SEVENTH SCHEDULE.

HC Deb 08 May 1885 vol 298 cc37-91

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. RAIKES

said, 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. DILKE

said, 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. RAIKES

said, 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 CROSS

said, 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 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 CAVENDISH

said, 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 KENNARD

moved, 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-BOOTH

expressed 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. DILKE

said, 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. SLAGG

moved 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. EGERTON

said, 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. DILKE

said, 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- 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. DILKE

said, 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 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 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 LEWISHAM

said, he was sorry to find himself compelled to detain 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 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 SIMON

said, he had presented Petitions from every part of the locality which went the other way.

VISCOUNT LEWISHAM

said, 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 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. DILKE

said, this point had been fully discussed he-fore, and he hoped it would not be discussed at length again.

MR. JACKSON

said, 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 NORTHCOTE

said, 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. LEATHAM

said, 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-WORTLEY

moved 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 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. DILKE

said, 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 NORTHCOTE

observed, 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. DILKE

said, 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 NORTHCOTE

said, he was sure it was quite an oversight.

COLONEL GUNTER

rose 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- 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. ILLINGWORTH

said, 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. JACKSON

said, 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 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-WORTLEY

said, 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. GORST

said, 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. DILKE

said, 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'DONNELL

said, 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. DILKE

said, 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-HARMAN

hoped 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. EWART

supported the name of Dunluce as being one that was desired by the people of the county.

MR. SULLIVAN

thought 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. LEAMY

said, he saw no great harm in retaining the possession of the old Irish names, and would support the Amendment.

MR. HEALY

said, 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. DILKE

remarked, that it was a great pity that that question had not been raised in Committee.

MR. GREER

said, 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. DILKE

repeated that all the Irish names were changed in some degree without any expression of dissent; and the discussion extended over three days.

COLONEL KING-HARMAN

observed 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. HEALY

thought the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel King-Harman) had begun his efforts too late.

He should have proposed that the Isle of Thanet should be called the Rockingham Division.

MR. T. D. SULLIVAN

said, he did not see the advantage of aliases in a Bill of this kind.

MR. SEXTON

said, that out of 85 county divisions of Ireland, only five were not called after the county.

MR. BIGGAR

did 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 WALLACE

moved 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. DILKE

said, 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-HARMAN

supported the Amendment.

MR. BIGGAR

did 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. PLUNKET

hoped that the right hon. Baronet would accept the Amend- 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. HEALY

said, 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. SMALL

thought that Lisburn had no claim whatever to have its name perpetuated in Parliamentary records.

MR. EWART

said, that the reason the Irish Tory Members were absent was that they were in Ireland welcoming the Prince of Wales.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

thought 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. DILKE

thought 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'DONNELL

proposed 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 "North Armagh," the words "or Oneilland Division."—(Mr. O'Donnell.)

MR. HEALY

said, 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'DONNELL

moved 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. SEXTON

wished 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 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. KENNY

said, 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'DONNELL

said, his next Amendment had reference to the county 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. DILKE

opposed 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- 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'BRIEN

said, 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. HEALY

said, 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; 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'DONNELL

moved 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'BRIEN

remarked, 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'DONNELL

said, 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, compared with Barrymore, Condons, Clangibbon, and Kinnatalloon.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. O'BRIEN

moved 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'DONNELL

said, 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. DILKE

said, 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. HEALY

said, 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'BRIEN

moved, 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'DONNELL

moved 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. DILKE

said, 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. DILKE

said, 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'DONNELL

moved 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, 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. HEALY

remarked 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'DONNELL

said, 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. SULLIVAN

asked 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'DONNELL

said, 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'CONNOR

thought 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'DONNELL

moved, 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. DILKE

thought 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'DONNELL

moved, 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. SMALL

moved, 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, 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 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. DILKE

said, 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 KER

said, 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 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. HEALY

said, 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 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'DONNELL

said, 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. DILKE

said, 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. HEALY

said, that, before this Question was put, he should like to ask 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 NOLAN

said, 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 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. DILKE

said, 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. SEXTON

said, 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 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'CONNOR

said, 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'DONNELL

said, 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. CALLAN

said, 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 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'DONNELL

said, 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. HEALY

said, 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'DONNELL

said, that he stated, in moving the Amendment, that the country of Desmond extended from the Shannon to the Blackwater. The cor- 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'DONNELL

said, 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. MARUM

proposed 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'SULLIVAN

said, 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'DONNELL

proposed 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. DILKE

thought 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. HEALY

said, 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. SEXTON

said, 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'DONNELL

said, he should have great pleasure in supporting the 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'DONNELL

was 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. HEALY

said, 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'DONNELL

said, 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. PLUNKET

begged 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 REDMOND

said, 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'CONNOR

said, he was sorry that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin had halted between the 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'CARTHY

said, 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. DILKE

said, 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-HARMAN

said, 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, however, to oppose the Amendment, because the Apprentice Boys of Derry were extremely proud of the name of Derry.

MR. LEAMY

said, 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. PLUNKET

said, 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. DILKE

said, 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. HEALY

said, he wished to put it on record that it was the Irish Mem- 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'DONNELL

said, he did not propose to go to a division on the next Amendment standing in his name; but 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'DONNELL

said, 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. HEALY

said, 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. HEALY

said, 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 in the district to see exactly what arrangements had been made, and what alterations had been effected.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, 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. CORBET

said, 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 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. DILKE

said, 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. SEXTON

said, 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 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. PLUNKET

said, 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 must therefore urge on the right hon. Baronet to adhere to the decision of the Commissioners.

COLONEL KING-HARMAN

said, 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'CONNOR

said, 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 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 REDMOND

said, 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 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 LEFEVRE

said, 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 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. HEALY

said, 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. CALLAN

wished the House to mark the conduct of the Commissioners. Of course, there were on the Commission most courteous and considerate offi- 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'CARTHY

appealed 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. MARUM

said, 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'CONNOR

said, 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.