon. Gentleman opposite and by the hon. Members for Wigan is not different from that of many other places.
    SIR E. ASSHETON GROSS: I must object to the speech just delivered by the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General, because he has entirely misstated the case. My case is not that Wigan has increased in population since 1881, but that it was over the limit of 50,000 before then, and it was only a temporary occurrence which happened when the Census was taken which reduced it for the moment below that limit. It is a town which for all practical purposes had been over 50,000 long before 1881. I only alluded to the increase since in order to show that it is increasing in spite of the exodus which took place then.
    MR. GLADSTONE: With what the population was before the year 1881 we have no concern whatever. Wigan in 1881 was below the mark; Wigan since that time has come above the mark; but so, beyond all doubt, have many other towns which were also below the mark in 1881, but which have since got above the mark, and are continuing to increase. You cannot, therefore, establish a distinction in the case of Wigan as against other towns by showing that before 1881 it was above the limit. That is the contention, and it is perfectly plain that you cannot deal with the case of Wigan exceptionally. It would involve the necessity of discovering a very considerable number of seats—I believe not less than eight or nine.
    MR. A. P. EGERTONsaid, his contention was that Wigan, within two or three months of the Census being taken, was over the mark. He would draw an analogy between the case of Wigan and the case of Grenada during the recent earthquake, when a vast number of citizens left the town and encamped outside, and if a Census had been taken at that particular time, those people could not have been included within it as actually inhabiting the town. There was a strong analogy between that case and the case of Wigan.
    MR. LEAsaid, he had heard the arguments of the Postmaster General (Mr. Shaw Lefevre); but they did not seem to him to meet the arguments of the right

    169
    hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir R. Assheton Cross), who rightly contended that the case of Wigan differed essentially from that of Reading and of the other towns mentioned, inasmuch as Wigan, only a few months—or, as he believed the actual fact to be, only a few weeks, not months—before the Census was taken, had a population exceeding 50,000, and within a few weeks after-terwards the population again exceeded 50,000. No contention on the part of the Postmaster General for Reading, or any other town, could have any value when dealing with the facts before 1881; and therefore, in making an exception in favour of Wigan, the Committee would only be doing justice to that borough, and they would not be doing any injustice to Reading or to any other place.
    MR. ECROYDsaid, he did not wish to stand for many minutes between the Committee and a division. He thought the right hon. Gentlemen who had spoken from the Ministerial side had entirely failed to establish their contention that the case of Wigan did not present any exceptional features. If the Census of Wigan had been taken two months earlier or later in 1881 than it was, the population would have been decidedly above 50,000. In point of fact, the real population of Wigan at the time the Census was taken was greater than that of Ipswich, and the population of Wigan to-day was greater than that of Ipswich. He rose particularly, however, to refer to the extraordinary statement made by the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Charles W. Dilke) in charge of the Bill in defending the course taken with regard to Warwick. It had been understood that grouping was not one of the principles of the Bill, and yet the right hon. Gentleman said that if the grouping of Warwick and Leamington were abandoned—
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I never said grouping.
    MR. ECROYDsaid, they would not dispute about words; it was understood by everybody that an exceptional course had been resorted to in the case of Warwick and Leamington. At all events, the essence of what the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Charles W. Dilke) said was that if Warwick and Leamington were not to have a Member, a popu-
    170
    lation of 37,000 would be thrown into the county, and therefore the representation of Warwickshire would require reconsideration. Now, if Warwick and Leamington were thrown into the county, Warwickshire, to which four Members had been assigned, would still contain 31,000 fewer people than North-East Lancashire, to which only four Members were given. There was, therefore, no possible reason why, if Warwick and Leamington were thrown into the county, the representation of Warwickshire should be reconsidered.
    MR. TOMLINSONsaid, that it had been asked, admitting that the case of Wigan was exceptional, where the Member was to be taken from. If the rules were to be applied strictly, there would be no difficulty in finding a second Member for Wigan. 165,000 was fixed as the limit of population entitled to three Members. Now, if the figures which had been quoted several times were correct, Wolverhampton had only a population of 164,332, and therefore it was only entitled to two Members. His suggestion was that one of the Members to be given to Wolverhampton should be taken away and given to Wigan.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided: —Ayes 91; Noes 65: Majority 26.— (Div. List, No. 73.)
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  SUPPLY.—REPORT.
    ARMY (ANNUAL) BILL.
    Resolutions [19th March] reported.

    EGYPT (WAR IN THE SOUDAN)—GENERAL GRAHAM'S ADVANCE—ACTION NEAR SUAKIN.
    MR. W. H. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, on the Motion for the Report of Supply I wish to ask the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War (the Marquess of Hartington) whether he has received any information which he can give to the House with reference to an action which is reported to have taken place to-day in the Soudan?
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Mr. Speaker, I have received two telegrams from General Graham. It is possible that one may have been published in the evening papers; but per-

    171
    haps I had better read both of the telegrams to the House—
    "Suakin, March 20, 5 P.M.
    "From General Graham to War
    Secretary, London.
    "Hasheen, March 20, 3.30 P.M.—Moved out from camp 6.15, leaving Shropshire and details as guards. Reached first hill 8.20. Enemy retired and occupied other hill one mile and a-quarter distant. After short halt ordered Berkshire and Marines to clear high isolated hill; Indian Contingent and Guards in support. This was done very effectually. Enemy, being driven off ridge, streamed away south towards Tamai, and were charged by two squadrons Indian Lancers in bush. Cavalry retired on Guards; many of enemy passed Guards at foot of hill and made for hill west of Hasheen Valley, and were shelled by Royal Horse Artillery. Other parties, moving round our right, were engaged in bush by 5th Lancers. Meanwhile zariba, with four intrenched posts on hill commanding, it, is being formed. Advanced troops have all returned to this position, and will return to camp, leaving East Surrey and two Krupp guns, four Gardners, water tanks, and signal appliances at intrenched position. Killed:—Scots Guards, Captain Dalison, Private Ashley; 5th Lancers, Troop Sergent Major Nicholls, Private Edwards; 9th Bengal Lancers, one non-commissioned officer, four sowars. Wounded:— Surgeon Major Lane, A.M.S., severely; Scots Guards, six men; Coldstreams, eight men; Grenadiers, eight men; Berkshire, two men; 5th Lancers, Major Harvey, severely; two men slightly; 9th Bengal Cavalry, Major Robertson, severely; seven sowars; 15th Sikhs, one man; 70th Sikhs, two men. Infantry behaved with great steadiness. Strength of enemy estimated 4,000. Loss unknown, but considerable."
    I have since received another telegram sent to Lord Wolseley to the following effect:—
    "Suakin, March 20, 9.35 P.M."
    Following to Wolseley to-day:—The result of to-day's operations has been to establish a strong position commanding the Hasheen Valley, and protecting my right flank and line of communication in the ensuing operations against Tamai. The Cavalry showed great dash and individual gallantry in very difficult ground covered with high thorn bushes, occupied by an agile and determined enemy. The Infantry proved that when properly handled they could master the enemy in any position. The Berkshire, supported by Marines, stormed a steep hill strongly held, while the Guards showed an unshaken front when attacked in the thickest scrub, and protected the Cavalry by steady volleys. The Indian Brigade also worked admirably. The practice of the Artillery was excellent, and the positions chosen with judgment. The Royal Engineers, assisted by Madras Sappers and Miners and working parties of East Surrey, planned and executed the defensive works with great skill and coolness, although repeatedly threatened with attack by the enter-
    172
    prising enemy, who at one time swarmed round on all sides.—Graham, Suakin."
    First Resolution agreed to.
    (2.)"That a sum, not exceeding £4,543,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge of the Pay, Allowances, and other Charges of Her Majesty's Land Forces at Home and Abroad (exclusive of India), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1886."
    Resolution read a second time.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that, owing to some misapprehension as to when the Question was put, he was unable to move in Committee the Amendment he now proposed to move. He desired to move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £500,000. He had gathered from a statement made by the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War (the Marquess of Hartington) that about £70,000 was now in his Estimate in excess of what would be the cost of the troops of England that were now forming the garrison in Egypt. He not only wished to move the reduction of the Vote by this £70,000, but by a further sum, and he had put the total down at £500,000. The garrison that they had in Egypt had been there for several years; it amounted, he believed, to about 6,000 men. The cost to them of those men would be considerably in excess of £500,000; but he did not wish to charge Egypt any more than was absolutely just, and therefore he only proposed to reduce the Vote by the amount he had already mentioned. As he had said, this garrison had been in Egypt for several years, and he thought it was very possible that it would be there some years longer. Now, although he had often raised this question in the House, he had never received a definite reason for their having to pay for those troops. It was very obvious they were there not to defend the country from its enemies, because when an enemy presented himself they sent over a separate Army. As a matter of fact, they were there to fulfil the duty which was fulfilled by a gendarmerie — in other words, to maintain order in Egypt. They had put up a Khedive, they considered that that Khedive ought to be defended by some armed force, and therefore they had permanently, so to speak, established that garrison of 6,000 men in the country. Under those cir-

    173
    cumstances, it seemed to him that the cost of maintaining that garrison formed part of the expenses of the administration of Egypt, and, that being so, he did not see why the taxpayers of this country should pay for the troops. Yesterday, during the debate on the Army Estimates, he heard many hon. Gentlemen speak as old soldiers. Now, he spoke as an old taxpayer. Hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench seemed to play with hundreds and thousands and millions of pounds in the most easy way, and, in order to make things comfortable, they said—"Let the British taxpayer pay this. "He did not see why the British taxpayer should pay for those troops. He had no desire to raise an Egyptian debate—the matter was known in all its intricacies—but he had frequently asked hon. Gentlemen on the Liberal side if they knew why their troops were in Egypt, and they had said they did not. He was sure no one in the country did. He therefore thought the Egyptian Government ought to pay for the troops. Perhaps they might be told that the Egyptian Government could not pay. It was well known that the Egyptian Government could pay were it not that they were obliged to pay such large sums in interest to the bondholders. Obviously, the expenses of the administration of the country must come before the payment of its debts, just as the expenses of a railway must be defrayed before any dividend was paid to the debenture holders or the shareholders. The question was not one between us and the unfortunate fellaheen, but between us and the bondholders; and he was one of those who thought that it was not the taxpayers of this country, but the bondholders of Egypt, who ought to pay a portion of the expense of the necessary administration of that country. He therefore begged to move the Amendment which stood in his name.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out"£4,543,000," and insert"£4,043,000,"—(Mr. Labouchere,) —instead thereof.
    Question proposed,"That'£4,543,000' stand part of the said Resolution."
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he did not think the House would desire that he should enter into a discussion of this question at that hour of
    174
    the night (12.45). As a matter of fact, he really had nothing to add to what he said in reply to a Question put by his hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) on the Motion that the Speaker should leave the Chair. On that occasion his hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) suggested that the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy should not press a Motion he had made, but should move a reduction of the Vote. The hon. Member for Northampton was anxious to take every opportunity of protesting against any payment by the taxpayers of this country for the occupation of Egypt, although he (the Marquess of Hartington) might point out that, a short time ago, his hon. Friend was one of those who urged that that occupation should be undertaken. He (the Marquess of Hartington) quite admitted that those who altogether objected to the occupation of Egypt by a British Army, and to any part of the expenditure involved by that occupation falling on the British taxpayers, were entitled to take every legitimate opportunity, and this was one of them, of protesting by their votes against such a policy; but it did not follow that the Government were obliged on every possible occasion to enter into a discussion of the matter. Especially at that moment they were not so obliged, because very shortly there was to be a discussion upon the arrangements which had lately been entered into by the Government and the European Powers with regard to Egyptian finances. That would be, in his opinion, the proper time to discuss whether the cost of the occupation should fall on the British taxpayers, the Egyptian taxpayers, or the bondholders. The Government had endeavoured to make the Egyptian bondholders contribute some of the expenses which were involved in the occupation. It was very fair to raise the question whether they contributed a sufficient amount; but a proper and convenient opportunity for the discussion of such a question would be when the general financial arrangements were submitted to the House. It would only be a waste of time at that late hour to go into the subject.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, that after the discussion which took place upon his Motion the other night, he should not have thought it necessary to

    175
    raise the question again, especially as another opportunity for discussion would be afforded. But there was another subject in respect to which he was very much inclined to propose a reduction of the Vote by £500,000—a subject on which he did not know whether they would have any opportunity of a discussion—namely, the Bechuanaland Expedition. He could not hope that a proper discussion on this question could be raised at that time; but he felt bound to protest against £500,000 being expended in Bechuanaland in addition to the £750,000 voted last year. They seemed to forget that little wars became considerable wars. In Bechuanaland they were undertaking very serious responsibility and incurring very great expense without saying what they were going to do. He believed that originally it was understood they would only undertake the Expedition for a short time, and that then the Cape Government would take the matter off their hands. They had sent a very strong-handed General (Sir Charles Warren), who seemed to be giving great satisfaction to one class of the people and great dissatisfaction to another class. According to the statements of the Special Correspondent of The Standard—a gentleman who seemed very impartial—an extremely bad feeling was being created by Sir Charles Warren's proceedings. They had already expended £1,250,000 upon the Bechuanaland Expedition; there did not appear any probability of its being brought to an end for some considerable time yet; and that the Cape Government would take the affair into their own hands was more improbable than ever. This £1,250,000, he maintained, was all going into the pockets of the people of Stellaland and Cape Colony. ["Divide!"] He did not wish to say much more, but he wished to register a protest in the matter. They were paying for a waggon to traverse a distance of 80 miles, £120, which was at the rate of 30s. per mile. That was an enormous amount to be taken out of the pockets of the taxpayers at home to be put into the pockets of the Colonists. They had entered upon a little war which, at any time, might become a considerable one, and which might enormously increase the burdens imposed upon the taxpayers of the country.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid, he did not intend to detain the House very long; but he wished just to explain why he had very great pleasure in supporting the Motion of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere). He thought, on the part of a Government which professed to have in it a great deal of the Radical element, the expenditure of hundreds and thousands of pounds on the maintenance of a British Army in Egypt and in the furtherance of a useless war in South Africa, was simply scandalous. Unfortunately, it was not in the power of the people of this country to check that expenditure now. The Government could have its way for the present, and until a General Election arrived; but he was perfectly certain that when a General Election did come the people would show, in no unequivocal manner, their strong approval of the action of those Members who had endeavoured to check the reckless expenditure of the Government. He had no doubt that the people of the country would return a very proper verdict against the sham Radicalism of Her Majesty's Government. The maintenance of a British Army in Egypt at the present time was altogether unjustifiable. He believed that the Earl of Northbrook, in his Report upon the condition of affairs in Egypt, had said that however good an English Army might be for the ordinary purposes of war, for police work it certainly was not fit. So far as he could make out, the money that was being expended—derived from the reduction of interest on the Debt—was intended to pay the soldiers in Egypt who were doing the work of police. He believed the Egyptian people had a very proper appreciation of the advantages of a Police Force in the country, and that they would pay that money twice over if they believed the result would be to rid the country of the garrisons which the Government wished this country to pay for in Egypt. It was quite time that Members of the House, both English and Irish, in the interests of humanity and of the toiling masses of the people of the United Kingdom, raised their voices against this reckless expenditure of Imperial funds on the maintenance of an Army in a country totally opposed to its presence. With reference to the South African part of the question, he had

    177
    said before, from his place in the House, before Sir Charles Warren went out, that that officer's departure would very probably have the effect of involving Her Majesty's Government in another war with the Dutch portion of the inhabitants of the Capo of Good Hope. He had asked a Question that day with reference to Sir Charles Warren's mission, and he had received an answer from the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies which was not an answer likely to strengthen any impression which might exist in this country as to the possibility or probability of Sir Charles Warren bringing his mission to a successful issue in a peaceable way. On the contrary, as had been stated strongly and truly, the reports which had reached this country of the doings and actions of Sir Charles Warren all pointed to the conclusion that war was more likely than peace in consequence of the way in which he had aroused the ire of the Dutch inhabitants. The sending out of a filibustering Expedition such as that of Sir Charles Warren's was simply a provocation to the Dutch people in the Colony; and it must not be forgotten that they formed 80 per cent of the entire population. It was most galling to these people to have this country sending out their Generals and soldiers to "boss" them, so to speak. The people of Cape Colony were quite capable of settling their differences without the interference of English troops; and, therefore, as well as objecting to the garrison in Egypt, he should support the Motion of the hon. Member for Northampton. He thought it was simply disgraceful that when questions affecting the voting of such large sums of money as this came before the House the Benches should be empty. If there was a scene of excitement in the House, and it became the duty of Mr. Speaker, in the cause of Order, to suspend an hon. Member, the Benches on both sides of the House would be crowded—there would not be a seat vacant. Now, however, because the question was only one of voting away the taxes of the hardworking people of this country, there were only half-a-dozen independent Members present. He was glad to see a Member of the Government present who had a great character for Radicalism—although he was not proving his Radical principles by refusing to
    178
    raise his voice on this occasion in support of the Motion of the hon. Member for Northampton. He (Mr. W. Redmond) was sorry there were not more hon. Members present to vote against the maintenance of a British garrison in Egypt and the carrying on of a costly and useless war in South Africa. Though he had no particular solicitude for the welfare of the British people, or the economizing of the expenditure of the British public, he should do everything in his power, whilst he had a seat in the House, to protest against British aggression.
    Question put.
    The House divided: —Ayes 67; Noes 18: Majority 49.—(Div. List, No. 74.)
    Resolution agreed to.
    Ordered, That the Resolution, which, upon the 19th day of this instant March, was reported from the Committee of Supply, and then agreed to by the House, be now read; and the same was read, as followeth:—
    "That 59,000 men and boys be employed for the Sea and Coast Guard Services for the year ending on the 31st day of March 1886, including 12,900 Royal Marines."
    Ordered, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide, during Twelve Months, for the Discipline and Regulation of the Army; and that the Marquis of HARTINGTON, The JUDGE ADVOCATE, and Sir THOMAS BRASSEY do prepare and bring it in.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill l04.]

  WAYS AND MEANS.—REPORT.

    CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL.
    Resolutions [March 19] reported.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, that upon this Motion he was obliged, as a matter of duty, to express the deep dissatisfaction which was felt by the Irish Members at the course pursued by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) since these Sittings began in regard to Irish Bills, and the course pursued by the Government generally. He referred to the neglect on the part of the right hon. Gentleman to introduce a Bill on the subject of National Education in Ireland. The subject of that Bill was one which the Irish Members had since the beginning of last year strenuously and constantly endeavoured to bring under the notice of the House. They had urged it when the Estimates were under consideration, and had brought it forward in the form of a Motion, and, from beginning to end of last year, they had been deluded by the right

    179
    hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Trevelyan) by promises to the effect that he had a Bill ready in his pocket, but that the supreme pressure of the Franchise Question prevented him from bringing it forward. To convince the House of the urgency of the matter, it would be sufficient to say that the measure would concern the livelihood of 16,000 hard-worked and poorly-paid men and women in the service of the State in Ireland. In fact, the measure was of great importance to the community at large, as it concerned and had an important bearing upon the settlement of the question of Primary Education and the education of the children of the people of that country. Prom the beginning to the end of the last Session of Parliament the Irish Members had been obliged to remain satisfied with the promises of the right hon. Gentleman; but when the Autumn Session came, the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) succeeded in obtaining a place for a Bill which, in despair of obtaining anything from the Government, the Irish Members had determined to bring in. His hon. Friend had succeeded in obtaining an opportunity for moving the second reading. The hon. Member moved it; but before any one of his Friends could second the Motion, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant had taken the unprecedented course of moving the adjournment of the debate. The result had been a prolonged and angry scene, an All-night Sitting, and a very earnest and excited debate on the last day of the Autumn Session. From those circumstances—that was to say, from the urgency of the question, and the number and importance of debates which had taken place upon it, the assurances which the Irish Members had received, and the strange and irritating action taken by the right hon. Gentleman himself—all those circumstances taken together had given him (Mr. Sexton) and his Friends reason to believe that the beginning of this Session would witness the introduction of a Bill. However, the Session proceeded some distance and nothing was done. On the 3rd of the present month, the hon. Member for Longford, who, from day to day, had endeavoured to keep the matter before the public by transferring his Bill from the Orders of
    180
    the Day of one day to those of another, at last asked the right hon. Gentleman, who had promised to introduce a measure on the subject, when the measure might be expected, and the answer was that it would be presented in the following week—that was in the week ending on Saturday last. But during that week the right hon. Gentleman had not placed any Notice whatever on the subject on the Paper. He had not realized the hope which he had encouraged the hon. Member for Longford to entertain. However, on Monday last, a Motion appeared as No. 1 in the Notices of Motion. On that night, however, a prolonged debate had taken place with reference to the administration of affairs in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman had sat out that debate until the end; and seeing that the discussion had reference to an alleged breach of faith on the part of the Government in regard to another Bill, it might have been supposed and confidently predicted that the right hon. Gentleman would have been particularly attentive to the desirability of laying himself open to no other charge on that score. The right hon. Gentleman had remained in the House until after 5 o'clock. Though it might have been shown that it was then time to go to bed, it would have taken a very slight effort of self-denial, and would have been much more respectful to the House, if the right hon. Gentleman, having sat up so long, had remained another five minutes out of bed and had allowed Mr. Speaker to call on him to move his Motion. However, he had disappeared from the House immediately Mr. Speaker rose to call out the Notices of Motion, and he (Mr. Sexton) had been informed that the Motion was postponed. Since then the right hon. Gentleman had been questioned upon the subject, and had informed the House that he intended to bring forward his proposal on Tuesday next. He (Mr. Sexton) must confess the right hon. Gentleman's remarks had been altogether unintelligible to him. He had said that it appeared to be convenient in the interests of the Public Service that the Bill should be introduced on Tuesday. Well he (Mr. Sexton) was aware of no public convenience which could in any way be served by this postponement; but, on the other hand, the people whose beg-

    181
    garly incomes were to be affected by this measure were suffering, almost starving, for want of consideration, and every day which was allowed to pass without forwarding the settlement of the question was a day misused. The Bill had not been put down to-day, and the House was left in bewildered speculation as to what might be the cause of the obstinate delay on the part of the Government to proceed with a measure concerning which they professed to have made up their minds last year—a Bill of which the Predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant had stated, more than a year ago, that he had the draft in his pocket. Last night the right hon. Gentleman had had on the Paper three Notices of Motion relating to Irish Bills; but he (Mr. Sexton) had been so shaken in his confidence as to the right hon. Gentleman's intention to proceed with the Notices he placed upon the Paper, owing to his action the other night, that he had asked him yesterday at Question time whether he intended to move the Motions standing in his name. The right hon. Gentleman had replied that he did intend to do so, and he (Mr. Sexton) had expected, with as much confidence as he could muster in regard to a pledge of the right hon. Gentleman, that the Motion to which he was referring would have been moved. Another of those Bills dealt with the extra men of the Royal Irish Constabulary. That was a subject that the right hon. Gentleman must have seen the necessity of promptly proceeding with. The prolonged Sitting of Monday night, the painful scenes that occurred, the conflicts of veracity, should all have warned the right hon. Gentleman that this question of the police was one he was not entitled to toy with any longer. The third Bill affected the registration of voters in Ireland. He (Mr. Sexton) said unhesitatingly that without that Bill a measure on the subject of redistribution was of no use in Ireland, for the reason that the present law repelled the voter from the Registration Court in place of attracting him. What had happened last night? Why, the right hon. Gentleman had sat in his place until the conclusion of the debate, and the Irish Members had been compelled to rise one after the other to continue the discussion, no response being forthcoming to the questions and
    182
    the statements addressed to the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman had not said a word during the last hour or, perhaps, hour and a-half of the debate, but had sat in sulky silence listening to what went on. Today, however, by an extraordinary obliqueness of vision on the subject, the right hon. Gentleman had declared that the Irish Members had had the debate all to themselves. If the right hon. Gentleman had been in such a hurry to get to bed—
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, that he had been unable to speak a second time—it was against the Rules of the House.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, that was all the more reason why the right hon. Gentleman should have retired earlier, if he had been so anxious to get to bed. Seeing that the right hon. Gentleman had denied himself that repose which he no doubt had so well earned and had sat out the debate to the end, he (Mr. Sexton) ventured to assert that it would have given rise to less suspicion that the right hon. Gentleman had succumbed to an attack of temper, and was regardless of the feelings of the Irish Members, and would have shown him more attentive to the duties of his Office as Chief Secretary, if he had remained in the House five minutes longer and had responded to the appeals made to him to bring on his Notice of Motion. It was a very strange thing that the Minister for Ireland was the only man who dallied and delayed with Bills having reference to the administration of that country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had a Bill dealing with the Court of Judicature, a Bill of an elaborate and complicated character; but instead of delaying with it, he proceeded until it was placed in the hands of Members that they might consider it and form their judgment upon it. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury, one of the hardest-worked officials on the Government Bench, had upon his hands five Bills of the greatest importance to Ireland, Bills of considerable importance and detail, but he had found time to introduce them. He having put down a Notice of Motion was ready in his place to move it when the Speaker called upon him. An extraordinary and unpleasing contrast was offered by the delay of the responsible Minister for Ireland in dealing with measures re-

    183
    lating to that country, when compared with the action of the Financial Secretary and of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That was not a dignified or proper method of conducting Business. The people were waiting for the Bill, their livelihood and interests were concerned in it, and Irish Representatives were entitled to know what the Government were going to do. They objected to every day's delay. When the Government had made up their minds, when they had said the Bill was drafted, let the right hon. Gentleman move his Motion and introduce the Bill, not stay until the last moment of a Sitting and then, under a plea of going to bed, exhibit considerable disrespect to Irish Members by rushing out of the House. He would find that a frank business-like method of conducting Business would be more conducive to progress.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, one of the advantages of occupying the post he had the honour to hold was that one found oneself guilty of a series of flagrant offences while quite unconscious of having given any occasion for attack. He had been sitting as usual in amazed admiration of the power the hon. Member for Sligo displayed in spinning out a tremendous story from the scantiest material. He would take the Education Bill first. The hon. Member went back to past Sessions; he (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) could only go back to the Autumn Sitting. In that Session—he was sorry to have to go over the old story—the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) introduced a Bill which he put down night after night; it was not postponed for an interval, it was put down day by day, but it was never printed. At last it was printed, and the same day the hon. Member moved the second reading. The Government had only seen the Bill a few hours before, and it obviously had to be referred to Dublin, and it had to be carefully considered. It was a Bill—he would not discuss it—involving an enormous additional charge upon the taxation of the country, and the Government were expected without any consideration at all to say "Aye" or "No" to it! He had to consult the Irish Government, he had to consult the Treasury, and a great deal of consideration had to be given to it, and he thought it the most courteous, the most straight-
    184
    forward thing—not supposing that it was seriously expected they should then and there go on with the Bill—to move the adjournment of the debate, to avoid doing what he thought would have been extremely discourteous, to allow Members to get up one after another to discuss the Bill, and then for him to say—"You have wasted all your eloquence. I can really give no opinion upon the Bill." He thought it the most courteous, most straightforward method to move the adjournment of the debate. That was his crime on that occasion; but he was of opinion that the bulk of the House, instead of considering it an offence, thought it the most courteous and convenient course to take. Then it was announced the Government would have a Bill on the subject of Education, and that it was to be brought in in the course of that Session. But everyone knew the peculiar position of Business in the House; how every night, with the exception of those occupied with the Vote of Censure, was taken up with Committee of Supply or the Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) Bill; and, therefore, any statement he he could make in explanation of that very considerable scheme affecting the educational system of Ireland would have had to have been made at a very late hour. He thought it would be the desire of hon. Members, and a good deal more to their convenience, that he should not introduce a Bill on a day when it would have to be deferred to a very late hour; that was his sole object. He announced it for Monday; but in the course of the previous week there was a debate in the House upon educational topics, and he being asked about the Bill said he would put it down for Monday, but with no intention of going on with it, as the Navy Estimates were to be discussed on that day, and it was obvious the Bill could not be reached until very late at night, but that he would bring it on on Tuesday, or some other night advantageous for the purpose. On Monday the House sat until 5 o'clock the next morning, a much later hour than he anticipated when he said he would put down the Bill pro formâ, and he would leave the House to judge whether 5 o'clock in the morning, after an exhaustive and acrimonious debate, was the time to make a somewhat important statement

    185
    on the great question the Bill would deal with. That disposed of Monday, and he would go on with the history of the following night. He communicated with his noble Friend (Lord Richard Grosvenor) as to the most probable night when the House might expect an early deliverance from other subjects to allow of the Bill being brought on, and acting on his noble Friend's advice he put it down for Thursday, but only tentatively. Again, he was anxious to let hon. Members know what he was doing, and therefore on Wednesday he took the Notice off from Thursday, and announced it for the following Tuesday, as the most likely day for bringing it on. He hoped to bring it on on Tuesday, and he was ready to do so any night. He was not in the habit of speaking for the newspapers, and did not care whether he was reported or not; but he thought the dignity of the subject required that it should not be brought on at the fag-end of an evening spent in a somewhat wrangling discussion. So much for the Education Bill. Then there were other Bills—three that were put down for Thursday (last night). One of them, as he had already told hon. Members, he discovered was, as a measure affecting the payment of pensions to Civil servants, in the category of Money Bills that required Committee to be set up, and a Resolution to be passed, before the Bill could be brought in. So that Bill could not be brought in last night. Then there was the Distribution of Police Bill and the Registration Bill. Well, they all knew what happened last night. A debate was raised on the Report of the Vote on Account, and certain cases were brought forward, the Solicitor General for Ireland and himself making answers they thought were required. Then hon. Members went on—he made no complaint of it—bringing on fresh cases, introducing fresh subjects upon which his hon. and learned Friend and himself were, by the Rules of Debate, precluded from making reply. Hon. Members who made it a reproach that he sat silent for an hour and a-half or two hours, should remember that it would have been in contravention of rule if he had attempted to reply. Now, unfortunately, one of the Bills had not been put down for tonight; but that was simply through a clerical error, it would be down for Monday; the other he intended pre-
    186
    sently to bring in. That was the sum and substance of what had happened—the recital of the whole of his misconduct. If he had been guilty of any discourtesy, any want of consideration, he was extremely sorry for it. If there had been any error committed in the way in which he had put off the Education Bill, it was out of consideration for the convenience of Members, and to get an opportunity in proportion to the importance of the subject; with no other motive whatever.
    MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYsaid, the right hon. Gentleman thought it was not paying due regard to the dignity of the cause of the National School teachers to bring forward his Bill at the end of a long Sitting; but he (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) was strongly of opinion that the National School teachers would rather have the justice of their claim satisfied than the dignity of the subject consulted — would rather have the Bill pressed forward even at the close of a long Sitting than have the dignity of the subject associated with delay. He would not refer to the question at length, but the speech of the right hon. Gentleman made a few words necessary. The right hon. Gentleman said when the Bill was brought on last Session the Government knew nothing of it, that he had no idea of its provisions, could not therefore discuss it, and was compelled to move the adjournment of the debate. The House might have been led to suppose that Irish Members had sprung a mine on the Government, and had brought in a Bill the Government had never heard of. But the Bill only embodied the demands Irish Members had made Session after Session. Every Member who cared in the least about the subject must have known perfectly, from discussions year after year, what were the grounds of complaint, and the precise remedies suggested. By Resolution after Resolution Irish Members made the facts known, and one Resolution they very nearly carried; and in the Bill they only embodied the remedies for a grievance that must have been familiar for many a year to every Member who cared a straw about the subject. Under such circumstances, it was strange that the right hon. Gentleman should have thought it necessary to take the unusual course of moving the adjournment. He said it was meant as

    187
    an act of courtesy, and he (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) did not doubt it when the right hon. Gentleman said so; but he could only say that at the time this new-fashioned courtesy looked very like old-fashioned discourtesy. The Bill was put off, and in a little time was down again for second reading on the renewed debate, and by a strange chance was not blocked. The discussion would have proceeded as a matter of course; the right hon. Gentleman, however, told him he was going to introduce a Government measure, and appealed to him not to press the Bill that night. On the assurance that the right hon. Gentleman intended to bring in the Government Bill in the first days of the present Session he accepted the suggestion, and did not make use of the rare chance of proceeding with his own Bill. Since then, from day to day, the Bill of the Government had been dangled before their eyes, but had never come within reach. The right hon. Gentleman asked the House to say whether, at the end of a long and weary Sitting, he could be expected to make a speech on an important Bill. But was it necessary he should make a speech on the introduction? What Irish Members wanted was to see the Bill. Let the right hon. Gentleman introduce the Bill with no speech at all, though, as he said he did not make speeches for newspapers, he might as well speak at one time as another. Let him, however, move the first reading in a formal way, without a speech to newspaper readers or anybody else; let that stage be carried, and there would be some prospect of the Bill going forward. The right hon. Gentleman accused the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) of having complained that he (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) sat silent through last night's debate, interposing with no words of his own. But his hon. Friend made no such complaint; what he did say was, that the Chief Secretary sat through two or three hours of the debate, and, the debate being over, he would not stay another minute to formally move the first reading of his Bill. In that there was fair reason for complaint. After the right hon. Gentleman's disclaimer, he was quite sure he did not mean to be unfair or discourteous. Still, his action did delay a measure of great importance, affecting the condition and
    188
    interests of a large body of overworked and underpaid public servants, who had been promised for years that their grievances should be redressed.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he joined in the view of his hon. Friend the Member for Longford (Mr. Justin M'Carthy). The tone of the Chief Secretary's reply left nothing whatever to be desired, and he felt quite sure the right hon. Gentleman had no idea of being discourteous or unfair; but really, in the hard commerce of political life, results must be regarded rather than good intentions, and it must be confessed the right hon. Gentleman's action was most unfortunate in regard to the measure to which that action was applied. The right hon. Gentleman glanced with something like complaint at the proceedings of last night—that Irish Members continued debate among themselves. Now, he was really astonished that the right hon. Gentleman made that a cause of complaint against them.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, he did not do so.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he did not do so just now, but he did earlier in the Sitting; he laid stress on the fact that Irish Members followed each other on different questions. But was it their fault; was it not their serious complaint that they were continually compelled to follow each other, without the courtesy or decency of a reply from the Treasury Bench? True, the right hon. Gentleman had exhausted his right of speech, and so had the Solicitor General for Ireland. The Secretary to the Treasury had spoken on another subject, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer was present, and one or two Members of the Government, who could have been told by the Chief Secretary what answer should be made to the charges brought forward. But Irish Members proceeded without any reply being made, and it was one of their gravest complaints that they were thus treated in regard to questions they raised. The Irish Administration, as conducted in the House, was composed of water-tight compartments; the Chief Secretary and the Solicitor General seemed to retain in themselves all knowledge of Irish subjects; other Members of the Government debarred themselves, or were debarred, from all information. They knew nothing, and they cared less; and the result was that, though

    189
    10 Members might rise, each calling attention to a different subject, only two of them could get a reply, because the speaking power on the Treasury Bench was limited to the two Gentlemen directly associated with the Irish Administration. That was a most inconvenient and, he might say, a most unconstitutional state of affairs. However they might acquit the Chief Secretary of unfairness, the unfortunate effect was that this measure had been neglected. The right hon. Gentleman stuck obstinately to the idea that the first stage of the Bill required a speech. Nothing of the kind. It was a great deal more important to Irish Members and to the people concerned, and it would be a great deal better for the Chief Secretary, that they should have the text of the Bill before them. That was what they wanted, without a word of explanation. Dull though their intelligencies might be, they would endeavour to gather the meaning of the proposals of the Government. In order to get the Bill printed, nothing more was required from the Chief Secretary than less than five minutes of his time and the raising of his hat. Was it credible—was it credible that when the right hon. Gentleman found himself in the House, though at 5 o'clock in the morning, he should grudge the Irish Members—grudge the National teachers of Ireland — a few more minutes? That was the whole question. It was not a question of a speech at all. But when the time came for the Motion, the right hon. Gentleman had run away. [Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: No.] No; he disappeared; he walked home; he glided home. Irish Members waited last night in full expectation of the Bill; and he might mention a matter that had been the subject of conversation—they might have counted out the House. There were not more than 33 Members in all parts of the House at the time when the final stage of the Vote of Credit was about to be taken. The discussion had gone on through a considerable part of the night, and the Government were extremely anxious to pass it. Under the statutory conditions, it was a matter of supreme importance that the last stage should be taken; yet they might have deranged the whole Business of the Government. The Government were at their mercy, but they did not count the House; and he could assure
    190
    the right hon. Gentleman that the main reason that weighed against their doing so, apart from consideration of the serious inconvenience it would have caused the Government, was that it would have interfered with the expectation of getting the first stage of a Bill for the introduction of which Irish Members and all Ireland were eagerly looking. It was a most disagreeable surprise, a most venomous disappointment, when, having spared the Government, and allowed them to get their Vote, having remained up till half-past 3, to find, when the time came, that the Chief Secretary had gone and the Bill not introduced. Again he acknowledged that the Chief Secretary must be acquitted of any intended discourtesy; but it was to be hoped that now, having caused disappointment so often, he would not delay a single day, and that, above all, he would not make the absence of a speech the reason for delay.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, if, with indulgence, he might be allowed to say a word, it might save further time being spent upon the matter. No one could dislike making a speech more than he did on any occasion; but in regard to this great subject of Education, he imagined, and from his experience he believed, it was the practice on a question of first-class importance always to make a statement upon its introduction. He had no desire to make such a statement for his own satisfaction; and he could say that if on Tuesday the Bill came on so late that it would be unreasonable to detain the House with a speech, he would be glad to introduce the Bill without a speech at all, and to leave the Bill to the acumen of hon. Members opposite when they saw it. With regard to the other Bills, there was really nothing to be said about them.
    MR. JUSTIN HUNTLY M'CARTHYsaid, this little debate would be useful, if only as a proof to the country that they were represented in the House by a not very slumberous Party, who kept a sharp look out on the Irish Administration. But for that, this particular Bill might never be introduced. From all parts of the country, almost from every town, he received letters incessantly and earnestly imploring him to send the particulars of the Bill of the Chief Secretary, and he had been compelled to

    191
    reply that the Bill had not appeared; that, in spite of all efforts to extort the measure from the Government, they still remained in the same condition of obscurity in which they had been since the beginning of the Session. The Bill, he anticipated, would not be a very remarkable measure; but he and his Friends hoped that, before it passed, it would be knocked into something like a serviceable shape, so that it might stand as a temporary stop-gap until they had the opportunity of extorting from the present, or some other Government, a more complete and more useful measure. He hoped the result of the discussion would be to banish from the mind of official Members an unwonted passion for slumber. His Party were not, as a rule, anxious to close debates; but when they were so desirous, as in the case of Coercion Bills, the Government had always displayed a sleeplessness which he hoped they would extend to this Bill.
    MR. O'BRIENsaid, he thought the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) had some reason to congratulate himself upon the very marked change of tone he had produced in the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman as compared with those made that afternoon amidst the cheers of hon. Gentlemen opposite. When the Chief Secretary reminded them of the dèsagrément connected with his Office, he thought the Irish Members might very fairly remind him—
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I did not say anything about dé ément. I said it was rather an advantage.
    MR. O'BRIENsaid, the right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that he was making some patriotic sacrifice in filling his present post. He (Mr. O'Brien) would like to remind him that it was not, at all events, the Irish Members who had invited him to accept the Office he held; and, further, he would like to remind him that there was a not inconsiderable salary attached to it. That was the second night in one week on which the Irish Members had had the unpleasant duty imposed upon them of complaining of a breach of faith on the part of the Government towards themselves in regard to important Irish Business. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) had reminded them of what had passed last night, and he (Mr. O'Brien) confessed that he, for one, could not forget it.
    192
    Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary (Sir William Harcourt) would urge that the Irish Members could not produce the "traces," the ipsissima verba, of the agreement that these three Bills were to be introduced last night in consideration of their allowing the Vote under discussion to pass; but there was an unwritten understanding to that effect, and they fore bore opposing the Vote. The moment, however, the Government had got what they wanted out of the Irish Members, by some accident the whole of their supporters had trooped out of the House in a most demonstrative manner—had made a regular demonstration and triumph of it. The right hon. Gentleman's argument was that although he had remained in the House until past 3 o'clock in the morning to get the Government this Vote, he could not remain the three minutes longer which would have been necessary in order to introduce the three Irish Bills, and to dispose of the only Business on the Paper connected with his Office of Chief Secretary. The only other thing he (Mr. O'Brien) would like to say was that when the right hon. Gentleman rebuked the Irish Members for doing their duty to their constituents at such unpleasant times and under such unpleasant circumstances as they were obliged to in the House, he would answer that if anyone had reason to complain of the unearthly hours to which the House was kept up, it was the Irish Members. That night, last night, and every other night, they had had to wait until English Business was over, and until most English Members were in their beds, to discuss matters which were of infinitely more importance to Ireland than all the preparations being made against the unfortunate people of the Soudan, to slaughter whom so much money asked for had been voted.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he wished to ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury a question as to accounts in connection with this Vote. Certain Votes were taken in Supply, and now they had to be taken in Committee of Ways and Means to enable the Vote in Supply to be met. What he wished to know was how the Consolidated Fund to enable Her Majesty to meet the Services would affect the object in view? Was the money in the Consolidated Fund — had the Government got the

    193
    money? Because a mere Vote in that House would not give it to them. It was necessary to raise the money before they could use it. Could the Financial Secretary say that the Government were in a position, out of the Ways and Means of the present financial year, to meet the amount it was now proposed to vote?
    MR. HIBBERTsaid, that, of course, the money would be forthcoming when required. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that day that it was not intended to impose fresh taxation during the present financial year, but that the money which was being voted would be forthcoming at the proper time.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Is it to be borrowed?
    [No reply.]
    Resolutions agreed to.
    Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir ARTHUR OTWAY, Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, and Mr. HIBBERT.
    Bill presented, and read the first time.

  POST OFFICE SITES BILL.— [BILL 72.]
  (Mr. Shaw Lefevre, Mr. Hibbert.)
  POST OFFICE SITES BILL.— [BILL 72.]

    SECOND READING.
    Bill read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.
    MR. WARTON: I object, on principle, to a Bill being read a second time one day and put down for Committee on the next day the House sits.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: It is proposed to refer the Bill to a Select Committee.
    MR. WARTON: That is not the point.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: This is a Hybrid Bill, and is referred to a Select Committee.
    MR. WARTON: Oh! that alters the case. I have no objection.

MOTIONS.
  POSTAL SERVICE (GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTH AMERICA).

    APPOINTMENT OF SELECT COMMITTEE.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Select Committee be appointed 'to inquire into the conditions of the Postal Service between Great Britain and North America, and to report what alterations should be made with a view to its improvement.'" — [Mr. Shaw Lefevre.)
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he did not intend to oppose the appointment of the Committee; on the contrary, he thought it very desirable that it should be appointed, as there was good work for it to do. He was confident that the Postal Service between England and America was much less efficient and satisfactory than the corresponding post between America and England. In the case of the carriage of the mails from this country the contract was in the hands of one Company, the competition was consequently reduced to a minimum, and the mails were carried slowly. In America it was the custom for the Postmaster General to keep a record of the runs made by the several Companies, and upon that record the contracts were given — preference being given one month to the Company which had made the best run during the preceding month. In that way the quickest passages were secured for the mails coming to this country from the United States. He trusted that the representation of the Irish Members on the Committee would not be purely nominal, for in this matter Ireland was very much interested, for the reason that the mails were carried from Holyhead to Kingstown by an Irish line of steamers, and put on board the Atlantic liners at Queenstown. They could not forget the attempt which had been made some time ago to take the cross-Channel traffic out of the hands of an Irish Company for the purpose of giving it to the London and Northwestern Railway Company. The attempt had so far advanced that a draft agreement had been prepared, and had it not been for the strenuous opposition of the Irish Members of all Parties the contract would have been entered into. When he saw the Motion on the Paper for this Committee he had come to the conclusion that it would be necessary, in consequence of the intrigues which had been carried on lately, for the Irish Members to keep a very careful look out. An attack upon the Irish mails might be followed by an attack on the Irish railways. He would ask the Postmaster General, who had proved himself a successful legislator that night by carrying through an unopposed stage of a Bill, what would be the composition of the Committee?
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: As this is a question in. which the Irish Members

    195
    are very much interested, I shall certainly propose to give them a fair representation on the Committee. I have not considered yet the number I shall propose, nor the composition of the Committee; but I will give the hon. Member full notice of my intentions in the matter.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked whether the Committee would inquire into the question whether the mails should or should not touch at Queenstown? He was informed that recently two or three mail steamers had actually run on to Liverpool without calling at Queens-town. He did not know what their authority was for doing that, or whether they had any right to do it. He must warn the right hon. Gentleman that the Irish Members would require to have a rather fuller representation on this Committee than on ordinary Committees, because they regarded this question as of supreme interest to Ireland. It would be little short of total destruction to Queenstown if the mails should cease to call there. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would carry out, both in the spirit and the letter, the promise they understood him to have given—namely, that the Irish Members should have reasonable representation on the Committee.
    Motion agreed to.

    REGISTRATION (OCCUPATION VOTERS) BILL.
    Select Committee on Registration (Occupation Voters) Bill nominated of,—Mr. STANHOPE, Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER, Mr. LEWIS, Mr. LEWIS FRY, Mr. GORST, Mr. HASTINGS, Mr. GREGORY, Mr. MELLOR, and Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, with power to send for persons, papers, and records.
    Ordered, That Three be the quorum.

    ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY REDISTRIBUTION BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN, Bill to amend the Law relating to the Distribution of the Royal Irish Constabulary Force, ordered to be brought in by Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN and Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL for IRELAND. Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 105.]

    BURIAL BOARDS (CONTESTED ELECTIONS) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. STUART-WORTLEY, Bill to amend the Law with respect to Contested Elec-
    196
    tions of Burial Boards, ordered to be brought in by Mr. STUART-WORTLEY and Mr. ARNOLD MORLEY. BILL presented, and read the first time. [Bill 106.]
    House adjourned at a quarter after Two o'clock till Monday next.