Sitting of 1 December 1884

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBERS SWORN—William Sproston Caine, esquire, for Scarborough; Thomas Sutherland, esquire, for Greenock.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Parliamentary Elections, Redistribution [40]; Suspension of Evictions (Scotland)* [41]; Industrial and Reformatory Schools (Ireland) Loans* [42]; Peasant Proprietary and Acquisition of Land by Occupiers* [43].
Committee—Report—Consolidated Fund* (No. 1).

QUESTIONS.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—DUNGARVAN UNION—REFUSAL TO STRIKE A RATE.
  MR. GRAYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that the Board of Guardians of the Dungarvan Union have proposed to retire rather than strike the rate submitted by the clerk as necessary to meet the year's expenditure; whether it is a fact that the gross valuation of one of the divisions of the Union, Mount Stuart, is £300, and that the cost of maintaining a single pauper for one year would entail on this division a rating of 9d. in the pound; and, whether, having regard to facts such as these, he would consider the propriety of introducing next year a Union Eating Bill?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The Guardians did at first object to strike the required rate; but they have
  344
  since made it. The Electoral Division mentioned is valued at £322, and the rating for the maintenance of a pauper would be 7½d. on the valuation. As a matter of fact, however, the latest official Returns show that during a period of 12 months only one pauper chargeable to this division was relieved in the workhouse, and that for only a portion of the year. The circumstances of the division, would, therefore, not appear to strengthen the case for Union rating, but the reverse.
  MR. GRAYobserved that the right hon. Gentleman had not replied whether it was in contemplation, in accordance with the promise held out by the right hon. Gentleman's Predecessor, to introduce a Union Rating Bill.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, he could not at present reply more fully to the Question than he had done.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (SCOTLAND)— "PARR v. SCHOOL BOARD OF SALEN, ISLAND OF MULL"—USE OF SCHOOL ROOM FOR PUBLIC MEETINGS.
  MR. MACFARLANEasked the Lord Advocate, If his attention has been called to the case of Parr v. the School Board of Salen, in Mull, in which the complainer applied for an interdict to prohibit the use of the Board School at that place for public meetings; and, if he can explain how the cost of this unopposed application amounted to £21 16 s. 1d.?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): I have seen the account of expenses in this case, which has been audited by the auditor (Taxing Office) of the Court of Session, and no observations occur to me upon it. If the hon. Member desires to see the account, and learn what the various charges are for, I should be glad to show it to him.
  MR. MACFARLANEasked, If the Lord Advocate could say whether the School Board, or the individual, was liable for these charges—that was to say, the ratepayers, or the persons who are made the nominal defenders?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, he was afraid he must ask the hon. Member to give Notice of the Question. The answer would depend on the terms of the judgment under which decree was given.

  PREVENTION OF CRIME (IRELAND) ACT, 1882—APPLICATION TO CASES ARISING FROM PARTY RIOTS IN THE NORTH OF IRELAND.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with regard to recent disturbances, assaults, and damage to property in the county of Tyrone, Whether the Irish Government will fulfil the pledge given in this House by the late Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant—namely, that cases arising out of Party feelings and Party conflicts in the North of Ireland would be heard, in the first instance, by Courts of Stipendiary Magistrates, and not by the local Justices of the Peace?
  Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The Party cases now pending will be tried before two Resident Magistrates at a Special Petty Sessions Court under the Prevention of Crime Act; and the Government will take care that where such cases arise in future a similar course will be taken where the interests of justice demand it.
  MR. SEXTONasked whether the principle laid down by the right hon. Gentleman would be extended to Clogher and Stewartstown, were cases were also pending?
  [No reply.]

  THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION (SUB-COMMISSIONERS)—DONEGAL SUB-COMMISSION.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Messrs. Burke, Mahony, and Gray, of the Donegal Sub-Commission, gave judgment, on the 27th March last, in 84 cases, on the property of Captain Hill, reducing the rents by 38 per cent; whether, in consequence of pressure from the landlords concerned, Mr. Gray was removed to Cork soon after the judgments in question, and Mr. Sproule appointed in his stead; whether, about the same time, the Sub-Commission was made single, with the result that the legal member, Mr. Burke, himself formerly a land agent, went out inspecting farms; whether, soon after these changes, the Sub-Commission, composed of Messrs. Burke, Mahony, and Sproule, gave judgment in 188 cases from the same estate (that of Captain Hill) dealt with in
  346
  March, and the applications in which had been lodged at the same time, and whether the reduction given was only 25 per cent, or 13 per cent less than in March; whether Mr. Sproule, in 42 cases, desired a smaller reduction, whilst Mr. Mahony, in 54 cases, held that it should be greater; whether Mr. Sproule was continued in office, while Mr. Mahony, although he had been appointed in the first group of Sub-Commissioners in November 1881, and men appointed more recently were still retained on the staff, was discharged from office; whether Mr. Mahony's place on the Donegal Sub-Commission was filled by the appointment of Mr. Comyn; whether, in dealing with the Duke of Abercorn's estate in Tyrone, Mr. Comyn had opposed any reduction of the rents, but Mr. Mahony had declared reductions should be given, and Mr. Mahony's view was upheld by the majority of the Sub-Commission, and confirmed on appeal; whether, in consequence of the removal of the Sub-Commissioners who gave judgment favourable to tenants, the occupiers of Gweedore and Clo-haneely have ceased to use the Court; and, whether, in view of the facts set forth, the Donegal Sub-Commission will be now reorganised?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It will, perhaps, be most convenient if I deal with the paragraphs of this Question seriatim. I am informed by the Land Commission as follows:—(1.) Reductions were made as stated. (2.) This is incorrect. Mr. Gray was not transferred on account of pressure from any person; and Mr. Sproule had been a member of the Sub-Commission prior to Mr. Gray's transfer. (3.) If Mr. Bourke, the Legal Commissioner, went out with his colleagues inspecting farms, he was within his right, it being optional with a Legal Sub-Commissioner to do so or not. (4.) The reductions made by the reconstituted Sub-Commission amounted to 26·5 per cent. (5.) Amongst these cases Mr. Sproule dissented from the judgment of his colleagues in 33—Mr. Mahony in 46. (6.) Mr. Sproule was re-appointed after the 31st of July; Mr. Mahony was not. Comparative length of service gave no claim for continuance in this temporary office. (7.) This is correct. (8.) In nine cases of appeal from the Duke of Abercorn's estate, the decisions of the Sub-Com-

  347
  missioners were upheld in four, and the judicial rents reduced in five. I cannot say what the personal views of the Sub-Commissioners were. (9.) I am not aware of any ground for this statement. During the last six months 197 applications to have fair rents fixed have been received from County Donegal, and 59 have been withdrawn by consent. (10.) There is no intention of reorganizing the Sub-Commission.

  PARLIAMENTARY VOTERS (IRELAND) ACT BALTINGLASS UNION.
  MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, as President of the Local Government Board, he is aware the Board have finally declined to take any action in reference to the conduct of Mr. Dagg, clerk of the Baltinglass Union, and George Driver, rate collector, although it was admitted that popular voters were deprived of the franchise by their alleged "mistakes," while voters of opposite politics were improperly retained on the register by "mistakes" of an opposite character; whether he is aware the Local Government deny responsibility in the matter, saying that—
  "The clerk of the union and collector of poor rate do not perform their duties in connection with the Parliamentary Voters Act (13 and 14 Vic. c. 68 and 69) under their direction, and that the 67th and 109th sections of that Act prescribe the manner in which they may be punished for neglect or other breach of duty under the Act;"
  and, whether, in furtherance of the course of justice, he will lay the Correspondence and Minutes of Evidence taken at the investigation held at Baltinglass last September, including the full Report of the Local Government Board Inspector, upon the Table?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNEEMAN: The position taken by the Local Government Board is that stated. The clerk and collector do not perform their duties in connection with the Parliamentary Voters Act under that Board, and the inquiry at Baltinglass was undertaken for the purpose of ascertaining whether they had done anything to render them unworthy of confidence as public officers. The opinion arrived at was that they had not. The evidence adduced at the inquiry is already before the Board of Guardians, and I understand that the hon. Member has been
  348
  fully informed of the substance of the Inspector's Report. This being so, there hardly appears to be any necessity to lay the Papers on the Table.

  COMPULSORY VACCINATION—CONVICTION OF MRS. ANN JARVIS, EASTBOURNE.
  MR. HOPWOODasked the Secretary to the Local Government Board, Whether it be the fact that Mrs. Ann Jarvis, the widow of a soldier, was, in January last, fined at the Eastbourne Petty Sessions for the non-vaccination of two children, and ordered to pay £1 15 s., including costs; whether she excused herself, on the ground of the belief of her late husband and herself, that one of their children had been formerly destroyed by vaccination; whether he is aware that such a belief was declared by the ex-President of the Local Government Board, Mr. J. G. Dodson, to be a sufficient excuse; and, whether Mrs. Jarvis, having been, since January, married to another man named Meredith, was, in default of payment, on the 22nd instant, taken by constables to Lewes Prison, without demand upon her husband, and while he was away at work, and leaving several young children uncared for?
  MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: We have made inquiry as to this case, and from the information with which we have been furnished it appears that when Mrs. Jarvis was actually on the way to the medical officer for the purpose of having her children vaccinated she was met by a resident in Eastbourne who has acted as honorary Secretary of the local Anti-Compulsory Vaccination League, and that he persuaded her not to go, and promised that if she was fined he would pay the fine. In consequence, proceedings were taken against her, and she was ordered to pay 35 s., including costs. We are assured that Mrs. Jarvis did not excuse herself on the ground that one of her children had been "destroyed" by vaccination. As regards the statement of the late President of the Board, we assume that a reply given in the House on the 28th of November, 1882, is referred to. The reply was to the effect that it was no legal defence to a summons under the Vaccination Acts for parents of children attacked with erysipelatous disease after vaccination to urge their fear of similar risk to their other children. He was not prepared to

  349
  assent to the view that, because one child may have suffered owing to mala praxis, or some accidental circumstance, all the other children should be deprived of the protection which vaccination affords. At the same time, it was open to the Justices in any such case to impose a nominal fine, or decline to make an order for the vaccination of the child; and he should hope that if any such case occurred it would be considerately and tenderly dealt with. Distress warrants were issued on the 6th of October, Mrs. Jarvis having married in the meantime; but as the police found no sufficient goods whereon to levy, an order of commitment was made on the 21st of November. During the interval the Superintendent of Police had one or more interviews with the husband as to the payment of the amount; but his reply was that he supposed the resident in Eastbourne above referred to would pay, as he had promised to do so. When Mrs. Jarvis was apprehended she was taken to the police station, pending the departure of the train to Lewes. Her husband was sent for; but he did not arrive until after she had left. We are informed that, according to her own statement, her children were well taken care of while she was in prison.

  PUBLIC PARKS (METROPOLIS)—HIGHGATE WOODS.
  MR. BEYCEasked the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works, Whether the attention of the Metropolitan Board of Works has been called to the importance of securing the woods to the north of Highgate as a public park for the benefit of the inhabitants of London; and, whether he can hold out hopes that a proper scheme for acquiring these woods will be favourably considered by the Board with a view to their taking a part in giving effect to it?
  SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG: In reply to my hon. Friend, I beg to inform him that the Metropolitan Board of Works is fully alive to the importance of preserving open spaces in the Metropolis and its neighbourhood; but Highgate Woods are out of the Board's jurisdiction, and would require to be dealt with under the powers of a special Act of Parliament. With regard to the latter part of the Question, I can only undertake to say that any scheme that may be submitted to the Board shall be
  350
  most carefully considered, with a full sense of the importance of the object in view.

  ARMY (INDIA)—FURLOUGH RULES.
  COLONEL MILNE-HOMEasked the Under Secretary of State for India, If his attention has been drawn to a paragraph in The Homeward Mail of the 21st October 1884, which states that "Indian Furlough Rules are under the consideration of the Government of India;" and, if he is in a position to say when, should the above statement be correct, the revised Rules are likely to come into operation?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: A communication has already been received by the Secretary of State from the Government of India regarding the Indian Furlough Rules. It is now under his consideration. The question is one of serious importance, and cannot be settled without very careful inquiry, involving, possibly, further references to India. I am unable to say, therefore, when a final decision will be come to; but there will be no avoidable delay in dealing with the subject.

  NATURAL HISTORY MUSEUM—THE HEALTH EXHIBITION GROUND.
  SIR HARRY VERNEYasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether the ground on the western side of the building lately occupied by the Health Exhibition, where boards are put up, offering the ground for sale, can be secured for the public, the late Chief of the Natural History Museum having said that, in the course of a generation, all that ground would be required for the extension of the Museum?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE,in reply, said that the Government were already in possession of 14 acres of land immediately adjoining the Natural History Museum; and, under these circumstances, this seemed sufficient for any possible extension.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—WATERFORD BOARD OF GUARDIANS—CASE OF —WELSH, A CHILD.
  MR. MOOREasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to a statement made at the Waterford Board of Guardians by the Deputy

  351
  Vice Chairman and Mayor of Water-ford, that a female child named Walsh, aged fourteen years, having been hired as a servant by a woman named Reddy, was suddenly discharged by her mistress, and turned out of the house on the road during the night time; and, whether that statement is true; and, if so, whether any steps have been taken to bring the woman Reddy to justice?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: No, Sir; I am informed that the facts are not as stated. The girl Walsh was placed at service with Mrs. Reddy by the Guardians of the Union. Her mistress, finding after several weeks' trial that she would not suit her, paid her her wages due, and proposed to take her back to the workhouse. The girl refused to re-enter the workhouse, and said she would go to her sister, who lived in the town. This she did, leaving her employer's house at 11 o'clock in the morning.

  POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—MAILS TO TIPPERARY AND CLONMEL.
  MR. MOOREasked the Postmaster General, Whether he can yet state what arrangements have been made for the conveyance of the mails to Tipperary and Clonmel, in connection with the new accelerated service?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE,in reply, said, it was intended to place Tipperary in connection with the day mail from Dublin to Cork; but with regard to Clonmel the negotiations with the Railway Company had not yet been concluded.

  IRELAND—COMMISSIONERS OF NATIONAL EDUCATION—DISMISSAL OF MR. J. G. FITZGERALD, DISTRICT INSPECTOR.
  MR. LEAMY (for Mr. R. POWER)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether in the Letter of the 29th January 1879, from the Office of National Education, removing Mr. Eitzgerald from the post of District Inspector, which he had filled for nearly twenty-five years, this paragraph occurs:—
  "In your Journal referred to (for the week ending 16th November 1878) you state that on the 12th of November you travelled by post car from Waterford to Kilculliheen and Ferry-bank National Schools and back, incurring thereby an expenditure of 5s. 6d.;"
  whether this assertion is entirely con-
  352
  trary to the actual facts, no mention whatsoever having been made in the Journal referred to of the Ferrybank National Schools; whether, according to the Chief Secretary's statement in the House on the 10th of this month, the Ferrybank National Schools only came into existence on the 26th February 1879, more than three weeks subsequently; and, whether, if it is not admitted that the quotation from the letter of dismissal contains a statement not in accordance with the facts, the Journal referred to will be laid upon the Table of the House?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Mr. Fitzgerald made the charge for travelling expenses, which the Commissioners decided to be improper, in respect of an official visit to two schools—Kilculliheen and Ferrybank—both of which were mentioned in his Journal. In the Commissioners' letter, both were, by a clerical error, referred to as National Schools—only one of them, as a matter of fact, occupying that position at the time. This circumstance in no way affects the merits of the case against Mr. Fitzgerald.

  THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION COURT —"R. JOHNSTON v. PATRICK MOORE AND MARY MACTAFANEY"—THE JUDGMENT, &c.
  MR. TOTTENHAM (for Mr. ION HAMILTON)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he will lay upon the Table of the House, copies of the Shorthand Writer's Report of the evidence taken before the Irish Land Commission, with the judgment of Judge O'Hagan, and other documents, in two cases which came before the Court for re-hearing, in which R. Johnston was landlord, and Patrick Moore and Mary MacTafaney were tenants?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: There can be no objection to the course suggested; but as the documents referred to have already been laid on the Table of the House of Lords and circulated, and are thus accessible to the public, it appears to be unnecessary to reprint them for the House of Commons.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—NAAS BOARD OF GUARDIANS—DR. HAYES.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland,

  353
  Whether it is the fact that the Naas Board of Guardians have permitted Dr. Hayes, the Medical Officer of the Rathmore Dispensary District, to continue to hold that office after it had been proved at a Local Government Board investigation, on oath, that Dr. Hayes, when he was Registrar of Births, Deaths, and Marriages in Rathmore, had made about twenty-one double entries in the register of vaccination; and, on the discovery of the fact by his successor in office, Michael Melia, had paid Melia a bribe of £2 to procure his silence, and had not made confession till Melia asked a further bribe; whether Melia has been dismissed by the Registrar General for acceptance of the bribe; and, what course will be taken in regard to his confederate?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The evidence adduced at the inquiry showed that out of 979 entries of successful vaccinations made by Dr. Hayes in the course of 20 years, 21 appeared to be duplicates. Of these, eight had from time to time been discovered by Dr. Hayes himself and marked as errors. The system under which the material for these entries is collected is such as to lead to great liability to error; and it is not believed that the duplicate entries were intentional, or made with fraudulent purpose. When Melia, Dr. Hayes's successor in office as Registrar, discovered some of the duplicates and drew his attention to them, Dr. Hayes asked him to call at his house in order that they might go over the Register together. Melia declined on the ground that his time was of value to him, and Dr. Hayes then said he would compensate him for his time and also give him money for refreshment. It was in these circumstances that he gave Melia a cheque for £2. In doing this Dr. Hayes acted most unwisely and improperly; and it is greatly to be regretted that he did not adopt at once the course which he subsequently did when Melia wrote to him accusing him of fraud—namely, lay the matter before the Guardians and seek investigation. Melia was dismissed by the Registrar General, because, according to his own evidence at the inquiry, he accepted what he regarded as a bribe to conceal an irregularity from the proper authorities. Dr. Hayes has been 32 years an officer of the Union, and the Board of
  354
  Guardians continue to have confidence in him, and in these circumstances the Local Government Board do not think it necessary to take any further action in the matter.

  NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND)— TRAINING COLLEGES FOR NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Why persons trained in the new Training Colleges for National Teachers for Ireland, and who have attained Second Class, by due compliance with regulations, before entering for the course of training, are not permitted, at the expiration of that course, to compete for admission to the grade of First Class Teachers; whether he is aware that Second Class Teachers who go into the Colleges are in some cases obliged to go for examination in Third Class papers, and thus compete for admission to a lower class than that which they had reached before they entered the College; and, whether the practice will be altered so as to enable those who use the Training Colleges to go forward from the classification they had reached at the period of their entry?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The Commissioners of National Education inform me that persons circumstanced as described in the first paragraph of the Question are eligible, on the termination of their course of training, for examination as candidates for the first class, if recommended by the authorities of the Training Colleges. The facts are not, I am informed, as stated in the second paragraph of the Question. In these circumstances, there does not appear to be any necessity for the change of practice suggested by the hon. Member.

  ARMY (INDIA)—THE MADRAS STAFF CORPS—PROMOTION.
  MR. GUYDAWNAYasked the Under Secretary of. State for India, Whether any steps have yet been taken, or are about to betaken, to remove the disadvantages with regard to promotion, under which, by recent Regulations, Subalterns in the Madras Staff Corps are at present placed, as compared with Subalterns in Her Majesty's Service?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: The Madras Staff Corps Subalterns are promoted under the same Rules as the Subalterns of the other Staff Corps. I am not aware of any recent issue of Regulations which affect the actual or relative position of these officers in regard to promotion. It is uncertain what period can be assumed to be the normal rate of promotion of officers of the Line; but the position of the Staff Corps Subalterns is practically identical with that of the Subalterns of Royal Engineers—the only body of officers in Her Majesty's Service which, like the Staff Corps, is promoted after fixed service in the grades of Subaltern and Captain.

  IMPERIAL DEFENCES—THE FORTIFICATIONS AT ADEN.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURasked the Under Secretary of State for India, with reference to the proposed arrangement under which India is to pay half the cost of additional fortifications at Aden, Whether, considering that besides the whole British trade with the far East that of all the Australian Colonies is served by the maintenance of that outpost, these Colonies will be invited to make some substantial contribution in mitigation of the proportion proposed to be placed on the Indian Revenues?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: I have no reason to believe that the Government of India is dissatisfied with the proportion of the cost of the additional fortifications at Aden, which it will have to bear; and I think that my hon. and gallant Friend will see that any question of inviting the Colonies to contribute belongs to the Colonial Department.

  EGYPT (ARMY OF OCCUPATION)—PAY OF BRITISH GENERALS.
  MR. O'KELLYasked the Secretary of State for War, What is the amount of pay and allowance received by Generals Stephenson and Wood, and by the members of their respective Staffs; and, whether it would be possible, in the interest of the embarrassed Egyptian Treasury, to dispense with the service of one or both Generals and their Staffs; also, whether it is true that there are at present three Commanders-in-Chief in Egypt; and, whether this system of organization is maintained with a view of military efficiency?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: There is only one Commander-in-Chief in Egypt—Lord Wolseley. Sir Frederick Stephenson commands the troops in Lower Egypt, and Sir Evelyn Wood, whose permanent command is that of the Egyptian Army, has at present been appointed a Major General on the Staff of the Nile Expedition in command of the line of communications; and the Egyptian Exchequer has so far been relieved of the charge for his pay and allowances. The Military Staff at present in Egypt is, no doubt, very large, in consequence, chiefly, of the Nile Expedition; but it does not constitute a burden on the Egyptian Exchequer. As a more permanent arrangement, I doubt whether it would be possible to dispense with the services of a Lieutenant General in command of the British troops, and a General Officer in command of the Egyptian Army; but the question of Egyptian military expenditure has, of course, formed part of the Earl of North brook's inquiry. A Return could be given, if moved for by the hon. Member, of the pay and allowances received by the British and Egyptian Generals and their Staffs before the period when the Nile Expedition was commenced.

  DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR SERVICE —MR. COLLEDGE, LATE BRITISH CONSUL AT KERTCH.
  MR. O'KELLYasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is true that Mr Colledge, British Consul at Kertch, Russia, has been re-arrested on a charge of piracy?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Her Majesty's Government possesses no information with regard to Mr. Colledge, who is no longer in the service of the Foreign Office.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)— GALWAY PETTY SESSIONS— SERJEANT KEHOL.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been directed to the report, in The Galway Observer, of the proceedings in the Galway Petty Sessions, on the 3rd instant; whether he is aware that Sergeant Philip Kehol, Royal Irish Constabulary, was convicted before the magistrates, at the suit of Mr. Peter

  357
  Cunningham, on a charge of having used threatening language calculated to incite to a breach of the peace; whether it is the fact that this same Sergeant Kehol was recently put on trial before a Constabulary Court of Inquiry, by order of the Inspector General of the Royal Irish Constabulary, on the following charge: making a false official statement about the arrest of a man named Eugene Lennon, a deserter from Her Majesty's Navy, endeavouring by such false statement to obtain the sum of twelve shillings as a reward; if so, what decision did the Inspector General arrive at in the Report of the Court upon the case; and, what course, in viewing the conduct of Sergeant Kehol in these two cases, is it the intention of the Government to take in his case?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I have not seen the newspaper report to which the hon. Member refers; but I have ascertained, on inquiry, that the sergeant was charged with using language calculated to incite to a breach of the peace, and that the decision of the magistrates was that the case was a most trivial one, and that the ends of justice would be fully satisfied by an admonition. Sergeant Kehol is a man of 23 years' service, and of good character; and the Inspector General, to whom the case was reported, did not consider it necessary to do anything more than caution him. Five years ago a complaint was made against this sergeant that he claimed unfairly a share of a reward of £1 for the arrest of a deserter. An inquiry was ordered, but was never held, as the necessary witnesses could not be found.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—MR. JAMES POE, DISTRICT REGISTRAR OF THE COURT OF PROBATE, KILKENNY.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If James Poe, Solicitor, is District Registrar of the Court of Probate at Kilkenny; if he also holds the office of Clerk of the Crown and Peace for Kilkenny City and County; if persons making personal applications for probate and administration, and particularly under Section 33 of 44 Vic. c. 12, are entitled to receive these grants on payment of the Crown Fees; if Mr. Poe treats the applicants as clients, and
  358
  charges solicitor's fees; and, if he finds such a practice exists, would he ensure its discontinuance in future?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Mr. James Poe is District Registrar of the Court of Probate at Kilkenny. He is also Clerk of the Crown for the City and County of Kilkenny, but not Clerk of the Peace. I am informed that persons making personal application for probate and administration invariably get these grants from the District Registry at Kilkenny on payment of the Crown fees. It is not the fact that Mr. Poe treats them as clients, or charges solicitor's fees.

  POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—THE MAILS TO KINSALE.
  MR. JUSTIN HUNTLY M'CARTHY (for Mr. DEAST)asked the Postmaster General, Whether the changes in the postal arrangements of Kinsale, suggested to the Post Office Authorities by the Kinsale Town Commissioners, will be made?
  MR. SHAW LEPEVRE,in reply, said, a Memorial from the Town Council of Kinsale had been received, and was now under consideration. If the hon. Member would put a Question to him in a few days, he would endeavour to give him an answer.

  IRELAND—THE CORPORATION OF LIMERICK—EXTRA POLICE TAX.
  MR. SEXTON (for Mr. DAWSON)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, considering the many local and other questions of detail involved in the Limerick extra Police Tax, the Lord Lieutenant will comply with the request of the Corporation to appoint a Commission to inquire into the merits of the case in Limerick?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I cannot add anything to what I stated in reply to a former Question on this subject—namely, that the Government could not entertain the application for a public inquiry.
  MR. SEXTON: Is it true that the Lord Lieutenant has been informed by his Legal Advisers that he has no legal power to recover this tax now?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: There is no truth in the statement, as far as I am aware.

  NATIONAL SCHOOLS (IRELAND)—SUPPLIES OF TEACHING APPARATUS.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR (for Mr. KENNY)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If free stock was given to National Schools in Ireland until about the year 1860, and if it consisted of maps, black boards, tablets, charts, and other requisites for teaching purposes; for what reason these were discontinued, and if there is any objection to renew such grants; for what reason schools vested in the Commissioners are placed in a better position with regard to grants for building and repairing than ordinary vested schools; and, if it is proposed to take any steps to place them on an equality?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNEEMAN: Free grants of requisites are given in the case of all new schools, and also in cases where school houses are enlarged, or otherwise structurally improved. The owners of the school fabric are in all cases bound to keep it in repair. In the case of non-vested schools the Trustees are the owners, and in the case of vested schools the Commissioners of National Education are the owners.

  EGYPT—MR. CLIFFORD LLOYD.
  MR. O'KELLYasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, When Mr. Clifford Lloyd took office in Egypt; what was his salary at his first engagement; whether his salary was increased during his stay in Egypt; for what reason the increase, if any, was made; and, whether it was clearly understood when Mr. Clifford Lloyd left Egypt that he was leaving for good?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Mr. Clifford Lloyd was appointed Inspector General of Reforms in Egypt on the 15thof September, 1883, with a salary at the rate of £2,000 (Egyptian) a-year. It was increased to £2,500 (Egyptian), as he was afterwards given the Executive Office of Under Secretary for the Home Department, which added greatly to his duties and responsibilities. It had not been officially decided when Mr. Clifford Lloyd left Egypt that he was leaving for good.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—MR. CLIFFORD LLOYD, R.M.
  MR. O'KELLYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ire-
  360
  land, At what date Mr. Clifford Lloyd obtained leave of absence from his post as Resident Magistrate in Ireland; for what period leave was granted in the first instance; when the leave was renewed; and, whether it is usual to grant indefinite leave of absence to members of the Civil Service?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The facts as to the leave of absence granted to Mr. Clifford Lloyd to enable him to accept service in Egypt have been several times stated in the House. He was given leave for six months, without pay, dating from September 15, 1883. At the end of that period he was still employed in Egypt, and he was granted a further period of six months' leave, as before, without pay. Before this second six months had quite expired—namely, on the 1st of September, 1884—Mr. Clifford Lloyd's connection with the Egyptian Government had altogether ceased, and he reverted to his original position as a Resident Magistrate; but was granted leave of absence, with pay, for three months, to which period an additional month has been added. He has not at any time been on indefinite leave of absence.

  CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND)— RIOT AT CLOGHER, CO. TYRONE.
  MR. O'KELLYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that, on the 12th of November, the town of Clogher, county Tyrone, was left without police protection; whether the County Inspector is not aware that the presence of a police force is especially necessary on that day, owing to the occurrence of the Hiring Fair in the neighbouring village of Augher; whether, owing to the complete absence of the police, a party of Orangemen took possession of the village, and murderously assaulted some of the Catholic inhabitants; whether a Mr. Hynes was so severely beaten that his life was for a time in danger; whether Mr. Hynes complained to the Constabulary, and asked them to institute proceedings against his assailants, who are well-known members of the Orange Society; whether the Orange magistrates of the district refuse to instruct the Constabulary to prosecute their brother Orangemen; and, whether the Government will send down a Resident

  361
  Magistrate to inquire into the state of the Clogher district?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: On the occasion mentioned, four out of the five police stationed at Clogher were sent to Augher—a mile and a-half distant—that being the place where the occurrence of the hiring fair rendered their presence desirable. No such disturbances or murderous assaults as are mentioned in the Question took place. A man named Hynes complained that he had been assaulted; but as the occurrence was of a trivial character and he knew his alleged assailants, the magistrates considered it a case in which he should be left to summons them if he thought fit. I am informed that, as a matter of fact, the magistrates who made this decision are not Orangemen, as stated in the Question. I give this information as it has been supplied to me, though I would not have thought myself bound to make inquiry on this point. I see nothing in these occurrences to necessitate an inquiry into the state of the Clogher district.
  MR. O'KELLY: May I ask whether these gentlemen ceased to be Orangemen in July last? The right hon. Gentleman has not said whether he will send down a Resident Magistrate to try these cases when they come up, and not leave them in the hands of the local magistrates.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNEEMAN: The hon. Member speaks of "these cases." I have already said there is no case.
  MR. O'KELLY: Did not the right hon. Gentleman state that a prosecution has been directed?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNEEMAN: On the contrary, I said that a man named Hynes, on whom a trivial assault had been committed, had been left to take proceedings himself.
  MR. O'KELLY: Did not the right hon. Gentleman state, in reply to a Question I put in this House, that summonses had already been issued?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNEEMAN: I do not think I can have stated that.

  CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND)— ASSAULT ON JOHN MAOKEY, CLOGHER, CO. TYRONE.
  MR. O'KELLYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland,
  362
  Whether it is true that an old labouring man named John Mackey, while returning from his work, was attacked by a party of Orangemen at Killyfaddy, near Clogher, on the night of the 13th of November; whether the assailants lit matches to scan Mr. Mackey's face, and, having satisfied themselves of his personality, beat him so cruelly that he had to be carried to his home in Clogher; whether his life is in danger from the attack of which he is the victim; whether any arrests have been made in connection with this outrage; and, whether, as Clogher is a proclaimed district, the provisions of the Prevention of Crime Act will be put in force to discover the authors of this outrage, and the direction of the investigations committed to a magistrate who is not a member of the Orange Society?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I cannot at present add anything to my former answer with respect to this case. The summonses which I referred to as pending are still pending, and will be heard on the 9th of this month.

  ARMY—MILITARY PRISON AT GOSPORT—SHOT DRILL AND OAKUM PICKING.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether his attention has been directed to the fact that at Gosport Military Prison the labour of the prisoners is almost entirely confined to shot drill and picking oakum, and the conduct of the prisoners there compares unfavourably with that of military prisoners elsewhere, and to the further fact that, according to the Report of the Governor of Brixton Prison, the substitution there of various industries for the monotonous employment of oakum picking has been attended with most satisfactory results; and, whether he will secure the same treatment for the Gosport prisoners?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I quite agree as to the advantage of providing profitable industrial labour for the prisoners in military prisons generally, and the commencement made at Brixton has been part of a general scheme. The difficulty, however, is to find suitable occupation appropriate to the several localities; and at present it has not been found practicable to employ industrially the prisoners at Gosport. I am still in communication with the In-

  363
  spector General of Military Prisons on the subject.

  AFRICA (SOUTH-WEST COAST)—ANGRA PEQUENA.
  SIR MTCHAEL HICKS-BEACHasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether Her Majesty's Government can give any information to the House with regard to the German Settlement of Angra Pequena, the area of the territory annexed, and its borders, especially towards Bechuanaland; what steps have been taken to protect the rights of British subjects in the Islands annexed to the Cape Colony in 1867; and, what steps are being taken to ensure the fulfilment of promises made to the Native Damara Chief, and others, by the British Commissioners in 1877–8?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: The Protectorate proclaimed by the German Empire is from the Orange River up to the 18th degree S. latitude, excepting Walfisch Bay and British territory surrounding, and for 20 geographical miles inland; the area roughly would be about 16,600 square miles. The distance from the 20 mile limit above named to Kuruman, in Bechuanaland, would be about 500 miles across the Kalahari Desert. As to the Islands referred to, which are Guano Islands, we have obtained assurances from the German Government that the birds on the Islands and the guano deposits should not be disturbed. I may also add, in connection with these matters, that a Mixed Commission has been named to inquire and report upon the respective claims of British and German subjects of the mainland. As to the third Question, I apprehend that the right hon. Gentleman refers to the action of the Colonial Government in the sending of Mr. Palgrave as a Resident to Damaraland. I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to a despatch of the Earl of Kimberley's of the 13th of December, 1880, in which he pointed out that by so doing the Colonial Government had exceeded its authority, the High Commissioner alone being empowered to deal with the Native tribes and territory beyond the borders. He further went on to say that—
  "Her Majesty's Government are of opinion that the Orange River should be maintained as the North-Western limit of the Cape Colony; and they will give no countenance to schemes for the extension of British jurisdiction over great Namaqualand and Damaraland."
  364
  In the meantime, however, the Colonial Government, on the outbreak of war between the Namaquas and the Damaras, withdrew their Resident, stating that it had always been decided from the very first that no attempt to employ any other kind of force but moral force should be made. Since then we have regarded our relations with the Damaras as practically at an end.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: Has that despatch been published?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: Yes.

  IMPERIAL DEFENCES—THE CLYDE.
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELL (for Mr. COCHRAN-PATRICK)asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether any steps have yet been taken for improving the defences of the Clyde?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I have already stated that the Statement on this subject will be made to-morrow in connection with the Statement which will be made on Naval Affairs.

  IRELAND—CITY OF DUBLIN—THE MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES.
  MR. GRAYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he will consider the propriety of introducing, next year, a Bill to extend the Municipal Boundaries of the City of Dublin, as recommended by the Royal Commission which recently investigated the matter; and, whether it is his intention to introduce a Bill to amend the Collection of Rates Act (Dublin)?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The hon. Member is aware that the subject of the proposed extension of the Municipal Boundaries of the City of Dublin is one presenting much difficulty, and that the Government have not hitherto been able to hold out any prospect of legislation in that direction. With regard to the second matter referred to, we have no intention of receding from the undertaking already given, and hope that a favourable opportunity may be found during the Session for the proposed measure.

  IRELAND—THE PARLIAMENT HOUSES, DUBLIN—LEASE TO THE GOVERNOR AND COMPANY OF THE BANK OF IRELAND.
  MR. LEAMYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland,

  365
  Whether he has any objection to lay upon the Table of the House a Copy of the lease made between the Government and the Governor and Company of the Bank of Ireland of the houses lately occupied by the Lords and Commons of Ireland?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The Bank premises were purchased by the Bank on the 27th of August, 1803. The interest purchased was a leasehold interest; but the Bank, in 1845, purchased the fee from the representatives of the lessor. The title deeds are in the possession of the Bank authorities, and not under the control of the Irish Government.
  MR. SEXTON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether, in view of the course of events in Ireland, the Government will see the advisability of arranging with the Governors of the Bank of Ireland for the surrender of the lease?
  [No reply.]

  ARMY (AUXILIARY FORCES)—THE 4TH ROYAL IRISH FUSILIERS (LATE CAVAN MILITIA).
  MR. BIGGARasked the Secretary of State for War, Why two vacancies for Captains in 4th Royal Irish Fusiliers (late Cavan Militia) have not yet been filled up, although the vacancies have existed for a year past, and although the two senior lieutenants have qualified for same; and, if they are considered to be not fit for promotion, why are they allowed to remain in the regiment?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: The recommendation of subalterns for promotion in a Militia battalion rests with the Commanding Officer; and in the case referred to the Commanding Officer has given satisfactory reasons for postponing his recommendation. It is expected, however, that the vacancies will be almost immediately filled up.

  EGYPT—STATE OF AFFAIRS— BRIGANDAGE.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether his attention has been called to the following statements made by The Times Correspondent at Alexandria, on the 24th November:—
  "Very serious cases of brigandage continue to occur in the interior. It is certain that
  366
  many outrages and robberies are concealed, from fear of the reprisals which are promptly taken. That authority which, though sometimes brutally, still effectually, maintained order, has been removed, nothing being substituted for it. The police now possess no authority. The new Courts, even if incorrupt, are too dilatory and cumbersome to meet the want in question, with the result that crime is not only undetected, but that, if detected, it goes unpunished. We require a European police, with an English magistrate;"
  whether these statements are accurate; and, what measures Her Majesty's Ministers propose to take, in order to give beneficial effect to the expenditure of £9,000,000 of British money in Egypt, and to give good administration and justice to that country?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I have read the statements referred to by the hon. Member; but, as I stated on the 24th ultimo, in reply to a Question by him on the same subject, Her Majesty's Government have received no recent Report regarding brigandage in Egypt. They have no reason to credit the statement that the police possess no authority; but I have already stated that a Special Commission has been appointed to deal with the matter in the localities affected, and I have every reason to believe that it is acting with, efficiency.

  STATE OF IRELAND—THE NATIONAL LEAGUE—INTIMIDATION.
  MR. ONSLOWasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Is it true that there were parties who were not acting in accordance with the principles and doctrines of the National League called up before the Committees of branches of that Association at Timahoe and other places in Queen's County, when the Rev. Mr. Phelan, P.P., and Messrs. Bugin and Ryan, C.C.'s, were the presiding Members; were these parties interrogated by those gentlemen and others as to their connection and dealings with landlords and persons in charge of farms from which persons had been evicted, and made to promise, through fear, that they would cease to have anything to do or say with them for the future; if such Courts have been held, have the facts been reported and brought under the notice of the Government or their Law Officers; and, if so, have any proceedings been instituted against the offending parties;

  367
  and, is it the fact that the Rev. Mr. Ryan at Timahoe had been previously moved by his Bishop from the county Carlow to his present parish, on representations made by the authorities as to his acts and conduct in connection with certain landlords in that county?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It is believed that persons who had acted in a way obnoxious to the National League have been summoned before branches or Committees of that body at Timahoe and elsewhere, and that one at least of the clergymen named in the Question has presided on such occasions, when the persons summoned were interrogated and subjected to intimidation, and forced to give promises of the kind indicated by the hon. Member. Reports to this effect have been made to the Government, and accounts of these proceedings have been published in local newspapers, which are the organs of the National League. The matter is being carefully considered by the Government, with the advice of the Law Officers. I believe that the statement in the last paragraph of the hon. Member's Question is correct, excepting that Mr. Ryan's removal was not due to any official representation by the authorities.
  MR. ONSLOWasked, was the right hon. Member aware that this intimidation had been going on for some months, and that, even at the present time, these Courts were being held; and that no intimation had been given to the Catholic priests mentioned that their action was illegal, and came under the terms of the Prevention of Crime Act?
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, before the Question was answered he would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether any of the information with reference to this alleged intimidation had come from any of the persons alleged to have been so intimidated?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The information was derived from various sources, and I have myself seen reports in local newspapers bearing out all I have said.
  MR. ONSLOW: Has any intimation been given to these Catholic priests that they are acting in violation of the law?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The matter is, as I have already stated, under consideration.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Has any information or complaint come from any persons alleged to be intimidated?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I do not consider myself called upon to answer that Question.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—THE VAGRANCY ACT—KANTURK WORKHOUSE (CASHMAN).
  MR. JUSTIN HUNTLT M'CARTHY (for Mr. DEASY)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is true that a man named Cashman was sentenced to one month's imprisonment with hard labour, under the Vagrancy Act, for having applied for one night's shelter in the Kanturk Workhouse; whether he had ever before made a similar application; whether the Local Government Board will remonstrate with the Board of Guardians for having ordered Cashman to be prosecuted; and, whether the Government will consider the propriety of obtaining his immediate release?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The prisoner is a strong young man, well able to work; but he is a recognized tramp. He was convicted under that section of the Vagrancy Act which makes it an offence to go from one Union to another for the purpose of obtaining relief. This is what Cashman was doing. His case seems just such a one as the law is intended to meet; and the Local Government Board think it desirable, with the view of preventing vagrancy, that Guardians should put it in force in proper cases. There does not appear to be any ground for remitting the sentence.

  POOR ELECTIONS (IRELAND)—MARYBOROUGH—ARMY STAFF SERGEANTS.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that several staff sergeants not yet discharged from the Army are living in Maryborough in rateable houses the valuation of which exceeds four pounds, and voting in respect of such occupation at the Poor Law Elections; whether sergeants and privates of the Constabulary living in similar houses are not allowed votes at the same elections; and, whether the Government propose to continue the present difference of treatment?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am informed that at the last election for Poor Law Guardians in Maryborough several members of the Militia Staff were allowed to vote. The Returning Officer states that he always issues voting papers to policemen who occupy houses valued over £4; but the papers are always returned unfilled.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—RATHDRUM BOARD OF GUARDIANS—DR. HALPIN, MEDICAL OFFICER.
  MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If, as President of the Local Government Board, he is aware of the charge brought by Peter Gibson, Arklow, against the medical officer of the district, Dr. Halpin; whether the charge is that Dr. Halpin, when called to attend Gibson's wife in her confinement, stayed but a short time, and went away, leaving an inexperienced person in attendance; whether he had to be sent for again, and whether the child's life was lost through the delay; whether, at an inquiry held by the dispensary committee, of which Lord Carysfort and his agent, Mr. Taylor, are members, a resolution was passed by a majority of two votes acquitting Dr. Halpin of blame; whether, on that occasion, Lord Carysfort, as chairman, gave two votes, and whether it has not been decided that he acted illegally in so doing; and, whether he will grant a full inquiry into all the circumstances of the case, or else lay the notes taken by the shorthand writer at the inquiry of the Dispensary Committee, the Correspondence between the Committee and the Rathdrum Board of Guardians, and any Correspondence that has taken place with the Local Government Board, upon the Table?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The charge preferred by Peter Gibson against Dr. Halpin was as stated; and the Committee of Management of the Arklow Dispensary District, to whom he is responsible for the due performance of his duties, inquired into the matter at a special meeting held for the purpose on the 21st of August last. The complaint and Dr. Halpin's explanation were considered, several witnesses were examined, and a resolution was carried to the effect that the Committee did not think that there had been any culpable neglect on the part of Dr. Halpin. The
  370
  hon. Member has been misinformed as to the Chairman, Lord Carysfort, having given two votes on this resolution. There were 12 members present, including the Chairman, and the resolution was carried by a majority of 7 to 5. There does not appear to be any necessity for further inquiry, or for the production of the Correspondence.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—BALLYMENA BENCH OF MAGISTRATES.
  MR. MOOREasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether; there are on the Ballymena Bench of Magistrates eight Protestant, three Presbyterian, and not one single Catholic magistrate; and, whether two of the magistrates are brothers, and have five of their cousins magistrates in the same Petty Sessions District?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The facts as to the constitution of the Ballymena Bench are correctly stated. It is true that two of the magistrates are brothers; but they never sit on the Bench together. There is some cousin-ship between some of the magistrates; but this circumstance in no-wise prevents them from acting impartially and honestly. The Lord Chancellor informs me that he is in communication with the Lieutenant of the county of Antrim as to the placing of a Roman Catholic gentleman on the Ballymena Bench.

  CONSERVATIVES AND GENERAL GORDON.
  SIR FREDERICK MILNERasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he is correctly reported to have used these words—
  "There were Conservatives who would be glad to hear of General Gordon's death, and a Conservative Member had said to him that he was afraid that Gordon was safe?"
  He wished to ask the hon. Gentleman whether he was prepared deliberately to repeat those statements in the House, and to substantiate so atrocious a charge against Conservative Members of this House?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: I have not seen a report of my speech at Scarborough; and, as the hon. Member's letter of this morning is the first communication which has drawn my attention to it, I have not had an opportunity of obtaining a copy of the report. But,

  371
  taking the words as set out in the hon. Member's letter, I have no hesitation in saying that I am absolutely certain that I never said that—
  "There were Conservatives who would be glad to hear of General Gordon's death;"
  in fact, I never used the word "death" at all. The remainder of the passage set out in the hon. Member's letter—namely, that I said that a Member of Parliament remarked to me that he was afraid that General Gordon was safe—is, as far as those words are concerned, pretty accurately reported. I was speaking at the scene of the famous Scarborough telegram, and was alluding to it. But if the hon. Baronet had been present, he would have seen, by my tone and manner, that I conveyed to my audience that I understood my interlocutor to have spoken in a political, and not in a personal sense, and that it was not to be taken too literally; and my audience, by their laughter, showed that they quite understood the matter.
  SIR FREDERICK MILNER: Am I right in supposing that the hon. Gentleman does not impute to any hon. Member on the Opposition side of the House any wish for General Gordon's death?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: Certainly.
  MR. SPEAKER: I understood the hon. Gentleman to repudiate any such interpretation.

MOTIONS.

  ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: In the absence of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone), who, I hope, will be in his place in a very few minutes, I will, in order to save the time of the House, make the Motion which stands in his name, in, however, a somewhat altered form. It is considered, I believe, that in the event of any protracted discussion on the introduction of the Parliamentary Elections, Redistribution, Bill, it would be very convenient that the Statement on Naval Affairs which has been promised should not come on at an uncertain period of the evening; but that it should be brought on to-morrow. I will, therefore, move the Resolution which stands in my right hon. Friend's name, with the omission of the last paragraph.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the Orders of the Day he postponed until after the Notice of Motion for leave to bring in a Bill for the Redistribution of Seats."—(The Marquess of Harlington.)
  Motion agreed to.

PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS, RE-DISTRIBUTION, BILL.

  MOTION FOR LEAVE.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Mr. Speaker, it will, I doubt not, be in the recollection of the House that a fortnight ago I was allowed to make an intimation on the part of the Government the effect of which was that, if it were found possible for us to receive, in either of two ways to which I pointed, adequate assurance that the Franchise Bill would pass forthwith, it was far from being alien to our disposition to submit at once to the consideration of the House a Bill for the Redistribution of Seats, and to prosecute that Bill with all reasonable and convenient despatch. The House was pleased, by adjourning on Monday last, to give us the opportunity, which we should not otherwise so fully have enjoyed, of learning whether such assurance could be had, and whether I should be in a position to present to the House on the day which has now arrived a Bill for the Redistribution of Seats. I am glad to find myself in that position, and I am particularly glad to recognize the circumstances under which I approach the execution of a task that can hardly be at present either difficult or disagreeable. Sir, I am one of those who, when Party issues are raised, have not thought it my duty to abstain on all occasions from speaking in plain and strong language. But, although that is so, I am not ashamed to say that it is to me an occasion of singular satisfaction that I am enabled to reflect that, after a great controversy which has agitated and divided the country, we seem now happily to have attained a point which marks the approach of its termination; and, further, that I am able to present to the House a measure on a political question of great importance and of wide scope with a sanguine hope that it will be found to fulfil the anticipations which on some occasions I have ventured to form—that the subject-matter of a Bill for the Redistribution of Seats was not likely to raise serious difficulties or great Party issues as between the several sec-

  373
  tions of this House. I hope, Sir, that in what I have to say it will not be necessary for me to utter a single word that can excite Party feelings or apprehensions, or in any way even to recall the memory of former struggles. I will dispense with all general arguments on the subject of the redistribution of Parliamentary seats. That there ought to be legislation upon that subject at the earliest possible date, and that it ought to be of a wide and effective character, is a foregone conclusion in the minds of all, or nearly all, whom I have the honour to address. If that is so, it is not necessary for me to do more than remind the House in two words that the basis of the argument for the redistribution of seats rests upon the gross anomalies still remaining in our representative system. The first of these anomalies is the narrow and defective representation of the counties—a method of representation that was not ill-suited to the case as long as the county franchise was narrow while the borough franchise was wide, but which would obviously become monstrous and even intolerable if the franchise in the counties was to be made as wide—and it will be quite as wide—as that of the boroughs. Another anomaly is the defective representation accorded to our large towns, which suffer under an inequality more remarkable than even the counties, and without the same reason to be alleged in its defence. We shall seek to deal with these anomalies in a manner agreeable to the spirit of English legislation, not absolutely to efface all inequality from our representative system in respect to electoral areas—notto aim at the application of a single hard mathematical rule, but to give due weight to the various, and in some senses conflicting, considerations that bear upon the question from different points, and to attain that kind of practical result by a change sufficiently wide, yet not reckless in its character, and which is agreeable to the traditions and the practice of Parliament. The Bill, which I have now the honour to present to the House, is governed, like the Act of 1832, as the House will readily perceive, upon what I may again term a Schedule A and a Schedule B. The present representation of the country gives to the counties one Member through the United Kingdom for 78,000 persons, and to the boroughs one Member for 41,200 persons. That ratio of borough
  374
  representation is rendered even more unequal when we come to divide the towns into large towns and small towns. As a rule, the ratio is one Member for 54,200 persons over the whole country. I would urge hon. Members to carry that figure in their minds, because it will enable them to form a pretty fair judgment as to the extent of the operations of disfranchisement and enfranchisement that we contemplate and propose. When I speak of the disfranchisement of boroughs, I feel that the term is rather harsh; I feel that it is more harsh probably than the case requires, for, after all, the meaning is that the boroughs with their household suffrage will merge into the counties with their household suffrage, or into divisions and districts of counties of which these boroughs will, in many cases, probably in most cases, form the centres, and these' divisions will probably take their names, and with great propriety, from the boroughs. The Schedule A will show the total loss of separate representation, and the Schedule B will signify the reduction of separate representation from two Members to one. Our Schedule A is framed upon the principle that towns with a population up to 15,000 shall pass into a county division or district, to which, as I have said, if our proposition be adopted, the town may give the name wherever it can properly be done. I may as well add that, besides the towns with a population not exceeding 15,000, there are a small number of rural and hundred boroughs—on which I need not dwell particularly—which we propose likewise to allow to become portions of the county representation. I believe the House will agree with me that on all grounds their constitution as separate boroughs is not an arrangement the continuance of which is desirable. There are also two boroughs which, on other grounds, we are obliged to include in the same arrangement. I mean the boroughs of Sandwich and Macclesfield, which, unhappily, in the elections of 1880, were marked by occurrences that rendered it undesirable that they should continue to have a separate existence as boroughs. So much for Schedule A. Schedule B is framed upon the principle that towns with a population up to 50,000 shall continue to be represented, but shall have no more than one Member each. To these there are to be added two counties, which, as we think, on the

  375
  principle on which our measure is framed, should receive somewhat similar treatment. The county of Rutland, with a population which does not very greatly exceed 20,000, has now two Members, and we propose to reduce the representation to one Member. The county of Hereford, of which the population a little exceeds 100,000, has three Members; and we propose to reduce the number to two, acting in the spirit and according to the analogy that governs Schedule B in general in the reduction of the representation now accorded to certain towns. These towns, I think, will range from a population of 50,000 as the lower limit up to a population of 105,000 as the upper limit. I am speaking in round figures. There are one or two cases where towns have been within a few hundreds of a limit, and we have considered them as touching it; but the House will have in its hands to-morrow morning—irrespective of any questions that may be asked to-night—the printed Bill, so that hon. Members will have an opportunity of studying the authentic details. Above 165,000 we are enabled to commence the process of enfranchisement by augmentation of the numbers now possessed by towns to be represented in this House. So much, then, for Schedule A and Schedule B. The effect of these two Schedules will be to liberate no fewer than 160 seats; and to these are to be added for the present purpose—I do not close the account—the extinguished seats, which are six in number, two in Ireland, and four in England; these it will be proposed to revive. For the purpose of enabling the House to judge of the scope of this measure I may mention that the Act of 1832, by its Schedules A and B, liberated, for the purpose of redistribution, 143 seats; and the number is now 160. These seats, I need not say, are to be devoted to the redress and the reduction of anomalous arrangements, and are to be divided between the under-represented counties and the under-represented towns of the country. The boroughs, of course, will receive a large number—that is, the most populous boroughs, and the Metropolis in particular—and the counties will receive a still larger number. From our plan, if adopted, the counties will receive 96 seats over and above what they possess at present. Of that 96, 64 will be given
  376
  to counties in England. The boroughs will receive 74 seats, and new boroughs which will be taken out of the counties will receive eight seats. I may mention the amount of increment which some of the larger towns will receive. The Metropolis it is proposed, in a great degree, to recast. The boroughs in the Metropolis are generally well suited for being so dealt with; being Parliamentary boroughs only, and not being also established municipalities, they have no common historic life attaching to them. In the neighbourhood of the Metropolis it is proposed to create seven boroughs, which would have among them eight Members, and which would be taken out of the home counties for the purpose of being added to the borough representation. These boroughs are in the Metropolis for the purposes of local government, and they will be reckoned as in the Metropolis for the purposes of Parliamentary representation. The addition to the whole of the Members of the Metropolis, including these new boroughs, would be 37. The addition in the case of Liverpool will be six Members, which, added to the three now possessed, will make a total of nine. The addition in the case of Glasgow will be four Members, which, added to the three it now possesses, will make a total of seven. The House is probably aware that the case of Glasgow, with reference to its suburban districts, is rather peculiar. There are many parts of those suburban districts which, although parts of Glasgow for many purposes, are not ambitious—at least, they have not hitherto been ambitious—to be included in the municipality. Birmingham will receive a similar addition of four to its present number of three, making in all seven Members. Manchester will receive three, making six; Leeds will receive two, making five; and Sheffield, which has now only two, will receive three, also making five. But I will not pursue the list further. There are considerable additions to the boroughs, and the additions to the counties in certain cases are very large. Yorkshire, it is proposed, will receive no fewer than 16; Lancashire would receive 15; Middlesex in England, and Cork in Ireland, would receive five each; Durham in England, and Lanarkshire in Scotland, would receive four each; and that addition of four to Lanarkshire will serve to explain

  377
  the apparent smallness of the numbers added to Glasgow when compared with the numbers given to Liverpool, the population of the two cities not being very different. So much for Schedule A and Schedule B, as I have called them, for the sake of the historic clearness of the idea derived from the Act of 1832. I now come to the question of the principle upon which redistribution is to take place. There are two conceivable modes that may be resorted to for the purpose of distributing these seats over the country. We may look to the division of the country into Kingdoms; and some propose to take the population of the Three Kingdoms—some would even also take the population of Wales as a separate division—and divide the total number of Members, and then sub-divide them within each Kingdom or division. A mode of proceeding such as that would be very well adapted to a case were you going to establish electoral districts pure and simple, because you would then proceed in your sub-division to constitute these electoral districts with absolute equality, and the result would be that the numerical principle would be applied throughout with perfect equity. But we are not proceeding on that principle. Although our measure of disfranchisement, or, at all events, of reduced representation, is so large, yet there is room left for very considerable regard to the ancient divisions of counties, and to the possession by municipal communities of the old historic Parliamentary representation. But these communities are unequally distributed over the whole country, and we have felt it difficult to say that we will take for our main guide the population of the several great divisions of the country, because we feel that in that case we should be asked—"Why, if you divide on that principle between the Three Kingdoms, do you not sub-divide on the same principle in those Kingdoms themselves, and thus obtain a perfectly equal application of the arithmetical principle on which you proceed?" Sir, there is another method of proceeding which appears to us to be more just in itself, better suited to the feelings of the country, and more satisfactory in its results; and that is, as, after all, we are legislating for a United Kingdom, to apply to the electoral areas of the country one and the same rule throughout,
  378
  from John O'Groats' House to Land's End, and the same in Ireland, so that the disfranchisement, so-called, of any town, and the enfranchisement of any town or county, shall everywhere be determined by the same consideration. I say substantially the same. The cases of counties are not exactly the same as those of boroughs, because in England, for example, although the county of Rutland is so very small in relation to the rest, yet there is nothing corresponding to the large number of boroughs from a population of 15,000 and upwards until you get far beyond the average of ratio. But as far as possible the rule is uniform for counties and boroughs alike in the United Kingdom; and, as far as regards each description, every county in Ireland will be treated on the same principle as every county in Scotland, and every county in Scotland on the same principle as every county in England. The same with boroughs; and that uniform dealing with the electoral areas as units we believe to be the safe and most just principle of distribution. The House will ask, what is the result? The result will be, according to our proposal—I do not know whether the House detected a slight discrepancy in my figures—the result of that rule will be that if our proposal is adopted England will obtain six seats more than it now possesses. These six seats will represent the difference between 652, the present number of the House, and 658, the old number. Wales will have exactly the number that it now has. [Opposition cry of "Oh!"] Ireland—I am very sorry that that cry obliges me to lengthen my speech by a parenthesis. I really was in hopes that I should have got through without a single "Oh!" of any kind. But I wish to point out that Wales never has been dealt with separately, or upon any separate principle, in any Reform Bill. The distinction between England and Wales, except in a recital in an Act of Parliament for the purpose of indicating their unity, is totally unknown to our Constitution. If I understand that interjection, the meaning is that, on account of various political sins which it has committed, Wales is to be specially cut off, and subjected for the first time to exceptional treatment. But if Wales is to be cut off, because it is certainly true that Wales, if you choose to make an integer

  379
  of it, will have a somewhat more favourable representation than some other parts of the United Kingdom, there are also some other great districts of England which will likewise have a more favourable representation, and a more favourable representation even than Wales. I believe that under our proposal, if you take the counties of Cornwall, Devon, Wilts, Somerset, and Dorset, which I think together have a population exceeding that of Wales, and are, therefore, quite as much entitled to separate notice, it will be found that these counties, from the manner in which their ancient areas happened to be distributed, will have a share of representation under the Bill somewhat better than the average, and even better than that of Wales. In point of fact, that exclamation, of which I am not complaining, and only referred to for the sake of greater clearness, if it means anything, means electoral districts and nothing but electoral districts; for unless you have electoral districts I defy the wit of man so to arrange the electoral areas that you may not pick out bits of England and say this bit is a little more represented than that bit, and so on. There is, however, as far as I have yet got, a great unsatisfied claim on the part of Scotland; and we propose to meet that claim by asking the House to enact, or, if Gentlemen like, to submit to an increase of its own numbers by 12 seats. That is not a very large demand, and we are inclined to found it upon these twojjrinciples—first of all, that it saves the raising of any invidious question between one part of the country and another; and, secondly, that it enables us to apply with unvarying uniformity the principle of uniform treatment as regards enfranchisement and disfranchisement to all portions of the country without any distinction or difference whatever. There yet remains one important question on which alone it is necessary for me to trouble the House for a few minutes. I have said that we propose to adopt a rule under which the electoral areas will be dealt with as units, and with an unvarying equality of principle of treatment; but I have not yet explained to the House what we propose that these electoral areas should be.
  LORD JOHN MANNERS: You have not mentioned Ireland.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I beg pardon, I think I stated it. [Cries of "No!"] I stated that Wales would remain unchanged, and that Ireland would remain unchanged. [Cries of "No!"] I believe that what happened was this—I know the word "Ireland" passed from my mouth, and in the meantime I heard the interjection "Oh!" I will recite them again. England obtains an addition of six Members. Wales will remain as it is, Ireland will remain as it is, and Scotland will obtain an increment of 12; and it appears to me that that increment of 12, if we consider Scotland an integral part of the Kingdom, is fairly adapted to the demand. Now, Sir, the question of what are to be the electoral areas is undoubtedly one of very considerable difficulty. I may as well mention that, not denying the difficulty, perfectly conscious that there are objections to be taken to any imaginable mode of I dividing the electoral areas, we have arrived at the conclusion that, upon the whole, the best and fairest method of dividing them would be to adopt, not absolutely as an uniform, but as a general and prevailing rule, the system of what is known as one-Member districts. The one-Member district, as far as England is concerned, is almost a novelty, because in a system of representation that counts and reckons more than six centuries of life, what began at the Reform Bill may be considered almost a novelty. In Scotland and Ireland, although the one-Member system is known there, the representation is hardly a reality. The recommendations of this system I think are these—that it is very economical, it is very simple, and it goes a very long way towards that which many Gentlemen have much at heart— namely, what is roughly termed representation of minorities. It may be termed the representation of minorities; it may be termed the representation of separate interests and pursuits; but, give it what name you like, there is no doubt that by means of one-Member districts you will obtain a very large diversity of representation. Undoubtedly that large diversity is a capital object in a good electoral system. I know there are Gentlemen on both sides of this House—some respected Friends and valued supporters of the Government—who wish to go further, and who wish to introduce in forms more

  381
  directly addressed to their purpose what is termed the representation of minorities. Well, Sir, we have considered that question much; but the first observation I would respectfully make is that those who are so anxious for representation of minorities, those who agree so heartily in valuing the end, are by no means equally agreed as to the means, and that it is very difficult indeed to know upon what lines we can propose any scheme directly addressed to the representation of minorities without its being open to the gravest objections—objection in the first place that it was artificial; objection in the second place That it was not known to our usages and our history; objection in the third place that after all that particular scheme only commanded the assent of a handful, whereas everybody else was inclined to fall foul of it and attack it. Sir, we do not see our way to the introduction of what I do not like to call a new-fangled, but a novel and artificial system of that kind. I have said we propose one-Member districts as a general and prevailing rule, and by that proposition I entirely abide. "We propose, however, certain exceptions. The first and most distinguished exception is that of the City of London. The City of London, I am afraid, all circumstances considered, cannot equitably be exempted from some change. Its population is a population of 50,000. With a population of 50,000 odd its electorate is remarkably large, and its largeness of electorate, combined with its history, marks its out for some exemption from the application of the rigid rule of population; yet it will hardly, when the rest of the Metropolis is proposed to be divided into one-Member districts, warrant us in asking the House to continue to it its very largely disproportionate representation which it now possesses with no less than four Members. We propose, however, that two Members shall be the amount of representation accorded to the City. [Opposition cries of "Oh!" and Ministerial cheers.] I hear certain cheers from a quarter from which I may own I am always glad to hear them; but I think on the present occasion—and from our portion of the House—they may seem not to be quite impartial. It is quite true that of late the City has been the stronghold of the Party opposite; but these things change from time to time.
  382
  If Gentlemen will go back no very great number of years, I think that for more than half of my political life the City was the stronghold of the Liberal Party. That which has been maybe, and therefore I ask hon. Gentlemen opposite to believe that we are not so entirely divested of hope with regard to the City as to have been moved by any vindictive sentiments in making a proposal which I think will be felt to be in itself not an immoderate one. Another and more extensive—I will not say more important—exception to the rule of one-Member districts is to be found in the case of those towns, not in the Metropolis, but outside, which now exist as Parliamentary boroughs having dual representation, and which is not to be increased or diminished. As I have said, towns below 50,000 are to be diminished to one Member, and towns above 165,000 are to be increased by one Member. Towns between these limits having, and continuing to have, two Members, we propose shall not be required to be divided. There is undoubtedly, in many towns, a unity of municipal life, which, except for some great object, it is not desirable to violate or to impair by severance; and I think there are something like over 50 seats which would be affected by this exception, if it were approved by the House. I do not say that there may not be any other exceptions which might not be devised in the course of those discussions which we shall have amply enough on the details of this Bill; but I propound it as a principle of this measure that the system of one-Member districts is, according to our view, to be the general and prevailing rule. Sir, there is only one other important point; but I need not enter into details with regard to it. I mean the question of boundaries. There will be much work to be done with regard to boundaries under this Bill. The constitution of a large number of new electoral districts will leave a great deal to be done; but that to which the attention of the House will no doubt be principally directed will be the question of the boundaries of the larger towns. These boundaries will be carefully considered, and I think I had better not attempt any minute description which, after all, would fail of its purpose. The best thing I can say is that a Commission has been appointed for the purpose. The division

  383
  of the boroughs and the fixing of the county districts will be under a Commission, which has been appointed; and perhaps I might not do ill—since, after all, confidence in the Commission is a very important matter—if I ventured to read the names of the Commissioners to the House. For England the names are Sir John Lambert, Mr. Pelham, barrister-at-law, Sir Francis Sandford, Mr. Joseph John Henley, the son of a former well-known Member of this House, Colonel Owen Jones, and Major Hector Tulloch. This Boundary Commission is already at work, and, being at work, it is reckoned that its labours will occupy, perhaps, about two months. There must be a considerable Recess, after our autumn labours, before the House re-assembles. There are the intermediate stages of the Bill to be gone through; and we have no doubt that in Committee on the Bill, or by a re-committal of the Bill for that purpose, there will be no difficulty in inserting the results of the labours of the Commission, so that they may be brought under the direct judgment of the House. These, Sir, are the only points on which I think it necessary to detain the House; but I will say one word more as to the procedure. On Monday last, when I intimated the probability of my being in a position to bring in this Bill to-day, I also said we would submit to the House the question of its being read a second time on Thursday. I did that upon the supposition that the Bill could be in the hands of Members to-morrow morning, and I am encouraged to assure Members that that will be the case. Well, Sir, viewing the nature of the Bill, and its not involving any great and broad matters, as I trust, of Party contention, I thought the House might be inclined to proceed with its second reading with a rapidity greater than usual, especially because it is impossible for us to assure the House that there would be other Business immediately demanding its attention, which would require it to sit beyond the present week. Therefore, as at present advised, we are disposed to ask the House to give the Bill a second reading on Thursday next. But in doing that I must admit that the time is unusually short; and I bear in mind very particularly that it will be in the power of the House, if it thinks fit, to reserve to itself another opportunity,
  384
  with longer time and far better and less embarrassed means, of discussing the whole subject after it has been well weighed in the country—I mean upon the Motion that the Speaker do leave the Chair. In a matter like this the duty of the Government is to consult singly and solely the convenience of the House, and that is what we have entirely in view. But our opinion is that the convenience of the House and the necessities of the case would be best met if we were to read the Bill a second time at the early date which I have mentioned; and if we were to reserve the debate upon the Speaker's leaving the Chair, which might be as extended as hon. Gentlemen choose, until after the adjournment of the House over Christmas. That, of course, is a matter to be considered. I have stated the best conclusion at which we have arrived; but, as I have said, we have no desire but to consult the convenience of the House as that may be judged of by the House itself. I am not about to endeavour to solicit from the House on this occasion the expression of any opinion on the Bill. The disposition of the House will, I think, evidently be to inform itself as to the Bill by holding the Bill in its hand; and I am inclined to think that the House will be disposed to give leave to-night for the introduction of the Bill, so that hon. Gentlemen may see it tomorrow morning. Sir, on our part I will only say that we have been guided in framing it by a desire to act in the spirit of those assurances which, on various occasions, we have given. We have expressed our profound satisfaction in what was first a surmise, but what has gradually become a belief, that there is no broad or vital difference of opinion on this subject between the several sections of the House. The discussion, when it comes—and probably in the necessities of the case it may be an extended discussion—will, we believe, be a discussion rather of a practical, than of a polemical, character. We have striven to keep in view all those considerations which equity, which practical needs, which the regard for usage, and the general spirit of English legislation commended to our notice; and we confidently trust the Bill will be found, if it is on one side large, and therefore giving some promise of duration—for without being large it could give no

  385
  such promise—if it is on one side large, it will, from the other point of view, not less important, be found to be equitable and considerate, neither regardless of history and prescription, and ancient arrangements and ancient rights, nor, on the other hand, disposed to respect those ancient arrangements and ancient rights up to a point which would allow them to preclude the attainment of the great purpose of a widely popular and national representation.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That leave be given to bring in a Bill for the Redistribution of Seats at Parliamentary Elections; and for other purposes relative thereto."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Sir, under ordinary circumstances it would have been my duty to make some observations on the statement of the right hon. Gentleman; but, for reasons which I think the House will well understand, I do not deem it necessary at the present moment to enter largely into the question. I will only suggest to the right hon. Gentleman whether it would be in his power to communicate to the House the nature of the instructions which have been given to the Boundary Commissioners. That is a point upon which a great deal of anxiety will no doubt exist, because a great deal will depend upon the manner in which these gentlemen conduct their duties.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Certainly; the instructions will be presented at the earliest moment.
  DR. CAMERON: Possibly the right hon. Gentleman may be able to remedy an omission in his speech. He mentioned the names of the Commissioners for England, but said nothing about the Boundary Commissioners for Scotland.
  An hon. MEMBER: And for Ireland.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I hope very shortly that we shall be able to state the names of the Commissioners for Scotland; but we have not been absolutely able to close the question. I may say we have no doubt at all what shall be the arrangement for Ireland; and the arrangement for Ireland is, that the work shall be entrusted to the Irish branch of the Ordnance Survey Department.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid, he desired to make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman with regard to what had fallen
  386
  from him with reference to future procedure. Under ordinary circumstances, in relation to a Bill of this supreme importance, he thought the House would agree that it would not have been unreasonable if hon. Members had asked to have ample time for the study of the Bill before the second reading was taken. Under the circumstances, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not be disposed to adhere to the intention to take the second reading on Thursday next. Even if the Bill were in the possession of hon. Members to-morrow they would not have two whole days to consider it. The right hon. Gentleman had expressed himself anxious to consult the convenience of the House; but the House had duties to consider as well as convenience; and he could not believe that there would be any disposition on the part of the House of Commons generally, as it were, to rush this measure through. Under the circumstances, he hoped Her Majesty's Government would not insist on proceeding to the second reading on Thursday next.
  MR. BUCHANANwished to know whether the increase in the number of Scotch Representatives was one of the essential principles of the Bill; and whether it would be treated by the Government as a vital question?
  MR. CLARE READasked whether those divisions of counties which would still continue to return two Members would be treated in the same way as boroughs which returned two Members, or whether those constituencies would be divided?
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he wished to enter his protest against the very small increase in the number of Members apportioned to Scotland. If the number of Members for Ireland was to be continued at 103, and for Wales at 30, Scotland would be entitled to an increased representation of 21 Members, instead of 12. The Welsh Members were increased, under the last two Reform Bills, from 26 to 30, and since the Union the Irish Members from 100 to 105—which number had been reduced by the disfranchisement of Sligo and Cashel to 103. If there were to be 103 for Ireland, Scotland, on the same principle, would demand 82 or 83. He would advise English Members to look out for themselves, because the six additional Members to be added to Eng-

  387
  land were not a sufficient number if they were to have 103 for Ireland, and 30 for Wales, continued. If it were the pleasure of the House to increase the whole number of its Members from 658 to 670 in order to give 12 new Members to Scotland, he trusted the House would do justice to Scotland by increasing its representation by 11 more than was proposed by the Bill.
  MR. ONSLOWsaid, he would join in the appeal made by the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) against taking the second reading so early as Thursday next. The Prime Minister had himself said that this Bill was more drastic than that of 1832, and proceeded on a much wider and broader system of Reform. He hoped the Government would not take the second reading of the Bill, at all events, until Monday next.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he was inclined to agree with the contention of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir John Hay). He thought Scotland was entitled to a larger representation than was proposed. At the same time, if the general principles mentioned by the Prime Minister, which he should like some explanation of, were to be applied to the Three Kingdoms, then he felt they must submit, even though Scotland suffered. It was a curious thing, however, that the full number of Members should be retained for Ireland and Wales, and that Scotland should not receive the full number.
  MR. R. N. FOWLERsaid, he did not concur in the views expressed by the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow). He thought it would be much better to proceed to the second reading at once, considering that they were now in December, and that the House desired to adjourn over Christmas. He thought the Government were quite right in proposing to take the second reading on Thursday, which would allow the debate to be continued on Friday or Monday.
  MR. DIXON-HARTLANDasked if the number of Members of the House was to be increased by 18?
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked whether the Boundary Commissioners would be instructed to deal with boroughs not otherwise affected by the Bill?
  MR. BRYCEasked whether it was intended, in increasing the representa-
  388
  tion of London by 37 Members, that the Members for seven of the new boroughs were to be taken out of the counties; and whether those boroughs, with the existing Metropolitan constituencies, except the City of London, were to have one Member only?
  SIR WILLIAM HART DYKEsaid, that in his judgment, considering the circumstances of the birth of the Bill were exceptional, they would require rather more than less time than usual to be taken for the consideration of the Bill. As the Bill, it was hoped, would settle this question for many years to come, it seemed to him something like endeavouring to hustle the measure through the House to take the second reading on Thursday. He therefore hoped that stage would be taken at a later date. He expressed his gratification at one statement of the Prime Minsiter—namely, that the proceedings of the Boundary Commissioners were to come under the careful scrutiny of the House.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, he understood that Members were to be distributed near London and the neighbourhood of the populous districts in Lancashire and Yorkshire upon the ground of population. He wished to ask what Return was taken as the basis of redistribution?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The Census of 1881.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, that Census was rather misleading, because in the neighbourhood of the Metropolis, as well as of the large towns in the country, there had been a very great change. He wished to know whether the Government had taken into consideration the very great increase of population which, during the past two or three years, had occurred in the neighbourhood of London and some of the large towns of Lancashire and Yorkshire?
  MR. RAIKESinquired whether there was any intention to give the Boundary Commissioners power to reconsider the arrangements of what were called district boroughs? Everyone who had studied this question was aware that no greater anomaly existed on the face of the earth than the constitution of many of the Scotch district boroughs. He wished to ask whether the Government were to give the Boundary Com-

  389
  missioners powers to recommend the re-arrangement of these districts of burghs by forming new groups, and also whether the same course would be taken with regard to Welsh district boroughs? England and Wales had, according to the Prime Minister's statement, been treated on the same basis; but at the present time, in North Wales, there was not a single town which contained 15,000 people. He did not say that in order now to raise the question of curtailing the representation of Wales; but he thought it would be desirable that the House should know what were to be the powers of the Commissioners, and whether they were to be allowed to recommend any measures for the readjustment of district boroughs by forming new groups.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Perhaps I may be allowed to answer the questions which have been put to me. This is not the proper moment for deciding the question of the second reading; but I may say, as far as I can gather the general sense of the House on the question of procedure—I think the general sense—[An hon. MEMBER: Evident sense.]—the general, if not the evident, desire of the House is to read the Bill a second time on Thursday, and I think the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. E. N. Fowler) has been a true expositor of the feeling of the House. The hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Buchanan) has asked me the question whether the increase of the number of Members for Scotland is vital. It is not, I think, the custom of the House to require at the period of the introduction of a Bill statements as to the parts of it that are vital; but I will go so far as to say this — that I have always looked upon the increase of Scotch Members resulting from the application of a uniform, and, therefore, just, rule, as a part of any fair scheme of redistribution. Then the hon. Member for West Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read) referred to two-Membered counties. I have already stated that the only exception to be made in reference to the one-Membered rule would be in boroughs. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir John Hay) objects to the proposed allotment of Members between the different portions of the United Kingdom, and proposes to show that it is inequitable. If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman
  390
  should make a very effective argument on the subject, it would, as far as inclination may be allowed to interfere in these matters, receive every attention. But this allotment, as the House will find on examining the Bill, is the result of the application of a uniform, and, therefore, a just, rule to all the areas of the country. At present we do not see our way—however agreeable it might be to us to come to a result still more favourable—to deviate from what we propose. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) asks what was the general principle upon which the allotment of Members was conducted. I thought I had stated it. The general principle is the applying of a uniform rule of enfranchisement and disfranchisement to every county I and every borough in the Three Kingdoms. As to a question about the boundaries of existing boroughs, that is a matter which will be dealt with in the Bill, and will not be included in the powers of the Commissioners. The Metropolis, it is understood, we should propose to divide into one-Member districts, with the exception of the City of London; and we propose to follow the Census for 1881, not because we think it is' perfectly satisfactory, nor because we have not considered the subject—for, on the contrary, we have considered it strictly —but because, on the whole, we think it the best rule that we can adopt. Then there was an important question put with regard to grouping boroughs, and as to whether it will be open to the Commissioners to make recommendations for what I may call the re-grouping of the boroughs. No, Sir; we think that is too large, too delicate, and too important a question—not merely a statistical one— for us to entrust to the Commissioners; and we propose that the whole subject of the grouping or re-grouping of Scotch or English boroughs shall remain for the consideration of the House. I think that these are all the questions which I am called upon to answer.
  MR. H. H. FOWLERasked whether the terms of the Boundary Commission would allow the Commissioners to appoint Sub-Commissioners; and, if so, what control would the Government have over them? The names of the Commissioners had been read to the House, and the House had confidence in them; but if the Sub-Commissioners

  391
  were to be selected by them, the selection might be an unfortunate one. He desired, therefore, to ask whether Sub-Commissioners were to be appointed at all; and, if so, whether they were to consist of officers in the service of the Crown, as in Ireland, or whether they were to be appointed pro hâc vice?
  MR. CALLANsaid, he wished to supplement the question of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler). In Ireland the Boundary Commission was to be entrusted to the Valuation Office, which had not the confidence of the Irish Members. He desired, therefore, to know what control the Government would have over the decisions of the Irish Valuation Office, and whether they intended to appoint Sub-Commissioners for Ireland; and what control the Government intended to exercise over them? He wished, as a Member of the Irish Party, to express his regret that the system of one-Membered constituencies would force him to the sad necessity of tearing himself away from half of his beloved constituency. At the same time, he rejoiced that the change would give him the opportunity of returning to his old love, who, he hoped, would send to the new Parliament Representatives purified from all Whig and corrupt influences. He thanked the Prime Minister for the self-sacrifice he had shown in extinguishing the Whig and Liberal representation of Ireland. Hereafter it would be more difficult to find a Whig or a Liberal there than it was for Diogenes to discover an honest man.
  MR. WARTONpointed out that the Universities had not been mentioned. Were the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge, and Dublin to continue to have two Members each, or were they to be divided? Further, he did not see how, if the 12 additional Members were all to be given to Scotland, England could have six additional Members, as stated by the right hon. Gentleman. He should like to know, also, whether Ireland would have 105 Members or 103?
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that to decide on taking the second reading of this Bill, which involved a totally new principle of redistribution, on Thursday was a very summary proceeding, and involved the supposition that none of them might find it necessary to communicate with those whom they repre-
  392
  sented. He had himself thrown no impediment in the way of a settlement; but he must take that opportunity of saying, on behalf of the constituencies which were to be summarily dealt with by sub-division, that their Representatives ought to be allowed time to inform themselves of the feelings of their constituents.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he had waited to see whether any other Member would rise to put a question. In reply to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler), he had to say that two of the Commissioners were persons in the habit of making those inquiries—he meant Mr. Pelham, and Major Tulloch, of the Royal Engineers. Both these gentlemen had made various inquiries in former years. If the Government should find it necessary to appoint other gentlemen to assist the Commissioners men of the same class would be appointed; but none would be chosen except persons used to perform such duties. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Callan) spoke of the Valuation Office as being chosen for the work in Ireland; but it was not the Valuation Office, but the Ordnance Survey, that had been named by the Prime Minister. The inquiry in England would be largely conducted by gentlemen who were on the Ordnance Survey in England, and who had drawn up useful maps on the subject. Similarly, in Ireland, the inquiries would be made by an official of the Ordnance Survey of Ireland. An officer of the Royal Engineers, Sir Charles Wilson, who was engaged in Egyptian affairs, and was on leave of absence, was at the head of that Office; and he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) did not remember at the moment the name of the official who was next under him. In answer to the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton), he had to say that the Universities would not be divided. It was very difficult to divide a University. He did not know how so incorporeal a body could be divided. Certainly it was not proposed. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) complained of Thursday being too soon to admit of Members consulting their constituents. But all that was proposed to be done on Thursday was to ask the House to affirm the principle of the Bill. The principle, so far as it would be affirmed, was that a

  393
  Redistribution Bill was necessary, rather than the methods on which the redistribution depended. After the explanation of the Prime Minister, any difference of opinion on the latter question might, he thought, be expressed on the Question that the Speaker do leave the Chair, after the Recess. Hon. Members would, therefore, have ample time to consult their constituents.
  COLONEL KING-HARMANinquired what seats were to be transferred from Ireland to England?
  SIR CHAELES W. DILKEreplied, the six seats, including those formerly belonging to Sligo and Cashel, which had been vacant for many years.
  MR. GEAYasked how many seats would be allotted to Dublin?
  SIR CHAELES W. DILKE: Four to the City.
  MR. PICTONwished to know whether the Government had considered the desirability, in view of the inconvenience of increasing the number of Members of the House, of taking Members from those anomalous constituencies the Universities? He wished to ask the Prime Minister whether the subject had been considered adequately by the Government, for he thought it was likely the House would be asked to consider it before the Bill had been passed?
  MR. SCLATEE-BOOTHinquired when the instructions to the Boundary Commissioners would be laid before the House?
  SIR CHAELES W. DILKEsaid, that the instructions were signed on Saturday by the Home Secretary; but they only existed in the form of a letter from himself to the Home Secretary. There was no reason why the letter forming instructions should not be laid upon the Table at once.
  MR. SEXTONasked how many Members Belfast would have?
  SIR CHAELES W. DILKE: Belfast will be one of the boroughs receiving an extension of borough boundaries. It will receive two new Members, making four in all, with the extended boundary.
  MR. J. LOWTHERwished to ask whether the President of the Local Government Board was in a position now to communicate to the House the instructions to the Boundary Commissioners?
  SIR CHAELES W. DILKEstated that the instructions would be in the
  394
  Vote Office to-morrow evening, and would be circulated the next morning.
  MR. GLADSTONE: By the indulgence of the House I may be allowed to answer the question put by the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Picton). Undoubtedly, the Government have considered the whole question to which he refers—in fact, they have considered all the points that affected the question of Redistribution; and the result of that consideration is the Bill. It is certainly not intended to take away any Members from the Universities.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. GLADSTONE, The Marquess of HARTINGTON, Sir CHARLES W. DILKE, Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, The LORD ADVOCATE, and Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 40.]

  SUSPENSION OF EVICTIONS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. MACFARLANE, Bill to suspend the power of eviction from holdings with a rental of less than thirty pounds a year within the area embraced in the Report of the Royal Commission on the condition of the Crofters and Cottars in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, except for non-payment of rent, ordered to be brought in by Mr. MACPARLANE, Mr. DICKPEDDIE, Mr. HENDERSON, Sir GEORGE CAMPBELL, Dr. CAMERON, Mr. BARCLAY, and Mr. BRYCE.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 41.]

  INDUSTRIAL AND REFORMATORY SCHOOLS (IRELAND) LOANS BILL.
  On Motion of Colonel COLTHURST, Bill to afford facilities for the erection, enlargement, improvement, and purchase of buildings for Industrial and Reformatory Schools for Ireland, ordered to he brought in by Colonel COLTHURST, Mr. WILLIAM SHAW, Mr. PATRICK MARTIN, Colonel M OLAN, and Mr. MOORE.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 42.]

  PEASANT PROPRIETARY AND ACQUISITION OF LAND BY OCCUPIERS BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. JESSE COLLINGS, Bill to facilitate the creation of a Peasant Proprietary, and the acquisition of Land by Occupiers, ordered to be brought in by Mr. JESSE COLLINGS, Mr. ROBERT REID, Mr. GEORGE PALMER, Mr. BURT, and Mr. BROADHUHST.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 43.]
  House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Tramways and Public Companies (Ireland) Act Amendment* (8).
Select Committee—Infants,* nominated.
Committee—Representation of the People (5), discharged.
Royal Assent—Income Tax [47 & 48 Vict. c. 1.]

COMMISSIONERS OF NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND)—CONVENT NATIONAL SCHOOLS—GRANTS IN AID.
LORD FITZGERALDsaid, he had to ask the Lord President a Question of some importance, of which he had given him private Notice—namely, Whether any action had been taken in reference to the recommendation of the Commissioners of National Education, made in 1879 and in subsequent years, that the remuneration of the teachers of the Irish Convent National Schools should be augmented?
LORD CARLINGFOED (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL): The question of payments to the Convent Schools is now under the consideration of the Government. But certain Rules which restricted the grants to Convent Schools have lately been considered by the National Board of Education, who, with the full approval of the Government, have made the following changes in their Code:—(1). Rescinded a Rule which prohibited grants to more than one school in connection with the same convent; (2), rescinded a Rule which excluded a nun from being a teacher in an industrial department of a National School; (3), rescinded a Rule which ex-

339
cluded monks and nuns not only from building grants, but also from the teacherships of 2,200 Vested Schools.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL.—(No. 5.)
(The Earl of Kimberley.)
REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL.—(No. 5.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that he thought it would be better, perhaps, to adhere exactly to the arrangement originally made, that the Committee stage should be taken on Thursday, when the Redistribution Bill was read a second time in the other House. There was also another reason. They understood, when they separated, that there would be no contentious matter introduced that evening. He believed a noble Friend behind him (Lord Denman) was desirous to raise the question of Woman's Suffrage. He was not prepared to support his noble Friend; but, as that was contentious matter, he thought it would be better to adjourn the Committee stage till Thursday.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he thought that they might, perhaps, have disposed of the question of Woman's Suffrage that night; but as it was contentious it could be dealt with when they were in Committee on Thursday. He would not resist the appeal of the noble Marquess to postpone the Committee till that day; and if no Amendments were then made they might fix the third reading for Friday next.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBUEYsaid, there would be no objection to that course if the Redistribution Bill were read a second time in the other House on Thursday. If there were any resistance to passing that Bill in the other House their Lordships might have to consider what course they would pursue.
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)said, he could not see why there was any necessity for such extreme haste. They ought to know what was going to be done in the other House upon the question of redistribution before they allowed this Bill to pass from their hands. The question was one of very serious importance, for supposing that there was a breakdown, and their Lordships had passed
  340
  this Bill and sent it back to the House of Commons, amended or unamended, the effect might be that this Bill would be in operation and applied to the existing constituencies, instead of what both sides had agreed to—namely, that a Redistribution of Seats Bill should come into operation at the same time as the franchise. There was no doubt of the readiness of the House to pass this Bill; but it was reasonable that they should know what course the other House would take as to the Redistribution Bill before giving up all control whatever over it. There was no need for being in haste. There was plenty of time.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he did not wish to be supposed to agree with the noble Earl. He did not apprehend the danger which the noble Earl feared—that the Franchise Bill would come into operation without a Redistribution Bill. He did not object to the postponement of the present stage of the Bill until Thursday.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he wished to say a word with respect to the statement of the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees (the Earl of Redesdale), who seemed to apprehend that the Franchise Bill would come into operation without the Redistribution Bill, and apply to the existing constituencies. That seemed to him (the Marquess of Salisbury) to be absolutely impossible. The Government had given a pledge to resign if the Redistribution Bill did not pass. Of course, their resignation would be followed by consequences in the other House which they all understood.
  LORD BRAMWELLsaid, that he had carefully read the clauses of the Bill, and he found that there were no less than 13 matters which, as it seemed to him, ought to be altered, or, at least, made plainer than they were at present. It might be said that the right thing to do would be to give Notice of Amendments; but he was in this difficulty—that if he gave Notice of a particular Amendment in order to clear up an ambiguity in the Bill, he might be giving Notice of something contrary to the intention of the Government, which he had no desire to do; still, there were points of difficulty which should be cleared up. For instance, there was the question of what was called the service franchise. He (Lord Bramwell) could not tell whe-

  341
  ther that was meant to include any number of men, or whether it should apply to one only. Again, the household and lodger franchises were to be given if the qualifying premises were situated in a county. Whoever drew that clause had forgot that all boroughs were situate in counties; so that, as the Bill stood, it might be contended that a lodger or householder in a borough would be entitled to vote for the county, which surely could not be intended. He had written out his difficulties, and sent a copy of them to the noble and learned Earl (the Lord Chancellor), the noble and learned Earl (Earl Cairns), and the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury). If he could get any information from their Lordships as to how those doubts should be removed he should be glad.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he had received the Paper referred to by his noble and learned Friend with some regret, because nothing was less desirable than that verbal criticism should be applied to the clauses of the Bill without adequate necessity. So far as the points raised by his noble and learned Friend could be regarded as raising any questions of substance, he could assure him that they had been fully considered, and a satisfactory explanation of them could be given. He did not apprehend that the slightest difficulty would arise in interpreting the Bill as it stood.
  LORD BRAMWELLsaid, that that was precisely what he did apprehend. An interpretation might be put on the Bill in that House; but the Bill might come before others who were as incapable of interpreting it as he was. He did not want to indulge in verbal criticism; but the clauses should be made clear to all, and not be discreditable to the House which passed them.
  EARL GRANVLLLEremarked, that nothing could be fairer than that the noble and learned Lord should raise the objections which occurred to his very acute mind as being of importance; but the points in question could be considered in Committee. The noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) had said that the Government had bound themselves to resign if the Redistribution Bill failed to pass. They had bound themselves to make the Redistribution Bill a vital question but there was another alternative to resigning.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBUEYsaid, that as the noble and learned Lord (Lord Bramwell) had alluded to him, he might state that he had been assured that his Amendments were being carefully considered by the Government. He thought it would be better, however, to defer any discussion of them till Thursday.
  Order discharged; and House to be put into Committee on Thursday next.

  AUSTRALIA—CONFEDERATION OF THE COLONIES.—QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce during the present Session a Bill to enable the Australasian Colonies to carry out the scheme of federation lately agreed to by the Intercolonial Conference in Australia?
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, I am glad that the Question which has been put to me by my noble Friend gives me an opportunity, which I very much desire to have, of explaining how this matter really stands. I have seen suggestions in various quarters that the Government have not made up their minds about this Australian Bill; that they are hesitating whether to proceed with it; and that that is the cause of the delay in bringing it in. For that statement there is no shadow of foundation. We are pledged to bring in the Bill, and we have not the least wish to withdraw from our pledge; and I am sanguine enough to believe that it will meet with very little opposition either here or "elsewhere." It is, in fact, the carrying into effect of the policy which, on the part of the Colonial Office, I suggested last year; and I am, therefore, the last person likely to be indifferent to its success. The reasons which have prevented me from bringing it in during this Autumn Session have been various. There was the inevitable uncertainty until within the last few days as to the duration of our Sittings, and the Business that would come before us; and on examining the draft of the Bill we have found various points of detail on which Amendments seem desirable; and before introducing these Amendments we have thought it well to consult the Governments of the various Colonies. We shall have their answer early in the

  343
  spring, and practically no time will be lost. It will be an additional advantage if the Legislatures of New South Wales and New Zealand should so far reconsider their present view as to be willing to join; but as the Bill does not create any compulsory union, but only empowers Colonies to act together for certain purposes, if they choose to unite, unanimity among the Colonies is not necessary.
  House adjourned at Five o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.