Lords Sitting of 8 June 1885

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Gas Provisional Orders (No. 1)* (108).
Committee—Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) (109–129).
Committee—Report—Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Public Health Act) (No. 2)* (83); Metropolis (Hughes Fields, Deptford) Provisional Order Confirmation * (82); Metropolis (Tabard Street, Newington) Provisional Order Confirmation * (81); East India Unclaimed Stocks* (113).
Third Reading—Local Authorities (Expenses of Conferences) * (118), and passed.

PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (REDISTRIBUTION) BILL.—(No. 109.)
(The Earl of Kimberley.)
PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (REDISTRIBUTION) BILL.—(No. 109.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, in rising to move that the House do resolve itself into Committee on this very important Bill, I think it is right I should give a very brief sketch of its principal provisions. Your Lordships will doubtless remember that when the Franchise Bill, which it is calculated will give the voting power to not less than 2,000,000 additional persons, was under discussion, it was considered just that it should be accompanied by a Redistribution Bill, and accordingly Her Majesty's Government gave a very strong pledge that they would use their utmost efforts to introduce and carry such a Bill during the present Session; and in redemption of that pledge the present Bill has been passed through the other House, and has now reached your Lordships. The difficulties attending a Bill of such minuteness and of so far-reaching a character could hardly have been overcome, so as to allow of the Bill being passed, had it not been for the Government having the advantage of free communication with the Leaders of the Party opposite with regard to the principal provisions of the measure. Those communications have resulted, as your Lordships are aware, in an agreement as to the main principles of the Bill; and the agreement come to has been most honourably and faithfully followed by the Party opposite; and it is a matter for congratula-

  1361
  tion that, by their agreement and the general support which has been accorded to the Bill, it has now reached its present stage. The principle of the Bill is to redress the great inequalities which have existed, up to the present time, in the distribution of seats, and especially the very great inequalities which have existed between county and borough representation as regards the population of the several constituencies. In a matter of this kind, it was impossible to produce exact equality unless we had done what I am sure your Lordships would not have approved—arbitrarily divided the whole country into electoral divisions, without any reference to ancient practice or tradition. We have not pursued that course, but have endeavoured, as far as possible, to respect the ancient divisions of the country, and to make no unnecessary changes. The result is that certain anomalies, as between some constituencies and others, exist in the Bill; but they are very few in number, and of no great extent, the general result being to adjust the inequalities I referred to in a manner that, upon the whole, is to be regarded as substantially equitable and fair. I may mention that, under the present system in England, the proportion of seats to population is, in counties, one to 70,800 persons, and, in boroughs, one to 41,200. Under the Bill the proportion will be one to 52,800 in counties, and one to 52,700 in boroughs. To obtain these results it has been necessary that the Bill should be of a far-reaching character; and, accordingly, the present Bill deals with a much larger number of seats than either the great Reform Bill of 1832 or the Bill of 1867. The plan pursued has, in the first place, been that boroughs have been disfranchised in which there was not a population of 15,000. In the second place, what are known as the Hundred Boroughs, such as Cricklade, and large rural boroughs like Stroud, have been merged into the counties. Thirdly, one Member has been taken from every borough which has not a population of 50,000, and one Member has also been taken from each of the three counties of Herefordshire, Rutland, and Sligo. In addition to that, the boroughs of Macclesfield and Sandwich, which had been disfranchised for corrupt practices, have been merged in the counties. Besides the seats which
  1362
  have been thus made available, it has been determined to increase the number of Members of the House of Commons by 12, in order to obtain a sufficient number of seats for redistribution. By these operations 162 seats have been gained—namely, 134 in England, 2 in Scotland, and 26 in Ireland. To these must be added the seats taken from the disfranchised boroughs of Beverley, Bridgwater, Cashel, and Sligo, 6 in all. With the 12 additional Members to which I have alluded, the total number of seats available for redistribution is therefore 180. The seats have been distributed in this way—97 Members have been given to the counties, and 83 to existing and new boroughs and the Metropolis. The result of the operations is as follows:—At present, in England and Wales, the counties have 187 Members, and the boroughs 297; under the Bill the counties will have 253 Members, and the boroughs 237. In Scotland at present there are 32 county seats and 26 borough seats; under the Bill there are 39 county seats and 31 borough seats. In Ireland the present distribution is 64 Members for counties, and 37 for boroughs; under the Bill there will be 85 for counties, and 16 for boroughs. The totals for the United Kingdom are as follow:—There are now 283 county seats and 360 borough seats; whereas, under the Bill, there will be 377 county seats, and 284 borough seats. There is another point which your Lordships will probably regard as of some importance. The rural and town constituencies have been kept separate as far as possible, and towns have not been unnecessarily merged with the counties, so as to deprive the counties of their rural character. Of course, under the Bill, a large number of small towns are merged in the counties; but, on the other hand, large additions have been made to boroughs. It may be important that the House should known exactly the results. In England and Wales the population taken from the counties is 185,627; in Scotland, 45,205; and in Ireland, 13,478—making a total of 1,244,310. On the other side of the account, the population merged in the counties is—in England and Wales, 924,039; in Scotland, 23,903; and in Ireland, 168,070—making 1,116,012, as a result of the whole operation. I ought also to mention

  1363
  what has been done as regards the Metropolis. At the present time there are only 22 Metropolitan Members; under the Bill there will be 59 Members. An addition has been made throughout the Metropolis, and a diminution in one case only—that of the City of London, which now has 4, and will in future have 2 Members only. The original plan of the Bill was to take the districts under the Metropolis Management Act, and to follow those divisions to a considerable extent; but, in some cases, this plan has been altered in the House of Commons. I need not allude in detail to the different cases. But although there has been a considerable increase in the number of Metropolitan Members, even now the Metropolis will not have its full proportion of Members as compared with other parts of the United Kingdom. Under the Bill the Metropolis will have one Member to 65,000; whereas the proportion in the rest of the Kingdom will be one to 52,800. There is another point with regard to the Bill to which I may direct the attention of the House. We have introduced a plan to divide constituencies returning several Members into single-Member districts. Many have held that is necessary to respect the right of minorities to representation; but, although many ingenious schemes have been propounded—so ingenious, in fact, as to be rather difficult to understand—what has been adopted, in order not to neglect this important part of the subject, has been what is known in France as scrutin d' arrondissement. In boroughs, however, where there are only 2 Members, those 2 are still left. That, no doubt, is an anomaly, and no one can deny that it is so; but it is not essential to the working of the Bill that everything should be perfectly logical. I believe that now I have explained, all the really important parts of the Bill. There is, however, another large part of the Bill—that which deals with names of divisions—upon which, I think, your Lordships will not require me to say much. All I will say is, that there is no general system whatever with regard to these names; every kind of plan has been adopted with regard to different parts of the country. In some counties the names are compass names alone. In others there are alternative names; and in others, again, the districts are named from towns only. I will only add that, from the Amendments
  1364
  proposed to this Bill, which are not very numerous, I think it is clear that your Lordships are disposed generally to receive it with satisfaction; and I may congratulate the House and the country upon a work of this extraordinary magnitude having been brought to a satisfactory conclusion mainly through the good sense and moderation displayed—with the exception, perhaps, of a short period at the close of last Session and the earlier part of the Autumn-—upon both sides, which, in my opinion, forms a most happy augury for the continuance and good working of our Constitutional Government in the future. I now beg leave to move that the House resolve itself into Committee upon the Bill.
  Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into a Committee."—(The Earl of Kimberley..)
  LORD DENMAN,in rising, according to Notice, to move, as an Amendment, that the House do resolve itself into Committee that day six months, said, it seemed as if their Lordships would rather encourage the advocacy of anyone than his (Lord Denman's). In 1856, the Earl of Clancarty had waited on him stating his intention to, and afterwards moved the rejection of the Life Peerage Bill, against which he (Lord Denman) had already given Notice; but, in every case, either a vote in "another place," or a reaction on the part of their Lordships, had justified his early opposition. On another occasion the Earl of Malmesbury had opposed, and succeeded, on third reading, m defeating, a Bill for 28 Life Peers; while, against the second reading, not a Teller could be found by him (Lord Denman). In the first-mentioned Bill his advice had been followed, and Lord Wensleydale became an hereditary Peer in July, 1856, and Lord Kingsdown in 1858, and for 20 years the appeals were well decided without any paid Law Lords. On the Deceased Wife's Sister Bill he (Lord Denman) had given Notice of opposition to the third reading; but the late Duke of Marlborough took it out of his hands, and, to his great honour, succeeded in rejecting the Bill by exertions which might be supposed to have shortened his valuable life. On the present occasion he (Lord Denman) could not hope to succeed at first; but, on a measure on which

  1365
  opinions were always fluctuating, opposition would arise hereafter. On June 26, 1855, Lord Lyndhurst, in a most remarkable speech, said that—
  "No man can admire more than I do the extraordinary eloquence of the right hon. Gentlemen … but I must say that I do not regret … that they (Sir James Graham and Mr. Gladstone) have retired from the Cabinet. With all their talents they do not appear to me to possess that manly character, that vigour of mind, and that fixity of purpose, which arc essential to a Cabinet Minister at a period like the present, though in a time of calm and peace nothing could he more ornamental or useful than their services."—(3 Hansard, [139] 136.)
  But how, in time of peace, could such a vague measure as the present be useful? The multiplication of new boroughs and of candidates made it an object to name a talking lady for Camberwell. The names of counties were not according to the definition before the 7th Schedule, as it originally stood in "another place." "High Peak" was confined to a small part of that well-known district. The City of London was deprived of two Members. Sheffield was cut into small divisions. The minority vote had not prevented all votes being given on one side. Where there were four Members, four votes should be given to each voter, and so the hearts of all men be unanimous. He was convinced that what Mr. H. Drummond called the "counting of noses" was carried too far, and felt sure that before the completion of the registration much alteration would be made by the maturer judgment of the people.
  Amendment moved, to leave out ("now,") and add at the end of the Motion ("this day six months.")—(The Lord Denman.)
  On Question, That the word ("now") stand part of the Motion?
  Resolved in the affirmative.
  LORD EMLY,who had the following Notice upon the Paper:—
  "To ask, "What are the intentions of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the giving a Member to the Royal University of Ireland?"
  said: My Lords, in accordance with the Notice I have given, I rise to ask my noble Friend below me (the Earl of Kimberley) to explain why, by this Bill, the Royal University of Ireland is excluded from Parliamentary representation? I ask this question on behalf of the Senate of the University. Our case
  1366
  is surely a reasonable one. We ask your Lordships to deal with us as you dealt with the University of London in 1867. Our claims, I shall show you, are much stronger than theirs were then. They obtained their Member, without depriving any other University of any of its privileges; and we entirely repudiate the suggestion made in the other House that our Member should be taken from the University of Dublin. We shall be the foremost in defence of its present right of representation, which all, without distinction of Party, admit that it uses so well. I am confident, my Lords, that if you will give me your attention for a very few minutes, I shall be able to show that, from the number of the graduates as compared with that of the Universities that have Parliamentary representation, from its peculiarly representative character, and by the precedent passed 17 years ago, a serious and palpable injustice will be done to the Royal University if it is not given a Member. I know the difficulty which the compact between the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) and Mr. Gladstone opposes to an)' alteration in this Bill; but a compact to commit injustice is immoral, and can bind nobody's conscience. Now, putting aside Durham, which has only a few hundred graduates, and Victoria, which, I believe, has none, every University in the United Kingdom, with the exception of the Royal University, is given by this Bill Parliamentary representation. Let your Lordships compare the London with the Royal University. I have a Return here from which the names of the deceased members of each have been eliminated; and I find that while the London University has only 2,400 electors the Royal University would have 2,700. Again, the annual increase in the Royal is double that in the London University. In the four years beginning with 1881, the London University increased by 300, the Royal by 600; so that in 10 years the electors of the latter will probably be double those of the former. Then, my Lords, I ask you to recollect that the London University is merely a supplement to the existing Universities, while the Royal University is pre-eminently national, embracing, as it does, large classes who would otherwise be excluded from University education. It is the University of the Catholics and Presbyterians, constituting

  1367
  the vast bulk of the population of Ireland. On its Senate sit the Representatives of all the religious Bodies of Ireland; and it is the only University in Ireland to which large numbers of the Catholics of Ireland can go without violating their consciences. Then, again, while the London University is only an examining Body, the Royal University teaches through its Fellows, and among those Fellows are many who have won the highest distinctions, such as Professors Cunningham, Hopkins, and Arnold. Now, my Lords, I come to precedents. In 1867 your Lordships gave a Member to the London University, which then had somewhere about 1,300 electors. You did so by acclamation, without an objection, without a division. I recollect that Mr. Bright on that occasion said that, although he was opposed to any University representation, because he found that University Members always voted against him, he would vote for London University, seeing that other Universities had Members in the House of Commons. How can that precedent be got over? Is it wise, my Lords, especially at this time, to inflict a glaring injustice on the flower of the middle classes of Ireland; on the young men among them of the highest spirit, culture, and abilities? Is it wise to flash before their eyes the comparison of London University, with some 1,300 or 1,400 electors, 18 years ago getting a Member by acclamation, with Dublin, with nearly double the number, now contumeliously refused; and is this the equal justice to Ireland of which Her Majesty's Ministers are the special Representatives and patrons? My Lords, what is the argument that will be used against me on the other side of the question? Some doctrinaires are opposed to all University representation, and object to its being extended. I reply to them as Mr. Bright did—"Refuse all, or admit all." It is difficult for me to well conceive how any rational man can believe that high learning and culture are likely to be too largely represented in the next Parliament, or that the educated classes in Ireland will be masters of so many constituencies that it is necessary to perpetrate an injustice to deprive them of this one. Such a course reminds me of an answer given in 1874 by an elector in a Southern county in Ireland to a friend who en-
  1368
  treated him not to vote for an uneducated candidate. "Sure," he said, "the educated men have had the country long enough." Another argument I have heard is—Ireland is not entitled to have three University Members. Surely, my Lords, we are still, thank God, a United Kingdom. You cannot refuse a Member to the only unrepresented University, otherwise entitled to have one, on account of the particular part of the United Kingdom in which it happens to be placed. You might as well disfranchise an English town because there are so few urban constituencies in Ireland. This, I repeat, is the only unrepresented University in the United Kingdom. I thank you sincerely, my Lords, for having allowed me to plead the cause of this University. It was founded by the late Government, Its success has been greater than the most sanguine could have-expected it to be. Many of the best men in Ireland of every school in politics, and of every religious denomination, have laboured, and are still labouring hard, to raise it to the level of the best of your ancient Universities. Do not, I entreat you, allow the mark of inferiority to be branded on its brow; do not allow it to be left alone of all the Universities of this United Kingdom without the distinction of being represented in Parliament.
  VISCOUNT POWERSCOURTsaid, he thought the noble Lord who had just spoken (Lord Emly) had made out a good case on behalf of the Royal University of Ireland. He (Viscount Powers-court) would call their Lordships' attention to the fact that the Universities having representation—notably the London University—had always sent to Parliament distinguished Members. He could not think that the Royal University would be an exception to the rule. If, as he conceived it was, it were held worthy of the franchise, he heartily supported the proposal.
  THE EARL OF GRANARDsaid, that the Royal University had realized much of the anticipations of its founders; but there could be no doubt that, if the present demand were resisted by the Government and their Lordships' House, it would be such a slur upon the institution that its prosperity and success in the future would, be materially affected. He considered it a gross anomaly that, when the franchise was being extended,

  1369
  and it was already possessed by other Universities, such a University as this, consisting of a Body so learned and so eminently fitted to exercise the franchise, should be debarred from the privilege.
  THE EARL OF LIMERICKsaid, he also supported the proposal of the noble Lord opposite (Lord Emly). He wished their Lordships would take note of the fact that it was supported not only on the Liberal, but also on the Opposition side of the House. He thought it would have been easy to afford a Member for the Royal University, which, from its numbers and from its national position, was eminently entitled to consideration in this respect. He, therefore, regretted that the Government had not seen their way to give a Member to the Royal University of Ireland.
  THE EARL OF LONGFORDsuggested that out of the 10 supernumerary Members that had been allotted to Ireland provision might be made for a Representative of the Royal University.
  THE DUKE OF ABERCORNsaid, he cordially concurred in regretting that Her Majesty's Government had not thought fit to accord representation to the Royal University. Although a recent creation, that University was an institution of great and increasing importance, and represented a large proportion of the Roman Catholic population of Ireland. As such a representative institution, it certainly was entitled to representation, and he very much regretted that the Government had not seen their way to afford it at least one Member. At the same time, he and those who agreed with him would object altogether to any re-adjustment or increase of the numbers of Members at present fixed by the Bill for that purpose, and which would necessitate an interference with the number of Members which the University of Dublin now returned with so much credit to itself and such advantage to the country.
  THE EARL OF ROSSEsaid, he cordially supported the proposal to give a Member to the Royal University of Ireland.
  LORD FITZGERALDsaid, that, taking, as he did, a great deal of interest in the question, he hoped the noble Earl in charge of the Bill (the Earl of Kimberley) might find it in his power to facilitate the application of his noble
  1370
  Friend. He did not disguise from himself that there was a great deal of practical difficulty surrounding the question; but, however much it might be, it could be overcome by the Government if they felt inclined to yield to the manifest wish of the Irish Peers. He agreed with the noble Duke (the Duke of Abercorn) that those who supported this proposal felt no hostility whatever to the existing representation of Dublin University, and he would appeal to the Government to leave this question to be decided by their Lordships. Indeed, if interference with that institution were necessarily involved, he should hesitate to adopt the present proposal. He would remind the Government that it was exceedingly desirable at the present time, even outside the merits of University representation, that wealth, education, and devotion to the institutions of the Empire should be represented, and the only place they could look with confidence for such representation would be the giving of a Member to the Royal University of Ireland. He would point out that the whole of the middle class education of Ireland which was not covered by the Dublin University was in the hands of this Royal University, and strongly appealed to their Lordships to give favourable consideration to the proposal of his noble Friend (Lord Emly).
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, there was such a general concurrence of opinion from those persons in the House who were willing and able to speak on behalf of the Royal University and its interests that it gave him great pleasure to hear that that institution was so successful. It had been said that the refusal to give the Royal University a Member in this Bill was to be regarded as casting an insult or slur upon it. For himself, he could not conceive a more unfortunate mode of looking at the matter, because the question was really one of the granting of a new privilege, and not of taking an old privilege away. If it had been a question of the taking of a privilege away, of course it would have been another matter, and then the argument might have held good. He had not a word to say in disparagement of this University Body. He had had no personal opportunity, of course, of acquainting himself with the working of the Royal University; but all that he had heard

  1371
  on the subject showed that the University was pursuing a most successful career. If anything could be done to strengthen the position of that University he should certainly be found a warm supporter of such a project consistent with other considerations of public policy; but, on the present occasion he was compelled to offer opposition to the wishes of the noble Lords who had preceded him. The reason why the Government could not accede to the request to give this University a Member was not owing to any considerations peculiar to that University; their refusal was based on broader grounds. Reference had been made to what was done in 1867, and to the contrast between the University of London and the present case. This was exactly the point of the whole question, because the contrast was with regard to the feeling which prevailed with regard to University representation generally. No doubt, 18 years ago, there was a general desire to give Members to Universities; but that feeling had materially changed since then, and at the present time there was a considerable and growing feeling against University representation at all—not only as regarded the representation of a new University like the Royal University of Ireland, which he admitted was worthy of great consideration, but against representation being continued in any form to the different Universities in the Kingdom. In the face of that feeling, therefore, Her Majesty's Government could not propose to Parliament any addition to the existing number of University Representatives. It was enough if the Universities could keep the Members they at present possessed, and no doubt they would have to fight hard to keep them; but to add to this representation was a proposition which could not be acceded to. Indeed, he was of opinion that to propose to give further University representation anywhere in the United Kingdom was a thing which anyone cognizant of the general feeling of the country would regard as impracticable and impolitic.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he did not take so gloomy a view of the prospects of University representation as the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Kimberley); and if it were true, as might be inferred from the speech of the noble Earl, that they would have to
  1372
  fight for their separate representation in the future, he ventured to hope, and almost to predict, that the Universities would find adequate assistance in their Lordships' House. He should, therefore, have been glad if it had been possible to have fulfilled the wish, which was entertained by many connected with the Royal University, to give it a Member; and he heartily echoed all that had been said as to the excellent work which this University had done, and the success it had achieved, and which had more than rewarded the anticipation of its promoters. Judging from that, it was heartily to be desired that some day or other the wisdom of Parliament should see fit to give this boon. He believed that the University Members, in view of the changes that were taking place in the bases on which Parliament was founded, would be more and more an important and salutary element in the Constitution and Councils of the nation; and he, for his part, thought they should be increased, and would be glad to see it done. The real difficulty to his mind, however, consisted in the fact that, being asked to give a University Member in this Bill which was already framed, the House was asked to undertake a series of changes which would lead their Lordships far astray, and plunge them into considerable difficulty. The House of Commons had been unwilling enough to make the increase in the numbers which had been asked; and he thought there was no chance of their giving this additional Member to oblige the Royal University. If, however, they were to give this additional Member, it must be taken from some other constituency; and where were they to find this constituency? He had been told that the first community to be considered in this respect was the flourishing town of Belfast. If that was the case, he fancied that the proposal to take a Member from Belfast was one which would hardly be consistent with that absolute unanimity in Ireland which they hoped for on Irish questions. He thought, therefore, that, without the slightest slur being cast upon the University, it would be impossible to assent to the proposal. He would ask his noble Friend (Lord Emly), should he think there was anything in the nature of a slur, to bear in mind that many years elapsed before the University of

  1373
  London received its Member. It had also to be remembered that Ireland had not suffered in any comparative inferiority in the number of University Members. She had a University Member to 2,500,000 of population; England had a University Member to every 5,000,000 of population. He did not think, therefore, they could be accused of any indifference to the claims of the Royal University, if they did not, at the present moment, in face of the difficulties which surrounded them, introduce the representation of this University in the Bill. He wished now to make an observation as to some of the Amendments which lay before their Lordships in Committee. They belonged principally to a class which he did not think excited the same passionate enthusiasm inside the walls of Parliament as they had excited outside. They belonged to the class of questions concerning the names of the future constituencies. It was very difficult to adjust the rival claims which, during the last few days, had been poured in upon them from all quarters. It was difficult to reconcile statements that often seemed to be conflicting; but there was one ground of consideration which seemed to him to be a predominant one, and that was the decision of the Royal Commissioners. One of the results of those colloquies to which the noble Earl had referred, with which Parliament had most reason to be satisfied, was the appointment of this Royal Commission. He did not believe, whichever Party were in power, that a more satisfactory system could have been adopted than that which resulted from the appointment of those impartial Commissioners, whose decision should be rigorously adhered to. As to the boundaries, that had been done. No one had impugned either the ability, or industry, or impartiality of the Commissioners. Indeed, he never knew a public body which performed so difficult a task in so short a time and with such general satisfaction. The House of Commons, to the great satisfaction of men of both political Parties, refused to interfere with the boundaries laid down by the Commissioners; and what had been done in that respect, it seemed to him, should also be done in the less important matter of the names. Several changes had, however, been made with regard to them; and while he confessed that he
  1374
  considered the principle which was good in the one case was good in the other, he should personally retreat from the responsibility of deciding on claims which he could not measure, by supporting, in all cases when pressed to a division, the decision of the Commissioners.
  House in Committee.
  Preliminary.
  Clause 1 (Short title) agreed to.

PART I.

  REDISTRIBUTION.
  Boroughs.
  Clause 2 (Boroughs named in First Schedule to become parts of counties or boroughs) agreed to.
  Clause 3 (Disfranchisement of certain boroughs for corruption).
  LORD BRABOURNEsaid, he wished to call attention to the disfranchised boroughs, as he thought that scant justice had been done them. As a rule they were more sinned against than sinning; and he especially desired to enter his protest against the great act of injustice about to be done to Sandwich, a borough which he represented for 23 years, and which was now to be deprived of separate representation. The Royal Commissioners reported that Sandwich was the centre of great corruption at the election of 1880. He attended a sitting of the Commissioners, upon their summons, and was prepared to go into the previous elections. Had he been able to do so he should have been able to show that the expenditure upon those elections had by no means been unreasonable; and he himself had, during six contested elections, spent an aggregate sum very much smaller than that expended by the successful candidate in 1880. But the Commissioners held that they had no power to inquire into any election behind the uncontested and pure election of March, 1880. No doubt they were correct; but mark the extraordinary course of their subsequent action. In forbidding inquiry behind a pure election, the Legislature doubtless intended that such election should be held to have condoned any previous offences. But in this case the Commissioners, holding themselves precluded from taking evidence which, as his (Lord

  1375
  Brabourne's) would have been favourable to the borough, actually assumed that there had been bribery at previous elections, which was precisely contrary to the intentions of the Legislature. They grounded this assumption partly upon the fact of the organization of the bribery in 1880; but the truth was that this was not attributable to the people of the borough, but to the very able organizer employed by the successful candidate—an agent who, having "made a clean breast of it" before the Commission, went scot free and was now a candidate for another borough, whilst his victims were to be disfranchised. This was a hard measure, and the harder because, whilst many boroughs which had not been punished had often been convicted of bribery in former years, as a matter of fact there had never before been an Election Petition at Sandwich. If the facts were really known, the record of Sandwich would be far less bad than other places that had escaped; and, although he knew that it would be ineffectual, he entered his protest against the disfranchisement.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 4 (Boroughs to have number of Members reduced); Clause 5 (Boroughs to have additional Members); Clause 6 (New boroughs); Clause 7 (Boroughs with their boundaries altered); and Clause 8 (Division of Parliamentary boroughs), severally agreed to.
  Counties.
  Clause 9 (Division of counties).
  LORD NORTON,in moving an Amendment with the object of providing that no divisions of a county should be described by the name of a town except when it could not be avoided from the number of divisions, as in those of the counties of Lancaster and York, said, the claims of rival towns had excited much discussion in the House of Commons. This Amendment was more far-reaching. It raised the question whether the names of towns should be given to counties at all, and that was no mere matter of nomenclature, for in it was involved the principle of representation of interests as against a representation of numbers. No two interests are more distinct than of town and country; and anything tending to obliterate the distinction, and to merge the
  1376
  knight of the shire in the burgess, was alike destructive of the representative principle, and degrading to Members of Parliament, treating them as mere nominal counters of population, instead of spokesmen for local constituencies. The feelings of the Boundary Commissioners, he believed, were against the county nomenclature adopted in the Bill. Their Instructions put it out of their discretion, and made clear the reason of its adoption—namely, that it was the wish of the Government to propitiate certain boroughs which were merged by the Bill, by giving their names to counties. That was just the sort of ease in which their Lordships might wisely interfere. It was for their Lordships to maintain what was really a vital principle of representation—namely, the constitution of the National Council of representation of every interest and locality, as distinguished from a collection of Members at a rate of one for so many thousands of population. The question was between representation of interest and mere representation of numbers. He would conclude by moving the Amendment of which he had given Notice.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 3, line 19, leave out from ("division") to end of clause and insert ("and no division of a county shall be described by the name of a town excepting those of the counties of Lancaster and York.")—(The Lord Norton.)
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that, though he had heard a good deal on this subject, he had not the slightest conception that it was possible for anybody, however ingenious he might be, to imagine that some great Constitutional principle remained at the bottom of the controversy about these names. Agreeing entirely in what the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) had said as to the admirable manner in which the Commissioners had discharged their duties, he ventured to suggest that it would be very unwise to go directly contrary to their recommendations. There was a very strong feeling in different localities in favour of the points of the compass, and in deference to that feeling the alternative method of designation was adopted. He thought it would be very undesirable, as well as being unwise, for their Lordships' House to go now into the very laborious task of re-naming all the

  1377
  divisions of counties. He therefore hoped the House would not agree to the Amendment.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he could not see that it was possible to agree to the proposal of the noble Lord behind him (Lord Norton), and he wished to express his entire dissent from the Constitutional view he had laid down. The matter was of little consequence, and he could not believe that the future distinction between counties and boroughs would depend on the name which was given to any constituency. His own impression was that it would be truer philosophy to say that "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet." The difficulty of adopting such a rule as was suggested, of finding a systematic style of designation, was not confined alone to Lancashire and Yorkshire, and would be enormous. If any noble Lord would take the cases of Cheshire, Devonshire, and Staffordshire, in addition to those which he had named, he would see that, even with all the resources of boxing the compass at his disposal, he could not do it in a way which would be at all clear to Revising Barristers and other officials. Though he did not in the least wish to commit himself to the view that there might not be cases as they went on in smaller counties where it might be desirable to make alterations, he was quite sure that such a general rule as that proposed was impracticable.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.

PART II.

  SUPPLEMENTAL PROVISIONS.
  Clause 10 (Qualification by occupation of premises in immediate succession in divided borough) agreed to.
  Clause 11 (Provision as to Pembroke).
  On the Motion of The Earl of KIMBERLEY, the following Amendment made:—In page 3, line 38, at beginning of clause insert as a separate paragraph: "The borough of Warwick shall be called Warwick and Leamington."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 12 (Returning officers in new boroughs).
  On the Motion of The Earl of KIMBERLEY, the following Amendment
  1378
  made:—In page 4, line 40, leave out "required."
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY,in moving, as an Amendment, to insert, at the end of the clause, the first of the following sub-sections:—
  "(4.) In any new borough constituted under this Act, the whole or the larger part of the area of which was before the passing of this Act comprised in the Parliamentary borough of Westminster, the high bailiff of Westminster shall he the returning officer for the new borough, and also the town clerk for the new borough within the meaning of the Registration Acts, and may, by writing under his hand, appoint a fit person to be his deputy for all or any of the purposes relating to Parliamentary elections in any such new borough, and anything in relation to a Parliamentary election authorised or required to be done by, to, or before the returning officer, may be done by, to, or before the high bailiff himself or such deputy.
  "(5.) Every such deputy shall, in so far as he acts as returning officer, be deemed to be included in the expression 'returning officer' within the meaning of the law relating to Parliamentary elections,"
  said, the Amendment was merely part of a general proposal which he hoped the House would accept, and that was to restore the borough of Westminster to the condition in which it was left by the Boundary Commissioners. The case in question was somewhat peculiar. In the first instance, Westminster was to consist of three boroughs, returning one Member each; but when it was thought desirable to give a fourth Member, it was consolidated into one borough with four divisions. Afterwards it was thought undesirable that Westminster should have four Members, and then the plan of three Members was returned to. But the original plan of the Boundary Commissioners was only returned to in a halting fashion; because Westminster was left as a borough with three divisions, instead of being' divided into three boroughs. The great principle of single Membered constituencies was that each constituency should form a separate integral body, and should not be limited in the amount of votes it conferred by the condition of any other constituency near it. The position of a voter having property in more than one division of a borough was somewhat anomalous. If he had a qualification in two boroughs closely adjoining, he voted in respect of each qualification. But if, instead of two boroughs, he had qualifications in two divisions of one borough, he could

  1379
  only vote for one division, and in that arrangement there did not appear to be any justice. Again, he believed the arrangement he proposed was very much more agreeable to the inhabitants than was the arrangement as it stood in the Bill. They considered that if they could not have four Members, they would far rather revert to the original proposal of the Boundary Commissioners. Therefore, on the general principle of maintaining the single-Member system, and also on the principle of restoring the structure of the Bill to the state in which the Boundary Commissioners left it, he would venture to move a series of Amendments, of which, this was the first.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 5, line 2, at end of clause insert: "(4.) In any new "borough constituted under this Act, the whole or the larger part of the area of which was before the passing of this Act comprised in the Parliamentary borough of Westminster, the high bailiff of Westminster shall be the returning officer for the new borough, and also the town clerk for the new borough within the meaning of the Registration Acts, and may, by writing under his hand, appoint a fit person to be his deputy for all or any of the purposes relating to Parliamentary elections in any such new borough, and anything in relation to a Parliamentary election authorised or required to be done by, to, or before the returning officer, may be done by, to, or before the high bailiff, himself or such deputy."—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he did not think there was sufficient difference between the views of the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) and the Government upon the point in question to justify him in asking the Committee to divide. He would, therefore, accept it.
  Amendment agreed to.
  On the Motion of The Marquess of SALISBURY, remaining sub-section agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 13 (As to boroughs divided into divisions).
  On the Motion of The Earl of KIMBERLEY, the following Amendment made:—In page 5, line 9, leave out ("determination,") and insert ("fixing.")
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 14 (Registration of freemen in divided boroughs); and Clause 15
  1380
  (Adaptation of 46 & 47 Vict. c. 51 to divided borough), severally agreed to.
  Clause 16 (As to place of election).
  On the Motion of The Earl of KIMBERLEY, the following Amendment made:—In page 6, line 41, leave out the words ("Provided that this sub-section shall not apply to Scotland or Ireland,") and insert—
  ("Provided that in Ireland the place of election, in the case of a division of a county at large, shall be fixed by the returning officer, and shall be situate within the division or within a county of a city or town adjoining that division.")
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 17 (Saving of rights of voters on change of Parliamentary area if otherwise qualified); and Clause 18 (Detached part of parishes), severally agreed to.
  Clause 19 (Transitory provisions as to registers of voters).
  On the Motion of The Earl of KIMBERLEY, the following Amendment made:—In page 7, line 34, at end of line insert—
  ("Divisions of counties may be divided into polling districts at any time after the passing of this Act in like manner as they might be divided after the end of this present Parliament.
  "Where any act or thing has, before this Act came into operation, been done in pursuance of the Registration Acts, or in relation to polling districts or polling places, such act or thing shall be as valid as it would have been if this Act had previously thereto come into operation, and it had been done by the officer or authority and in the form and in relation to the constituency by whom, and in, and in relation to which it would have been done if this Act had previously thereto come into operation, and where any act or thing ought to have been done which if this Act had come into operation before the time for doing the same, the same shall be done forthwith after this Act comes into operation, and shall be as valid as if it had been done at the right time.
  "In England the clerks of the peace and town clerks shall, as soon as may be after the passing of this Act, send to the overseers on whom they have served precepts under the Registration Acts, such supplemental precepts as are necessary or desirable for instructing the overseers to carry into effect the Registration Acts in the constituencies as altered by this Act, and in municipal boroughs affected by this Act, and in particular shall, where necessary, instruct overseers as to the difference between the county and borough lists of voters, and shall direct the overseers of parishes situate in municipal boroughs, and included by this Act in Parliamentary boroughs, to prepare lists of burgesses in conjunction with the lists of parliamentary voters, and shall send the corrupt and

  1381
  illegal practices list containing the names of voters disqualified by this Act. Every such supplemental precept shall he served by the clerk of the peace or town clerk who would have served the former precept if this Act had come into operation before the time for the service of such former precept.
  "In Ireland the boundaries of any polling districts which have been formed in anticipation of the provisions of this Act shall have full effect; nevertheless, if the districts are inconsistent with the boundaries of any divisions of counties constituted by this Act, the Lord Lieutenant, by and with the advice of the Privy Council, may make such order as may be necessary for bringing such polling districts into conformity with the boundaries of such divisions.")
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 20 (Marking of boundaries where they do not follow well-defined lines); and Clause 21 (Adaptation of writs) severally agreed to.
  Clause 22 (Election laws to remain in force) agreed to.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he had an Amendment on the Paper, to insert, as a new clause, after Clause 22, the following:—
  "It shall be lawful for Her Majesty in Council to alter by Order in Council the names of any Parliamentary county, where it shall appear that the alteration is in accordance with the general wish of the people of the locality; provided that such order shall be presented forthwith to both Houses of Parliament."
  He understood, however, that the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Kimberley) had drafted an Amendment with the same object, and, therefore, he should leave the matter in his hands.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, the clause which he proposed was that—
  "If, on a Petition to the Queen, of the registered electors of any division of a county, praying that an alteration maybe made in the name of such division, it appears to Her Majesty in Council that such alteration will be in accordance with the general wish of the inhabitants, it shall be lawful for Her Majesty, by an Order in Council, to make such alteration in the name of the division; and every order so made shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament."
  He hoped that it would meet the suggestion of the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury).
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOKsaid, he could not help expressing his surprise that, after what had already taken place on this subject, they should keep open a controversy for years to come with regard to so trivial a matter. He
  1382
  thought it would be better to settle the question now.
  LORD NORTONsaid, he wished to point out that there would be difficulties in ascertaining the views of the electors, and it would be far better to decide at once to keep to the old and accustomed naming.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, he quite concurred in the views of the noble Viscount (Viscount Cranbrook).
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he would call their Lordships' attention to the fact that the Amendment was not at all owing to his noble Friend (the Earl of Kimberley), but was that of the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury).
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that his impression was that there would be considerable discontent with some of these names, and it would be well to have some means of making alterations. On the other hand, it was quite true that, as the clause stood, it might be put in operation too easily. As the Conservative Party, however, appeared to be profoundly divided on the question, he thought the better course would be for him not to press the clause.
  Amendment (The Earl of Kimberley) (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Clause 23 (Definition in schedules).
  On the Motion of The Earl of KIMBERLEY, the following Amendments made:—In page 8, line 38, leave out ("by which they are wholly surrounded,") and insert ("to which they adjoin"); in page 9, line 1, leave out ("or townland,") and insert ("townland or place"); in line 12, after ("by,") insert ("the whole or part of"); in page 9, line 23, after ("districts,") insert—
  ("Or, in the case of a borough in Ireland, by the town council or town commissioners, and in the case of a parliamentary division of a county in Ireland, by the Local Government Board for Ireland, by order made after local inquiry, and taking effect when made");
  in line 35, leave out ("contents and boundaries,") and insert ("limits"); in page 10, line 6, before ("Act,") insert ("the"); in line 10, leave out ("the area comprised in,"); in page 15, column 1, line 42, leave out ("district,"); and in page 18, line 44, after ("and,") insert ("including.")
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 24 (Definitions) agreed to.
  Application to Scotland.
  Clause 25 (Application of Act to Scotland) agreed to.
  Application to Ireland.
  Clause 26 (Application of Act to Ireland) agreed to.

PART III.

  DISQUALIFICATION OF VOTERS FOR CORRUPT PRACTICES.
  Clause 27 (Repeal of Acts in Eighth Schedule respecting corrupt practices) agreed to.
  Clause 28 (Disqualification of certain voters for corrupt practices).
  THE EARL OF JERSEY,in moving the omission of the clause, said, that it? was contrary to justice and to sound maxim that penal law should be made retrospective. He thought, therefore, that the electors who had been scheduled for corrupt practices at the Election of 1880 ought not to be disfranchised, as this clause proposed. Many of them gave their evidence, and made full disclosures, upon the faith of the indemnity given them by the Commissioners. If, therefore, they were now to be punished, the indemnity would be deprived of its value. He did not wish to stand up for bribery and corruption; but he thought that there was no occasion to keep up the recollection of these unfortunate occurrences now that the whole electorate was being remodelled. Byegones might be allowed to be byegones, and a fresh start given to these men, particularly as the electors of Reigate, Beverley, and other places, would be enfranchised by the Bill.
  Moved, "To omit Clause 28."—(The Earl of Jersey.)
  LORD BRAMWELL,in supporting the Amendment, said, he did so on the ground that the clause imposed a penalty to which the persons affected were not subject before. Besides that, these men to whom it referred had never been tried. It was true that their names had been scheduled upon such evidence as the Commissioners had had before them; but they had not been tried. It was also true that many of them had themselves gone before the Commissioners and told them what they had done;
  1384
  but that was not a trial. No penalty attached to the mere fact of being scheduled. Besides, they had been promised absolution for that confession. Notwithstanding that, however, they were now to be punished by this Act of Parliament. That would be a very hard case indeed. There was another point to which he would call their Lordships' attention. By the clause, the penalty was not to apply to persons tried and acquitted. There was no exemption, however, of those against whom the Attorney General had entered a nolle prosequi. In his opinion, the very fact that the Attorney General had not gone on with the trial against a person showed that he had a weak case against that person, weaker than that which he had against those whom he had prosecuted, and who had been acquitted.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he hoped that their Lordships would not be persuaded by the arguments which they had heard from his noble and learned Friend (Lord Bramwell) to remit all the penalties upon bribery, and now, for the first time, to determine that persons guilty of corrupt practices were to be regarded as entirely irresponsible. In all these cases, special laws had been passed to punish the offenders with respect to their Parliamentary privileges. The immunity from punishment extended only to the Criminal Law. This was not a Criminal Law; they could not ask a man to come forward in that case and punish himself, but there was no reason why he should be exempt from Parliamentary punishment. As a matter of fact, the law as laid down in this clause was of unusual leniency; under the Act of 1883 those persons who were dealt with under the clause would have been disqualified for a longer time. In this clause the course was pursued which had been taken before, and it was quite in accordance with Parliamentary practice. With regard to the question of those against whom the Attorney General had entered a nolle prosequi, he hardly ventured to argue with one who had had the legal experience of the noble and learned Lord; but he thought that a nolle prosequi was by no means equivalent to an acquittal, since it was but the opinion of one individual man.
  LORD BRAMWELLsaid, that a man was acquitted after evidence against

  1385
  him had been heard; a nolle prosequi meant that there was no evidence to be heard.
  LORD ELLEN BOROUGHsaid, the noble Earl who had charge of the Bill should remember that whole constituencies consisting of boroughs were restored under the Bill, although previously disfranchised for corrupt practices.
  THE EARL OF POWISsaid, that, in many instances, this clause, which he thought unnecessarily severe, would carry disfranchisement beyond the existing law.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he would call their Lordships' attention to the fact that by the existing law—the Act of 1883—persons guilty of this offence wore disqualified for seven years from voting at any election, either Parliamentary or municipal; whereas, under the present clause, they were only disfranchised in the division in which the offence was committed. The existing law was, therefore, more severe than this clause.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that what was spoken of as the existing law was not the law which had existed at the time of the commission of these offences. He could not say that the matter was of great importance; but when they looted at the 27th clause, where wholesale amnesty was given, it seemed rather unnecessary, and, if he might say so, unworthy, to pounce down on those unfortunate people in Chester and Oxford and make them the subject of a special penalty, for that was what it came to.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that Clause 27 referred to the perpetual disfranchisement of voters in certain boroughs.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that the question whether the indemnity given to those who gave evidence before Commissioners appointed to inquire into corrupt practices at elections extended to a protection against statutory disfranchisement had been often considered and discussed in Parliament, and always decided in the negative. The present Bill, on that point, was in strict accordance with the former precedents.
  LORD BRAMWELLsaid, that what he objected to was to those persons being convicted, not by the law of the land but by Act of Parliament, without being
  1386
  heard. What the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack said amounted to this—that it was only a very little injustice that they were going to do.
  On question? Resolved in the negative.
  Clause agreed to.
  First, Second, Third, and Fourth Schedules agreed to, with Amendments.
  Fifth Schedule.
  Amendment moved, in page 24, at end of Schedule, insert—

  "Limerick.

  So much of the present Parliamentary as is contained in the municipal borough of Limerick."

  —(The Earl of Limerick.)
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he was unable to accept the Amendment.
  Amendment negatived.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN,in moving an Amendment, to add to the presently constituted Hawick District of Burghs the municipal burgh of Jedburgh, said, their Lordships might be aware that the burgh of Jedburgh formed at the present moment one of the group called the Haddington District of Burghs, which group would be disfranchised by the Bill under the consideration of their Lordships. Of the Border Burghs, Hawick had a population of 16,000, and an electorate of over 2,500; Galashiels had a population of over 15,000, and an electorate of 1,865; Selkirk a population of 6,090, with an electorate of 900; while Jedburgh had a population of 3,400, and an electorate of 395. Thus, if Jedburgh wore added, the total population of the Border Burghs would be about 41,000, and the electorate 5,634. This would not make the constituency exceed that of some other similar constituencies in Scotland. On the other hand, if Jedburgh were taken out of Roxburghshire, that county would still have a population of over 33,000, which he thought was sufficient to entitle it to return a Member. He admitted that, generally speaking, it was the wish of Jedburgh to be added to the county; but it struck him that the question was not so much what the burgh wished, but what the county, which was much larger, wished. As to the other reason, that Jedburgh was not a manufacturing town, he contended that Jedburgh was essentially a

  1387
  manufacturing burgh, and could not be called an agricultural burgh. Jedburgh had an individuality of its own, and in feeling, tradition, and every other way, it was an urban burgh. The place was increasing, and he submitted that there was every reason why it should be preserved from being merged in the county, and added to the Border Burghs.
  Moved, in page 23, after line 12, to insert—

  "Hawick District.

  >The present district as above defined, and the municipal burgh of Jedburgh."

  —(The Marquess of Lothian.)
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he had listened attentively to the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Lothian), but he had heard no reason for placing Jedburgh in the Hawick District. Indeed, the reasons given by the noble Marquess appeared to him to be rather conclusive against his proposal. This question was raised in the House of Commons, and was then, he understood, practically settled. Their Lordships might remember that the Government had a scheme for re-grouping the Scottish burgh constituencies; but that was found not to be generally favourable to the Representatives of Scotland, and it was entirely abandoned, and these constituencies were, so far as that scheme was concerned, left practically as they were. The noble Marquess said Jedburgh was a small town. So were some others which formed the Haddington Burghs. That group, indeed, was disfranchised because it did not contain a population of 15,000. Why should Jedburgh be singled out by the noble Marquess for favourable consideration from among the other towns forming the group. The mere fact that Jedburgh was a small town did not seem to him to be an argument calling for special consideration, because it was not a solitary instance, there being very many towns in the position of Jedburgh as dealt with by the Bill. He understood that the Hawick Burghs with Jedburgh added would have a population of something like 41,000; but their Lordships had to remember that the population of Roxburghshire was already very small, and if Jedburgh was taken out of the county the population would be reduced to 34,000. It did seem to him, therefore, an extraordinary
  1388
  proposal that a burgh should be augmented to 41,000, in order to leave the county with a population of 34,000. In his opinion, no sufficient ground had been presented for altering the decision which had been come to.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, the question was not as to whether this particular Scotch county had or had not a large population. There were many Scotch counties which had very small populations; and, if there was any defect in the Bill, it was the somewhat exaggerated representation given in that respect. The point, however, was that the principle of the Bill was, as far as possible, to separate the urban from the rural constituencies. In this matter of Roxburghshire, that had not been done, and it had not been done in opposition to the process and principle which were followed in other parts of the Bill. As their Lordships knew, where individual constituencies had been disfranchised, single burghs had been thrown into the counties; but this had not been the case with groups. Only two groups of burghs had been abolished—the Haddington Burghs in Scotland, and another group in Wales, that of Haverfordwest, which if it had been dealt with as the Government had dealt with the Haddington Burghs would have been thrown into the counties; but this had not been the case. Haverfordwest was united to the neighbouring borough of Pembroke; but what he contended was that the principle of the Bill was to separate the urban from, the rural constituencies, and that ought to be done by observing a fair and uniform process in dealing with special constituencies. In dealing with those groups, however, the Government were not observing a uniform process. It was difficult to argue this question without having the appearance of insinuating something; he was most anxious to avoid anything of the kind; but the practical effect in both of the cases here under review was that they pleased the local Party which was favourable to the Government and did not please the other Party. If they had proceeded upon a uniform principle, this would be no argument at all; but when the Government went upon one principle in Wales and another principle in Scotland, he thought their Lordships had a right to ask them to make their practice uni-

  1389
  form, and do in Scotland as they had done in Wales.
  THE EARL OF MINTOsaid, that Jedburgh was not a thriving burgh, and was not increasing in the same way as the other Border Burghs were. It was one of an old group of burghs, all of which, for Parliamentary purposes, were proposed to be put into the counties in which they were situated. Why should they take this step with regard to Jedburgh? He had an intimate knowledge of the district; and, on the merits of the case, he thought the arrangement made by the Bill was more satisfactory than the one proposed by the Amendment.
  LORD BALFOURsaid, he thought it was a matter of great regret that more advantage should not be taken of this opportunity to re-arrange the constituencies and the grouping of burghs in Scotland. Anything more anomalous than the present arrangement he thought it would be impossible to conceive; and he was certain that the present system had only been adhered to, because sufficient trouble was not taken to procure agreement upon any other system. Almost anything, he believed, would on the merits have been better than the present system of grouping burghs in Scotland. Any system which grouped two burghs like Ayr and Campbeltown together, and which made some of these groups so small in point of population, as compared with some county constituencies, must, he thought, of itself stand condemned. The present system left one division of Ayrshire with a population of more than 90,000, while the Ayr group of burghs had not more than 40,000. The noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Kimberley) told them that the Government had attempted to produce another scheme; but that scheme, he (Lord Balfour) believed, was condemned almost universally, and it contained anomalies fully as great as those which were allowed at present to exist. One of the proposals, for instance, was that the constituency of Mid Lothian should have no less than 93,000 of a population, which would have been the largest county constituency, he believed, in the United Kingdom. He thought, under present circumstances, it was hardly worth while to bring forward such a proposal as that made by his noble Friend (the Marquess of Lothian), sim-
  1390
  ply because he (Lord Balfour) was quite satisfied that, in a very few years, the question of grouping of burghs and of the constituencies generally in Scotland must be again raised. It was impossible that the present system could be defended; and he was certain, as nothing could be done now to settle it, that it must be again discussed in a very short time. That, he thought, was very unfortunate; because, in such a case, there were always imputations made of a desire to gain Party advantage, when, by some arrangement, a settlement of the question might have been effected. Therefore, he would again say that he regretted that some attempt had not been made to devise a better scheme by arrangement between the Parties.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, the noble Lord opposite who had just spoken (Lord Balfour) had expressed an opinion as to the non-permanence, in all human probability, of the present arrangement. But, while he (the Earl of Rosebury) quite agreed with it, from that argument a very powerful reason might be drawn against the Amendment. The Government, or the Lord Advocate, produced a scheme which they thought, on the whole, was a distinct improvement on the scheme of the Bill. That scheme did not die a natural death under the universal condemnation described by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Balfour). It died of a much more portentous and unfortunate complaint. It was sent to the wall against what was called, in the parlance of the day, the "sacred covenant" entered into by the Chiefs of both Parties. So honourably was that "sacred covenant" adhered to by the Government side of the House of Commons, that all those who, like the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Lothian) and, to some extent, himself (the Earl of Rosebery) agreed that the present representation of Scotland was full of anomalies, withdrew all their schemes and all their Amendments, and submitted to the operation of the sacred bond. What was the noble Marquess going to do, if a little burgh, which was kept merely in existence because it was a county town, and possessed a large share of county business and county offices, which practically kept it alive, was going to upset all their arrangement—
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY,interposing, said, his noble Friend oppo-

  1391
  site (the Earl of Rosebery) was not a Member of the Government when this arrangement was entered into, and he therefore spoke under great misapprehension when he said that this question was any part of it he (the Marquess of Salisbury) spoke under great difficulty; but he assured the noble Earl he was wrong. The matter referred to in the Motion before the House was not in the "sacred covenant" at all.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, that, at all events, that was the impression "elsewhere" when the Amendments were withdrawn; and he was quite convinced Liberal Members in the other House would complain very loudly, and very strongly, if there was to be a rearrangement of the borough system of Scotland in the petty degree in which it was contemplated by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury). The noble Marquess said he did not impute motives to the Government. He (the Earl of Rosebery) did not wish to impute motives any more than the noble Marquess himself; but there were rumours in the air that this was a sort of what the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Lothian) called "Jeddart justice" towards the sitting Member for Roxburgh County. Whether that were so or not, he thought it was an unfortunate state of things that, at that hour and at that stage of the Bill, the noble Marquess thought it necessary for one single disarrangement of the system to bring forward his Amendment.
  LORD DENMANsaid, that nothing could be worse than turning boroughs into counties. Indeed, it was against the 6th clause of the Franchise Bill, which prevented occupation of a house in a borough giving a vote for a county. But boroughs which Sir Francis Pal-grave wrote were indestructible were destroyed, and thus they were transformed into counties. Haddington was formerly grouped with Jedburgh, and it was an historical borough, for General Monk was there when he designed to restore the Monarchy; and though he openly cuffed an officer for stating that such was his intention, yet, by returning to Edinburgh and marching with his army, he brought all England to his opinion. Such a borough ought to have a vote with other boroughs, as was the case all over Scotland except as to Haddington and Wigton.
  On question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 66; Not-Contents 53: Majority 13.
  Resolved in the affirmative.
  Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
  Sixth Schedule.
  VISCOUNT POWERSCOURTproposed an Amendment, in regard to the Dublin divisions, to leave out "Donnybrook Division," and insert "St. Stephen's Green."
  Amendment moved, in page 42, line 26, to leave out ("Donnybrook,") and insert ("St. Stephen's Green.")—(The Viscount Powerscourt.)
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYopposed the Amendment.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWNsaid, he decidedly objected to the proposed alteration, and would like to know who the noble Viscount represented? No one wished for the change; and, certainly, he (the Earl of Milltown) did not. Donnybrook was partly his property.
  On question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 35; Not-Contents 31: Majority 4.
  Resolved in the affirmative.
  Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
  Seventh Schedule.
  LORD WROTTESLEYproposed to amend the Schedule by altering the name of the South-Eastern Division of Staffordshire by calling it the Hands-worth Division.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 76, line 1, to leave out ("South-Eastern,") and insert ("Handsworth.")—(The Lord Wrottesley.)
  THE EARL OF DARTMOUTH,in supporting the Amendment, [said, that it had the support of both the local Conservative and Liberal Associations.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that although he agreed that the rival claims to give a name to this division were pretty evenly balanced, yet he should not oppose the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF FEVERSHAMproposed that the Whitby Division of the North Biding should be called the Eastern or Whitby Division.
  Amendment moved, in page 83, line 12, after ("The,") insert ("Eastern or.")—(The Earl of Fever sham.)
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he thought that the adoption of this Amendment would only increase the confusion with regard to names.
  Amendment negatived.
  LORD AUCKLAND,in moving, as an Amendment, that the Batley Division of Yorkshire should be called the Morley Division instead, said, that the change would give great satisfaction to the vast majority of the inhabitants of the division. Batley contributed only 1,900 to the population of the division, whereas Morley contributed 15,000. The original decision of the Commissioners had been in favour of Morley, as were 36,000 out of the 50,000 persons in the district.
  Amendment moved, in page 84, line 29, to leave out ("Batley,") and insert ("Morley.")—(The Lord Auckland.)
  THE EARL OF DARTMOUTHsaid, he thought that a strong case had been made out in favour of the name of Morley for this division. The final division on the subject in the House of Commons had been quite a surprise, as, in the first instance, a majority of the House had pronounced in favour of Morley.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPONsaid, he hoped their Lordships would support the decision to which the House of Commons had ultimately come he was informed that it was an error to suppose that the majority of the inhabitants of the district wished for the change. Beyond that, the name of "Batley" should, for many reasons, including railway and postal, be retained. Batley was very much more central than Morley, and a large proportion of the people residing in the division, when travelling by railway, would have to pass through Batley in order to get to Morley at all, which in itself he regarded as a very strong consideration. With regard to the question of areas, Morley was within the parish of Batley. Batley was also a very progressive place, and the seat of a considerable industry.
  LORD DE ROSsaid, he was also in favour of the retention of the name of Batley, which was a post town, whereas
  1394
  Morley was not. Batley was also a corporate town, with a town hall and other conveniences for election purposes.
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOKsaid, he thought that on the question of merit Morley ought to give the name to the division, as Batley was only known in connection with Dewsbury. The fact of the difference in population was strongly in favour of Morley.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that the Government were divided on this question. For his own part, he would be influenced by the opinion of the noble Marquess the late Viceroy of India, who belonged to that part of the county, and he would vote for the name of Batley being retained. The question was, however, entirely an open one.
  On question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 21; Not-Contents 18: Majority 3.
  Resolved in the affirmative.
  THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM,in moving the omission of the name "Spen Valley Division," and the insertion in its stead of "Birstal Division" (Eastern part of the West Riding of Yorkshire), said, the Spen Valley was not known to anybody, and was only remarkable for being the receptacle of all the sewage from Birstal; whereas Birstal was a very important parish, and the general feeling of the district was in favour of Birstal being the designation of the division.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 86, line 39, to leave out ("Spen Valley,") and insert ("Birstal.")—(The Earl of Feversham.)
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOK,in supporting the Amendment, said, that although he was well acquainted with the West Riding of Yorkshire, he had never heard of the Spen Valley until he saw it in that Bill. Birstal, on the contrary, was a well-known place.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Other Amendments made.
  Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
  Eighth Schedule agreed to.
  The Report of the Amendments to be received on Thursday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 129.)

AFRICA (SOUTH-EAST COAST)—ST. LUCIA BAY.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF JERSEY,in rising to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether it is true, as reported in The Times of 27th May, that the Boers in Zululand have issued a proclamation, dated 30th April, protesting against the action of Lieutenant Moore in taking possession of St. Lucia Bay, denying any British rights there, and asserting the rights of the new Republic over St. Lucia Bay and the whole country; and, whether Her Majesty's Government is prepared to acquiesce in the assertion of any rights inconsistent with those already acquired by England in Zululand? said, he thought it was hardly possible that Her Majesty's Government could have allowed those proceedings to pass unnoticed, and he hoped that the noble Earl would be able to state that whatever rights we had in Zululand and in St. Lucia Bay would be maintained by the Government. Perhaps the noble Earl would also inform the House whether all questions relating to the German claim to St. Lucia Bay had been settled or not?
  THE EARL OF DERBY,in reply, said, he had no difficulty in answering the noble Earl's Question. It was a fact that some Boers had settled in Zululand, had set up a Government of their own, and had put forward a Proclamation in the sense to which the noble Earl had referred he ought, perhaps, to explain that he had no reason to suppose that either the Government or the people of the Transvaal were in any way connected with that movement. That Proclamation, as he understood, was really issued by a party of Boers who had effected settlement in Zululand. The matter was brought to the notice of Sir Henry Bulwer, the Governor of Natal, who lost no time in repudiating, on the part of the British Government, those pretensions of the Boer settlers. Sir Henry Bulwer's action in so doing had been approved by Her Majesty's Government, and he (the Earl of Derby) was, therefore, in a position to say that Her Majesty's Government had not in any way acquiesced in the pretensions so put forward, nor had they waived any of the rights which they possessed in that country. With regard to the claim of the German Go-
  1396
  vernment to St. Lucia Bay, he was now in a position to say, with some confidence, that the matter had been disposed of by diplomatic action, and that no further claims were likely to be advanced by Germany. But perhaps it would be more satisfactory to the noble Earl if he said generally that he should, in a few days, be prepared to lay Papers on the subject upon the Table, and that they would be in the hands of noble Lords shortly afterwards.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Nine o'clock, till Tomorrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.