Commons Sitting of 8 May 1885

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT ISSUED—For the County of Antrim, v. James Chaine, esquire, deceased.
WAYS AND MEANS—considered in Committee—Resolution [May 7] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Heading—Tramways Provisional Orders (No. 2)* [166]; Tramways Provisional Orders (No. 3)* [167]; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 3)* [168]; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 4)* [169]; Local Government (Gas) Provisional Orders* [170]; Consolidated Fund (No. 3)*; National Debt* [172].
Second Reading—Tramways Provisional Orders (No. 1)* [143]; Water Companies (Regulation of Powers) [161].
Report of Select Committee—Shannon Navigation [No. 183].
Considered as amended—Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders* [123]; Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) [Third Night] [134]; East India Unclaimed Stocks* [125]; Waterworks Clauses Act (1847) Amendment [152].
Third Reading—Gas 'Provisional Orders (No. 1)* [126]; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Labourers Act) (No. 1)* [128], and passed.

NOTICE OF MOTION.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 3) BILL—THE VOTE OF CREDIT.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: On behalf of my noble Friend the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton) I beg leave to give Notice that on the second reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill he will move—
  "That this House, having shown its readiness to grant such supplies as may ho required for the defence of the Empire, is of opinion that, before proceeding with this Bill, it is entitled to receive adequate information as to the present policy of Her Majesty's Government in respect of the purposes to which the money granted by the recent Vote of Credit is to be applied."

QUESTIONS.

  LAW AND POLICE (IRELAND)—THE RIOT IN THE OPERA HOUSE, LONDONDERRY.
  MR. LEWISasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that a large number of so called "Nationalists" in the gallery of the Opera House, Londonderry, on the night of the 27th April last, during the performance of a pan tomime, when the portraits of Her Majesty the Queen and the Prince of Wales were exhibited, indulged in cheers for the Mahdi, groans for the Queen, and cries of "To—with Queen and Con stitution;" whether these riotous proceedings lasted three-quarters of an hour, during which time drawn knives were thrown at the defenceless actors, mostly women, on the stage, the benches of the gallery broken up and one hurled into the pit, forty feet below, to the imminent danger of many lives; and after wards the same mob proceeded into the street, broke windows, and assaulted persons who were known to be Loyalists or Protestants; whether it is a fact that no police were present or attempted to quell the riot; and, whether any stops have since been taken by the police to prosecute the offenders; and, if not, on what grounds?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am informed that the facts are as stated in the first paragraph of this Question, except with reference to the cries referred to. It is alleged that two open penknives were thrown on the stage, and a board which formed a seat in the gallery was undoubtedly thrown into the pit; but the occupants had left at the time. No disturbance was anticipated, and no police were on duty in the theatre. A policeman, who was on leave, was present, and as soon as the disturbance began he ran for assistance to the Constabulary barracks, and returned with a party in a quarter of an hour; but by this time the affair was over, and the people had dispersed. So far no one has been identified.

  LAW AND POLICE (IRELAND)—THE RIOT AT STEWARTSTOWN—INACTION OF THE POLICE.
  MR. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is the fact that the sergeant, acting sergeant, and five of the eight policemen at Stewartstown are Protestants and Freemasons; that no attempt has been made to bring to justice any of the Orange mob who smashed the windows of Catholics on the 18th instant, although policemen, witnessed their proceedings; and that, in consequence of this impunity, Orange outrages of the same character have become frequent in the town; and, whether any steps will be taken, by altering the composition of the local police force or otherwise, to protect the Catholic inhabitants from attack?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I do not feel called upon to make inquiries as to the religious and other matters referred to in the first part of this Question. It appears that there was some disturbance in Stewartstown on the 18th ultimo, and two panes of glass were broken in the windows of a Roman Catholic; but the police did not see this done, and the injured person has refused to swear an information. The Inspector General had already instructed the County Inspector to give his special attention to the existence of Party feeling in this locality, and had requested him to make such arrangements as were possible to deal with such cases. The composition of the local

  15
  Police Force was one of the matters to which his attention was directed.
  MR. O'BRIEN: As the right hon. Gentleman has such reluctance to give information as to religious denominations, I would ask him whether it is not an understanding that in towns of this kind there should be a fair mixture of Protestants and Catholics in the Police Force, and are not the Catholics the majority of the inhabitants of this town?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I do not admit the accuracy of the figures quoted by the hon. Member.

  THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION—SUB-COMMISSIONERS—MR. WALPOLE.
  MR. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, For what reason, in recasting the Land Sub-Commissions, Mr. Walpole has again been assigned to the Cork Commission, the other members of which have been from time to time changed; whether this is the Mr. Walpole for whose removal the Land Commission was last year memorialized on the ground of his connections with the agent of an extensive property whose rents he was dealing with, and of his neglect to make a personal inspection of farms which he purported to value; and, how many applications by tenants to have fair rents fixed have been withdrawn from the Court within the circuit of the Sub-Commission since Mr. Walpole's appointment?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The Land Commissioners consider it inexpedient on public grounds to give their reasons for the selection of Assistant Commissioners for different districts. The Commissioners received a Memorial last year asking for the removal of Mr. Walpole; but it was found on inquiry that there was no justification for the complaints that were made in the Memorial. Down to the 1st of May this year five applications to have fair rents fixed have been withdrawn in the four counties included in Mr. Walpole's circuit. This is under the average of withdrawals in other districts.
  MR. O'BRIEN: In consequence of the answer of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, I beg to give Notice that I will call attention to this matter on the Vote for the Land Commissioners.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Do the Government intend to make any inquiries as to Mr. Walpole's relations with his own tenants?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: That matter does not arise out of this Question.

  LABOURERS (IRELAND) ACT, SEC. 10—BOARDS OF GUARDIANS.
  MR. O'SULLIVANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What action (if any) was taken by the Local Government Board against the boards of guardians in Ireland under section 10 of the Labourers (Ireland) Act who failed to carry out the Act, or to pass a resolution to the effect that they would not proceed with such scheme?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The power of the Local Government Board in the circumstances referred to is limited to directing a local inquiry if they think it necessary. There have only been two cases in which the Board have received remonstrances against the decision of the Guardians; and after correspondence they have not thought it necessary to take any further action.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—THE INFIRMARY AT LIFFORD, CO. DONEGAL.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, How the County Donegal Infirmary at Lifford is maintained and managed, and to what classes of patients it is open; also, if John M'Sweeney of Gweedore, who obtained from the medical officer of the Gweedore district, on the 26th of March, an order for admission to the Lifford Infirmary, and who is unable to travel, has yet been conveyed to the Infirmary; and, whether the conveyance will be provided?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The Donegal Infirmary appears to be maintained and managed under the Acts 5 & 6 Geo. III. c. 20, 45 Geo. III. c. 3, and 46 Geo. III. c. 95, and to be open to all classes of poor persons. I am informed that John M'Sweeney was admitted to it on the 5th instant; but I have no information as to how he got there.

  IRELAND-MEMORIAL OF THE CIVIL BILL OFFICERS.
  MR. P. J. POWERasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ire-

  17
  land, Whether any answer has yet been given to the Memorial presented to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland by the Civil Bill Officers; and, what decision has been come to?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: This subject was under the consideration of the late Lord Chancellor; but no definite decision had been arrived at when his death supervened.

IRELAND—THE COLLECTOR GENERAL OF RATES, DUBLIN—COLLECTION OF THE IMPROVEMENT RATE.
MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, "Whether he is aware that the Paving and Lighting Committee and the Cleansing Committee of the Dublin Corporation have been brought to a dead-lock for want of funds, owing to the failure of the Collector General to make an adequate collection of the Improvement Rate within the present year; whether the amount collected in respect of the said rate, from the opening of this year to the 24th ultimo, has been less, by £1,500, than the amount collected in the corresponding period of last year, though the rate for the present year is higher by twopence in the pound; whether, in view of the fact that instalments of principal and interest in repayment of loans, amounting to £6,697, were duo and payable to the Board of Works on the 1st instant, the Secretary of the Paving and Lighting Committee wrote, on the 17th ultimo, to the Collector General, pointing out that the Committee were deeply in debt to their several contractors, and that, unless there was a great improvement at once in the collection of the rates, the various Committees would be unable to meet their engagements; whether the Collector General replied that the time of the collectors had been much occupied this year with the Poor Law elections, and the investigation of claims served; and, what steps the Government will take, by increasing the staff of the Collector General, or otherwise, to enable the Corporation of Dublin, by adequate collection of its rates, to satisfy its engagements, and what measures will be adopted to secure the duo discharge of duties connected with the registration of voters?
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The Collector General informs me that, allowing for the difference of the rate,
18
his collection in Dublin this year, on the 24th of April, was behind that of last year by some £2,500, being about one week's collection at this time, the principal reason being as stated in the Question; but he is not aware that the severe results referred to have followed from this state of facts. The sum mentioned as due by the Paving and Lighting Committee was £5,618, not £6,697; and between the 17th of April and the 1st instant £6,400 has been placed to the credit of the Improvement Fund. The Collectors have been authorized to employ assistance in the service of the notices under the Representation of the People Act; and the Collector General has every reason to hope that both the registration work and the collection of rates will be satisfactorily performed.

LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—EXPENSES OF CROWN PROSECUTIONS—REPAYMENT BY THE TREASURY.
MR. PATRICK MARTINasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, With reference to the Resolution of the House that the expenses of Crown prosecutions in Ireland, paid by counties in the first instance out of their funds, should be recouped to them by the Treasury; and, since there has been no Orders or Resolutions of the House varying the terms of such Resolution, if he would state when the Government will carry it into effect?
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Perhaps the hon. Member will be good enough to give me the date of the Resolution to which he refers. Judging by the change which he has made in the form of his Question, he appears to have found the Resolution since he gave the Notice; but I have not been able to trace it.

EDUCATION (IRELAND)—WATERFORD INDUSTRIAL SCHOOL.
MR. RICHARD POWERasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he has received any communication respecting the Water-ford Industrial School; whether the number of children in this school is in excess of the number for which a Government grant is allowed; whether the school is capable of accommodating a larger number; whether the Government inspector has spoken in the most

19
favourable terms of its management; and, whether, under the circumstances, he will consider the propriety of increasing the grant to the school?
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I have received a resolution of the Corporation of Waterford in favour of increasing the certificate of the industrial school, which, I believe, has now nine inmates in excess of the number for which the Government grant is allowed. As the Estimates for the present year were closed before I received the resolution, I could merely mark the case for submission when next year's Estimates are being prepared. I must not, however, be taken as holding out any hope of an enlarged certificate in this case.

METROPOLITAN IMPROVEMENTS—BILLINGSGATE MARKET.
MR. BIRKBECKasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he will consider the great importance of granting increased facilities for the more rapid delivery of fish from railway and other vans at Billingsgate Market, and giving effect to the suggestion contained in Mr. Spencer Walpole's Report on the inadequate accommodation at Billingsgate Market by the utilisation of the unoccupied quay in front of the Custom House?
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT,in reply, said, that he was sensible of the evils to which the hon. Member referred; but he thought it was hardly correct to say that Mr. Walpole had suggested the particular remedy. Mr. Walpole said that he had only mentioned the suggestion because it was made seriously, but that he did not suppose there was the least chance of its being adopted. That, he found, was also the view taken by the Custom House authorities.

HOUSING OE THE WORKING CLASSES—CITY OF CORK—THE ROYAL COMMISSION.
MR. DEASYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Royal Commission on the Housing of the Working Classes intend to take evidence in the city of Cork?
SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The Royal Commission has not held sittings in the Provincial cities of either England or Scotland. The evidence from Liverpool, for example, was taken in London,
20
and that from Glasgow in Edinburgh. Following this practice in Ireland, the Commission will hear the evidence from Cork in Dublin.

SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND BILL.
SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he can make his promised statement regarding the Secretary for Scotland Bill?
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Sir, this Bill is prepared, and will be introduced at once in the House of Lords by Lord Rosebery.

NAVY—TORPEDO, &c. RISKS.
MR. BIRKBECKasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether, taking into consideration the risk ironclads, troopships, and cruisers may be exposed in case of War from torpedoes and ramming, sufficient provision has been made for saving the whole of the lives of the crews and those embarked, over and beyond the boats usually carried?
SIR THOMAS BRASSEY: The Admiralty are fully impressed with the great risks which must be encountered by ships of war, and all reasonable provision is made for the accommodation of the crews in boats.

POST OFFICE—TELEGRAPHIC COMMUNICATION WITH THE HEBRIDES.
LORD COLIN CAMPBELLasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether the attention of the Government has been drawn to the want of telegraphic communication between the mainland and some of the outer Hebrides, and to the possible danger arising from such want in the event of war?
SIR THOMAS BRASSEY: The extension of telegraphic communication on the coasts of Great Britain and Ireland might, in certain circumstances, be desirable; but the Admiralty do not consider that the large expenditure necessary for this purpose should be incurred at present.

PUBLIC HEALTH—INOCULATION FOR CHOLERA.
DR. CAMERONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether his attention has been called to the remarkable discovery reported to have been made by Dr. Jaime Ferran,

21
of Valencia, in connection with inoculation for cholera; and, whether, following the precedent adopted in the case of the Reports of the recent French and German Cholera Commissions, he will instruct the British Minister at Madrid to forward for submission to Parliament translations of any Papers of Dr. Ferran's and Reports of the Madrid Academy of Medicine on the subject?
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I have seen the Reports to which my hon. Friend refers, and Her Majesty's Minister at Madrid will be instructed to send home translations of them.

WAYS AND MEANS—THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT—DUTIES ON CORPORATE PROPERTY.
SIR HENRY TYLERasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the Duty of five per cent, on the "Property of Corporations, &c." proposed in Clause 5 of the Resolutions of Ways and Means, is intended to apply to Life Insurance Companies, or to Scientific Societies, such as the Royal Society, Royal Institution, or the Zoological Society?
MR. HIBBERT,in the absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, said: The property of Life Insurance Companies will not be liable to the proposed duty; that of Scientific Societies will also be exempt as a general rule, subject to the liability to making good the claim to exemption.
MR. R. H. PAGETasked whether the hon. Member would lay on the Table a Return of the Societies to be exempted?
MR. HIBBERTsuggested that the hon. Member should have waited until he had seen the Bill, which would be in the hands of hon. Members on Monday at latest, and which would give ample explanation.

ARMY (AUXILIARY FORCES)—THE BOXLEY RIFLE RANGE.
MR. ALEXANDER ROSSasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether his attention has been called to the continued closing of the Boxley (near Maidstone) Rifle Range, the inconvenience resulting there from to the troops quartered in that town, and to the expense and loss of time occasioned to the Volunteers by having to practise at the Milton-next-Gravesend Range?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: The Boxley Rifle Range was closed last year, as it was considered dangerous. Arrangements have been concluded for the acquisition of a safe range, and it will be opened as soon as possible.

THE SUEZ CANAL COMMISSION.
SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is true, as stated, that the Suez Canal Commission has commenced the discussion of the French proposal for intrusting an international body, similar to the Danube Commission, with the control and supervision of the free navigation of the Canal; and, if so, whether such a proposition falls within the basis laid down in Lord Granville's Despatch?
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: A similar Question to this was put to me yesterday, and I can only repeat that I am not at liberty to give information at present as to the proceedings of the Commission.
SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: Will the noble Lord say whether the gentleman who is attending on behalf of this country at the Conference has instructions to confine the discussion to the basis laid down in Lord Granville's despatch; and also when it is likely that the sittings of the Commission will terminate?
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I do not think it will be desirable that I should at this stage enter into the proceedings and the instructions to the Commissioners who represent Her Majesty's Government at the Conference, nor can I name with any degree of precision the date at which the proceedings will be concluded.
SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: Are we to understand that the basis laid down in Lord Granville's despatch do not form the actual grounds which the Government now take?
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I withdraw no statements which were made by the Prime Minister in the course of the debate on this subject.
SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: There is one Question. Can they go beyond these bases or can they not? The Question requires an answer—"Yes" or "No." Are they to be confined to the bases laid down in Lord Granville's de-

23
spatch, or are they at liberty to go beyond them?
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: The right hon. Gentleman is attempting, by what may be called a method of Parliamentary cross-examination, to elicit from me the very answer which, with all respect to the right hon. Gentleman and to the House, I have already stated it is not in my power to give.
SIR E. ASSHETON CROSS: I will ask the Question on Monday of the Prime Minister.
MR. PULESTON: I wish to ask whether Questions arising in the discussion before the Commission are referred to the Foreign Office before they are acted upon by the Commissioner?
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: There are the usual methods of communication which always exist between Commissioners and Plenipotentiaries and the Foreign Office.

AGRICULTURE—THE COMMISSION ON ENSILAGE.
LORD MORETONasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, If he can inform the House by whom the gentlemen were appointed who form the so-called Commission on Ensilage, which holds its Sessions at the Office of the Agricultural Department of the Privy Council?
MR. TREVELYAN: The Commission, or, as it would be more properly styled, the Committee, on Ensilage is a private body and self-appointed. The Commission applied for the use of a room in the Agricultural Department, which the Lord President gave them.

ARMY—CONTRACTS FOR MILITARY CLOTHING.
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is the case that in March last year tenders were invited, according to custom, for the worn-out Military clothing, and that Messrs. Mallett were accepted as contractors; and, whether the contract has been given this year to Mr. S. Moses, of Great Alie Street, without any invitations to tender being issued; and, if so, what is the reason for the omission?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: For some time past Messrs. Mallett and Mr. Moses have been the only contractors whose tenders were at all satisfactory.
24
Each was asked to tender for the contract for 1885–6, and the higher offer was accepted.

PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (REDISTRIBUTION) BILL—DISQUALIFICATION OF VOTERS—MEDICAL RELIEF.
MR. ALDERMAN COTTONasked Mr. Attorney General, re Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) Bill, Whether a voter who is upon the register, and receives medical relief, is to be disqualified for one year, for the remainder of the Session of the then Parliament, or for life?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): The hon. Gentleman appears to be under some misapprehension in this matter. The Redistribution Bill does not touch this question of medical relief at all, nor does any Bill of the Government do so either. The last Statute with respect to it was passed in 1878; and under it, if any person receives medical relief within 12 months before the 15th of July, he is incapable of being included in the Register that will come in force in the next year. Therefore the disqualification is for one year.
MR. ALDERMAN COTTON: But if he be upon the Register and receives medical relief, will it affect his right to vote?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): The hon. Gentleman has got hold of a moot point, which has given the Judges some trouble. It comes within what is known as the Petersfield case. The Ballot Act says that the Register shall be conclusive; but the question is whether it is a disqualification or a prohibition to vote, and there is great doubt upon the subject. My own opinion is that it is a disqualification merely, and that the voter would be entitled to vote; but I do not give that opinion with any confidence.

EGYPT (WAR IN THE SOUDAN)—FIGHTING NEAR SUAKIN.
MR. JOHN MORLEYasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is in accordance with the policy announced in presenting the Estimate for the Vote of Credit that the engagement of 5th May took place at the village of Dakhdul, in which an encampment of

25
Arabs with their women and children and their flocks was attacked by General Graham, and 150 men killed, though it is alleged by eye witnesses that "they never made any serious attempt at a stand?"
MR. LABOUCHEREasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether his attention has been called to the following statements of a "correspondent" in The Times of 7th May, dated 6th May:—
"Daylight broke almost imperceptibly. We were nearer the village of Dhakool, when the friendly scouts came running in with the news that the inhabitants were at prayer, and that if we attacked at once we should catch them. General Graham pushed on with a troop of the Bengal Lancers. … The enemy fled on camels in all directions, and the Mounted Infantry and the Camel Corps, coming up, gave chase. Some two hundred attempted to stand, and showed a disposition to come at us, but evidently lost heart and disappeared, not before having at least twenty men killed. … It was curious to witness the desperate efforts of the enemy to drive their flocks up the steep mountain side, turning now and again to fire on the Bengal Lancers. The 'friendlies' tried to cut off the flocks, and succeeded in capturing some hundreds of animals. … The village was looted and burnt. … We also destroyed the well with gun cotton. …But for our being unaware of the existence of some narrow hillock walks, up which the enemy retired, we might have exterminated them. Our loss has hitherto been only two Mounted Infantry men wounded. … We have done the enemy all the harm we could; thus fulfilling the primary object of war;"
and, whether Her Majesty's Government approve of this mode of carrying on warfare; and, if not, whether immediate orders will be sent to the commanders of the English forces in the vicinity of Suakin, ordering their immediate cessation?
MR. W. J. CORBETwished, before the noble Lord answered the Questions, to ask whether it was true that Her Majesty had telegraphed to General Graham congratulating him on this massacre?
THE MARQUESS OP HARTINGTON: I am afraid I can add but little on this subject to what I stated yesterday. Since Questions were then put I have carefully examined the official despatch, and also all the accounts of the operations which were given by correspondents; and it appears to me that the object of the operations is perfectly clear, and that it is not inconsistent with the declaration made by my right
26
hon. Friend in laying the Vote of Credit on the Table. I have referred to that statement, and I find that it was as I stated yesterday from recollection—namely, that the Suakin Railway would be continued to a point which would be decided on, in consultation with the Military Authorities, as being the best for the troops. Therefore no pledge was given; on the contrary, it was distinctly intimated that the progress of the railway was not to be immediately stopped. It appears from the official despatch that the force at this place was the only organized force of the enemy which seemed to be in existence; and it appears from special correspondents' reports that it is believed that it is this tribe which has been engaged in making constant attacks upon the railway, and upon the troops employed in guarding it. Under these circumstances, it seems to me to have been a perfectly legitimate operation on the part of General Graham to make an expedition against this place, and to disperse this force, and thus, so far as it was in his power, to obviate the necessity of further fighting. I have no knowledge of the telegram spoken of by the hon. Member for Wicklow.
MR. HEALY: May I ask if it is not the fact that the newspaper correspondents are prevented by the Press censorship from forwarding certain details?
MR. MACARTNEY: Is it the case, as stated in the papers this morning, that an attack was made on General Graham's troops when returning with the cattle, which were recaptured by the Arabs and again retaken by the British?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I have seen these statements; but they do not appear to me in any degree to affect the answer I have just given. It is perfectly well known that telegrams sent by correspondents are under Press censorship. I have no reason to think that that censorship has been exercised for any other purpose than that of preventing intelligence from being sent, the communication of which would be injurious to the Public Service.
MR. LABOUCHERE: I should like to know whether Her Majesty's Government consider it to be within the operations of legitimate warfare to loot and burn villages and destroy wells?
MR. O'KELLYasked if the noble Lord could state whether the camp at-

27
tacked was an ordinary camp of Arabs and their families; and whether he was in a position to say how many women and children were killed during the attack?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I: have no reason to think that any women and children were killed at all. According to the Report of General Graham the number of the enemy killed was 50. As regards the Question of the hon. Member for Northampton, of course it is a great subject of regret that proceedings of this kind should have to be taken; but I apprehend that they are inseparable from warfare. The object of the operations appears to have been to break up a concentration of tribes threatening the security of the line and of the troops guarding it. The object of any measures taken appears to have been to prevent a renewed concentration which it would have been necessary to deal with, thereby involving loss of life, not only to many of our troops, but also to the enemy.

LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—THE TUBBERCURRY PRISONERS.
MR. SEXTONasked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, with reference to the repeated promises of the Government that they would proceed to discharge the costs of the defence in the Tubbercurry cases, and especially with regard to the last assurance in the House that this obligation would be immediately discharged, Whether it is true that the costs have not yet been paid; and, if the Government will fix a day beyond which they will guarantee that this legal debt shall not remain unsettled?
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)was understood to say that payment was issued to the solicitor of the prisoners on the 21st of March; and if he had not received it, it was his own fault.
MR. SEXTON: By whom was it issued?
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER): By order of the Treasury.

THE UNITED STATES—MR. KEELY, THE AMERICAN MINISTER AT VIENNA.
MR. SEXTONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs,
28
Whether any representation hostile to the nomination of Mr. Keely, by the President and Senate of the United States, to act as American Minister at Vienna, has been made on the part of the British Government, by any of its Members or agents?
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: No, Sir; no such representation has been made.

POOR LAW—ELECTION OF GUARDIANS—MARYLEBONE UNION.
MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked the Secretary to the Local Government Board, Why so many voters, especially Irish voters, entitled, to vote at the Poor Law elections have not been furnished with voting papers at the recent elections for Marylebone Union; whether, in some cases, voting papers were given to English and refused to Irish voters living in the same house and having exactly the same qualification; and, if this state of things exists, what official is responsible?
MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: We have received no complaint as to the conduct of the recent election of Guardians in Marylebone. The Returning Officer, with whom we have communicated about the question, states that no person entitled to vote was refused a voting paper; that he has no knowledge of the nationality of the voters; and that no distinction whatever was made in the issue of the voting papers. He has not heard of any complaint on the subject.
MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I will give the hon. Member the names of several voters of Irish nationality who did not receive their voting papers.

IRELAND—INFLAMMATORY LANGUAGE—MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON, INSPECTOR OF FISHERIES.
MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What decision had been come to by the Irish Government in the case of Mr. William Johnston, Inspector of Fisheries, with regard to his pledge of last year, and his recent public speeches?
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I promised the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) that I would answer a Question by him on this subject on Monday next. I do not know whether he is willing to be forestalled;

29
but I should prefer to wait till the day that has been named.

ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—CASE OF CONSTABLE DEOLIN.
MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What compensation has been awarded, as promised, to the eleven young men falsely arrested in Kerry for the shooting of the bailiff who was killed by the discharge of the rifle of Constable Deolin, and when and where will the latter be tried?
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: If the hon. and learned Member will put his Question as to compensation on Tuesday next, I hope to be then in a position to give him a definite answer. As regards his other point, Ex-Constable Deolin will be tried at the Summer Assizes at Tralee.

RUSSIA—CONSCRIPTION IN THE CAUCASUS.
SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government have received any information relative to the substitution by the Russian Government in the Caucasus of a system of conscription for the former system of voluntary enlistment for the Army; and, whether any report has been received on the subject from Her Majesty's Ambassador at St. Petersburg, or any of Her Majesty's Diplomatic or Consular agents in Russia or Turkey?
LORD EDMOND FITZMATJEICE: A Report on the subject was received last year; but Her Majesty's Government have not been informed that any decision on the subject has as yet been arrived at. It is not usual, however, to lay Papers relating to military matters.

WAYS AND MEANS—THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT—THE MALT TAX AND BREWERS' LICENCE DUTY.
SIR ARTHUR BASSasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the incidence of the Malt Tax and Brewers' Licence was, as settled by Act, 22 s. 8½d. on a quarter of barley, but in effect, owing to the outcast, not more than 22 s.; whether the payments to the Revenue, under the present Beer Duty, are fully 2s. per quarter of barley in excess of those under the Malt Tax and Brewers'
30
Licence Duty; whether, under the proposed increased Duty, this excess of 2s. will not be raised to over 6s., or about 27 per cent, more than the old Duties; and, whether this great increase is to be retained in permanence, or is only intended to be imposed as a temporary expedient?
MR. HIBBERT: The Duty on malt and the cost of the brewers' licence amounted nominally to 22 s. 8½d. on a quarter of barley; but the incidence of the Malt Tax, such as the cost of Excise restrictions on the maker of malt and the interest on the duty, raised the burden upon the maltster and the brewer to 24 s. 6½d. There are no means of determining the advantage to the maltster by the outcast above the quantity of malt on which duty was charged; but it varied with the barley season, and with the quality of the barley used. Taking the entire charge for the United Kingdom, the outcast on the malt used by the brewer was inconsiderable. As I have already explained, the payments under the present Beer Duty are not 2s. per quarter in excess of those under the Malt Tax and brewers' licence, nor will those at the new rate be 6s. in excess. Calculations, based on the Returns made by the brewers themselves, show that the Beer Duty at 6s. 3d. did not exceed the calculated burden of the old taxes. I am sure that my hon. Friend will not expect me to give a serious reply to the last paragraph of his Question. We all must hope that this, and similar increases of indirect taxation, will not be permanent.

EGYPT (EVENTS IN THE SOUDAN)—THE ALLEGED MASSACRE AT KHARTOUM.
MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether his attention has been called to the account, by one of General Gordon's soldiers, in The Daily News yesterday, of the general massacre of the loyal inhabitants of Khartoum, and especially to the folio wing passages:—
"And now fearful scenes took place in every house and building. … Men were slain, shrieking for mercy; women and children were carried off, to he sold as slaves to the Bisharin merchants. This fighting and spilling of blood continued till the sun rode high in the sky. … I hear it said there was no massacre at the taking of Khartoum. They lie who say so, and are in league with Mahomet Achmet;"

31
and, whether he still has any grounds for adhering to his statement that there was no considerable effusion of blood at the fall of Khartoum, and that no very considerable body of the population ever attached themselves to General Gordon?
MR. GLADSTONE: I have read the paper to which the hon. Gentleman refers—and no doubt it is an interesting one—on the subject. The matter is one which might be noticed in debate; but I have not the least intention of entering upon it in answer to a Question.
MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, that, in view of the answer of the right hon. Gentleman, he would repeat a Question which he put the other day. The Prime Minister had three times stated that there was no considerable effusion of blood at the fall of Khartoum, and that no considerable body of the population attached themselves to General Gordon. Would the Prime Minister lay before the House the evidence or the ground on which he had formed that opinion?
MR. GLADSTONE: I have to repeat the answer I have already given.

PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—THE WHITSUNTIDE HOLIDAYS.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman a Question with regard to which there is some interest felt—namely, Whether he is prepared to give us any information as to the Whitsuntide holidays?
MR. GLADSTONE: I have already consulted with my noble Friend (Lord Richard Grosvenor); and we have arrived at the conclusion that, if agreeable to the House, the best way would be to continue the Evening Sittings of the House as usual until the Thursday before Whit Sunday, and take a Morning Sitting on Friday, the 22nd, when the adjournment would be moved to the Thursday week following. [Cries of "Oh!" and "Fortnight!"] I may now state also that it has not been possible to print and get out the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill, and that it will not be in the hands of Members until the beginning of next week—we hope Monday. We cannot, therefore, expect the House to take it on Thursday, and consequently we will postpone it from Thursday; and I hope my right hon. Friend will be in his place on Mon-
32
day to make the proper arrangements for bringing it on. With respect to Thursday, we propose to introduce a Resolution necessary as the foundation for the Bill for making the usual provision in conformity with precedent for Her Royal Highness the Princess Beatrice on the happy occasion of her marriage. After that subject is disposed of—and probably it will not take a long time—my learned Friend the Lord Advocate will ask leave to introduce a Crofters Bill for Scotland, which is a question of great importance.

THE PAPAL SEE—DIPLOMATIC COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE VATICAN—MR. EERINGTON.
LORD EANDOLPH CHURCHILLasked, Whether it was true that Mr. Errington had left Rome; whether he had been recalled by the Government; or whether he had been merely directed to repair to the Metropolis?
MR. GLADSTONE: I must express my obligations to the noble Lord for having given me information of which I was not previously aware. I had no idea that Mr. Errington had left Rome; but if he has, I have no doubt that the considerations which induced him to do so have been amply sufficient.
MR. JOSEPH COWENasked the right hon. Gentleman to say definitely, "Yes" or "No," whether Mr. Errington had been sent to Rome for the purpose of making any representations in favour of or against any particular Bishop for the See of Dublin?
MR. GLADSTONE: I was under the impression that this Question had been definitely answered. ["Never!" and "When?"] I believe I have stated everything I know about the subject. Certainly, before I could be in a position to give any further answer, I must make inquiry; and therefore I must ask that the Question should be put on the Paper, to give me an opportunity of communicating with my noble Friend.
MR. JOSEPH COWEN: I will ask the Question on Monday.
MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask if the only answer given by the noble Lord the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs was not that no representations were made in favour of any Prelate? He did not say that there were not any representations made against any Prelate.

PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (REDISTRIBUTION) BILL.— [BILL 134.]
(Mr. Gladstone, The Marquess of Hartington, Sir Charles W. Dilke, Mr. Attorney General, The Lord Advocate, Mr. Campbell-Bannerman.)
PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (REDISTRIBUTION) BILL.— [BILL 134.]

  CONSIDERATION. [THIRD NIGHT.]
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to the Bill [29th April], on Consideration, as amended.
  And which Amendment was,
  In page 31, column 2, line 43, after the words "Lime Street Ward," to insert the words "excepting that portion bounded by a line drawn from Moss Street through London Road and William Brown Street down to the junction between Byrom Street and Old Haymarket."—(Mr. T. P. O'Connor.)
  Question again proposed, "That those words he there inserted."
  Debate resumed.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, the Amendment would serve to equalize the population and to give representation to a considerable minority. It was said that an Irish Catholic would be put forward for this division as it at present stood; but a man might be Irish and Catholic without representing the political views of the Irish people in that division. He had heard that the man to be put forward by the Liberal Party was an undertaker. They would prefer a man belonging to some other position in life. He contended that unless this ward was limited as suggested in the Amendment the labouring class voters would be swamped by the votes of wholesale.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid, he hoped the Government would not regard the discussion as closed. Very great interest was taken in the matter, not only by the Irish Members but by the Irish people in England, whom the Irish Members in a certain sense represented. He thought the House would admit that they were justified in making this change for the better representation of the Irish in England, when the alteration did not in any sense violate those principles which had been laid down for the guidance of the Commissioners. Whatever proposals in this direction might be accepted, the result would be
  34
  that the Irish population in England and Scotland would obtain but a scant representation in that House.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDobserved that under the Bill the 2,000,000 of Irishmen in England would only be able to return one Member to that House, while the few Protestants in Ireland would be able to return 25 Members. He should support the Amendment, because it would do something towards giving some of the Irish residents in England representation.
  MR SEXTONsaid, the Members for Liverpool were the only opponents of the Amendment, and surely their opposition did not constitute a dissent which ought to govern the intelligence and will of the right hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill. The question was whether the Amendment did or did not improve the Commissioners' scheme. He maintained that it improved the scheme, for it brought together populations of similar pursuits. In Ireland the Government had taken 1,000,000 of people, and in all debates and discussions held them apart as people of a certain creed or of certain opinions, sometimes as Protestants and more times as Loyalists, and to this 1,000,000 of people 25 to 30 Members had been given. To the 2,000,000 of Irish in England, who were far more distinct from the rest of the population than that 1,000,000 in Ireland, only about one Member would be given for one of the divisions of London. He could well understand that neither the Liberals nor the Tories were willing to enable the Irish population in England to return Members to that House, because they could never calculate upon which way such Members would vote.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 32; Noes 224: Majority 192.—(Div. List, No. 160.)
  Other Amendments made.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 37, after line 9, to insert the words,—
  Southwark.
  Three Members. One Member for each Division.
  Names and Contents of Divisions, No. 1.—The West Division.
  "The St. Saviour's District, and
  "No. 1 St. Michael's and No. 2 St. Paul's Wards of the parish of St. George the Martyr, Southwark.

  35
  No. 2.—The East Division.
  "The St. Olave's District.
  "The parish of Rotherhithe,
  and
  "No. 4 Ward of the parish of Bermondsey.
  No. 3.—The Bermondsey Division.
  "No. 1, No. 2, and No. 3 Wards of Bermondsey parish.
  "No. 3 St. George's Ward of the parish of St. George the Martyr, Southwark,"—(Sir Charles W. Dilke.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. THOROLD ROGERS,who had an alternative scheme, objected to the proposed division on the ground of the inequality of population between the several divisions. Bermondsey would have upwards of 84,000, whereas the two other divisions would only have between 67,000 and 69,000. This was a departure from the principle on which the Bill was based. He would not, however, press his Amendment.
  Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment,
  In line 1, column 2, by leaving out the word "East," and inserting the word "Rotherhithe,"—(Mr. Edward Clarke,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the word 'East' stand part of the said proposed Amendment," put, and negatived.
  The word "Rotherhithe" inserted.
  Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
  MR. BRYCEproposed, in page 37, at the end, to insert an Amendment which he said was received with general favour in the Tower Hamlets. He thought that in the case of boroughs it was better to have local names taken from places already known rather than from points of the compass, and the names he now proposed were well-known in East London, while some of them also possessed literary or historical interest.
  Amendment proposed,
  In Schedule 6, page 37, at end, insert,—Tower Hamlets.
  Seven Members. One Member for each Division. Names and Contents of Divisions.
  No. 1.—The Whitechapel Division.
  "The Whitechapel District.
  No. 2.—The St. George Division.
  "The parish of St. George-in-the-East and the parish of Wapping.
  36
  No. 3.—The Limehouse Division.
  "The Limehouse District, except the parish of Wapping.
  No. 4.—The Mile End Division.
  "North Ward and East Ward of the Hamlet of Mile End Old Town.
  No. 5.—The Stepney Division.
  "Centre Ward, West Ward, and South Ward of the Hamlet of Mile End Old Town.
  No. 6.—The Bow and Bromley Division.
  "The parish of St. Mary Stratford-le-Bow, and
  "The parish of Bromley St. Leonard, except so much as is comprised in Division No. 7, as herein described.
  No. 7.—The Poplar Division.
  "The parish of Poplar, and so much of the parish of Bromley St. Leonard as lies to the east and south of a line drawn from the boundary of the parish of All Saints, Poplar, along the centre of the present North London Railway to a point opposite the centre of Bright Street; thence eastward, along the centres of Bright Street and Dewberry Street, to Brunswick Road; thence northward, along the centre of Brunswick Road, to the centre of Lochnager Street; and thence, along the centre of Lochnager Street and the continuation of the centre line of that street, to the parish boundary in Bow Creek."—(Mr. Bryce.)
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  On the Motion of Sir CHARLES "W. DILKE, the following Amendment was agreed to:—
  In Schedule 6, page 38, after line 17, insert,—Westminster.
  Three Members. One Member for each Division.
  Names and Contents of Divisions.
  No. 1.—The Hanover Square Division.
  "The parish of St. George, Hanover Square.
  No. 2.—The Abbey Division.
  "The parishes of St. Margaret and St. John the Evangelist, Westminster, and
  "The Close of the Collegiate Church of St. Peter.
  No. 3.—The Strand Division.
  "The Strand District, except the Liberty of the Rolls.
  "The parish of St. Martin in the Fields,
  and
  "The parish of St. James, Westminster."
  MR. SEXTONsaid, that following the course adopted in some English and Scotch cities, he proposed to call the divisions of Dublin City after the his-

  37
  toric sites or buildings in those divisions. The Commissioners suggested that they should be called South-West, North-West, &c, but those names conveyed no definite idea, and it should also be remembered that the divisions of Dublin County were named after the points of the compass. He now proposed that "North-West Dublin" should be called "College Green Division," "North-East Dublin," "Dublin Harbour Division," "South-East Dublin," Donny-brook Division," and "South-West Dublin," "St. Patrick's Division.
  Amendment proposed, in page 42, line 4, leave out "North West Dublin," and insert "College Green;" in page 42, line 12, leave out "North East Dublin," and insert "Dublin Harbour;" in page 42, line 26, leave out "South East Dublin," and insert "Donnybrook;" in page 42, line 37, leave out "South West Dublin," and insert "St. Patrick's."—(Mr. Sexton.)
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule," put, and negatived.
  Amendments agreed to.
  Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

  SEVENTH SCHEDULE.
  On the Motion of Mr. BAIKES, Amendments made, in page 45, line 22, by leaving out "or Llandeilo;" in page 45, line 29, by leaving out "or St. Clears."
  On the Motion of Mr. RATHBONE, Amendments made, in page 46, line 4, after "Southern," by inserting "or Eifion;" in page 46, line 11, after "Northern," by inserting" or "Arfon."
  MR. RAIKESsaid, that the next batch of Amendments which stood in his name referred to the county of Chester. The names of the different points of the compass had been applied in other counties, and he proposed that they should be adopted in the case of the divisions of the county of Chester. He moved that the 1st division, which was now named Wirrall, should be called the North-Western, or Wirrall Division.
  Amendment proposed, in page 46, line 18, by inserting, after the word "The," the words "North Western or." —(Mr. Raihes.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, there was some difficulty in naming the divisions of Chester according to the points of the compass, and he thought it would be better that the single names should be retained.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. RAIKESsaid, he did not propose to press the next two Amendments, but he desired that the Northwich Division should be named Mid. He thought that Northwich would very likely be confounded with Norwich, and to prevent confusion he hoped that his Amendment would be agreed to.
  Amendment proposed, in page 47, line 10, by leaving out the word "Northwich," and inserting the word "Mid,"—(Mr. Raikes,)—instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the word 'Northwich' stand part of the Schedule."
  SIR E. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he had been requested by his hon. Friend the Member for West Cheshire (Mr. Tollemache), who was not able to be present to-day, to say that, as far as he was concerned, he very strongly objected to the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman. He himself thought that there was no fear of any confusion of the names mentioned by his right hon. Friend.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Amendment proposed, in page 49, line 11, after the word "Eskdale," by leaving out the word "Ward," and inserting the words "or Brampton,"—(Mr. Waugh,)—instead thereof.
  Question, "That the word 'Ward' stand part of the Schedule," put, and agreed to.
  Amendment proposed, in page 49, line 11, by leaving out the words "Allerdale Ward below Derwent," and inserting the word "Wigton,"—(Mr. Waugh,)—instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed, in page 49, line 13, by inserting, after the word "described," the words "The parish or

  39
  township of Oughterside and Allerby, in the Sessional Division of Derwent."—(Mr. Waugh.)
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.
  Amendment proposed, in page 49, line 15, by leaving out the word "Mid," and inserting the word "Eastern,"—(Mr. Raikes,)—instead thereof.
  Question, "That the word "Mid" stand part of the Schedule," put, and agreed to.
  Amendment proposed, in page 49, line 19, by leaving out the word "Blencogo."—(Mr. Waugh.)
  Question, "That the word "Blencogo" stand part part of the Schedule," put, and agreed to.
  Other Amendments made.
  Amendment proposed, in page 50, line 10, by leaving out the words "High Peak," and inserting the word "Northern,"—(Sir Eardley Wilmot,)—instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words 'High Peak' stand part of the Schedule."
  LORD EDWARD CAVENDISHsaid, the feeling in the division was strongly in favour of the name High Peak.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Other Amendments made.
  Amendment proposed, in page 50) line 18, by leaving out the word "Chesterfield," and inserting the word "Eastern,"—(Admiral Egerton,)—instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the word 'Chesterfield' stand part of the Schedule."
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed, in page 50, line 18, by inserting, after the word "The," the words "Eastern or."—(Mr. Raikes.)
  Question, "That the words 'Eastern or' be there inserted," put, and negatived.
  Other Amendments made.
  Amendment proposed, in page 51, line 19, by inserting, after the word "The," the word "Crediton."—(Mr. Johnson.)
  Question, "That the word 'Crediton be there inserted" put, and agreed to.
  Word inserted accordingly.
  Other Amendments made.
  Amendment proposed, in page 56, line 39, by inserting, after the word "The," the words "Western or."—(Mr. Raikes.)
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.
  Other Amendments made.
  COLONEL KENNARDmoved, in page 57, line 38, to leave out the words "New Forest," and insert "South Western or Lymington." He observed that only a part of the forest came into the division, and the most important populous places were not within the forest at all. Lymington, which was the most important place, was quite three miles from the forest.
  Amendment proposed, in page 57, line 38, by leaving out the words "New Forest," and inserting the words "South Western or Lymington,"—(Colonel Kennard,)—instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words 'New Forest' stand part of the Schedule."
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHexpressed a hope that the right hon. Gentleman would keep the name of New Forest for this division, but he would suggest that Lymington might be adopted as the alternative name.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that the feeling of the Committee had been strongly in favour of the name of New Forest without any alternative. As to the adoption of Lymington as an alternative name, he could see no reason in favour of the double name for the division.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Amendment proposed, in page 57, line 38, by inserting, after the word "Forest," the words "or Lymington."—(Colonel Kennard.)
  Question put, "That the words 'or Lymington' be there inserted."
  The House divided:—Ayes 64; Noes 92: Majority 28.—(Div. List, No. 161.)
  Other Amendments made.
  MR. SLAGGmoved to amend the Bill by again changing South-East Lancashire Division of Farnworth-cum-Radcliffe to Radcliffe-cum-Farnwotth. In the Bill as originally introduced the name stood as Radcliffe alone, but it was amended after some discussion, and the name of Radcliffe, the most ancient and important place in the district, was placed at the end of the designation. That was not a satisfactory alteration in the opinion of the people of the district, and he would therefore appeal to the hon. Gentleman who was responsible for the change from the original Bill to allow the name to be rechanged.
  Amendment proposed, in page 63, line 9, by leaving out the words "Farnworth-cum-Radcliffe," and inserting the words "Radcliffe-cum-Farnworth,"—(Mr. Slagg,)—instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words 'Farnworth-cum-Radcliffe' stand part of the Schedule.
  MR. A. F. EGERTONsaid, that the Farnworth people desired their name to come first. He should oppose the Amendment unless a general feeling was shown by the House in its favour.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 58; Noes 65: Majority 7.—(Div. List, No. 162.)
  Question, "That the words 'Radcliffe-cum-Farnworth' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, they now came to Leicestershire, as to which there was some difficulty locally in coming to an agreement. The matter had been referred to the Boundary Commissioners, and he had placed on the Paper a number of Amendments to carry out their recommendations. These proposed alterations had met with the approval of the noble Lord opposite (Lord John Manners).
  On the Motion of Sir CHARLES W. DILKE, the following Amendments made:—Page 61, line 15, after "No. 18," insert "and Division No. 21;" line 24, at end of line, insert "and so much of the parish of Eccleston as is comprised in the Sessional Division of Prescot;" line 41, after "East Norton," insert "except so much as is comprised in Division No. 4, as herein de-
  42
  scribed;" line 43, after "Beeby," insert "Belgrave, Birstall;" line 46, after "Syston," leave out "and;" line 46, after "Thurnby," insert "and Wanlip;" lines 47 and 48, leave out "Barrow on Soar, Burton on Wolds;" line 48, leave out "Cotes, Hoton, Prestwold;" line 49, leave out "Walton on Wolds, and Wimeswould;" line 48, after "Sea-grave," insert "and;" page 65, line 8, leave out "Birstall;" line 9, after "Ratby," insert "and;" leave out lines 10 and 11; line 10, leave out "so much of;" line 10, leave out from "Bel-grave," to the end of line 11; after line 21, insert as a new line—
  "And the parishes in the Sessional Division of East Norton—of Blaston, Bringhurst, Cranoe, Drayton, Glooston, Great Easton, Hallaton, Horninghold, Nevill Holt, Stockerston, and Stoke Dry with Holy Oaks;"
  and in page 66, lines 30 and 31, leave out "Holland Fen," and insert—
  "Copping Syke, Drainage Marsh, Ferry Corner Plot, Gibbet Hills, Great Beats, Little Beats, Great Brand End Plot, Little Brand End Plot, Hart's Grounds, Mown Rakes, North Fortyfoot Bank, Pelham's Lands, Royalty Farm, Seven Acres, South of the Witham."
  On the Motion of Mr. FINCH-HATTON, the following Amendment made:—Page 66, line 38, after "Holland," insert "or Spalding."
  Amendment proposed, in page 73, line 35, by leaving out the words "and the parish in the Sessional Division of Wells—Binegar."—(Mr. Richard Paget.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he could not accept the Amendment, because by taking the parish of Binegar out of the division two largo parishes, having a population of 5,000, would be thereby isolated from their proper division.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 62; Noes 28; Majority 34.—(Div. List, No. 163.)
  Amendment proposed, in page 73, line 38, by inserting, after the word "The," the words "North Western or."—(Mr. Richard Paget.)
  Question, "That the words 'North Western or' be there inserted," put, and negatived.
  Other Amendments made.
  Amendment proposed, in page 77, line 5, by leaving out the words "and the corporate town of Aldeburgh."—(Mr. Thornhill.)
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule," put, and agreed to.
  Other Amendments made.
  Amendment proposed, in page 84, line 8, by inserting, at the end, the words "Hazlewood with Storiths and Beamsley."—(Sir Matthew Wilson.)
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.
  MR. SERJEANT SIMON,in moving, in page 84, line 29, to leave out "Morley," and insert "Batley," so that the name of the new division should be the "Batley Division," instead of the "Morley Division," said, that when the Bill was in Committee his Amendment came on so suddenly that he was afraid the question had not been properly understood. He should, therefore, have to occupy the House a short time while he stated the case in support of his Motion. The Boundary Commissioners in 1867 subjected Batley to a process of vivisection. They cut it in two. One part of the municipal borough they throw into the Parliamentary borough of Dewsbury; the other part, and the greater portion of the parish of Batley, they threw into the county. Morley was situate in the parish of Batley, and he ventured to say that the good people of Morley were never so astonished as when they arose one fine morning and found their town famous as the head of the new division. Morley had a population of 15,000. Batley, according to the Census of 1881, had between 27,000 and 28,000. According to the Registrar General's Returns, its population was now over 30,000. It was an important manufacturing and commercial town, having a trade with all parts of the world. Batley was a corporate town; Morley was not. Batley had its own separate magistracy; Morley had not. Batley was a postal centre; Morley was not. Batley was also a centre of railway communication; Morley was not. Batley was in a central part of the district; Morley was in a remote part of it. It would, on that account, be out of the
  44
  question to think of working the election there. Batley had a grammar school, to which the people of Morley sent their children to be educated. Morley, as he had said, was in the parish of Batley, and in a remote part of it. In former times, it was under the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the Vicar of Batley, and a part of it was so still. He (Mr. Serjeant Simon) had no wish to say a word in disparagement of Morley, or of disrespect to its inhabitants. But in considering the relative claims of the two towns, it was impossible not to see that Morley was altogether inferior to Batley, and in some respects subordinate to it. He ventured to affirm that the claim of Batley to give the name to the division was overwhelming in comparison with that of Morley. But it was said that Batley was in the Parliamentary borough of Dewsbury, and that, therefore, it ought not to give the name to the division. He thought there was no validity in that argument. Was it right, he asked, that because the Commissioners in 1867 thought proper to divide the municipal borough in two, an important corporate and commercial town like Batley, with a population twice that of Morley, should be "snuffed out" as it were, and ignored in favour of a town in all respects inferior to it? If this were done, Batley would be the only corporate town in the Kingdom that would have been so treated. But that was not all. The Instructions to the Commissioners were that they should take into consideration area as well as population. The parish of Batley formed a considerable portion of the area of the new division, and the question arose, should a town situate at an extreme point of the area give the name, or the area itself? Again, he thought that, in a matter of that kind, the wishes of the people whom it concerned should be considered. The population of the new division would be over 60,000. Take away the 15,000 in Morley, and he was in condition to say that of the remaining 45,000, or thereabouts, the great majority were in favour of Batley. He had presented Petitions from, he believed, every place in the district, and from most of the Local Boards and other public bodies, praying that Batley should be the name of the new division. He had presented no less than 10 that day. One Local Board, however, had

  45
  petitioned in favour of both places. [Laughter,] Yes, the Local Board of Ossett had petitioned in favour both of Batley and Morley. So far as he was concerned, therefore, Ossett was "out of the running," and he could leave the noble Viscount (Viscount Lewisham) in full possession of Ossett and all the good his cause could derive from that quarter. Without Ossett he (Mr. Serjeant Simon) could still say that the great majority of the people of the new division preferred Batley to Morley as the name of the new division, and he thought that the House would have regard to their wishes. One word more and he should conclude. He had spoken of Morley as an inferior town to Batley; but he was bound to admit that Morley had a newspaper, The Morley Observer, and, of course, that newspaper upheld the cause of Morley. A copy of it had been sent to him from Morley. It contained an article setting forth the claims of Morley, and upbraiding Batley, giving it a sound rating for its presumption and wickedness in seeking to deprive Morley of its glory. It appealed to Scripture for an illustration of Batley's enormity. It compared it to the bad King who stole his neighbour's vineyard, and his (Mr. Serjeant Simon's) humble self to the "vicious and unscrupulous" woman who was the infamous agent in the transaction. The passage was not long, and with the permission of the House he would read it. It proceeded thus—
  "In sacred history there is a record of a mean and covetous king, who set his heart upon a vineyard which belonged to a good and loyal subject, and his wicked designs wore aided and abetted by a vicious and unscrupulous woman. Batley's action is somewhat similar in spirit and object. There may not be a Jezebel in the tragedy, but there is an interested Jew, who does not scruple to take a leading part in the shady business of 'robbing Peter to pay Paul,'"
  He left it to the judgment of the House to determine upon the merits of a case supported by that species of advocacy.
  Amendment proposed, in page 84, line 29, by leaving out the word "Morley," and inserting the word "Batley,"—(Mr. Serjeant Simon,)—instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the word 'Morley' stand part of the Schedule."
  VISCOUNT LEWISHAMsaid, he was sorry to find himself compelled to detain
  46
  the House again upon this point, after the discussion which had already taken place in Committee, and the action then taken by the House. The hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Serjeant Simon) said the people of Morley were very much astonished 'when they woke up one morning, and found that their name had been given to the division; but he (Viscount Lewisham) could assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that that supposition was entirely unfounded; because, as he was coming up to London by train, he was informed by a deputation, on the day that the Commissioners met, that the people of Morley had no doubt that they would carry their point. He did not propose to go fully into the details of the ease of Morley; but its claim was somewhat similar to that which had been advanced on behalf of Batley, namely—on account of population, commercial importance, and historical associations. The hon. and learned Gentleman told the House that the population of Batley was 30,000. That was perfectly true; but the hon. and learned Gentleman ought to have gone a little further and told the House that only 1,900 would be connected with the new division of the county, the other 28,000 being included in the borough of Dewsbury. The hon. Member said Morley was not a post town. He (Viscount Lewisham) always directed his letters to "Morley," and they reached their destination. He regretted very much himself that the editor of the Morley newspaper should have written the paragraph read by the hon. and learned Member, and he certainly found it impossible to approve of it. With regard to geographical position, the House was told that Morley was an out-of-the way town in a corner of the district of which Batley was the centre, and therefore Morley ought not to give its name to the division. But the same argument might also be used against Batley, for it was six of one and half-a-dozen of the other, the boundaries of the two being conterminous. As to the assertion that all the other towns in the district were in favour of Batley, the evidence was exactly to the contrary, and he had numerous representations from the inhabitants, but he would not trouble the House by reading them. Dewsbury was itself a Parliamentary borough, represented by the hon. and learned Member, and had decided to

  47
  remain neutral; and he (Viscount Lewisham) had in his possession resolutions, unanimously passed by Local Boards, Liberal Associations, and in one case by a meeting summoned, at the instigation of Batley. He had also received letters from the Liberal and Conservative Associations of all the towns of the division in favour of the name of Morley.
  MR. SERJEANT SIMONsaid, he had presented Petitions from every part of the locality which went the other way.
  VISCOUNT LEWISHAMsaid, that he thought it was a somewhat vague statement. He asked the House to consult with the wishes of the inhabitants of the district, and to adhere to the decision of the Commissioners, who, after having all the evidence before them, came to the conclusion that Morley was entitled to give its name to the division. That verdict had already been ratified by the Committee, and he trusted that it would not be disturbed by the House.
  SIR ANDREW FAIRBAIRN,in opposing the Amendment, said, that he had received a number of letters showing that the neighbouring district was very anxious that the name of Morley should be retained.
  MR. E. A. LEATHAM: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to speak again upon this question; but I feel very strongly that since the debate in Committee was taken upon one day and the decision upon another, the Committee may very easily have arrived at its decision under an imperfect apprehension of the facts. It will be generally admitted that a question like this might very fairly be referred to persons who are not only in a position of impartiality, but in possession of the local knowledge which would lead them to a sound judgment; and, in this connection, I would remind the House that when this question was last under discussion, no single Yorkshire Member spoke against the Motion of my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Serjeant Simon). The opposition came from an hon. and learned Member who opposes many things in this House—the Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton). Every Yorkshire Member who spoke, spoke strongly in favour of the Motion. My hon. Friend who has just spoken (Sir Andrew Fairbairn) has spoken in another tone tonight, and I leave the House to judge
  48
  how much ardour he has thrown into his cause. Passing to those who are the next in impartiality among well-informed persons—I mean the population which belongs to this division—what do we find? As my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Serjeant Simon) has conclusively shown, the great preponderance of opinion is in favour of his Motion. The noble Viscount opposite (Viscount Lewisham) has spoken of Petitions. What value is to be set upon Petitions, compared with those deliberate declarations of responsible public bodies to which my hon. and learned Friend has referred? But, passing from impartial people, I should very much like to know why Batley itself is not to be heard upon this question? The noble Viscount has argued as though Batley, being in the borough of Dewsbury, were outside the division; and therefore that the question resolved itself simply into a conflict between the 15,000 persons resident at Morley and the 2,000 persons belonging to Batley who reside outside the Parliamentary borough. I can hardly conceive a more preposterous contention than that is. Not only is Batley not outside the division, but, after Dews-bury—which is out of the running—it is the undisputed centre and capital of the division; and not only so, but it swarms with freeholders whose votes will be given not in the borough of Dewsbury, but, as I hope, in the division of Batley. Now, the only possible reason why such a place should not give its name to the division is that it has already given its name to a constituency. That is why the division is not to be called after Dewsbury. But the noble Viscount carries that argument so far as to say that, because a place is embraced in a Parliamentary borough to which it does not give its name, therefore it is to be struck out of the electoral map altogether, and a remote village, situated in one corner of the division, and in one corner, too, of the parish of Batley, is to usurp the title of capital of the division, and that at the moment when we are endeavouring to give more accurate expression to the relative importance of localities. Sir, I do hope that the House will avail itself of this opportunity of escaping a ridiculous misnomer, and of restoring its political identity to one of the most populous and prosperous places in the Kingdom.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, this point had been fully discussed he-fore, and he hoped it would not be discussed at length again.
  MR. JACKSONsaid, he could not help expressing his surprise that a man who represented a Yorkshire constituency should have declared before the public that in Yorkshire they could obtain signatures to a Petition at a penny per dozen. He (Mr. Jackson) repudiated the insinuation in the strongest possible manner. Anyone 'who looked at the map would see that Batley and Dews-bury were practically one. There could be no difficulty whatever in working the election at Morley.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he thought it would be well for those doubtful Members who had no special knowledge of these localities to support the recommendations of the Boundary Commissioners.
  MR. W. H. LEATHAMsaid, he thought it a very unusual course to name the division of a county after a portion of an existing borough—namely, Batley, which was represented in the borough of Dewsbury, forming nearly half that borough. That was his objection to the hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury's Motion, and his desire was that the name of Morley should be retained.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 38; Noes 55: Majority 17.—(Div. List, No. 164.)
  The word "Batley" inserted.
  MR. STUART-WORTLEYmoved to substitute Penistone instead of Holm-firth as the name of the Southern Division of the West Biding of Yorkshire. Penistone, he explained, was the name selected by the Boundary Commissioners. The town was the only railway centre in the district, and 69 passenger trains stopped there every day. Holmfirth, on the other hand, was a kind of cul de sac, to which very few trains went. Penistone was a market town, and the hotel accommodation was much superior to that of Holmfirth. The only claim that Holmfirth had to give its name to the district was that its population was greater; but that was not sufficient ground on which to give it priority, inasmuch as there were other places in the district which were still more populous. Penistone was in the centre of the
  50
  district, while Holmfirth was at its extremity.
  Amendment proposed, in page 85, line 10, by leaving out the word "Holmfirth," and inserting the word "Penistone,"—(Mr. Stuart-Worthy,)—instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the word 'Holmfirth' stand part of the Schedule."
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that the Committee had decided in favour of the name of Holmfirth, and as that place seemed to have the best of the argument when the rival claims of the two towns were discussed in Committee, he should adhere to the arrangement then come to.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEobserved, that the decisions of the House in regard to nomenclature seemed to be of a pendulum character. He thought the safest decision to follow was that of the Boundary Commissioners. He should therefore vote for the name of Penistone. He had received a great many communications from Members of both political Parties with reference to the name to be given to the division, and he gathered from them that the great bulk of the population were in favour of Penistone.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 57; Noes 44: Majority 13.—(Div. List, No. 165.) Other Amendments made.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he wished to take that opportunity of apologizing to the right hon. Gentleman opposite for having named Government Tellers in the late Division. When he did so the matter had entirely escaped his notice, and he was extremely sorry that it should have occurred.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he was sure it was quite an oversight.
  COLONEL GUNTERrose to move to substitute, in page 96, line 39, "Birstall," instead of "Spen Valley," as the name of one of the divisions of the West Riding. He said that Spen Valley was a name comparatively unknown; Birstall, on the other hand, speaking not of the village but of the ancient civil parish, contained 51,000 people, out of the 54,000 in the new district. The old civil parish of Birstall was a very ancient one, and was traced back to the 12th century. He appealed to the right hon. Gentle-

  51
  man to uphold the decision of the Commissioners. Birstall was fixed upon, at a large meeting, by the Boundary Commissioners at Leeds, where both parties were heard. It would be agreeable to the majority of the inhabitants that the division should have that name, and the name of Spen Valley had been carried in Committee only by a majority of four. Birstall was a well-known area, while the Spen Valley was an unknown and fancy name. The Spen was a little brook which they would be better without, because it took the whole drainage of the district.
  Amendment proposed, in page 86, line 39, by leaving out the words "Spen Valley," and inserting the word "Birstall,"—(Colonel Gunter,)—instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words 'Spen Valley' stand part of the Schedule."
  MR. ILLINGWORTHsaid, that though it was true that on the first division, there was only a majority of four in favour of Spen Valley, the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Gunter) ought to have added that a second division was taken and then the majority was between 20 and 30. In point of population Birstall stood only fifth in the division, and in point of ratable value its relative importance was oven less. It was in order to avoid jealousy between the different towns, that he proposed that the well-known name of Spen Valley should be recognized as the name of the division. The hon. and gallant Gentleman had said that the Spen was a small stream, and he (Mr. Illingworth) agreed it was so; but it was so important, that there was machinery on the stream of 20,000 horse power. There was a time when Birstall had an important position; but in the new division it was in the extreme east, whereas the Spen ran through the centre of the district. If the stream was small, it was the best the district afforded. He contended that four-fifths of the community in the district would be content with the name of Spen Valley.
  MR. JACKSONsaid, that Spen Valley was not nearly so well known and recognized as Birstall. The latter name was adopted by the Commissioners, and no good reason had been brought forward to alter it. He had in his possession a
  52
  Petition signed by a very considerable number of the most important ratepayers not only in Birstall, but from towns covering pretty well the whole of the district. He had also a Petition signed by a number of large employers of labour, in favour of the name of Birstall. He hoped the House would agree to the Amendment.
  MR. STUART-WORTLEYsaid, that when this matter was last discussed he supported the name of Spen Valley; but he had since found that the stream which runs through the district could scarcely be said to exist. As to its condition, the less said about it the better. He supported the Amendment. He had been at some pains to discover the motive of the activity of the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Illingworth), and he had found it was his ancient deep-rooted dislike to everything of an ecclesiastical nature, which in this case, no doubt, he had detected lurking in the parish name of Birstall.
  MR. ILLINGWORTH: Nothing could be further from the truth.
  MR. GORSTsaid, he should have thought that the Government, having sent Commissioners into the country to ascertain what the feeling of the people was upon these matters, would have supported the opinion of those gentlemen.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, it would be hard in every case to vote for the name adopted by the Commissioners. He might point out to the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) that, on more than one occasion when he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had supported the recommendations of the Commissioners with regard to the names, he had found himself in a minority. The name of Spen Valley was adopted by the Committee by a small majority; but on a second division the majority was larger, because the Government thought that it would be better to adhere to the opinion which the Committee had expressed upon the question. As a matter of fact, when the subject was being argued on the last occasion, three Commissioners were present, and they informed him that they thought the name of Spen Valley was an improvement upon that of Birstall. The ground for their opinion was that great local jealousies between Cleckheaton and other towns would arise, if they gave the name of Birstall to the division.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 60; Noes 55: Majority 5.—(Div. List, No. 166.)
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he rose to move the first of a series of Amendments whose object was to give an alternative name to divisions of counties distinguished in the Bill by the points of the compass. This Amendment was to the effect that the North Antrim Division should be known also as the Dunluce Division. The attention of Irish Members had been so much engrossed by their anxiety to counteract the "jerry-mandering" schemes of the Boundary Commissioners, that necessarily less attention was paid to the names of places which should be preserved from historical or ecclesiastical considerations. The name Dunluce carried with it many interesting associations of Irish history, and with it was connected the memory of the great sept of the Mac-donnells, the ruins of whose castle frowning over the Atlantic were still so impressive.
  Amendment proposed, in page 90, line 5, by inserting, after the words "North Antrim," the words "or the Dunluce Division."—(Mr. O'Donnell.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that in regard to the Irish divisions almost every name had been altered in Committee without any conflict; and although Dunluce was a very excellent name, he thought it would be a mistake now to re-open the settlement previously arrived at with practical unanimity.
  COLONEL KING-HARMANhoped that the right hon. Baronet would be guided in that matter, to some extent, by the opinion of the Irish Members. ["Hear!" and a laughr.] He was quite as well acquainted with Irish history as many hon. Members below the Gangway. He had looked through the list of names which were proposed by the hon. Member for Dungarvan, and he certainly saw no objection to them lie reserved to himself, however, the liberty of opposition to one or two, which he thought had a too recent political signification. The Amendment now proposed was an improvement upon the Bill as it stood.
  MR. EWARTsupported the name of Dunluce as being one that was desired by the people of the county.
  MR. SULLIVANthought it would be a great mistake to adopt double names which were very cumbrous and complicated. It would be better to leave the names to stand as they had been already agreed upon in Committee.
  MR. LEAMYsaid, he saw no great harm in retaining the possession of the old Irish names, and would support the Amendment.
  MR. HEALYsaid, one would think that the names of the Irish counties were not known in history. They were just as old and historical as the names proposed.
  The House divided:—Ayes 31; Noes 87: Majority 56.—(Div. List, No. 167.)
  Amendment proposed, in page 90, line 19, by inserting, after the word "Antrim," the words "or Carrickfergus Division."—(Mr. Greer.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'or Carrickfergus Division,' be there inserted."
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEremarked, that it was a great pity that that question had not been raised in Committee.
  MR. GREERsaid, that he happened to be in Ireland, when the matter was dealt with in Committee, during the time of the Prince and Princess of Wales's visit to that country.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKErepeated that all the Irish names were changed in some degree without any expression of dissent; and the discussion extended over three days.
  COLONEL KING-HARMANobserved that when the names were gone through, many Irish Members were absent from the House in order to welcome the Prince and Princess. Moreover there was this to be urged in favour of giving the name of Carrickfergus to that division—namely, that that was the name of one of the disfranchised boroughs, and the right hon. Baronet had himself allowed that that was a consideration to be borne in mind in these cases.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Not in regard to an alternative name.
  MR. HEALYthought the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel King-Harman) had begun his efforts too late.

  55
  He should have proposed that the Isle of Thanet should be called the Rockingham Division.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, he did not see the advantage of aliases in a Bill of this kind.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, that out of 85 county divisions of Ireland, only five were not called after the county.
  MR. BIGGARdid not think Carriek-fergus was entitled to be excepted from the general rule.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 27; Noes 96: Majority 69.—(Div. List, No. 168.)
  SIR RICHARD WALLACEmoved to substitute the name of Lisburn as the designation of the South Antrim Division. He said, that Lisburn was an ancient borough and the most important town in the county. It was the cradle of the cambric and damask linen trades in the North of Ireland. It had for centuries returned Members to Parliament, and in his opinion, and in that of the inhabitants of the division, it was entitled to give its name to the Southern Division of the county of Antrim, and not be consigned to political oblivion.
  Amendment proposed, in page 91, line 1, by leaving out the words "South Antrim," and inserting "Lisburn,"—(Sir Richard Wallace,)—instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words 'South Antrim,' stand part of the Schedule."
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he should oppose the Amendment on the ground that, geographically speaking, Lisburn, being in the extreme south of the division, had no special claim to give its name to it. Moreover, the town of Antrim was of more importance than Lisburn. Four lines of railway centred at Antrim.
  COLONEL KING-HARMANsupported the Amendment.
  MR. BIGGARdid not think that Lisburn was entitled to give its name to the division. Lisburn had always been a nomination borough, and the electors had always been either very slavish or very corrupt. Ballymena, in the same division, was a much more important place.
  MR. PLUNKEThoped that the right hon. Baronet would accept the Amend-
  56
  ment. The town of Antrim was not nearly so large as Lisburn, and on every ground he thought that Lisburn had a fair claim to give its name to the division.
  MR. HEALYsaid, the Tories chose to absent themselves on the occasion when this matter was decided by the Committee. Nothing was gained without fighting for it. The Irish Party had recognized that fact and acted on it. The Tory Party never had, and, he would say, never would.
  MR. SMALLthought that Lisburn had no claim whatever to have its name perpetuated in Parliamentary records.
  MR. EWARTsaid, that the reason the Irish Tory Members were absent was that they were in Ireland welcoming the Prince of Wales.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREthought that the House had practically decided this question in refusing to give the name of Carrickfergus to the Eastern Division of Antrim, for Carrickfergus had a much better right to give its name to the Eastern than Lisburn had to have the Southern Division of Antrim called after it.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 101; Noes 32: Majority 69.—(Div. List, No. 169.)
  Amendment proposed, in page 91, line 1, by inserting, after the words "South Antrim," the words "or Clandeboy Division."—(Mr. O'Donnell.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEthought that if the House were disposed to make any change in these names they would rather accept the name proposed by the hon. Baronet opposite. He thought, however, it would be better to adhere to the names as at present arranged.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. O'DONNELLproposed that the North Armagh Division should have the alternative name of "Oneilland." The district consisted entirely of the Oneilland baronies, and the designation he proposed would therefore suit the district admirably.
  Amendment proposed, in page 91, line 14, by inserting, after the words

  57
  "North Armagh," the words "or Oneilland Division."—(Mr. O'Donnell.)
  MR. HEALYsaid, that this was the one case which was considered by the Irish Party as a suitable alternative name. They, however, felt the extreme undesirability of adding alternative names. They discussed the matter for nearly two hours, and finally came to the conclusion that the existing names would be the best and simplest. The old county names were just as historic as any of the names proposed, and were quite as suitable.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 8; Noes 120: Majority 112.—(Div. List, No. 170.)
  MR. O'DONNELLmoved an Amendment, the object of which was to give the alternative name of "Thomond" to the West Clare Division. He thought the proposal ought to receive the unanimous approval of the House. Clare was in the ancient Kingdom of Thomond, and there was no more ancient name in the whole range of Irish history. It was quite true that owing to the way in which the county of Clare had been cut up this name could not be applied to East Clare as well; but if that division had been awarded the alternative name of Inchiquin, the county would have been worthily divided, and two names which ought to be dear to Irish Nationalists would have been preserved.
  Amendment proposed, in page 93, line 8, after "West Clare," insert "or Thomond."—(Mr. O'Donnell.)
  Question proposed, "That 'or Thomond Division' be there inserted."
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE,in opposing the Amendment, expressed his regret that the hon. Member felt it necessary to press these proposals. He reminded the hon. Member that the names which appeared in the Bill had been adopted in the Committee stage of the measure, in compliances with the wish of the Irish Members themselves.
  MR. SEXTONwished to explain why it was that he could not support a proposal to amend any of these names. The matter was one which had been freely discussed in the Irish Press several months ago; at public meetings, and by representatives of the Nationalists and
  58
  every other political Party who appeared before the Boundary Commissioners, and the result was an agreement to adopt a coherent and consistent plan for all the Irish counties. The county names adopted in Committee had now been before the people for several weeks, and the Members of the Irish Party, who were in close communication with the responsible representatives of public opinion in Ireland, had not received a single communication in favour of an alteration of the names. However admirable, or ancient, or historical, from a sentimental point of view, the name of Thomond might be, he did not think it would be respectful to public opinion in Ireland to make any alteration now.
  MR. KENNYsaid, there was an additional reason why, personally, he could not agree to the Amendment. As applied to West Clare, the name of Thomond would not be historically correct; but if it was to be adopted at all, it ought to have been attached to the Eastern rather than to the Western portion of the county. He had himself appeared before the Boundary Commissioners when these names were discussed, and he had had the advantage of co-operating with the nephew of Lord Inchiquin, who quite agreed with him that the names selected for the two county divisions should be East Clare and West Clare. The hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) had suggested that the Eastern Division of the county might receive the alternative name of "Inchiquin;" but, as a matter of fact, the barony of Inchiquin was cut in two by the Bill, and a portion placed in each division, so that it would be quite impossible to attach the name to one side more than the other. No doubt, the name of "Thomond" was a name much admired by historical students in Ireland; but it was a name which was not generally known even in the locality with which in olden times it was connected. Under these circumstances, he did not think it was necessary to revive the name of Thomond for the purpose of finding a new name for a county division which was to send a Member to an English Parliament.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, his next Amendment had reference to the county

  59
  of Cork, which was divided by the Bill into seven divisions, the names of which were taken from the points of the compass. To him this mode of dividing the county appeared to be very unintelligible, and he might remind the House that even hon. Members who supported names selected from the points of the compass were quite unable to make themselves sure under which point any particular division should be placed. If hon. Members would look at the Paper of Amendments they would find that, later on, the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy), whose great labours in connection with the Bill he had no disposition to disparage, had given Notice of Amendments for the purpose of shifting about the South and the East, and so on. In fact, it was perfectly impossible, according to the points of the compass, to settle the divisions. There were at least two North Corks, and to call either of them North-East or North-West was perfectly gratuitous. Mid Cork was, he presumed, called "Mid" from the peculiar reason that it was not Mid Cork at all, but that it was all on one side next the county of Kerry. A division in accordance with the points of the compass in the case of Cork was altogether absurd. In regard to North Cork, it was the most Nationalist portion of the county, and he believed that there was no desire on the part of the people there to have the division known by the name of "North Cork." It could not be forgotten that in '98 the North Cork Militia played by no means a national part, and there was no reason to revere the name. He proposed, therefore, to strike out the name "North Cork," and to substitute that of two baronies included in the division, each of which was an ancient and distinguished name—namely, "Duhallow and Orrery."
  Amendment proposed, in page 93, line 19, leave out "North Cork," and insert "Duhallow and Orrery."—(Mr. O'Donnell.)
  Question proposed, "That 'North Cork' stand part of the Schedule."
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEopposed the Amendment. The names of the points of the compass had been adopted after full consideration; and there certainly could be no difficulty in regard to this one, whatever might be said in re-
  60
  gard to the rest. So far as the Amendments of the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan were concerned, the only question raised by them was whether No. 4 division should not be called "East Cork" and No. 7 "South-East Cork," the names as they now stood in the Bill being simply reversed. He was of opinion that the compass names were preferable to those suggested by the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell).
  MR. O'BRIENsaid, he thought there was no reason for disturbing the arrangement which had been arrived at. Indeed, it would be inconvenient to adopt the names of baronies in the county of Cork—first, because there was so many of them; and next, because they were only known to the officials of the county, and were unfamiliar to the people. Ninety-nine persons out of 100 would be unable to say where Duhallow or Orrery was, and the only historical association connected with either was that one of them, for a good many years, had possessed a famous pack of hounds. If any district in the county of Cork had a right to have its name retained it was the town of Mallow, which he had the honour to represent, seeing that the Prime Minister had promised that the names of existing constituencies should not be altogether effaced. The people of Mallow, how-over, were perfectly satisfied to accept the compass names with the alterations about to be proposed by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy), feeling that the best course was to derive the generic name from the name of the county. He believed there was not a Nationalist in the county who would not prefer to be known as a Cork man rather than to be designated by the name of a barony.
  MR. HEALYsaid, that, to a certain extent, he had been responsible for changing the names of the Irish counties. He thought one great advantage was in having them selected upon a consistent principle, instead of pock-marking the map of Ireland with a series of names that were comparately unknown. If these Amendments were adopted they would so disturb the geographical ideas of the people that most of them would have to go to school again. As a rule, there had been no difficulty in giving compass names to the Irish counties;

  61
  but he confessed that in regard to the county of Cork there was a little difficulty. It was, however, very easily overcome, and in the Amendments which he proposed to move later on he simply reversed the names of two of the divisions, still leaving them compass names, without attaching to them the names of seven local towns and baronies. He believed that everybody was satisfied except the hon. Member for Dungarvan, who had nothing to do with the county at all.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Amendment proposed, in page 93, line 23, to include in the North Cork Division "the townland of Ballylofen in the parish of Kilquane."—(Sir Charles W. Dilke.)
  Question, "That those words be there added," put, and agreed to.
  MR. O'DONNELLmoved to amend the name of the 2nd Division by striking out "North-East Cork," and inserting "Fermoy Division." The hon. Member said he did not propose to press the Amendment to a division; but he wished to put on record the fact that he had again sought to "pock-mark" the map of the county of Cork with an ancient Irish historical association.
  Amendment proposed, in page 93, line 24, to leave out "North-East Cork," and insert "Fermoy Division."—(Mr. O'Donnell.)
  Question proposed, "That 'North-East Cork' stand part of the Schedule."
  MR. O'BRIENremarked, that, as a matter of fact, Fermoy was the least ancient and the least historical of the baronies included in this division. There were others that would be much preferable, from their historical associations, to Fermoy. In comparison with Mallow, Fermoy was a place of yesterday. At a time when Fermoy did not even exist as a village, Mallow was the stronghold of the great power of the Esmonds in the South of Ireland, so that the hon. Member was not even historically accurate.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, that Fermoy existed in the first or second century of the Christian era, and The Book of Fermoy was one of the most ancient manuscripts in Irish literature. As to its history, Fermoy was antiquity itself,
  62
  compared with Barrymore, Condons, Clangibbon, and Kinnatalloon.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. O'BRIENmoved an Amendment to include within the North-East Cork Division "so much of the barony of Barretts as comprised the parish of Mourne Abbey."
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, that he certainly felt inclined to press the next Amendment to a division. Its object was to omit the name of "Mid Cork" as the name of the 3rd Division, and to substitute that of "Muskerry." In fact, the division called "Mid Cork" consisted almost entirely of the baronies of East and West Muskerry. The only other barony included was that of Barretts, so that by calling it "Muskerry," they would be selecting a name that was almost completely applicable to the case. In history it was intimately associated with the great Cork race of the Macarthys. [A laugh.] He was not surprised that English Members should laugh at this attempt to "pock-mark" the Irish map with ancient Irish associations.
  Amendment proposed, in page 94, leave out "Mid Cork," and insert "Muskerry."—(Mr. O'Donnell.)
  Question proposed, "That 'Mid Cork' stand part of the Schedule."
  SIR CHABLES W. DILKEsaid, that no doubt "Muskerry" was a very good name; but the Commissioners had themselves suggested "Macroom." He thought it would be better not to alter the compass arrangement, but to retain "Mid Cork."
  MR. HEALYsaid, they all knew that the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) since he had entered the House had become an adept at the changing of names. He had shown himself so much of a proficient in that respect that he had even been successful in changing Irish patronymics. Before, however, the hon. Member proposed the name of Muskerry for this division he ought to be able to pronounce it. He (Mr. Healy) thought the change was undesirable.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. O'BRIENmoved, in line 3, after "the barony of Barretts," to insert "except so much as is comprised in the parish of Mourne Abbey."
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  MR. O'DONNELLmoved another Amendment, to describe the 4th Division as "Cloyne" instead of "South East Cork." Cloyne was another ancient historical name, and he was quite certain that the appellation was vastly superior to the phrase "South East Cork."
  Amendment proposed, in page 94, line 4, leave out "South East Cork," and insert "Cloyne."—(Mr. O'Donnell.)
  Question proposed, "That 'South East Cork' stand part of the Schedule."
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he had no objection to strike out the word "South," which, in accordance with a proposal of the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan, would describe the division as East instead of South East Cork.
  Question, that "South" stand part of the Schedule, put and negatived.
  Question proposed, "that 'East Cork' stand part of the Schedule."
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the Commissioners had originally suggested "Youghal," and the hon. Member now proposed "Cloyne." For the reasons he had already given, he thought it would be undesirable to change the name.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. O'DONNELLmoved to leave out "West Cork," and substitute "Beare and Carbery." Both names were well known in Irish history. The district of Beare was associated with the famous clan of O'Sullivan, and Carbery was also full of glorious associations. He regretted to have to trouble English Members by proposing these names, but he felt himself compelled to do so as a matter of principle. He had fully expected to have been able to propose them when the Bill was in Committee; but he had been prevented by illness from being present. He thought something ought to be done to preserve these names. No country was more rich in historical associations than Ireland,
  64
  and the very fact that these historical associations had been allowed to be forgotten, ought to impose upon the Irish Nationalists the solemn duty of reviving them.
  Amendment proposed, in page 94, line 8, leave out "West Cork" and insert "Beare and Carbery."—(Mr. O'Donnell.)
  Question proposed, "That 'West Cork' stand part of the Schedule."
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE,in opposing the Amendment, pointed out that portions of East and West Carbery were included in two other divisions, the South and East.
  MR. HEALYremarked that as the Bill was originally drafted, this was called the "Bantry" Division. He had regretted very much to find himself compelled to move the omission of that name, as Bantry was the place in which he was born; but he had sacrificed his affection for Bantry in order to secure consistency in adopting names from the points of the compass. At the present moment the best part of the district included in this division was known as West Cork.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he simply proposed the next Amendment by way of a protest—namely, to leave out "South Cork," and insert "Ross."
  Amendment proposed, in page 94, line 14, leave out "South Cork," and insert "Ross."—(Mr. O'Donnell.)
  Question proposed, "That 'South Cork' stand part of the Clause."
  MR. T. D. SULLIVANasked if there was any practical use in persisting with these Amendments, after the decisions already arrived at by the House? He did not, for a moment, question the good intentions of the hon. Member in the matter; but the hon. Member could make no better case for any future Amendment than he had made for those which had gone before, and he appealed to the hon. Member whether it was courteous or considerate to delay the progress of the Bill by Amendments which were only made for the purpose of being negatived? He trusted that the hon. Member would consent to spare the time of the House.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, the only answer he could mate to the hon. Member, for whose advice he had a great regard, was that on many other occasions, for much less reason, he had not spared the time of the House. In this case he felt bound to place on record his protest against this wholesale system of dragging down the history of an ancient country to the level of that of a newly-discovered island, which could only be described by points of the compass.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORthought the Irish Members owed a debt of gratitude to the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) for the interest he had manifested in this matter, and he must say that he entirely sympathized with the hon. Member. He (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) could not forget that he represented a county which had now entirely dropped, as far as its Parliamentary representation went, the old name of "Queen's County" for those of "Leix" and "Ossory." Nothing had afforded more unbroken satisfaction to the people of the county; but, at the present moment, neither division represented the old Irish divisions of Leix or Ossory; and, therefore, he had hoped that some of the proposals of the hon. Member, although not strictly representing the division marked out in the Schedule, might have been acceptable to the House.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. O'DONNELLmoved, after "North Donegal," to insert "or "Innishowen Division." As a humble member of the clan of O'Donnell, he should be glad to see the name of "Innishowen" adopted. It was a name very dear to the people of the district; but he admitted that in this instance also Her Majesty's Commissioners had somewhat seriously interfered with the proper delimitation of the district. He felt it due to his own sense of the history of the North of Ireland to make this proposal—that the name of Innishowen, the land of the O'Donnells and the O'Dohertys, should be given as an alternative name to that of North Donegal.
  Amendment proposed, in page 95, line 4, after "North Donegal," insert "or Innishowen Division."—(Mr. O'Donnell.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEthought the House ought to agree to the designation adopted in Committee. At the same time, he admitted that much could be said in favour of the name "Innishowen;" and he regretted that the hon. Member was not present to make his proposal when the subject was considered in Committee. It was unfortunate that the matter had not been brought on earlier.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 16; Noes 97: Majority 81.—(Div. List, No. 171.)
  On the Motion of Sir CHARLES W. DILKE, Amendment made, in page 95, line 10, before "Glenalla," by inserting "Drumherrive."
  MR. O'DONNELL,who intimated that he would not divide the House upon the Amendment, moved to give the alternative name of "Kilmacreenan" to the West Donegal Division.
  Amendment proposed, in page 95, line 11, after "West Donegal," insert "or Kilmacreenan Division."—(Mr. O'Donnell.)
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.
  MR. O'DONNELLmoved, after "North Down," to insert "or the Ards Division." The Ards was one of the most ancient divisions of Ulster, and, according to the old chroniclers, the heights of Ulster were "the heights of Ards." It would form an admirable name for a division; but he only proposed it by way of protest.
  Amendment proposed, in page 9G, line 4, after "North Down," insert "or the Ards Division."—(Mr. O'Donnell.)
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.
  MR. SMALLmoved, in line 7, to leave out the barony of Upper Ards. He explained that his object was to transfer this barony from North Down to East Down, in order to equalize the population of the two divisions. If this Amendment were agreed to, he intended to propose that the parishes of Lambeg, Drumbeg. Blaris, and Drumbo, and so much of the barony of Upper Ards as comprised the parish of Ballywater,

  67
  should be added. The result would be to transfer to East Down a population of 3,700, and to bring into North Down a population of 1,295; and the difference between the aggregate populations of the two divisions would then be a little more than 150 instead of more than 2,000, as at present. The proposal of the Government was to place the extreme part of East Down in the Northern Division, whereas his Amendment proposed to take the extreme part of East Down out of the Northern Division. There was also another argument strongly in favour of his proposal—namely, the argument of compactness. The arrangement of the divisions of the county, according to the Bill, gave two long and inconvenient divisions in North Down; but by the adoption of the plan which he proposed there would be two compact and symmetrical divisions. He was aware that between the boundary of Upper Ards and the boundary of East Down there was Lough Strangford, and that the Government had made use of that fact as an argument for refusing to alter the scheme of the Commissioners with regard to the county; but be denied that they were entitled to give that as a reason for objecting to his proposal. When it was a question of joining the people of the North of Donegal for political purposes, they made light of the fact that there was a lake of considerable size between the districts they wanted to join together; they thought nothing of the people having to cross the broad and stormy waters of Lough Swilly; but the circumstance that there was the narrow and particularly calm Lough Strangford to be crossed was now held out as a reason for not agreeing to an arrangement that would give compactness and homogeneity to the divisions of County Down. Then he came to the question of the wishes of the people, which he said were entirely in favour of his proposal as against the scheme of the Commissioners. He asserted, without fear of contradiction, that the great majority of the people of Upper Ards would prefer to be joined with East Down rather than remain as they were now placed by the Bill in North Down; and that did not rest on his statement alone, because at the inquiry at Down-patrick they had the evidence of a number of respectable inhabitants of Upper Ards, which showed that the people
  68
  would very much prefer the arrangement which be advocated. As he had several times pointed out, all their business relations and communications were with Downpatrick. For these reasons he was quite unable to see what objection the right hon. Baronet could have to adopt the arrangement; and be therefore trusted that he would now see his way to agree to the Amendment which he begged to move.
  Amendment proposed, in page 96> line 7, to leave out "Upper Ards."— (Mr. Small.)
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that the hon. Member for Wexford bad very moderately laid his Amendment before the House. He was, however, obliged to point out that there existed a considerable amount of opposition to the arrangement which the hon. Member proposed. The objections to the Amendment, which had already been stated in Committee, were such that the Government were unable to accept it.
  CAPTAIN KERsaid, he rose to oppose this Amendment. The arrangement of the Commissioners which had been embodied in this Bill had been received with general approval; and he was convinced that there would be a strong feeling of dissatisfaction among both Liberals and Conservatives in the district in question if the boundaries, as they were at present fixed, were in any way interfered with. The hon. Member for Wexford had supported his Amendment by the statement that nearly all the business relations and communications of the people of Upper Ards were with Downpatrick; but be (Captain Ker) denied in toto that such was the case, for the very good reason that North Down was separated from East Down by Strangford Lough, a body of water of considerably greater breadth than the hon. Member had stated. The hon. Member named half a mile, but in doing so he had much understated the case. He would point out that there was a regular system of cars between Newtown Ards and Portaferry, and not only that, but a line of railway was in contemplation. He was speaking for both Liberals and Conservatives in opposing this Amendment; and he pointed out that while people of those views constituted the great bulk of the population of County Down, and were in

  69
  favour of retaining the boundaries laid down by the Commissioners, the Nationalist Party, who were opposed to that arrangement, were in a very small minority. The Nationalist Party had, indeed, nothing to do with the county; there was no ground for the alteration they proposed; and he trusted that in this case the Government would firmly adhere to the position they had taken up with regard to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wexford, otherwise their conduct would be looked upon as a piece of jerrymandering by both Liberals and Conservatives in County Down, who wanted to hold their own against the Nationalists.
  MR. HEALYsaid, he had listened with great attention to the hon. and gallant Member who had just sat down, who, in the course of his observations, spoke of the Nationalist Party in County Down as being a very small one. He could, however, assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that it was large enough for him. Had it not been for the Nationalist Party at the last election, who, declining to vote for a Whig candidate, voted for the hon. and gallant Member, he would not have occupied a seat in that House—it was to the Nationalist Party that he owed his election. He believed that the hon. and gallant Gentleman intended to put up for East Down at the next election; but the people of these districts would be able to appreciate the opposition of the hon. and gallant Member to this Amendment, and when he presented himself as a candidate he would probably find that his opposition would deprive him of the support of the Nationalists, which had been so useful to him on a previous occasion. He thought it would be found that the Tory Party, by its opposition to the alteration of the schemes of the Commissioners, had been absolutely playing into the hands of the Whigs. This was a matter which affected the lives and politics of the population of North Down; and he would say without hesitation that the people of that division would show the hon. and gallant Gentleman at the next election that by their attitude throughout the discussion of all these Amendments he and his Party had been simply giving seats to their Whig opponents. The result of the election would probably be that the Whig Party would carry two seats and the
  70
  Nationalists one, while the hon. and gallant Gentleman would lose any chance he might previously have had of being returned. ["Order, order!"] They were on the question of the political division of the county, and he was discussing the hon. and gallant Member's opposition to the Amendment in that sense. He would conclude by repeating that the opposition of the hon. and gallant Member would probably lead to this—that, instead of there being three Tories and one Nationalist returned for County Down, there would be one Nationalist, two Whigs, and one Tory, and that the one Tory would not be the hon. and gallant Member.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 84; Noes 25: Majority 59.—(Div. List, No. 172.)
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he wished, after "West Down," to insert the words "or Iveagh." A glance at the Schedule would show that the division of West Down was entirely in Iveagh territory, and, as was well known in Ireland, Iveagh was an ancient Irish designation. Nothing could be more appropriate at the present time, in order, not exactly to reinstate Irish historical names taken from local baronies, but to give a more marked recognition to them, to put them in the Bill in the way he proposed. He would not delay the House by any further observation, but would merely, pro formâ, move the Amendment in his name.
  Amendment proposed, after the words "West Down," to insert "or Iveagh." —(Mr. O'Donnell.)
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he wished to add, in page 97, line 20, after "St. Peter's," the words "and of the townland of Cherry Orchard, in the parish of St. Nicholas Without."
  Amendment proposed, in page 97, line 20, after "St. Peter's," insert "and of the townland of Cherry Orchard, in the parish of St. Nicholas Without."—(Sir Charles W. Bilke.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. HEALYsaid, that, before this Question was put, he should like to ask

  71
  the right hon. Baronet whether this Amendment would make any change whatever in the Bill, or whether it was simply a consequential Amendment?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: It will make no change whatever.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  COLONEL NOLANsaid, he wished, on page 98, line 7, to add words to give North Galway the alternative name of Tuam. He attached considerable importance to this Amendment. It had been pointed out that there were no letters or requisitions asking the House to insert local names to describe county divisions; but that had not been so in this case. He held in his hand a Memorial from the Tuam Town Commissioners in favour of the proposal he was now making. As this alteration had been requested by the locality, and as it was in accordance with the general wish of the people of the district that the alternative name should be given, he felt bound to bring the matter before the House. The question as regarded the town of Tuam stood in a different position to the other questions that had been raised to-night. There was not, so far as he knew, a single case in which a county Member had asked for the name of a constituency to be changed—at any rate, so far as Ireland was concerned. What he was asking for was the addition of a very old name to that of North Galway. No one knew at what period the town of Tuam got its name; it had been so called for 1,400 or 1,500 years, and it had given to Ireland a line of most illustrious Prelates, some of them having been the most illustrious Bishops and Archbishops the country had ever produced. He saw some hon. Gentlemen opposite smile; but he would point out that his observation was not confined to Prelates of the Catholic Church, to which he (Colonel Nolan) belonged, but all Protestant gentlemen, claiming continuity with St. Patrick, must feel the same interest in some of the Bishops they had had in Tuam. The hon. Member for Westmeath (Mr. T. D. Sullivan) had made some observations as to inconvenience and confusion arising from having two names attached to these divisions; but the hon. Member himself revelled in two Christian names, and presumably he would not declare that that fact confused his identity and
  72
  prevented his being well known and deservedly popular in Ireland. If the change which he (Colonel Nolan) proposed were made, he did not believe it would lead to the slightest confusion. Even if only one name were used, in the event of the alternative he proposed being adopted, no difficulty would occur in that regard, because the right hon. Baronet had brought in a clause to prevent any objection being taken on such a technicality. No technical difficulty would arise. None of the county towns, of which there were several in the district, wished to rival Tuam. The name was one very well known in Galway and Mayo, and this case he thought was one which might be allowed to stand upon its own merits. It was one on which the inhabitants had shown far more interest in the question of nomenclature than had been shown in most parts of Ireland. No doubt there were many Irish Members who were wedded to what was called the single-name system; but this appeared to be a case in which legitimate exception could be made, and he trusted the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) would gratify the wishes of a considerable portion of his (Colonel Nolan's) present constituency in County Galway by allowing the proposed addition.
  Amendment proposed, in page 98, line 7, after "North Galway," insert "or Tuam."—(Colonel Nolan.)
  Question proposed, "That 'or Tuam' be there inserted."
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that if it was the general feeling in Ireland and of the Irish Members that this change should be made, he should be happy to assent to it. He had heard it given as a reason for the hon. and gallant Gentleman's Amendment that the Amendment was intended to show his respect for meum and tuum.
  COLONEL NOLAN: The right hon. Baronet is quite correct; I have both those names in my constituency.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I think, however, the local feeling is in favour of the county name only.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, the general feeling amongst the Irish Members was in favour of the adoption of the county names to the exclusion of town names. There were several places of equal, if not greater importance, than Tuam in

  73
  the division; for instance, there was Ballinasloe, which was a most important town connected with the greatest agricultural fair in the county. Then there was the town of Gort, which was also important. That name had been struck out, and it was now proposed to retain Tuam simply because it was an ecclesiastical centre. No doubt the Town Commissioners of Tuam were in favour of the proposed change; but he did not think the majority of the people in the district would support the hon. and gallant Gentleman's view. If divisions were to be named after Archbishoprics, there was every reason, he thought, why another town should lend its name to one of the county divisions, if not on account of its present Archbishop, at any rate on account of a past Archbishop—namely, the town of Cashel.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he would appeal to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, as one of the Members for Gal way, not to go to a division on this matter. The hon. and gallant Member seemed to be determined to take the sense of the House upon the question, and he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) was sorry for it, because, though one of the Members for that region, he should be obliged to vote against the proposal. He was sorry to have to go against the town of Tuam, for which he had a very great respect; but it seemed to him that this was, after all, a matter where local feeling should give way to what was, after ail, a great national issue. He was sorry that the hon. and gallant Member had put him in the unfortunate position of being compelled to vote against him.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he supported the Amendment, not merely in consequence of the local feeling of the people of the town of Tuam, but in consequence of the historical significance of the town, and because of its being the centre of religion and civilization in the West of Ireland.
  MR. CALLANsaid, for the very same reason urged by the hon. Member who had just sat down, he (Mr. Callan) should oppose the Amendment. Everyone who had been in Tuam, after a lapse of a considerable period of time, must have noticed that, excellent as the town was from its ecclesiastical and historical associations, it was a town very rapidly decreasing in importance. The only importance he attached to the district
  74
  of Tuam was that it stood over limestone; a limestone district was good for the raising of sheep, and he always preferred to buy his sheep there. But he had never heard any other reason given for a preference for Tuam, except that, under the Act forbidding the assumption of ecclesiastical titles, it was the only place in Ireland from which an Archbishop could, or rather did with impunity, take his title without subjecting himself to the punishment of the old and effete law to which he referred. He would ask the hon. and gallant Member not to go to a division, because, if he did, he (Mr. Callan) should be obliged to vote against him. If this Amendment were to be accepted, he should regret that he had not voted for the equally impracticable Amendments of his hon. Friend the Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell), who had introduced much more important names than this of an obscure town in a limestone district like Tuam.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 20; Noes 84: Majority 64.—(Div. List, No. 173.)
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he proposed to give the South Kerry Division the alternative name of "Desmond." He need not say that Desmond was a name which figured very prominently in Irish history. The country of Desmond extended from the Shannon to the Black-water; but the special district of Desmond was in Kerry. Desmond was a name well known in the time of James I., and, with the exception of a single barony, the present division of South Kerry covered the space known as Desmond. He did not think any Irishman need be ashamed of being known as the Member for Desmond.
  Amendment proposed, in page 99, line 1, after "South Kerry," insert "or Desmond Division."—(Mr. 0'Donnell.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. HEALYsaid, he might remind the hon. Member who proposed to give the name of Desmond to one division of Kerry that Desmond extended over four counties.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, that he stated, in moving the Amendment, that the country of Desmond extended from the Shannon to the Blackwater. The cor-

  75
  rection of the hon. Member was, therefore, unnecessary.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 3; Noes 91: Majority 88.—(Div. List, No. 174.)
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he would not propose to give "East Kerry" the alternative name of "Killarney," but would move that the division of "South Kildare" be given the alternative name of "Offaly." Offaly was another of the great historical names of Ireland. He did not intend to carry the Amendment to a division, but merely to enter his protest—he was quite aware that the Gentlemen who sat on the Irish Benches behind him would prevent the Bill being pock-marked with a single historical division.
  Amendment proposed, in page 99, line 19, after "South Kildare," insert "or Offaly Division."—(Mr. O'Donnell.)
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.
  MR. MARUMproposed to leave out "Fassadinin and Galmoy" in line 31, page 99, and insert "Crannagh, Fas-sadinin, Galmoy, and Shillelogher." This was not a case of a change of name, but of a change of boundary. The change would conduce to the compactness of the divisions, and would also secure the equalization of the valuation and area of the divisions.
  Amendment proposed, in page 99, line 31, leave out "Fassadinin and Galmoy," and insert "Crannagh, Fassadinin, Galmoy, and Shillelogher."—(Mr. Marum.)
  Question, "That the words Fassadinin and Galmoy" stand part of the Schedule," put, and negatived.
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Amendment proposed, in page 99, lines 32 and 33, leave out "except so much as is comprised in the Parliamentary borough of Kilkenny."—(Sir Charles W. mike.)
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule," put, and negatived.
  Amendment proposed, in page 99, leave out lines 32 and 33.—(Mr. Marum.)
  Question, "That those lines stand part of the Schedule," put, and negatived.
  Amendment proposed, in page 99, lines 34 and 35, leave out "the Parliamentary borough of Kilkenny, or in."—(Sir Charles W. Dilke.)
  Question, "That those words stand part of the Schedule," put, and negatived.
  Amendment proposed, in page 100, lines 5 and 6, leave out "except so much as is comprised in the Parliamentary borough of Kilkenny."—(Sir Charles W. Dilke.)
  Question, "That those words stand part of the Schedule," put, and negatived.
  Amendment proposed, in page 100, leave out lines 5 and 6.—(Mr. Marum.)
  Question, "That those lines stand part of the Schedule," put, and negatived.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 100, line 7, leave out "parish of Inistioge," and insert "parishes or parts of the parishes of Inistioge, Pleberstovrn, Famma, Jerpoint Abbey, Jerpoint West, Thomastown, Bally-linch, Kilfane, Columbkille, Graiguenamanagh, and Ullard."—(Mr. Marum.)
  Question, "That the words 'parish of Inistioge' stand part of the Schedule," put, and negatived.
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  On the Motion of Sir CHAELES W. DILKE, the following Amendments made:—In page 100, line 26, leave out lines 25 and 26, and insert—
  "So much of the Barony of Leitrim, as comprises the parish of Kiltubbrid, and in the parish of Kiltoghert the townlands of Acres, Aghagrania, Aghnagollop, Ardcolum, Barnameenagh, Barnameenagh West, Blackrock, Carrickbaun, Carricknabrack, Corlough, Corlougblin, Cormeeltan, Cormongan, Cornamuddagh, Cornashamsoge, Corrachuill, Corryard, Creenagh, Crey, Derrintober, Derrintonny, Derryhallagh, Derrynaseer, Derryteigcroe, Dorrusawillin, Dristernaun, Drumcoora, Drumcroman, Drumderg, Drurnhalwy, Drumduff, Drumshanbo, Greaghfarnagh, Greaghnaguillaun, Largan, Largan Mountain, Lavaur, Mahanagh, Moneynure, Murhaun, Roscunnish, Shancurry, and Sheskinacurry;"
  line 30, leave out "Leitrim," and insert "Carrigallen;" and in line 31, leave out "Carrigallen," and insert "Leitrim."
  MR. O'SULLIVANsaid, he had now an Amendment to propose which he hoped would unite the Irish Party. He wished to give to the Eastern Division of Limerick the alternative name of Sarsfield. Sarsfield was a name which had rallied the Irish people in times past, and he hoped it would do so again.
  Amendment proposed, in page 101, line 10, to insert, after the word "Limerick," the words "or Sarsfield Division."—(Mr, O'Sullivan.)
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.
  MR. O'DONNELLproposed in page 101, line 17, to leave out "Londonderry," and insert "Derry." He thought that at the time when the London Companies were despairing of retaining their hold upon Derry this Amendment would be accepted by the House. The Amendment would be welcomed in the North of Ireland, where the county in question was always spoken of as Derry, and not as Londonderry.
  Amendment proposed, in page 101, line 17, leave out "Londonderry," and insert "Derry."—(Mr. O'Donnell.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'Londonderry' stand part of the Schedule."
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEthought it would be better to discuss the matter involved upon the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy). It must be borne in mind, however, that "Londonderry" was the legal name of the county, and that to change it would cause great confusion.
  MR. HEALYsaid, it would, undoubtedly, give rise to legal difficulty if the name of the county were altered. What he proposed to do was that they should alter the name of the division. Such an alteration would not give rise to any difficulty.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, he hoped the right hon. Baronet would accept the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy). If they adopted the name of "Derry" they would only adopt a name which was universally adopted in Ireland.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he should have great pleasure in supporting the
  78
  Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy); but any inconvenience which might come from the change of the name of the county was to be commended. He would lose no opportunity of stripping "Derry" of a name which was not flattering to it.
  Question put.
  The House proceeded to a division:—
  Mr. O'DONNELLwas appointed one of the Tellers for the Noes, but, no Member appearing to be a second Teller for the Noes, Mr. SPEAKER declared that the Ayes had it.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. HEALYsaid, that everyone spoke of the divisions of the county as North Derry and South Derry. They wanted to retain the name of Derry, which, in Irish, referred to the woody nature of the country.
  Amendment proposed, in page 101, line 20, leave out "Londonderry," and insert "Derry."—(Mr. Healy.)
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, although it did not seem very logical to say that the proper name of the county was Londonderry, and that the divisions were "North and South Derry," he felt bound to support the Amendment.
  MR. PLUNKETbegged to say that the City of Londonderry was spoken of both as Derry and Londonderry. The name of Derry was given when it was spoken of as a separate division of the county. There was no doubt that great prosperity had grown up there in olden times owing to its connection with London.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid, if any proof were necessary of the desirability of changing the name of Londonderry to that of Derry it would be found in the statement made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket). The reason he had given brought to his mind more than anything else the fact that "Londonderry" was anti-Irish; and he should, therefore, vote against the retention of that name.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he was sorry that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin had halted between the

  79
  decision of the right hon. Baronet the President of the Local Government Board and that of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy). The right hon. and learned Gentleman had always stated that he was proud to call himself as good an Irishman as any. He would put it to the House whether they ought to be satisfied with the town being called by this hybrid appellation instead of by its good old Irish name; and he felt sure that English Members, if the question went to a division, would not see the necessity of tacking on an English name to the Irish name, seeing that the latter appealed strongly to the feelings and was the wish of the people. He might point out that the Apprentice Boys, who were among the most violent partizans of the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his political Friends, did not call themselves Londonderry apprentices, but Derry apprentices. The wars were "Derry's wars"—they were not spoken of as Londonderry's wars. If there was to be further opposition to this Amendment he was satisfied it would not come from any English Member; and it was a matter of regret to him that the only opposition should come from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin, who had spoken in favour of retaining the hybrid name of Londonderry.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYsaid, he had an excellent authority to cite in support of the Amendment. Thackeray, in his "Peg of Limavaddy," had it:—
  "Riding from Coleraine,
  Famed for lovely Kitty,
  Came a Cockney, bound
  Unto Derry City."
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he believed that the Bishop of the diocese was always spoken of as the Bishop of Derry—a fact that was in favour of the Amendment. The only question with him was, whether it was desirable to change the name in the Bill? The advisers of the Government who prepared the Bill saw no objection.
  COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, he thought the right hon. Baronet was in error in saying that the style of the Bishop of the diocese was "The Bishop of Derry." He believed that dignitary was always consecrated as "The Bishop of Londonderry." He had not risen,
  80
  however, to oppose the Amendment, because the Apprentice Boys of Derry were extremely proud of the name of Derry.
  MR. LEAMYsaid, if he was not wrong the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin, when he spoke at the Constitutional Club in Dublin, referred to the siege of Derry; and he ventured to say that he would do the same if he spoke of it ten times a day. Derry, as a name, was very popular with the Apprentice Boys, and it was also exceedingly popular with the Nationalists. It was "Derry is our own." He could see no sufficient reason for retaining the name of Londonderry; London had nothing to do with the matter, and he appealed to the right hon. and learned Gentleman not to disagree with the almost unanimously expressed feeling of the House in favour of Derry.
  MR. PLUNKETsaid, he might be permitted by the kindness of the House to say that he could not withdraw the opinion he had expressed; as, however, the general sense of the House seemed to lie the other way, he should express his opposition to the Amendment by saying "No" when it was put from the Chair, and should not put the House to the trouble of dividing.
  Question, "That' Londonderry' stand part of the Schedule," put, and negatived.
  Question, "That the word 'Derry' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, at the time when the Bill was passing through its earlier stages there had been a good deal of doubt as to whether Londonderry was or was not a county of a city. The Government had since ascertained that Londonderry was a county of a city, but not so for Parliamentary purposes; he had, therefore, put down two Amendments which it would be necessary to introduce into the Schedule, and which he would now move.
  Amendment proposed, in page 101, lines 23 and 24, leave out "except so much as is comprised in the Parliamentary borough of Londonderry."—(Sir Charles W. Mike.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
  MR. HEALYsaid, he wished to put it on record that it was the Irish Mem-

  81
  bers on those Benches who had raised the question in Committee on the Bill with regard to the freeholders of Derry, who, had it not been for that fact, would have been entirely disfranchised. He could not but express his surprise that neither the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) nor any Member of the Tory Party had called attention to the matter; so far as they were concerned they would have allowed something like 200 freeholders of the city of Derry to remain unenfranchised. He thought that he and his hon. Friends might claim that the freeholders in question owed the vote they would now have, not to their own Representatives in the House of Commons, but to the Members of the Nationalist Party. He had gathered, from the way in which the right hon. Baronet had conducted the debate on the portion of the Schedule which dealt with the divisions of the county of Londonderry, that the arrangement set forth in the Bill would be reconsidered owing to the fact that one of the Members of the Government (the Solicitor General for Ireland) was a Representative of the county. He was astonished, under the circumstances, that the Government should be content to allow the question of the divisions of the county to remain in its present unsatisfactory position. With the exception of the slight alteration which the right hon. Baronet had just proposed to make, everything, it seemed, was to be loft as before.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed, in page 101, lines 25 and 26, leave out "except so much as is comprised in the Parliamentary borough of Londonderry."—(Sir Charles W. Dilke.)
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule," put, and negatived.
  Amendment proposed, in page 102, line 1, leave out "Londonderry," and insert "Derry."—(Mr Healy.)
  Question, "That the word 'Londonderry' stand part of the Schedule," put, and negatived.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he did not propose to go to a division on the next Amendment standing in his name; but
  82
  it was due to the district called in the Schedule "South Londonderry" to say that in all historical maps down to a late period it was described as Okaneland. He merely proposed his Amendment to record that fact.
  Amendment proposed, in page 102, line 1, after "South Londonderry" insert "or Okaneland Division."—(Mr. O'Donnell.)
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he wished to insert the name "Farney" after "South Monaghan." He thought Farney would be a most appropriate name from its historical associations. He did not propose to go to a division on the question if the House was not prepared to accept his proposal.
  Amendment proposed, in page 104, line 28, after "South Monaghan," insert "or Farney Division."—(Mr. O'Donnell.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. HEALYsaid, that as the hon. Member had been kind enough to say that he would not go to a division he begged to offer him his sincere thanks for letting his county alone.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Other Amendments made.
  Amendment proposed, in page 106, line 17, by inserting, after the words "North Tipperary," the words "or Ormond Division."—(Mr. O'Donnell.)
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.
  Other Amendments made.
  MR. HEALYsaid, he wished at this stage to submit a question to the right hon. Baronet with regard to the Bill as it would stand after Report. Since the Bill came into Committee, the maps which had been prepared showing the proposed divisions had been considerably altered, and he wished to ask whether new maps would be issued, containing the changes made, and showing the divisions as finally arranged by the House? For instance, in Kilkenny, great changes had been made, and it would be desirable for those interested

  83
  in the district to see exactly what arrangements had been made, and what alterations had been effected.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that perhaps the hon. and learned Member would give a few days' Notice of a Question on this subject, so as to draw attention to the matter, and enable him (Sir Charles W. Dilke) to consult with those who would have entrusted to them the duties of preparing the maps. If the hon. Member would put a Question on Thursday next, he should be happy to give him a full answer.
  MR. W. J. CORBETsaid, he begged to move to leave out from line 15 to line 26, in page 109, in order to insert—
  "No. 1. North Wicklow. The baronies of Rathdown, Talbotstown Lower, Ballinacor North, Newcastle, and so much of the barony of Arklow as is comprised in the parishes of Kilpoole and Drumkay. No. 2.—South Wicklow. The baronies of Talbotstown Upper, Ballinacor South, and Shillelagh, and the barony of Arklow, except the parishes of Kilpoole and Drumkay."
  He desired to state that this Amendment, if accepted, would completely equalize the area, population, and valuation in both divisions. He had reason to hope that the right hon. Baronet would have accepted this Amendment. The people in the locality felt that the division of North Wicklow and South Wicklow would be a very proper one; and he (Mr. W. J. Corbet) did not see why, under the circumstances, it should not be accepted. The division, as it had been left by the Boundary Commissioners, divided the county into one-third and two-thirds, giving a very great inequality to the divisions; and he could not see how the right hon. Baronet could refuse his consent to the alteration. Ho was not aware that there was any serious opposition on the part of the Conservative Party. He knew very well that the Commissioners, in the first instance, had decided to have this division he proposed, and that further on they had proposed to take it into their consideration when it was brought before them by Gentlemen representing the county. He trusted, therefore, the right hon. Baronet would accept the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 109, line 17, by leaving out from the words "West Wicklow" to the end of the Schedule, and insert the words,—
  "No. 1.—North Wicklow.
  "The baronies of Rathdown, Talbotstown Lower, Ballinacor North, Newcastle, and so much
  84
  of the barony of Arklow as is comprised in the parishes of Kilpoole and Drumkay.
  "No. 2.—South Wicklow.
  "The baronies of Talbotstown Upper, Ballinacor South, and Shillelagh, and the barony of Arklow, except the parishes of Kilpoole and Drumkay,"—(Mr. William Corbel,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he had not said a word in cases where the Amendments proposed had the unanimous approval of the Irish Members and of the district affected, and where the Commissioners had decided in favour of that unanimous feeling. He certainly did not think that this question would have any political bearing, and he did not know that it had; but he was bound to say that communications had been made to him indicating that the proposed Amendments would not be acceptable to a not considerable portion of the inhabitants. When he had submitted this proposal to the Commissioners they were not very clear about it. They would have been glad to agree to the Amendment, only that they were conscious of a certain amount of local feeling adverse to the proposed change. Under the circumstances, he could not see his way to accepting the proposal.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, the proposal was to return to the original scheme of the Commissioners, when they acted on the strength of maps and figures, and before they had allowed local influence to bear upon them. The country affected was all mountainous; and he (Mr. Sexton) had looked closely into the maps, and found that the division made by the Commissioners started at the top of one range of mountains and ended at the top of another. If the scheme were closely examined into, he did not think it would be found one which would recommend itself to any impartial authority with equal force to that of his hon. Friend. He (Mr. Sexton) regretted that such a proposal as this should depend upon what the right hon. Baronet called "general assent." Up to the present the right hon. Baronet had yielded to the Irish Members on several occasions in matters of form, but never in connection with matters of substance. He (Mr. Sexton) hoped that now the right hon. Gentleman was

  85
  about to complete, so honourably to himself, his protracted and skilful labours in connection with this Bill, which had added to his previous reputation as a skilful politician a new repute as a Parliamentary strategist, he would perform the graceful act of handing the Bill from the House of Commons to the House of Lords, by accepting an Amendment from the Irish Members, containing a little substance in it. The Amendment would have the effect of equalizing the districts, and of getting rid of all the inequalities in the scheme of the Commissioners. He hoped that hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side of the House, conscious of the abundance of the victory they had won, would offer the Irish Members below the Gangway this little consolation for the hard season of disasters they had experienced.
  MR. PLUNKETsaid, it was almost impossible to resist the eloquent appeal of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down (Mr. Sexton); but by a great effort of pulling himself together he thought he had succeeded in doing so. He heartily concurred with the hon. Gentleman in the compliment he had paid the right hon. Baronet for his able conduct of this measure through the House. The temptation which had been thrown out by the hon. Member for Sligo to the right hon. Baronet was a very strong one, and the right hon. Gentleman might have thought himself enabled to yield in this region of tranquillity and peace, so different to the stormy scones of which they had had some experience in past times, but through which the right hon. Gentleman had managed the Bill and kept his temper with most consummate skill. But in the matter at present before the House all the arguments now advanced had been already pressed on the one side and replied to on the other before the Commissioners. There had been an abundance of argument brought forward against this proposal; and the Commissioners, after carefully considering the point, had abandoned their original suggestion, and had decided upon the plan in the Bill. He said emphatically that there was a most decided objection to the Amendment now proposed amongst a largo section of the population in the county of Wicklow, a great many of whom had communicated with himself and other Members on the subject. He
  86
  must therefore urge on the right hon. Baronet to adhere to the decision of the Commissioners.
  COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, he hoped the right hon. Baronet would hold to the decision of the Commissioners. He (Colonel King-Harman) had had a great many letters sent to him on this subject; and it would be found that a large section of the population of the county of Wicklow were in favour of the arrangement as it stood in the Bill. If hon. Members below the Gangway desired to have a triumph to finish with, he would propose that it should be done by an alteration in the Bill so as to effect this alteration—that having begun with the Member for Donnybrook they should wind up with a Member for Shillelagh.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, that as the appeal of the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) to the peaceful sympathies of the House had been unsuccessful, he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) would now appeal to the bellicose element amongst them generally, and see if he could meet with better success. He thought they should seize the opportunity of proving that they were above the influence of either the President of the Local Government Board, or the more soothing syrup by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket). This was not a matter over which there ought to be any political feeling; and he could not understand why the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin felt so strongly upon it. He would appeal to the two right hon. Gentlemen to answer with frankness—as he was sure they would do—this appeal. There was not the least chance for a Conservative Member getting in for either division, however division was effected; and he would ask them to say frankly whether it was not the fact that however the county was divided two National Members were sure to be returned? ["No, no!"] Well, however hon. Members might seek to deny the fact, it was perfectly notorious that two National Members were sure to be returned, therefore it was from no political feeling that the Amendment was proposed—it was brought forward simply for the sake of convenience. The House should take the division in three most important points—first, in connection with area. The

  87
  Commissioners' scheme put the division in this way—334,788 acres in one division and only 167,000 acres in another. They had there the extraordinary disparity of nearly double the number of acres in one division as compared with the other; but the division, according to the scheme of his hon. Friend, would put 232,000 acres in one division, and 247,000 in another, making them practically equal. Then, with regard to valuation, the scheme of the Commissioners would put a valuation of £121,000 in one division, and £151,000 in another, or a difference of £30,000; but the valuation of his hon. Friend would be £134,000 in one division, and £137,000 in another, or a difference of only £3,000. Then, lastly, let thorn take the question of population. In the Commissioners' scheme one division would contain 35,787, and the other 34,595; whereas the scheme of his hon. Friend would put 35,416 in one division, and 34,917 in the other. His hon. Friend, in fact, had brought the divisions, so far as population was concerned, as nearly alike as any two divisions in the Bill. He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) thought that under these three heads, the difference of acreage, the difference of valuation, and the difference of population, it was evident the scheme of his hon. Friend was by far the more convenient of the two. He was sure that the right hon. Baronet, if he were to consult his own personal inclinations alone, would agree with his hon. Friend's Amendment. He was not sure whether the right hon. Baronet the President of the Local Government Board was going to make this a Government division or not; but if he did there could be no doubt it would be on account of the pressure brought to bear upon him by hon. Gentlemen who sat opposite to him. He was sure that if the right hon. Baronet voted against this Amendment his heart would be with the Irish Members.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid, that a very extraordinary phrase fell from the lips of the right hon. Baronet the President of the Local Government Board, when he was making the announcement that the Government would not accept the alteration in the scheme of the division of the county of Wicklow proposed by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the county (Mr. W. J. Corbet). The right hon. Gentleman said he was favourable to the proposed
  88
  alteration, and that he would have been disposed to adopt it, but that he found there was not a complete unanimity of feeling in the locality with reference to the matter. Why, in a matter of this kind it was extremely hard to find a complete unanimity of feeling in a locality, and especially in a county wherein there was a great diversity both of religious and political opinion. That being so, what was the duty of the Government? It was to ascertain which proposal the majority of the people were in favour of, and to adopt that proposal. The right hon. Gentleman said there was a certain amount of opposition in the county of Wicklow to this scheme. What did he mean by a certain amount of opposition? He did not say, but it was evident he meant that the landlords and a few of the leading Conservative magnates of the county were opposed to the scheme. Such was the certain amount of opposition which existed in the county of Wicklow to the scheme; and in deference to the opinion of a small class of landed proprietors the Government were going to refuse this newly-proposed scheme, although it was approved of by a great majority of the people of the county. He had not the slightest doubt that if a poll of the county of Wicklow were taken to-morrow, 90 per cent of the people would be found to approve of this scheme, which divided the county in a much better way than the scheme of the Commissioners. The object of the Government had been made plain to-night. The Government hoped, by the division of the county made by the Bill, to be able to return one Conservative, or Liberal, or Loyalist, or whatever a man who belonged to the English Parties was called. They were, however, very much mistaken, because it was quite certain that two Nationalists would be returned. The opposition to this scheme was due to the fact that the landlords of Wicklow, represented by the hon. and gallant Member for the County of Dublin (Colonel King-Harman), and the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson), objected to the proposal of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. W- J. Corbet).
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, the question was not which Party would get an advantage by the way the county was divided, but whether the decision of the Commissioners should be upheld

  89
  or the whole matter be re-opened. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had already said there was not a general agreement in regard to the proposal, and, therefore, he felt himself unable to agree to this vast change. He (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) must remind the House that they had maintained the decisions of the Commissioners, except where, by general agreement, a decision had been come to that an alteration should be made. The Government were not now, on the last Amendment to the Bill, prepared to alter their course of action.
  MR. HEALYsaid, the Postmaster General (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) could not support the Amendment, because it would make such a vast change. Was there anything in that argument? Had they not just agreed to important changes in the eases of Leitrim, Kilkenny, Waterford, and Louth? And was it in this one case, where it was admitted there was a strong feeling in the county against the proposal of the Commissioners, that the Government were to refuse an alteration? He asked any hon. Member, who wished to vote upon the merits of the case, to take the map and notice the way in which the Commissioners had divided the county. The Commissioners had thrown all the seaboard into one division, and all the mountains into another. It was the only case in the Three Kingdoms where this had been done. Had it been done in the case of Antrim, the Nationalists would return a Member. Why was it not done in the case of Antrim? No political question was involved here; but the people themselves complained that all the chief towns on the seaboard, such as Wicklow and Arklow, were thrown into one division, and that nothing but a parcel of mountains had been left in the other division. He appealed to the House to consider this proposal on its merits. Irish Members had supported some English Members on questions on which they felt very strongly; and he asked those hon. Gentlemen to give a vote now—on the last Amendment to the Bill—which would give great satisfaction to the majority of the Irish people.
  MR. CALLANwished the House to mark the conduct of the Commissioners. Of course, there were on the Commission most courteous and considerate offi-
  90
  cials. Mr. Thomas, the Secretary to the Commission, for instance, had by his courtesy, by his attention, by the care with which he attended to all the objections made, made Irishmen wish to heaven that he would be sent over to clean out Dublin Castle, If there were more officials in Dublin like Mr. Thomas, there would be far more kindly consideration from Irish Members towards Irish officials. He (Mr. Callan) attended the inquiry in Louth, and found that upon the two Amendments he had brought forward with reference to that county Captain Purchas was taking evidence. But what did the Commissioner do? Why, decided in each case against the evidence. The proposal of the hon. Member (Mr. W. J. Corbet) was a most reasonable one, and it would only be a graceful concession if the Government were to accede to it.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYappealed to the Government, who seemed to have no particular aversion to the scheme of the hon. Member for Wicklow (Mr. W. J. Corbet), to leave the matter entirely open. If they left the question to the unfettered conscience of the House, he was perfectly sure his hon. Friend would be successful.
  MR. MARUMsaid, that this was a very analogous case to that of his own county. The Amendment would produce an equalization of valuation and population, two points upon which the people were greatly concerned. The people of Wicklow were under the impression that the county was very unfairly divided. Of course, Members of the House knew that these divisions were only made for Parliamentary purposes; but the people imagined they were for taxation purposes. As this was not a matter involving a very important point, he appealed to the Government to leave it to the fair judgment of the House.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 49; Noes 44: Majority 5.—(Div. List, No. 175.)
  LORD RICHARD GROSVENOR: Mr. Speaker—Sir, I have to report that an hon. Member was in the Lobby when the Question was put. I believe the hon. Member was there by mistake.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he believed that it was usual to put the Question again to an hon. Member under such circumstances.
  THE SPEAKER: Was the hon. Member in the House when the Question was put?
  MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: No, Sir. Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

  EIGHTH SCHEDULE.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 110, line 3, by leaving out lines 3 to 8, both inclusive, and inserting,—

  Year and Chapter.

  Title.

  Extent of Repeal.

  30 and 31 Vic. c. 102

  The Representation of the People Act, 1867.

  Sections thirteen, fourteen, fifteen, and six teen.

  33 and 34 Vic. c. 21

  An Act to disfranchise the boroughs of Bridgwater and Beverley.

  Sections two, three, four, and five.

  33 and 34 Vic. c. 25

  An Act to disfranchise certain voters of the city of Norwich.

  The whole Act.

  33 and 34 Vic. c. 38

  An Act to disfranchise the boroughs of Sligo and Cashel.

  Sections two, three, and four.

  33 and 34 Vic. c. 54

  An Act to disfranchise certain voters of the city of Dublin.

  The whole Act.

  34 and 35 Vic. c. 77

  An Act to disfranchise certain voters for the city of Norwich.

  The whole Act.

  —(Mr. Attorney General.)

  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule," put, and negatived.
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. HEALYsaid, he regretted very much having to occupy the attention of the House on a question raised by this Schedule. He felt it his duty to resist the proposal of the Government to relieve certain voters in the City of Dublin,
  92
  whose corrupt conduct had been of so disgraceful a character that they were some years ago struck off the Electoral Roll. The proposal of the Government was to put an end to their period of purgatory and make them voters once more. In 1870 a Royal Commission was appointed to inquire into the corrupt practices alleged to exist in the City of Dublin; it was presided over by the late Lord Chancellor, then Mr. Law, and amongst its Members were Mr. O'Connor Morris and other distinguished Queen's Counsel; the Commissioners reported unanimously to the effect that the Freemen of Dublin were about the most corrupt body that ever existed in Ireland. They were disfranchised; and it was proved also that the conduct of Sir Arthur Guinness had been of such a character that he was compelled to vacate his seat, and a fresh election had to be held. At the time referred to it was found that the Freemen of Dublin were, for the most part, gentlemen who resided continually in the workhouse, who were taken out of the workhouse, had a sovereign given to them, spent the sovereign in drink, and went back to the workhouse. These were the persons whom the Government proposed to reinstate. Who had asked for that? No one whatever. The Government had passed the Corrupt and Illegal Practices at Elections Act, in which there were the most stringent provisions against bribery and corruption. The right hon. Gentleman who, in 1870, was in favour of disfranchising the whole body of Freemen in the City of Dublin, now proposed to enfranchise them—men who had been scheduled by name, whose names had been marked with, infamy by a Royal Commission, were now declared worthy of being on the Electoral Roll. He appealed to hon. Gentlemen opposite, in the interest of decency, and in the interest of purity and fair play, not to give their consent to the re-enfranchisement of these gentlemen who, in 1870, Parliament declared to be disfranchised for life. In 1870 the Liberal Party were in favour of disfranchising the whole body of 2,000 voters in the City of Dublin; but now the right hon. Baronet proposed to re-enfranchise the most corrupt section of them—namely, the Freemen of Dublin. He did not want to go into the painful history of Sir Arthur Guinness,

  93
  whose connection with those persons would, in the minds of men in Ireland, always associate his name with bribery and corruption. He asked the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket) to read the judgment of Mr. Justice Keogh upon that election; and he would ask whether it was not a fact that Mr. Speaker at the time was obliged to state from the Chair that bribery and corruption had extensively prevailed in the City of Dublin, and that Sir Arthur Guinness was declared to have lost his seat? The inquiry in Dublin lasted for weeks; and so extensive was the corruption that prevailed, owing to the money spent by this great brewer, that the name of Freeman in Dublin was now synonymous with pauperism and corruption. He asked the House whether they would allow this amendment of the law to be placed on the Statute Book, and thereby undo the work which the Royal Commission in 1870 solemnly declared ought to be done? They were told that an Act of that House was to be repealed, and that, too, without a single person in Ireland asking for this amendment of the law. He repeated that no one in Ireland had asked for it. These men were to be again taken out of the poor-houses, given a guinea to spend in drink, and then taken back to the poor-house. That was the proposal of Her Majesty's Government, and it was one which he viewed with indignation and horror. He admitted that the proposal of the Government did not affect more than 70 or 80 persons; that a considerable number of the electors of the time, and of this particular body of persons, had passed away; but still he said that Her Majesty's Government were relieving men of the stigma justly east upon them by a Royal Commission, and that they were trying to remove the brand that would rest upon the brow of Sir Arthur Guinness, let his coronet cover it as it might.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, he did not propose to go into the personal matter with which the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) had dealt in his speech; he had risen to explain why the provision of which the hon. and learned Member complained had been inserted in the Schedule. It would be in the recollection of the House
  94
  that, as the Corrupt Practices Bill was originally drawn, all those persons returned as guilty of corrupt practices in 1880 were to be disfranchised for life; but when the matter was considered in the Committee a strong and universal opinion was expressed that their disfranchisement should be limited to a period of seven years. That was carried; and at the time it was done the Attorney General pointed out that the result would necessarily be the reconsideration of the case of those persons who had been disfranchised at previous dates. He (the Solicitor General) regretted very much that his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General was not able to be present at that moment to put the matter before the House; but he would point out that there were certain boroughs in England with respect to which the Commissioners reported, and upon those Reports Acts of disfranchisement were passed many years ago. Well, it was quite allowed that it would be extremely unfair that in respect of those who in 1880 were found guilty of corrupt practices the punishment should only be a period of seven years' disfranchisement, whilst those who had already suffered 15 years' disfranchisement were to remain in exactly the same situation for the rest of their lives; it was felt at the time that it was not even-handed justice—that it would be extremely unjust. It followed, then, that they had to consider what should be done in the case of Ireland. In the case of Ireland there had been two similar Disfranchisement Acts; but it was only to one of them that the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan had alluded; the hon. and learned Member took no notice of the Act which dealt with Sligo and Cashel. There had been an Act passed in respect of those places in the same year as the Act relating to Dublin; it dealt with the same class of offences; and it was proposed to deal with the persons who were disfranchised under those Acts in precisely the same way as it was proposed to deal with those persons who were disfranchised under the Acts relating to Sandwich, Bridgwater, and other English boroughs. He believed that the suggestion came from, the Benches below the Gangway opposite that Sligo and Cashel should be dealt with in that way. [Mr. SEXTON: I said so.]

  95
  Exactly. Why, then, should not Dublin be so dealt with? How could any person deal with this matter in consonance with justice and equity if, having limited the period of disfranchisement in the case of the electors of the English boroughs, he should not do the same with regard to persons guilty of precisely the same acts in Dublin? It seemed to him impossible for the Government to take any other course than they had taken, because if they were to treat this case exceptionally they would not be dealing out even-handed justice. If they dealt with Sligo and Cashel in a particular way they must deal in the same way with Dublin. At the time when the Royal Commission reported there were 93 persons named in the Schedule, and he need not say that that was 15 years ago. Of those 93 persons a great many had since left the place, and passed away by death; and probably the proposal of the Government did not now concern more than 40 or 50 persons at the outside. Finally, he repeated that it would be impossible in any spirit of fairness not to deal with Dublin on grounds similar to those on which they had dealt with Sligo and Cashel; and therefore it appeared to him that the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan had no foundation on which to rest his case.
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, he believed there was a great distinction between the re-enfranchisement of the Freemen of Dublin and the re-enfranchisement of the electors of Sligo and Cashel. The latter had certain qualifications as householders and ratepayers, and as such they had to prove their right to the franchise. That was not the case with the Freemen of Dublin; they had in the past a prescriptive right to vote for Members of Parliament; and they having been disfranchised for grave and criminal excesses, he ventured to say there was not a mere distinction, but the greatest possible difference, between the case of Dublin and the case of Sligo and Cashel. The Government proposal was to set up as voters again men who had forfeited a prescriptive right because they had been convicted as participators in a gross system of corruption, and as personal recipients of bribery—a system than which no grosser was on record as having come before the House of Commons or any of the Judges.
  MR. PLUNKETsaid, he did not wish to add anything to the argument of his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General, who by his speech, he believed, had entirely convinced the House that there was no reason why they should depart, in the case of the Freemen of Dublin, from the way in which it was proposed in the Bill to deal with other persons who had been disqualified. He asked the House to allow him to make a brief statement in reply to the attack which the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Healy) who introduced this subject had made upon a gentleman who had been for many years a Member of that House, long after all the circumstances stated by the hon. Member were alleged to have occurred; who had been returned without opposition as Member for Dublin City, and who was held in as much respect and honour in Ireland as any gentleman at the present day. The hon. and learned Gentleman who introduced this Amendment had thought fit to make, in most bitter and offensive language, an utterly unfounded attack upon the Gentleman in question in his absence. He did not intend to enter into that kind of controversy with the hon. and learned Gentleman. He would content himself with quoting what the learned Judge, whose opinion and judgment had been appealed to, said on that occasion, and would then ask the House to say what amount of truth and fairness there was in the language now used by the hon. Member. Judge Keogh said—
  "Sir Arthur Guinness was called on the table, and he gave his evidence—a high-minded and honourable gentleman—in a manner creditable to himself, and equally creditable to those who had selected him to succeed his esteemed and respected father. Let me say that there is not a particle of foundation for the most remote shadow of suspicion of any act of bribery having been committed with the personal knowledge of Sir Arthur Guinness; therefore, so far as his personal position and personal character and personal acts are concerned, he is entitled to, and shall have from me, the most unqualified testimony that his hands are clean and his character unaspersed by these proceedings."
  He (Mr. Plunket) would now leave it to the honour of the House to judge of the justice of the attack which had been made on Lord Ardilaun.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, that the cases of Sligo and Cashel had been referred to; but the corruption in these places was not to be

  97
  compared with that which had been discovered in some English constituencies—constituencies which had been proved to be absolute sinks of corruption. Seeing that only a small number of people in Sligo and Cashel had fallen victims to the seductions of the lawyers and others who had gone amongst them for purposes of bribery, and seeing that they had already suffered 14 years' disfranchisement, which was double the amount of punishment proposed to be inflicted upon sinners in England of double the guilt, he thought the disfranchised voters of these places should be included in the measure of amnesty. The English Attorney General had acknowledged the fairness of the claim by acceding to it in the case of English constituencies. With regard to the claims made in this respect by the City of Dublin, he submitted that the voters there were in an entirely different position. The corruption in Dublin was brought about by a body of persons who were imposed upon the electorate as an excrescence, and were the result of a fancy franchise. The persons who possessed this fancy franchise should have been the last to yield to corrupt influences—they should have recognized their position; they should have known that their conduct ought to be exemplary, and should have felt that any evil-doing on their part would be punished with greater severity than offences on the part of any other class of electors. The incidents of the election were at the time so notorious, and were even now so well remembered, that he felt it unnecessary to resort to invective in referring to them. The corruption which took place was vast, and afforded an excellent example of the virtue of the governing classes in dealing with the Irish electors. It was unquestionable that at that election bribery was carried on at the Hole-in-the-Wall with a total absence of concealment, and in a manner which argued for all concerned, but particularly for those who supplied the money, a cynicism and shamelessness which no amount of excuse and explanation could overcome. No language could too strongly condemn the conduct of those who had engaged themselves in the corruption of this poverty-stricken class of men in Dublin. The corruption was so bad that, as a matter of fact, small as was the number
  98
  of persons scheduled, it would be a good thing to sweep them off the Electoral Roll for ever.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, there was an enormous difference between the disfranchised electors of Sligo and Cashel and the disfranchised Freemen of Dublin. The former were ratepayers; they were a class of persons who continued to pay their rates, and whose qualification, therefore, remained good. In the case of the Freemen of Dublin, however, their qualification, as had been pointed out, was merely a fancy affair. It had no right whatever to exist; the qualification was a thing in the air; and he contended that even if this charge was not laid against them, or proved against them, the franchise was one that should be now abolished; indeed, which ought to have been abolished long since. These Freemen of Dublin had been a notoriously corrupt body for a long series of years. Corruption was no new thing with them, and the Dublin Election now referred to was an especial case. Corruption was the well-known and established character of this body of men; they were in the market; their votes were always to be had for a consideration, and for a very small consideration too. Their ill-doing simply culminated in this notorious election of Sir Arthur Guinness for the City of Dublin. They then and there, so to speak, filled up the measure of iniquity until it overflowed. Why, it was notorious that some of the men who voted at the election were brought over from England, clothes being provided for them to enable them to make a decent appearance when they arrived in Dublin. Others were brought out of the workhouses; others from the Marshalsea Prison in Dublin; and all, he believed, got this money before they came to vote. In fact, one of the attendants in the prison he had named had had something to do with the bribery. Well, it was proposed to introduce these Freemen into an electoral body which the Government, who were introducing them, hoped would be a pure one. Was that the way the Government would deal with cattle coming from countries in which diseases were known to exist? No; in such a case they would refuse to allow the cattle to be introduced into the country lest they should bring with them diseases

  99
  which would infect the sound herds. It seemed to him that the Government had no defence at all to make in this matter. He protested against this franchise altogether, no matter whether those who possessed it exercised it purely or otherwise. It was an absurd franchise, and should not be allowed to exist. He protested against its continuance for the sake of a mere handful of men who had proved themselves to be a most corrupt body, not at one election but at every election. So far as they were concerned, the more elections there were the better; if an election came once every twelve months the better for them—the more they would gain by it. It was proposed to bring this rotten lot back into the electorate of Dublin. As a citizen of Dublin he protested against it both in the interests of electoral purity and for the sake of common sense and propriety.
  MR. O'SULLIVANsaid, it must be recollected that a large number of the persons who had been disqualified at this election had been brought out of the poor-house. The mere fact of their having been in the poor-house should have disqualified them. The Government disqualified one man because he got relief to the extent of a shilling; and yet these men, who made a practice of living on the ratepayers in Dublin, were to be allowed to vote. That should be made a reason for their disqualification.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREwished to point out that the Act of 1870, which disfranchised certain voters in the City of Dublin, did not deprive them of the Freeman's franchise, but operated as a personal disfranchising measure, disfranchising certain individuals reported on by the Commissioners. It might be that certain of these persons had since become respectable voters and ratepayers in the City of Dublin. If that were so, they would be entitled to the franchise under the Act of 1870. To keep that Act unrepealed, and to allow the people in Sligo to vote whilst those in Dublin were disqualified, would be an injustice.
  MR. SEXTONthought that the people of Sligo and Cashel and of Dublin should be treated in a different spirit. In the case of Sligo and Cashel, the electors were the victims of lawyers who
  100
  came down from Dublin, whilst those who had committed the same offence in Dublin had been guilty of the most shameless corruption.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, that some hon. Members thought that these Dublin electors were disfranchised as Freemen, but could vote as householders. Was it not a fact that the men were disfranchised altogether, so that, however much they might become ratepayers, they could not vote as such? Whilst sympathizing with the spirit of the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy), he was afraid he could not support a perpetual disfranchisement of that kind.
  MR. DAWSONsaid, that, having been Lord Mayor of Dublin, and having admitted people to the Boll, he was familiar with the point under discussion. He could state that when these Freemen were disfranchised they lost their position as voters altogether. The Freedom franchise could not now be obtained from that House. It was obtained from the City of Dublin and was given at the Court of the Lord Mayor. If people were deprived of the Freedom they could not get it given to them again by the House.
  MR. HEALYsaid, he proposed to leave out of the Amendment lines 12 and 13. He had not intended to trouble the House with any reference to Judge Keogh's judgment, nor yet with the elaborate details of the Commission; but as he had been challenged by the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Plunket) who represented Trinity College as to Sir Arthur Guinness's conduct, he would read, for the right hon. and learned Gentleman's satisfaction, two or three lines of Judge Keogh's judgment. The learned Judge said Sir Arthur Guinness had not been asked whether he had intimated that there was a limit at which he would stop; he had not been asked whether he had intimated to his agents that they were not to draw upon his purse to any amount. Fortunately for himself and those depending on him, his resources, said the Judge, appeared to be very great. His Lordship had gone on to refer to the cheques signed by Sir Arthur Guinness. It was very well for the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Plunket), who was a relative of Sir Arthur Guinness,

  101
  or Lord Ardilaun as he was now—Lord Cruiskeen Lawn as he was called in Ireland—
  MR. SPEAKER: I must remind the hon. and learned Member that Members of the other branch of the Legislature must be spoken of with respect in this House. Besides, the conduct of Lord Ardilaun is not now under consideration.
  MR. HEALYsaid, he had only quoted the words of the learned Judge, who had said to Sir Arthur Guinness's counsel that it was extraordinary that he had never asked his client's agents what this large amount of money was paid for. He had asked whether they had allowed this money to be taken out of their pockets wholesale without putting questions to these people? He (Mr. Healy) was bound to speak with respect of Members of the Upper House. He was only sorry he was not able to speak as plainly as Judge Keogh had done of the conduct of certain gentlemen he had disqualified. These men were Freemen, and because they were Freemen they were not subjected to disqualification for ordinary relief or workhouse relief. They remained in the workhouse from one end of the year to the other, and the clerk never objected to the retention of their names on the Register of Voters. He hoped the House would not assent to men possessing the franchise whom the Judges of the land had over and over again declared unworthy to possess it.
  Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, to leave out lines 12 and 13.—(Mr. Healy.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEwas under the impression that the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Healy) was wrong in supposing that a Freeman was not disqualified for parochial relief. [Mr. HEALY: Not in Dublin.] Did the hon. and learned Gentleman mean to say that if an objection were made to a Freeman on the ground that he had received parochial relief he would not be struck off the Register? A man might come out of the workhouse and vote if he was on the Register; but that did not affect his right; he ought to be struck off.
  MR. HEALYsaid, that as the right hon. Baronet had appealed to him, the House, no doubt, would permit him to say that the Clerk of the Union did not deal with the Freeman Roll at all. The Clerk of the Union only dealt with the Ratepayers Roll, and no one but the Clerk to the Union could object to anybody for getting medical relief. Would the right hon. Baronet support his Amendment to provide that—
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEunderstood that Poor Law Relief did disqualify; he was not speaking of medical relief.
  MR. DAWSONasked if the House could restore Freemen?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHEIX)imagined it could not. The Act did not disqualify men as Freemen, but individually. If, therefore, this Amendment were carried every one of these men, even if they became respectable ratepayers, paying rent and taxes, would be disfranchised.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 58; Noes 28: Majority 30.—(Div. List, No. 176.)
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that in thanking the House for the long Sitting that night, he wished to say he did not propose to take the third reading of the Bill then. He would put the third reading down as second Order for Monday, when he did not apprehend there would be any opposition.
  MR. HEALYsaid, that on the question that the third reading be fixed for Monday, he wished to express his personal sense of the great courtesy and distinguished ability which the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had displayed in conducting the Bill through the House. He would also refer to the services of Mr. Howel Thomas, Secretary of the Boundary Commission, as deserving of the highest praise. He (Mr. Healy) had been bound to criticize the action of the Irish Commissioners; but he could only wish that so painstaking and courteous an official had to deal with the Irish boundaries. As he (Mr. Healy) and his hon. Friends regarded the Bill from first to last as a bad Bill, they would divide against the third reading.
  Bill to be read the third time upon Monday next.

WATERWORKS CLAUSES ACT (1847) AMENDMENT BILL.— [BILL 152.]
(Mr. Daniel Grant, Mr. Torrens, Mr. Sclater Booth, Mr. Arthur Cohen, Mr. Ritchie, Mr. William Lawrence, Baron Henry De Worms.)
WATERWORKS CLAUSES ACT (1847) AMENDMENT BILL.— [BILL 152.]

  CONSIDERATION.
  Bill, as amended, considered.
  Clause 1 (Explanation of s. 68. of Act 10 & 11 Vict. c. 17).
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 16,leave out "in the parishes and unions subject to valuation."—(Mr. Torrens.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that this was an Amendment he suggested to his hon. Friend when the Bill was in Committee. It was to make two areas coincide; it only made a difference with regard to two hamlets.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. WILLSproposed in page 2, line 1, after the word "shall," to insert the words "so far as relates to the Metropolitan area." His object in moving this Amendment was to make it more clear than it was at present that the Bill was confined to the Metropolis.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 1, after the word "shall," insert the words "so far as relates to the Metropolitan areas."—(Mr. Wills.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEunderstood the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Birkbeck) proposed to insert the words "for the purposes of this Act" after the word "shall." Those words were simple words, and those who advised him (Sir Charles W. Dilke) in these matters thought they were preferable words.
  MR. WILLSsaid, that under the circumstances he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 1, after the word "shall," insert the words "for the purposes of this Act."—(Mr. Birlcleck.)
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Bill to be read the third time upon Friday next.

  WATER COMPANIES (REGULATION OF POWERS) BILL [Lords.]— [BILL 161.]
  (Mr. Ritchie.)
  WATER COMPANIES (REGULATION OF POWERS) BILL [Lords.]— [BILL 161.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Ritchie.)
    MR. BRYCEsaid, he did not intend to oppose the second reading, though he disapproved of the Bill in its present form. When the Bill was introduced in the House of Lords it was a very good little Bill in two clauses. The Water Companies got hold of it and knocked it about; indeed, they had piled up 12 additional clauses, and at the same time had whittled down towards a vanishing point most of what was valuable in the measure. The Bill was now conceived more in the interests of the London Water Companies than in those of the public; it seemed to promise much, but it performed little, and would be of little service to the poor. In Committee he should endeavour to bring the Bill back nearer to its original character, by moving a series of Amendments.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEdid not think the Bill was as bad as the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Bryce) imagined. He (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had objections to one or two points; but he did not go so far as his hon. and learned Friend.
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, that so far as he had examined the Bill it would be of great value, especially to the poor, for one of the provisions of the Bill was that the Water Companies could, under no circumstances, cut off the water in cases where the owner of the property was liable to pay the water rates.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

WATS AND MEANS.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (NO. 3) BILL.
  Resolution [March 7] reported, and agreed to:—Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir ARTHUH OTWAY, Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, and Mr. HIBBEBT.
  Bill presented, and read the first time.

MOTIONS.

  TRAMWAYS PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 2) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. HOLMS, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade, under "The Tramways Act, 1870," relating to Dudley and Kingswinford Tramways, Llwynpoid (Carmarthen) Tramways, Paisley Tramways, and Salford Corporation Tramways, ordered to be brought in by Mr. HOLMS and Mr. CHAMBERLAIN.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 166.]

  TRAMWAYS PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 3) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. HOLMS, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade, under "The Tramways Act, 1870," relating to Birmingham and Western Districts Tramways, Birmingham Central Tramways (Extension), and Birmingham Corporation Tramways, ordered to be brought in by Mr.
  HOLMS and Mr. CHAMBERLAIN.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 167.]

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 3) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. GEORGE RUSSELL, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to the Borough of Bangor, the Local Government Districts of Blaenavon and Brynmawr, the Borough of Burnley, the Local Government District of Groat Driffield, the Boroughs of Haverfordwest and Leeds, the Improvement Act District of Leek, the Borough of Pwllheli, and the Local Government District of Widnes, ordered to be brought in by Mr. GEORGE RUSSELL and Sir CHARLES W. DILKE.
  Bill presented, and road the first time. [Bill 168.]

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 4) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. GEORGE RUSSELL, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to the Rural Sanitary District of the Atherstone Union, the Local Government District of Festiniog, the Rural Sanitary District of the Leyburn Union, the Boroughs of Newport (Monmouthshire) and Preston, the Local Government District of Raw-den, and the Rural Sanitary Districts of the Tadcaster and Wangford Unions, ordered to be brought in by Mr. GEORGE RUSSELL and Sir CHARLES W. DILKE.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 169.]

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (GAS) PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. GEORGE RUSSELL, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board, under the provisions of "The Gas and Water Works Facilities Act 1870," and "The Public Health Act, 1875," relating to the Local Government Districts of East Dereham, Ellesmere, and Haverhill, ordered to be brought in by Mr. GEORGE RUSSELL and Sir CHARLES W. DILKE.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 170.]

  TURNPIKE ACTS CONTINUANCE.
  Ordered, That it be a further Instruction to the Select Committee on Turnpike Acts Continuance, to take into consideration the Acts relating to the Roads under the management of the Commissioners of Highways of the Isle of Wight, and to report to the House whether any step should be taken in regard to the continuance or discontinuance of the arrangements under which these roads are now partly maintained out of tolls levied thereon.—(Mr. George Russell.)

  NATIONAL DEBT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, Bill to suspend for a period certain payments on annuities created under the National Debt Act, 1883, and to reduce for a like period the permanent annual charge of the National Debt, ordered to be brought in by Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER and Mr. HIBBERT.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 172.]
  House adjourned at twenty-five minutes after Three o'clock till Monday next.