Sitting of 4 December 1884

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—Richard William Blackwood Ker, esquire, for Down County.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Report—Agricultural Labourers (Ireland) [No. 32]; Charitable Trusts Acts, 1853 to 1869, &c. [No. 33].
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Parliamentary Elections, Redistribution [40]; National School Teachers (Ireland) [11], debate adjourned.
Committee—Elections in Counties (Hours of Poll) [19]—R.P.

QUESTIONS.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND)—COLLECTION OF COUNTY CESS— CLARE CO.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland,
  606
  with reference to recent Resolutions of the magistrates and associated cess- payers of the barony of Ibricane (Clare), and of the Corofin, Killadzourt, and Limerick Board of Guardians of the poor, protesting against the action of the Clare Grand Jury in raising the poundage paid to barony constables for collection of County Cess from nine pence to a shilling, whilst the Poor Rate, a charge more difficult to collect, is collected all through Clare for a poundage of six pence, Whether the Government will urge the Grand Jury to act on the suggestion made in the several Resolutions, by advertising for tenders for the collection of County Cess, or whether, alternatively, the Judge of Assize will refuse to sanction a higher rate of poundage for the collection of County Cess in Clare than is paid for the collection of Poor Rate in that county; whether the increase in poundage lately voted by the Grand Jury exacts a tribute of £660 per annum from the cesspayers of the county, and the difference between the poundage for Poor Rate and County Cess is annually twice that sum; whether the Grand Jurors, in their capacity of ex officio Guardians, fix the poundage for the collection of the Poor Rate, to which they contribute, at six pence, whilst voting a shilling in the pound for the collection of County Cess, to which many of them do not contribute at all; whether the work of the barony constable is usually done by a deputy, at a remuneration of three pence or four pence in the pound; whether the barony constables are generally connections of Grand Jurors; and, whether, in one case recently, a Grand Juror having appointed a barony constable, a near relation of his own, to be his land agent, the Grand Jury immediately raised the constable's poundage from nine pence to a shilling?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The law fixes the amount of the poundage which the Grand Jury is empowered to give for the collection of County Cess, and it is not suggested that the legal limit has been exceeded. The Government has no control in this or the other matters referred to in the Question. The appointment of deputy collectors is expressly permitted by the Grand Jury Act.

  AFRICA (SOUTH)—BECHUANALAND.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMSasked the Under Secretary of State for the

  607
  Colonies, Whether the Cape Government have entered into any engagement with the Imperial Government to pay any, and, if so, what portion of the expenditure now being incurred for the Expedition to Bechuanaland; and, whether there is any truth in the report that the Representative Ministers of the Cape Government have entered into an arrangement for settling the difficulty; and, if so, whether Her Majesty's Government intend to ratify it?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he should like to ask whether Her Majesty's Government had received any information as to the very contradictory rumours from South Africa—namely, on the one hand, that an arrangement had been entered into between the Cape Government and the Freebooters, which had been referred to Her Majesty's Government and declined by them; and, on the other hand, that Mr. Upington, the Premier of the Cape Colony, had addressed a most extraordinary speech to the Freebooters?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: In reply to the hon. Member for Greenwich (Baron Henry De Worms), I have to say that the Cape Colony will not be expected to pay any portion of the expenditure directly connected with Sir Charles Warren's Expedition. In reply to the second Question, the Cape Ministers who proceeded to Bechuanaland have reported by telegraph certain conditions on which they will be able, they say, to settle the present difficulties. Those conditions, as a whole, could not be accepted as at present understood by Her Majesty's Government; and Her Majesty's Government will require further explanations; but they do not expect to be able to arrive at any conclusions until after Sir Charles Warren has arrived in Bechuanaland. That will answer the first portion of the right hon. Baronet's Question also. As to the second portion of the right hon. Baronet's Question, I have to state that we have received no information about the speech of Mr. Upington; and in a telegraphic message received to-day from Sir Hercules Robinson about other matters he does not allude to it; but we have sent a telegram to the High Commissioner, asking him what is the truth of the matter about that speech.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: Will the hon. Gentleman communicate
  608
  any reply that may be received in reference to this subject before the House adjourns for the Recess?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: Yes, Sir; to-morrow, if received in time.

  THE WEST INDIA ISLANDS—REPORTED FIRING ON COOLIES AT TRINIDAD.
  MR. A. PEASEasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the Government have any information as to the firing upon the Coolies by the military and police in Trinidad on October 30th, whereby twelve were killed, fivemortally wounded, and eighty-eight were wounded so that they had to be taken to the hospital?
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether it is true that a great slaughter of East Indians has occurred in Trinidad, in a collision with the police, about sixteen being killed and eighty-six wounded; whether the collision occurred in consequence of a new police regulation prohibiting the passage of a popular procession hitherto permitted; whether Indian labourers have recently been discontented, in consequence of an alteration in the scale of payment to them upon the plantations; whether they were under five-year contracts, made and attested in India and enforced by penal Laws, under the supervision of the Government; whether a change, to the disadvantage of those compelled contract labourers, and without their consent, was sanctioned by the Governor and Protector of Immigrants, or whether they took any measures to protect the Indians against such a breach of contract; and, whether a full inquiry will be made?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: For many years the celebration of the Mohurrum Festival has been attended with more or less disturbance among the Coolies in Trinidad, collisions having taken place between the bands from different estates, resulting in bloodshed. In 1882 an Ordinance was passed, based on a British Guiana Ordinance, which, under similar circumstances, is said to have worked well, giving the Governor power to make regulations. In the earlier part of this year such regulations were issued by which the processions were forbidden to enter the towns of the Port of Spain or San Fernando, or to use any high road without special permission. It was fully

  609
  explained to the Indian population that the regulations were merely intended to preserve order, and in no way to interfere with the celebration of their religious festival. Notwithstanding this, the Coolies marched, on the 31st of October, in large numbers, estimated at 1,000, armed with hakka sticks and cutlasses, and attempted to force their way into the town of San Fernando. I may say that at the Port of Spain the regulations were attended to. The police were drawn up across the roads, 10 in one place and 20 in another, with a small number of soldiers behind them. The Coolies continuing to advance after having been repeatedly warned, the Riot Act was read by the magistrate present, and the police fired. Thirteen Coolies were killed, and 31 were taken into the hospital, out of a total of 102 killed and wounded. The Inspector-Superintendent of Police stated that they fired in self-defence; and in his opinion, and that of the officer commanding the troops, they would have been overwhelmed had they not done so. We are awaiting the results of the inquests which are being held as well as the Attorney General's opinion. But considering the great loss of life, the Secretary of State considers that an inquiry by an independent person will be desirable. We have no information of any discontent among the Coolies in consequence of alterations in the scale of payments to them. From a Table in the last Report of the Protector of Immigrants it appears that less than half the Coolies in Trinidad were under indentured contracts. I am not in a position either to affirm or deny that the conditions of the contracts have recently been more strictly enforced; but I cannot conceive that there is any possibility of any breach of contract having been sanctioned.
  In reply to a further Question by Sir GEORGE CAMPBELL,
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEYsaid, that the Coroner was a European. He could not, without Notice, say whether there would be a jury, and he could not say whether they would be European or not.

  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) ACTS—FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE —NOTTINGHAMSHIRE.
  MR. ALBERT GREYasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Whether the recent outbreak of Foot-and-
  610
  Mouth Disease at Newstead Abbey has been traced to the importation of that disease from Ireland or any Foreign Country?
  MR. KENNY: Before the right ton. Gentleman answers that Question, I would ask him if he is aware that Ireland has been free for several months from foot-and-mouth disease; and that on every occasion on which it has broken out in that country the outbreak has been directly traced to infection from Great Britain?
  MR. TEEVELYAN: It is certainly the case that Ireland has been free from foot-and-mouth disease generally for a very long time, and it has been entirely free from any outbreak for several months. I am quite sure that nobody will acknowledge that more readily or freely than my hon. Friend who has asked this Question; because his interests are precisely the same as those on behalf of which the hon. Member asked the Question. The outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease at Newstead Abbey was investigated by an Inspector of the Privy Council; but no facts were ascertained which threw any light on the origin of the infection. There is not the slightest reason to suspect that the outbreak was due to the importation of the disease from Ireland or any foreign country. The last cargo in which there was a case of foot-and-mouth disease landed at any port in the United Kingdom was as far back as February.

  STATE OF IRELAND—THE NEWSPAPE PRESS—REGENT ARTICLES IN "UNITED IRELAND."
  MR. M'COANrose to put the following Question to the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland:—If his attention has been called to a series of extracts from recent articles in The United Ireland newspaper, which appeared in The Times of Wednesday last; whether Charles Stewart Parnell, Justin M'Carthy, and Joseph Gillis Biggar are the registered proprietors of The United Ireland, and William O'Brien its responsible editor; and, whether such writings are not incitements to disaffection and crime, and calculated to bring the Government of the Country and the administration of the Law into contempt amongst the masses of the Irish people; and, if so, whether it is the intention of the Irish Executive to permit the con-

  611
  tinued publication of such appeals to popular ignorance and passion, even although those who derive trade profits from them are Members of this House?
  MR. SPEAKER: Before the hon. Member puts this Question, I must call his attention to the fact that the last two lines contravene the Rule of this House which applies to Questions, inasmuch as they contain a statement of fact which, I understand, is disputed, and also a matter of opinion as to the interpretation to be put upon the articles in question, which he states to be "appeals to popular ignorance and passion." Following the Rule which applies to Questions, I must ask the hon. Member to be good enough to omit that portion of the Question.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I rise, Sir, to Order. I wish to ask you, whether under the same Rule you will not request the hon. Member to omit the words in the Question "inoitements to disaffection and crime?"
  MR. SPEAKER: That is not a statement of fact. The opinion which the hon. Member wishes to elicit is whether the Irish Executive think it necessary to interfere, in consequence of the publication of these articles.
  MR. M'COAN: I, of course, Mr. Speaker, bow at once to your suggestion. I had hoped that the slight conveyance of opinion on the question was a perfectly legitimate one, and would have commended itself to your mind. Of course, I will leave out the words you mention, and substitute the words "such writings" instead of "appeals to popular ignorance and passion."
  MR. O'BRIEN: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers the Question, I will ask him also to say whether, so far from inciting to crime, one of these articles headed "A Warning," from which a garbled extract was given in The Times, was not a vehement denunciation of agrarian crime, and an exhortation to the people to hunt it down themselves, and whether these articles were not published with the object of obtaining a public investigation into grave and specific charges against certain public officials therein named of taking away innocent lives, screening infamous officials —[Cries of "Order!"] —corrupting the course of justice by packing juries, employing perjured witnesses, using the detective police for the purpose of or-
  612
  ganizing crime, and seducing convicts to give false evidence—[Cries of "Order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is contravening the Rule which it was my duty just now to lay down. If the hon. Member desires to make anything like a personal explanation, he is at liberty to do so.
  MR. O'BRIEN: I was simply explaining, Sir, what the writings which the hon. Member stigmatizes as "incitements to crime" really aimed at, and I was setting forth, as far as possible, the specific charges which these articles contain in reference to the administration of the law in Ireland. The only other thing I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman is whether, if the incriminated officials feel aggrieved, and are prepared to justify themselves before a jury, the Courts of Law are not open to them in the ordinary manner for that purpose?
  MR. SEXTON: I have also to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in consequence of incitement said to be of an incendiary and revolutionary character, a newspaper which the hon. Member who put the Question (Mr. M'Coan) edited in the Levant was not several times suppressed by the Government of the country?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The last Question put by the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) is not, I presume, intended to be answered. The other Questions put by the hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien) enter into matters of argument and opinion to which I can hardly be expected to reply. The attention of the Irish Government has been called not only to the extracts recently published in The Times, but to the original articles as they appeared from time to time in United Ireland. I have no precise information as to the actual proprietors of that newspaper, but I believe those who have been named by the hon. Member are or have been connected with it. I can assure my hon. Friend that, although the fact that some of those concerned are Members of Parliament may increase the importance attached to the paper in the eyes of some of its readers in Ireland, it will not influence the Government in deciding upon the course they may think proper to adopt in the matter. The character and tone of many passages in those articles are such that they must be regarded with

  613
  repugnance and condemned by all who value the maintenance of public order, and especially by those who appreciate most highly the existence of a free Press as a field for fair and reasonable political controversy. But the point we have always to consider is whether the harm which might unfortunately be done by the circulation of such articles might not be intensified, if any legal proceedings taken against a newspaper gave it a fictitious importance in the eyes of the more ignorant classes. This is, and always will be, a very difficult matter to decide. Its decision, as occasion arises, must be left to the Executive Government, which on the one hand is disposed to disregard these violent articles so far as they profess to be criticisms of their own conduct, but on the other hand they are fully alive to the effect which such publications may have on the general community.
  MR. O'BRIEN: As I am to some extent interested in this matter, I wish to say that neither the good nor the evil opinion of the right hon. Gentleman is anything to me.
  MR. SPEAKER: That is not a statement compatible with the Rules of the House. The Question has been answered. I must call upon Mr. Justin M'Carthy (who had the next Question on the Paper).
  MR. O'BRIEN,MR. O'BRIEN, who rose amid cries of "Order!" said: Sir, an attack has been made upon me, and I hope I may be allowed to reply to it. ["Order!"]
  MR. CALLAN: Move the adjournment.
  MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member wishes to make a personal explanation, the House will grant its indulgence.
  MR. O'BRIEN: I simply wish to say that whatever may be the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman—[Cries of "Order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: That is not in the nature of a personal explanation. I call upon the hon. Member who has the next Question on the Paper—Mr. Justin M'Carthy.
  MR. O'BRIEN: I bow to your decision, Sir; but it is a singular exhibition of British fair play.

  ARMY—THE MEDICAL STAFF.
  ME. JUSTIN M'CARTHYasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether
  614
  Captain of Orderlies C. Cook, "late" Army Hospital Corps, has authority to exercise the prerogative of command within the Medical Staff and the Medical Staff Corps respectively, in the like manner and to the same extent as, by virtue of his commission, he had within the "late" Army Medical Department and the "late" Army Hospital Corps; whether the rate of pay which this officer is now in receipt of, viz. 10 s. a-day, is considered a fair and reasonable compensation for the duties and work Performed, or adequate remuneration for any officer of the Medical Department or Medical Staff who has over eleven years' commissioned service; and, whether it is a fact that Captain of Orderlies Cook is the only officer now serving in the Army who has risen from the ranks for whom no increase of pay is provided; and, if so, whether the Secretary for War will take this exceptional case into consideration?
  SIR ARTHUR HAYTER,who replied, said: The officer referred to exercises the same command in the Medical Staff Corps that he exercised prior to the issue of the recent Warrant in the Army Hospital Corps. He has the pay assigned to his rank by former Royal Warrants, which Warrants did not provide for an increase of such pay; but it is open to him to accept the terms first offered in 1881, in which case he would attain to the same rates of pay as the other officers who were his contemporaries as Captains of Orderlies, and who have accepted the new terms.

  THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION (SUB-COMMISSIONERS)—SITTINGS AT LONGFORD.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, In reference to a reply to a Question put on the 24th November, why the Sub-Commissioners could not hear, at the December sittings at Longford, more than 44 cases, listed, considering that several of these cases are already settled; whether, in the event of more than 100 cases transferred last March, at the landlord's instance, from the County Court to the Sub-Commission, not being heard and decided before the 1st May 1885, the landlord may, after that date, insist on prompt payment of a full year's rent, from May 1884, at the old rent, though the judicial

  615
  rent would commence at that date if fixed by the County Court last March; and, whether, in such case, the tenants could recover the rent paid in excess, if any; and, if not, how can the suitors be saved from suffering by the delay?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It is the practice of the Commissioners, in fixing the number of cases to be listed for hearing at a particular sitting, to allow a margin for probable settlements out of Court. With regard to the problematic part of the Question which follows, the Commissioners' Rule No. 65, which is already before the House, appears to afford an answer.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—TRIAL OF THE NEWRY RIOTERS.
  MR. SEXTONasked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, With regard to the trials of six men for having, at Newry, on the 8th of June last, the occasion of the National meeting there, fired out of the Orange Hall, with intent to kill, what course the Crown intend to pursue in these cases, having regard to the great delay already permitted, and to the undertaking given on behalf of the Irish Government that these cases would not be locally tried; and, why the cases were not put forward at the last Commission in Dublin?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER),in reply, said, the cases would be tried at the Winter Assizes in Belfast.
  MR. SEXTONasked, whether the Winter Assizes were not intended for prisoners in custody; whether these men were not out on bail; and, whether it was not absolutely certain that every Orangeman tried in Belfast would be acquitted?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, he had no reason to think that the Belfast jurors would return an improper verdict in these cases.

  INTESTATE, &c. ESTATES (IRELAND)— ESTATE OF THE LATE MRS. HELEN BLAKE.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Secretary to the Treasury, With reference to his statement that £19,000 out of the estate of the late Mrs. Helen Blake had been paid away by the Treasury under the head of "intended legacies," to whom
  616
  these payments were made, what was the amount in each case, and what was the nature of the evidence by which the Treasury was satisfied of the intention of the deceased in regard to the legacies in question; and, whether a Copy of such evidence will be laid on the Table?
  MR. HERBERT GLADSTONE,who replied, said: The legacies referred to were paid as being specified in an unexecuted and incomplete will, which, so far as it went, expressed Mrs. Blake's latest wishes. They comprise a gift of £0,400 to the National Lifeboat Institution; £3,000 to Trinity College, Dublin, for a Scholarship in Irish History; £2,000 for the benefit of Irish Railway employes; £1,000 each to a Society for the protection of life from fire and for shipwrecked fishermen; £2,000 each to The O'Conor Don and to the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn), whose public conduct she admired; and various smaller legacies to old friends. There seems no reason for laying the documents in question on the Table.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked whether, as this unexecuted will had no legal authority, the Government thought it was right, or in accordance with justice, to distribute £19,000 of this lady's money in the way stated without placing a small portion of her funds at the disposal of persons who have a prima facie case for showing that they are her nearest relatives, and who, therefore, have a right to share in the inheritance?
  MR. HERBERT GLADSTONE: Perhaps the hon. Member will give Notice of the Question.

  LAW AND POLICE—THE SALVATION ARMY AT WORTHING.
  MR. LODERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he received, on the 10th of September last, a communication from a committee appointed by the peaceful inhabitants of Worthing, calling his attention to the proceedings of the Salvation Army in that town, and suggesting a means of preventing the disturbance arising out of such proceedings; and, if so, what course he proposes to take in reference to the matter?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I have received a communication on this subject. I am aware of the inconveniences

  617
  which have been caused, and the documents referred to proposes certain methods of dealing with these and other processions; but that is a very delicate and difficult matter, and I confess I do not see my way to do anything upon it. Speaking generally, I do not think it is a good thing to legislate for particular cases which have caused temporary inconvenience. The wisest thing very often is to expect what generally happens—that it will blow over.

  THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD— THE STAFF.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether it is a fact that the majority of the thirty writers recently discharged from the Local Government Board Office were employed for several years on clerical duties of a nature more responsible than mere copying; whether vacancies created by the discharge of these writers have been filled up by Upper Division Clerks with salaries commencing at £200 per annum, and Lower Division Clerks with salaries ranging from £95 upwards; whether some of the Lower Division Clerks employed by the Board have received duty pay of £30 and £50 respectively per annum for performing precisely the same duties as those performed by writers at 10d. an hour; whether this change will result in an immediate increase in the Estimate for the Department; and, whether, in view of the writers having performed duties of a superior and responsible nature for several years, he will propose to the Treasury that some compensation be given to those whose places have now been filled by Established Clerks?
  MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: In accordance with a scheme for the reorganization of the clerical staff of the Local Government Department, which was rendered necessary by the large amount and character of the work devolving on the officers of the Board, the number of writers has been considerably reduced, and an addition has been made to the number of Lower Division Clerks. Many of the writers had been employed on work other than mere copying, and some on duties which properly belonged to Clerks of the Lower Division. The most efficient of the writers have been retained. In no case has a vacancy
  618
  caused by the discharge of a writer been filled up by the appointment of an Upper Division Clerk. As already stated, Lower Division Clerks have in some instances taken the place of writers, and the Board believe that this change will be beneficial to the Department. No Lower Division Clerks are receiving duty pay for the same duties as those performed by writers at 10d. an hour. It is not anticipated that the reorganization will occasion any increase in the Estimates for the present financial year. The Board understand that the regulations under which the writers are employed expressly provide that no service shall confer any claim of superannuation or compensation allowance.

  POST OFFICE—POSTAGE STAMPS.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Postmaster General, Whether he has any objection to state the names of the experts who form the Committee now sitting on the designs and manufacture of postage stamps?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: The Committee is composed of officers of the Post Office and the Inland Revenue Department possessing considerable experience on the subject—namely, Mr. Jeffery, Controller of the London Postal Service, Mr. Page, a principal clerk in the Secretary's Office, and Mr. Mulock, Director of the Confidential Inquiry Branch, for the Post Office; Mr. Purcell, Controller of Stamps, and Mr. Boken-ham, Second Assistant Controller of Stamps, for the Inland Revenue?

  INLAND NAVIGATION AND DRAINAGE (IRELAND)—THE SHANNON.
  MR. O'KELLYasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether his attention has been called to the serious loss incurred by a number of farmers residing on the banks of the River Shannon, in the vicinity of Carrick on Shannon and Jamestown, county Roscommon, by the neglect of the keeper at Jamestown to open the flood-gates in proper time, and the consequent flooding of the neighbouring district; and, whether steps will be taken to prevent a recurrence of this neglect?
  MR. HERBERT GLADSTONE,who replied, said: Attention has been called to the complaints referred to by the

  619
  hon. Member. Every possible care was taken at the time to minimize the effects of the floods, and the efforts in this direction will not be relaxed on future occasions.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—MAJOR TRAILL, R.M., TRIM PETTY SESSIONS.
  MR. O'KELLYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Is it a fact that Major Traill, R.M. in a case heard at Trim Petty Sessions in February last, in which the Inland Revenue, through Mr. M'Donagh, supervisor, Drogheda, prosecuted a man for carrying arms without a licence, and to which charge the man pleaded guilty, illegally dismissed the prisoner, and that, when Mr. M'Donagh remonstrated with Major Traill on his action, Major Traill ordered the police to arrest the supervisor and remove him out of Court; whether the supervisor was kept in custody in the hall of the Court House before the public on a market day, and afterwards liberated without any charge being made against him; whether it is true that, on appeal by the Inland Revenue, Major Traill's decision in the case was reversed; and, whether an application has been made by Supervisor M'Donagh to the Lord Lieutenant for permission to bring a civil action against Major Traill for illegal arrest, and whether such permission has been granted to him; and, if not, on what grounds is Mr. M'Donagh debarred from exercising his Constitutional right?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The statements in the first paragraph of the Question are substantially correct. There is a conflict of testimony on the point whether the Supervisor was kept in custody. Major Traill's decision was reversed on appeal. Under all the circumstances, the Lord Lieutenant thought it right to express to Major Traill his disapproval of his conduct on the occasion. No application has been made to the Lord Lieutenant by Mr. M'Donagh for permission to bring a civil action. I am informed he made some such application to the Board of Inland Revenue, but they expressed an opinion that, having regard to the disapproval of Major Traill's conduct expressed by the Lord Lieutenant, the matter should be allowed to drop.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—MR. MACARTNEY PORTER, J.P.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY (for Mr. O'KELLY)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that Mr. Macartney Porter, J.P. Clogher, is brother to the District Master of the Orange Lodge of the district, and that one of the men (William Mills), accused of waylaying and assaulting Mr. Hynes, is in the employment of Mr. Porter, J.P.; whether the statement made by the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant in reference to the assaults committed on Messrs. Hynes and Mackey at Clogher and Killy-faddy are based on information supplied by the police and magistrates, whose failure to protect the Catholic inhabitants of the district is the matter of complaint; whether he adheres to the statement that the waylaying and assault of Mr. Hynes in Clogher is not "serious;" and, whether, in view of the distrust felt by the Catholics of the Clogher district in the impartiality of the local magistrates, the Irish Government will send Resident Magistrates to try the cases, which are set down for hearing on the 9th instant at Clogher?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am not aware whether the statement in the first paragraph is correct or not, nor do I know that I am called upon to inquire. It has been reported to me by the police that the magistrates did not consider the case of assault sufficiently serious to take up. The man referred to was himself summoned for waylaying and assault. It was open to him to take proceedings against his alleged assailants. I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the information supplied to me. At the same time, I have asked the Attorney General for Ireland to give special consideration to the reports as to any of the cases pending, in view of seeing if they disclose any reason why any of them should be heard at Petty Sessions under the Prevention of Crime Act.

  LABOURERS' (IRELAND) ACT, 1883— THE BALLYRUSKIN" SCHEME— ENNISTYMON UNION, CLARE. CO.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, as the result of a scheme for the erection of six labourers' cottages, under the Act of last year, in the elec-

  621
  toral division of Ballyruskin, union of Ennistymon, county Clare, the Local Government Board, after inspection, sanctioned two, and whether nothing has since been done in respect to those two except the transmission by the Local Government Board of a bill of costs of over £20, or over £10 each cottage, to be levied on the electoral division; and, whether, with a view to facilitate the working of the Act, the Government will cause the cost of Local Government Board inquiries to be brought down to a more moderate figure?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNEBMAN: The result of the inquiry held as required by the Act showed that three out of the five proposed sites were objectionable. The Local Government Board were prepared to proceed with regard to the remaining two; but the Guardians requested them to postpone action pending anticipated legislation. As regards the costs of advertising and services of a reporter incidental to the local inquiry, the Local Government Board are bound to recover the amount, the sums paid being merely advanced by them for the Guardians' convenience. The shorthand writer is paid at a scale fixed by the Treasury. The expenses of the Inspector who conducts the inquiry are not charged to the Union.

  PROPERTY AND INCOME TAX— INCOME FROM LAND AND HOUSES.
  MR. J. G. HUBBARDasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the estimate of the First Lord of the Treasury in his Budget Speech of 1853 —
  "That one-fourth of the gross income derived from lands and houses goes into the pockets of mortgagees, annuitants, and others who receive under settlements,"
  whether, upon inquiry, he can confirm or vary that estimate; and, whether he can separately estimate the proportion of the gross rents of lands and houses engrossed by the encumbrancers?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): My right hon. Friend the present First Minister, it is true, made such an estimate, as will be seen in Hansard's report of his speech; but he prefaced his remark by saying that it was a "conjectural estimate." I am not in a position either to confirm or vary that estimate, as there are no Returns or Records available to me De-
  622
  partmentally—and I know of none in my private capacity—which would afford any definite information upon the point. I should imagine that my right hon. Friend relied for his estimate upon his wide experience, fortified possibly by those of some leading conveyancers, landowners, and land agents, who would have a much better knowledge of these matters than the officers of the Revenue.

  EGYPT—EGYPTIAN EXILES.
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he will lay upon the Table Copies of Correspondence relating to the Egyptian Exiles?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURIOE: Yes, Sir; the Correspondence will be laid upon the Table.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT (SCOTLAND) —THE HIGHLANDS.
  MR. CRAIG SELLARasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council, Whether Mr. Craik, of the Education Department, was sent to examine into the state of education in the Western Highlands and Islands of Scotland during the summer, and to report; and, if so, whether his Report will be laid upon the Table of the House and distributed to Members?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Immediately after the Report of the Crofters' Commission appeared I instructed Mr. Craik to make the inquiry referred to, in order that we might ascertain the best means of promoting education in the Highlands, and of relieving the local burdens complained of by the Commissioners. The Report has been completed within the last few days, and will be at once presented to Parliament.

  CROETERS AND COTTARS OF THE HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS — THE ROYAL COMMISSION—EVIDENCE OF MR. JOHN CRAWFORD.
  MR. MACFARLANEasked the Lord Advocate, If his attention has been called to the evidence of Mr. John Crawford, factor, given at Bonar Bridge before the Royal Commission, in which that gentleman, in reply to question 39,595, said—
  "There has been a considerable reduction made to large tenants, and, instead of making a reduction to the small tenants, the Duke has

  623
  expended £515 this year in providing seed, corn, and potatoes for them. He has also given me £500 to lay out in works of trenching and improving their lots; "
  if he is aware that Mr. Crawford is now threatening summary proceedings before the Sheriff for the recovery of the cost of the seed, corn, and potatoes said to have been given instead of a reduction of rent; and, if the crofters have any legal remedy against this claim?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): The passage quoted in the Question does occur in the evidence of Mr. John Crawford. He states that the seed was not given as a gift, but on the distinct stipulation and condition that it should be paid for, though the term of payment was deferred, and he has addressed a communication to the tenants demanding payment. If the allegation that the seed was given upon an obligation for payment is disputed, and it is asserted that it was given as a gift, the matter can be decided in the same way as any other disputed question.
  MR. MACFAELANE: I wish to ask a further Question—whether Mr. Crawford does not dispute the accuracy of the Question, but says that the seed potatoes were given as a gift? Mr. Crawford took credit before the Commissioners for the gift.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): I must point out that the words of Mr. Crawford's evidence did not express what the hon. Member puts to me. It may be that is the interpretation of them; but, of course, no matter stated ex parte in this way would effect a contract, if there was a contract.
  MR. MACFARLANE: I beg to give Notice that on the earliest occasion I will call attention to this question.

  THE MAGISTRACY—BREWERS AS JUSTICES OF THE PEACE.
  MR. ONSLOWasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether it is a fact that the Lord Chancellor has written to the Lords Lieutenant of the various counties requesting them in future not to submit to him the names of any brewers for the Commission of the Peace; whether brewers are not already precluded by Law from adjudicating on licensing questions in order not to disqualify them altogether for the Magistracy; and, if BO, why the Lord Chancellor has, on his own responsibility, fettered the discretion
  624
  of the Lords Lieutenant; and, whether he is within his Constitutional right in so doing, and thus precluding a specified class of the community from the magisterial service without considering each special case?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES),in reply, said, he had made inquiries on the subject from the Lord Chancellor, who, he found, had a rule, that when brewers' names were submitted to him for the office of licensing magistrates, with the names of other persons who were large owners of property in boroughs and counties, his Lordship left out the names of brewers.

  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS—COST OF COUNTY ELECTIONS.
  MR. H. TOLLEMACHEasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether, in view of the proposed assimilation of the County and Borough Franchise, and the contraction of electoral areas in many counties, the Government contemplate any modification of the scale of expenditure for county elections laid down by the Corrupt Practices Act of 1883?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES),in reply, said, that, as far as he knew, the Government had not considered this question. It was not intended to legislate on the subject until a General Election had given them some experience.

  CENTRAL ASIA—TRADE WITH THIBET.
  MR. RICHAEDasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government claim the right, under existing Treaties and Conventions with the Government of China, for British merchandise to enter into Thibet; and, whether the right to introduce opium is included in such claim?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: The Treaties and Conventions between this country and China do not stipulate for the entrance of British merchandize into Thibet.

  SCOTLAND—THE CRINAN CANAL COMMISSIONERS — RATES ON VESSELS AND GOODS.
  MR. MACFARLANEasked the Lord Advocate, If his attention has been called to the rates levied by the Canal Commissioners for vessels and goods

  625
  passing through the Crinan Canal, and to a Petition upon the subject, the receipt of which was acknowledged by the Secretary to the Commissioners on the 24th of October; and, if he is able to say if any decision has been arrived at, and if any reduction is to be made in the dues complained of?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): The allegations in the Petition to which the hon. Member refers have been for some time under consideration by the Commissioners of the Caledonian Canal, by whose directions careful inquiries have been made in regard to the rates levied at other ports; and several amendments in the table of rates at present in force on the Crinan Canal are in contemplation.

  CENTRAL ASIA—AFGHAN FRONTIER COMMISSION.
  MR. E. STANHOPEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he can give the House any information as to the progress made by the Afghan Frontier Commission, and as to the steps which Her Majestys Government have taken in consequence of the occupation by Russian troops of some positions on the frontier which were within the disputed territory?
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked, Whether the Russians have lately occupied Pul-i-Khatun, on the perso-Afghan frontier, 60 miles beyond Sarakhs, and 160 miles nearer to India than Merv; where the British Boundary Commission now are; where the Russian Commissioner is at present; and, whether the British Government accept the occupation of Pul-i-Khatun by the Czar's troops in breach of the engagements of the Russian Government?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: The British Commissioner, according to the most recent information, was on his way to Panjdeh; but the work of the Commission cannot begin until the arrival of his Russian colleague, whose departure from St. Petersburg was delayed, so that he cannot arrive at Sarakhs, the meeting-place of the Commission, before the latter part of January. The British and Russian Governments are in communication, with a view to defining a zone of territory within which the frontier line shall be traced; and Her Majesty's Government have pressed for
  626
  the withdrawal of any troops which have been advanced beyond Sarakhs, pending the meeting of the Commission.

  AFRICA (WEST COAST)-INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF THE CONGO.
  MR. SALTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If England has acknowledged, or is about to acknowledge, the independent authority of the International Association of the Congo; whether steps have been taken for the due protection of British trade on the Congo and in the Countries adjacent; and, whether the International Association of the Congo is under the control or protection of any European Power that assumes a responsibility for its actions; and, if so, of what Power?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: The question of the recognition of the authority of the International Association is now a matter of negotiation at Berlin. Her Majesty's Government hope that the steps which they have taken, and are taking, at the Conference will secure the due protection of British trade on the Congo and in the adjacent countries; and I may add that the increase of the Consular staff is under consideration. So far as Her Majesty's Government are aware, no European Power has assumed any responsibility for the actions of the International Association.

  POST OFFICE (TELEGRAPH DEPARTMENT)—PRESS MESSAGES.
  MR. ECROTDasked the Postmaster General, If it is the fact that, during the past few months, an extra charge has been imposed upon newspaper proprietors in certain towns for the receipt of Press messages after the ordinary hours during which the telegraph offices in the towns are open to the public; and, whether such charge is not precluded by 31 and 32 Vic. o. 101, s. 16?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: It is the case that within the last few months the proprietors of the newspapers at Bolton and Preston have been required to pay the cost of late attendance for the receipt of news; and this is in accordance with the usual practice elsewhere. The charge is not contrary to the Act quoted by the hon. Member.

  EXCISE LICENCES—RAILWAY REFRESHMENT ROOMS.
  MR. A. PEASEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether licenses to sell intoxicating liquors granted to railway refreshment rooms entitle the holders to hawk spirits in bottles in every part of the station?
  THE CHANCELLOR or THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GUILDERS),who replied, said: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this Question; and, so far as the Revenue Departments are concerned, I have to say that the Excise licence for the sale of liquors at a railway refreshment room is, in fact, a publican's licence, based on the certificate of the magistrates under the Act 9 Geo. IV. C, 61, Schedule C; and as this permits the liquors to be drunk or consumed in the house, or on the premises thereunto belonging, the supply of liquors to passengers on the railway platform seems to me to be within the meaning of the Act.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1881— CLAUSE 19—LABOURERS' COTTAGES.
  COLONEL COLTHURSTasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he will call the attention of Boards of Guardians to the necessity of carrying out the orders for the erection or repair of labourers' cottages, under Clause 19, Land Act, 1881, seeing that only 250 out of a total of 518, have been put into operation up to the 30th June 1884?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I think it would be very desirable that this matter should be pressed upon the attention of Boards of Guardians; and I will communicate with the Land Commission and the Local Government Board as to the best means of doing so.

  LABOURERS' (IRELAND) ACT, 1883— MARTIN DONNELLY, ATHLONE UNION.
  MR. JUSTIN HUNTLY M'CARTHYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, With reference to the proposed dwelling for a labourer named Martin Donnelly, of the Union of Athlone, Ireland, whether he will state the name of the employer who offered him "a house, kitchen garden, and rood of land, provided he would take service with him;" whether the Local Government Board has made or
  628
  will make inquiries whether such offer was ever personally or Bond fide made; whether he is aware that the labourer, Donnelly, absolutely denies it; whether the Kiltoom (Athlone Union) Sanitary Officer has expressed himself as satisfied with the sanitary arrangements of labourers' cottages in Donnelly's vicinity; and, whether, under "The Labourers' (Ireland) Act, 1883," Donnelly is in any way deprived of his free option to labour for the employers of a district at wages agreed upon in preference to working for one individual?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am informed that the name of the employer who made the offer is Mr. J. B. Greene, of Lecarrow. I am not aware of the precise circumstances under which the offer was made, nor does it appear necessary to inquire. The Committee of the Guardians who had the matter before them had the testimony of the Guardian of the division and several cesspayers. There is nothing in the Labourers' Act requiring a labourer provided with a house to work for any particular individual; but the view that the Sanitary Authority seem to have taken of the matter is, that as they understood Donnelly could obtain a suitable residence otherwise, it was unnecessary to provide one for him under the Labourors' Act.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—CLARE COUNTY—MESSRS. M. F. RYAN AND E. POWER.
  MR. KENNYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Lord Chancellor has yet come to a decision with regard to recommendations made him to appoint Messrs. M. F. Ryan, of Clonakilla House, and E. Power, of Erribul, to the Commission of the Peace for the county of Clare? I also beg to ask, If the Board of Guardians of the Mohill Union did in May last recommend the names of several gentlemen for appointment to the Commission of the Peace; if two of those gentlemen, Messrs. Quinn and Maguire, are owners of property in Leitrim and other counties, and the former coroner for South Leitrim; and, if, considering the small number of Catholic magistrates in that county, the Government will fulfil their promise of remedying this state of things by appointing the two gentlemen, named to the Commission of the Peace?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The Lord Lieutenant of the county of Clare has refused to recommend either of these gentlemen to the Lord Chancellor, and the Lord Chancellor, having fully considered the matter, declines to overrule the decision of the Lieutenant of the county, with regard to the second Question of the hon. Gentleman, the two gentlemen named were recommended by the Mohill Guardians; but the Lord Lieutenant of the county of Leitrim, declined to adopt such recommendation, and, in the opinion of the Lord Chancellor, not unreasonably.
  MR. KENNY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Lord Lieutenant referred to is an Orangeman and Protestant, and that he repeatedly refused to recommend to the Commission of the Peace any persons not of his own way of thinking in politics?
  [No reply.]

  PREVENTION OF CRIME (IRELAND) ACT, 1882—EXTRA POLICE, COUNTY MAYO.
  MR. KENNYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether an extra police force of four constables is maintained at Kilkelly, county Mayo, for the protection of Mathias Lydon, of that place, against his will; whether the District Inspector of Constabulary, on being remonstrated with by Lydon and asked to withdraw the force, advised Lydon to write to the County Inspector, and whether, this being done, that official threw back the case into the hands of the District Inspector; whether the district is chargeable with the cost of the extra force; and, whether the protection will still be compulsorily applied to a man who declares that he has never been threatened, that he is in fear of no one, and that the guard upon him is injuring his trade?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It is not the case that four extra police are maintained at Kilkelly for the protection of Lydon. The station is strengthened by one man only, and there is no charge on the district occasioned thereby. Protection will not be forced on Lydon; but the local police having reason to believe that it is necessary, will do their best to insure his safety. With regard to the correspondence with the County Inspector, Lydon
  630
  appears to have been under a misapprehension as to what the District Inspector suggested to him.
  MR. SEXTON: Will the extra constable be withdrawn now?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: No; the police consider it necessary.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—BUG- BROOKE SCHOOL BOARD.
  MR. LABOUCHEEEasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council, Whether his attention has been called to the action of the School Board at Bugbrooke, Northamptonshire, with respect to a boy named Lester, whose parent was informed, on his being suspected of stealing a cap, that he must either submit to a flogging, or to a prosecution for theft; and, whether it is open to a School Board to submit such alternatives to the parents of children attending Board Schools?
  MR. MUNDELLA: There has been an investigation of this case by the magistrates at the Northampton Petty Sessions, where the schoolmaster was summoned for assaulting the boy Lester. The case appears to have been fully inquired into—both parties being represented by counsel—and the magistrates dismissed the charge. The mother having consented to the flogging, it was administered in the presence of the Rev. J. Harrison, the Chairman of the Board and Rector of the parish. The matter having been decided by the magistrates, I do not see that there is any case in which I can interfere.

  PROPERTY AND INCOME TAX— BUILDING SOCIETIES.
  MR. M'LAEENasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether his attention has been called to the fact that many Building Societies have been in the habit, notwithstanding the provisions of the Income Tax Acts, of claiming and receiving from their mortgagees or borrowing members full interest on advances without any reduction in respect of Income Tax, and also to the hardship thus inflicted upon large numbers of the thrifty working classes; and, whether it is within the power of the Treasury to enforce against such Building Societies the penalty of fifty pounds for each offence, under section forty of the Act of 1853, in case such Building Societies do not refund to their borrowing

  631
  members the moneys thus wrongfully received?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): In reply to the first Question of my hon. and learned Friend, I have to say that the refusal by Building Societies to allow any deduction in respect of Income Tax from interest on advances made to their mortgagors or borrowing members has frequently been the subject of complaint to the Board of Inland Revenue. Such refusal, where persisted in or defended in any way, is, upon inquiry, usually found to be based upon the difficulty which is alleged to exist in ascertaining how much of each payment made to the Society represents the interest on the sum advanced. It is apparent, however, that in any properly constituted Society the amount to be repaid must be arrived at by an actuarial calculation of how much will suffice to make good the sum originally advanced, together with interest at a certain rate per annum. When a complaint has been made, the Board of Inland Revenue have explained to the Society that upon making each payment, monthly or otherwise, a member is entitled to deduct Income Tax at the current rate upon so much thereof as represents interest, and the result has been generally satisfactory, the deduction claimed being allowed. There would be difficulty in proceeding under the 40th section of the Act of 1853, where, from ignorance of the law, or inability on the part of the borrower to ascertain the proportion of interest included in the payment, the deduction sought to be made has exceeded that which the complainant is entitled by law to make. In reply to so much of my hon. and learned Friend's last Question as is not met by what I have said, I may add that the penalty of £50 does not attach to a refusal to refund, but is confined to a refusal to allow. I will look further into this matter during the Recess, and I shall be glad of any assistance which my hon. and learned Friend can give me; but the question is one of a highly technical character, and surrounded with practical difficulties.

  CITY OF LONDON LIVERY GUILDS COMMISSION.
  MR. BRYCEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, In what state of preparation are the Papers
  632
  which still remain to be issued by the City of London Livery Guilds Commission, and when it is expected that these Papers will be laid before Parliament?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT,in reply, said, that the remaining two volumes of the Papers were in the press, and ho expected would be delivered in about three weeks.

  EGYPT (THE EXPEDITION UP THE NILE)—LORD WOLSELEY'S PROCLAMATION.
  SIR HENRY TYLERasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he has received a copy of the General Order of Lord Wolseley, published in the newspapers, offering a prize of £100, to be paid after their return to Egypt—
  "To the Battalion of the Nile Force that shall make the quickest time with the fewest accidents between Sarras and Debbeh, and will do all he can to give the place of honour to the Battalion which wins the prize;"
  whether he approves of the terms of that Order; and, whether he will, taking into account the extra labour involved, and the harassing and unusual service on which the troops are engaged, favourably consider the question of an increase, under proper regulations, by way of working-pay, to the pay of the general body of troops employed on the Nile Expedition?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I have not yet received a copy of the General Order referred to in the hon. Gentleman's Question; but, judging from the telegraphic summary of it given in the newspapers, I should not be disposed in such a matter to interfere with the discretion vested in the General commanding the Expedition. As to the second part of the Question, having in view the rule laid down in the Queen's Regulations as to the liability of soldiers to be employed on every kind of labour during service in the field when a field ration is allowed, I am not prepared, as at present advised, to sanction the issue of working pay.

  POST OFFICE (CONTRACTS)—THE MAIL SERVICE TO CYPRUS—THE PENINSULAR AND ORIENTAL COMPANY.
  MR. MARRIOTTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he would state whether the prosperity of Cyprus has greatly increased under British rule; whether the Turkish tribute

  633
  of £95,000 a-year has been regularly paid, and half of this sum retained by England to meet her share of the interests of the war, guaranteed jointly by this Country with Prance; whether, notwithstanding this heavy tribute, the annual deficits have decreased from, in 1882, £92,000; in 1883, £30,000; and this year, £13,000; and, whether, in the face of this increasing prosperity, it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government, for the pupose of saving £7,000 a-year, to terminate the postal contract made with the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Company, and so deprive the inhabitants of their weekly mail service, and render even the fortnightly delivery dependent upon the Austrian Lloyd's Company steamers?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: The preamble contained in the first three paragraphs of the hon. and learned Member's Question is substantially correct. But the Imperial postal revenue has lost nearly £50,000 by the mail contract, the amount received for postage being only about £150 a-year, while the subsidy is £7,000. It has been decided to allow the mails to be carried by the Austrian Lloyd's Company as an experiment; but the Secretary of State, at the same time, has invited the opinion of the local Legislative Council on the subject, and on the question whether, assuming funds to be available from local revenue for the renewal of some subsidy, it would be desirable to do so.

  NAVY (SHIPS)—SOUTHAMPTON DOCKYARDS.
  DR. LYONSasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether, in the event of any extension of works under the Department being in contemplation, he will take into consideration the state of things in the Southamption dockyards, in one of which, under dearth of employment, the number of workmen has been reduced from 2,500 to 500 now only under pay, with consequently great distress amongst this class of operatives and families?
  SIR THOMAS BEASSEY: Two firms at Southampton are on the Admiralty list for ships of moderate size, and they will be considered when it is proposed to put out new work to contract.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT (SCOTLAND) —SCHOOL BOARDS IN SKYE.
  MR. MACFARLANEasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council, If any of the Board Schools in the Island of Skye are now being used as barracks for Her Majesty's troops; and, if this is true, what other accommodation is provided for the children?
  MR. MUNDELLA: The following telegram has been received from the Procurator Fiscal at Portree:—
  "Marines quartered during night only in Board School at Uig; no interference with children who are taught in said school during the day; no other school used."
  In reply to a further Question,
  MR. MUNDELLAsaid, the School Board could loan a school for any purpose if it did not interfere with its educational purposes.
  MR. MACFARLANEsaid, he wished to ask a Question arising out of the answer. A school was loaned to him for a public meeting at night. An action was taken against the School Board for doing so, and judgment was given against them at Edinburgh. Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether the judgment was a lawful one or not? What he wished to ask was, whether a School Board could be guilty of any irregularity in so loaning a school?
  MR. MUNDELLAreplied, that the Question did not arise out of the answer, and he asked that Notice should be given of it.

  LAW AND POLICE—CHARGE OF SHOOTING WITH INTENT, &c. AT WELLINGTON COLLEGIANS.
  VISCOUNT CEICHTONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If it is true, as stated in the newspapers, that a farmer, on Saturday last, discharged a loaded gun at some boys of Wellington College; whether several of the boys were wounded; and, whether any steps have been taken to make the person guilty of this outrage amenable?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I have received a Report of this outrage. A farmer, finding some boys who belonged to Wellington College engaged in a paper-chase, and going across his meadows, shot at them with a gun loaded with No. 7 shot, and wounded a number of them. In these circumstances

  635
  the matter was taken up, in the first place, by the Chief Constable for Berkshire; but according to the technicalities of the English law, it being discovered that the offence was committed in Hampshire, the procedure had to be transferred; but I will take care that the matter is properly pursued, in order that an outrage of this kind may be duly punished.

  FRANCE AND CHINA—FRENCH VESSELS AT HONG KONG.
  MR. CROPPEEasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, If it be true, as stated in The Pall Mall Gazette of the 2nd instant, that—
  "The Government of Hong Kong, which was ordered to enforce the Foreign Enlistment Act by the Colonial Office, has allowed four French vessels under Admiral Lespés, which are actually engaged in hostile operations against China, to provision in the harbour?"
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: We have no information about the matter as yet; but we have inquired by telegram of the Governor of Hong Kong.

  INLAND REVENUE—SECRECY OF INCOME TAX RETURNS.
  MR. FINOH-HATTONasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether his attention has been called to the following words, which occur in a circular dated 20th November 1884, and issued by the Inland Revenue Office to Surveyors of Taxes in England and Wales as instructions to them for giving effect to the Resolution of the House of Commons of 17th November, adding an additional penny to the Income Tax, viz.:—
  "In cases in which the collector's duplicates have been completed by the clerk, and have been handed to you for examination, you may arrange with the clerk for the insertion of the Duties specified being made in your office, and, in order to enable you to enter the Duties without loss of time, I am directed to authorise you to draw upon the nearest Collector of Inland Revenue to lend you at once the services of one Assistant of Excise;"
  whether ho has taken any steps to prevent the authority thus given for placing the Returns under Schedules A and B within the knowledge of persons unpledged to secrecy as to their contents; whether such an authority is not, in the case of Schedule D, in direct contravention of the Income Tax Act, 5 and 6 Vic. c. 35, and subsequent Acts; whe-
  636
  ther any Assistant of Excise, acting under such authority, will render himself liable to a penalty of £100 under the provisions of those Acts; and, whether he will at once withdraw the circular?
  THE CHANOELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GUILDERS): Secrecy only attaches to returns and assessments under Schedule D, and a violation of secrecy in connection with that Schedule would undoubtedly be in contravention, of the Income Tax Acts. But as it is already matter of strict instruction to Surveyors of Taxes not to allow any information under that Schedule to pass through the hands of a person not sworn to secrecy, and as the Board of Inland Revenue have every reason to believe that their instructions in this respect are rigidly adhered to, it was unnecessary to repeat the injunction, and no necessity whatever exists for withdrawing the Circular referred to. The Assistants of Excise employed in connection with Schedule D are invariably sworn to secrecy. As regards Schedules A and B, although secrecy is not imposed by law, it is not the practice of the Board of Inland Revenue to allow their officers to permit the inspection of the assessments by any unauthorized person.

  IRELAND—THE CORPORATION OF LIMERICK—EXTRA POLICE TAX.
  VISCOUNT CEICHTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What steps the Irish Executive are taking to levy the extra police tax from the Limerick Corporation; what is the cause of the delay; whether any proposal has boon made by the Corporation to arrange the matter; and, whether the Government made any recent offer or suggestion of compromise?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: On the application of the Irish Government a mandamus was issued by the Court of Queen's Bench directing the Corporation of Limerick to levy the extra police tax, which it is their statutable duty to collect under the Constabulary Act of 1836, as amended in 1851 and 1866, and finally in 1874. The Corporation have, however, refused to obey the order of the Court. The Government have, therefore, been obliged to consider whether they should apply to have the members of the Corporation who took part in this proceeding committed for contempt. I need not say that it had not been con-

  637
  templated that a responsible public body such as the Limerick Town Council would thus deliberately refuse to obey the law. No such case has, I believe, ever before occurred. However much they may reprehend the conduct of the Town Council, the Government are unwilling to take the extreme step of applying for an order to imprison those members of the Corporation who are responsible for the disobedience, which is the only procedure provided by the law for enforcing obedience to the order of the Court. They are influenced by the consideration that such a step would not necessarily secure the main object— namely, the recovery of the money legally due. What they intend to do is to apply to Parliament for power —in cases of default on the part of the local rating authority—to collect by direct means a tax such as this, which Parliament has already by Statute made it the duty of the Irish Executive in certain cases to impose. There have been no communications such as are alluded to in the last two paragraphs of the noble viscount's Question.
  MR. TOTTENHAM: Will the powers to be obtained be retrospective?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Yes, Sir.
  MR. SEXTON: Does the Answer mean that there is no legal power to enforce payment, and that the Government are obliged to apply for fresh powers? Did not the Corporation request the Lord Lieutenant to send down a Commissioner to investigate the merits of the case, and did he not refuse to do so?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I have already answered several Questions on the latter point. It would be quite impossible to accede to the proposal referred to. I did not say that the Government have no legal power; but that there is no means open to them expect those which they are very reluctant to take.
  MR. O'BRIEN: Has the right hon. Gentleman observed that at the recent elections of Town Councillors not a single member who voted for the payment of the tax has been returned?
  [No reply.]
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Would the right hon. Gentleman kindly state what return has been made to the writ?
  [No reply.]

  CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES—CLASS III.—THE ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY.
  MR. BIGGARasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the Estimate for Constabulary in Ireland in present financial year is £1,440,095, against £1,097,192 in 1879–80; and, whether, in framing his Estimates for the coming year, he will endeavour to bring the expense under this head to its former standard?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): Yes, Sir. The comparison which the hon. Member draws between the Estimates for 1879–80 and 1884–5 for the Irish Constabulary is correct. This increase of charge arises mainly from carrying out the provisions of the Acts of 1882 and 1883, especially 46 & 47 Vict. c. 14, which revised and considerably augmented the rates of pay of the Constabulary. It is not I or the Treasury who frame the Estimates for the Royal Irish Constabulary; our function is confined to criticizing them; and I am always glad to receive suggestions for practical economy.
  MR. BIGGAR: Arising out of this Question, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he was disposed to recommend the introduction of a Bill into Parliament to bring down the rate of pay to what it stood at under the late Government?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): Before entertaining such a proposition I would like to know the foundation for it.

  IRELAND—THE NATIONAL LEAGUE— MR. SLATTERY.
  MR. KENNYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If the police at Bodyke, county Clare, have instructions to watch Mr. Edmund M. Slattery of that place, and follow him almost wherever he goes; whether the constable in charge of the barracks cautioned him that whenever Mr. Slattery had occasion to go any considerable distance from home he should give notice of his intention to the police; if such annoyance is given to Mr. Slattery because he is President of the local National League; and, if this watching of Mr. Slattery will be discontinued by order of the authorities?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It is not the fact that the police at Bodyke watch Mr. Slattery, as stated, or that they have direction to do so; nor did the sergeant in charge give him any such caution as is mentioned. The sergeant has recently prosecuted Mr. Slattery for drunkenness, and he was fined at Petty Sessions 5s. and costs for the offence.
  MR. KENNY: Is the information of the Chief Secretary supplied from the sergeant of police; and will he be prepared to receive the affidavit of Mr. Slattery contradicting the statement of the police constable?
  [No reply.]

  STATE OF IRELAND—POLICE PROTECTION, KILMOON, COUNTY CLARE.
  MR. KENNYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If the police hut at Kilmoon, county Clare, is stationed there for the protection of the person who took an evicted farm in that place; if ho is aware that Lane, the person who is stated to have taken the farm, lives five miles away, and if it is true that he also has surrendered the farm; and, since there has been no violence nor threat of violence in the locality for a very considerable time, and that a police barrack is only about a mile distant, whether the police hut will be finally removed?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Lane has not surrendered the farm, and I am informed that he intends to reside near it. He has placed stock on it, and when doing so he was threatened. The police are considered necessary to prevent violence, and will not be removed at present. Their cost is not charged to the locality. The nearest permanent police barrack is nearly three miles distant—not one, as stated in the Question.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—ELECTION OF GUARDIANS, DUNFANAGHY UNION.
  MR. KENNYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he can give a Return for circulation showing all Papers, as well as all Correspondence with the Local Government Board, touching the election of Poor Law Guardians for the Dunfanaghy Union, county of Donegal, during the past two years?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I do not think that any useful object
  640
  would be gained by such a Return. I understand that the Correspondence relating to the elections throughout the Union is very voluminous, and that much of it relates to mere matters of routine, which could have no public interest. If the hon. Member will specify any particular electoral division in the election for which he is interested, the propriety of giving the Return for that division will be considered.

  REGISTRAR GENERAL'S OFFICE, IRELAND.
  MR. JUSTIN HUNTLYM'CARTHYasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the clerks in the Record Branch of the Registrar General in Ireland have recently been compelled to remain in the office till 6 P.M., and deprived of the Saturday half-holiday, on the representation of the Secretary that a portion of the work of the Branch was in arrear; whether the clerks who are practically acquainted with the work in question unanimously deny that any arrears exist; and, whether it is in the power of a head of a department, in such a case, to extend the office hours of a particular branch without superior authority; also, whether the post of Chief Clerk to the Registrar General in Ireland was abolished as unnecessary, and the post of Secretary created with the same salary; and, whether the abolition of the former post was decided upon on the representations of the gentleman who is now Secretary; and, whether it is a fact that a gratuity or bonus of £1,000 was given to the Secretary of the Registrar General in Ireland in connection with the work of the Census Returns; what was the period estimated as necessary for the completion of the work in respect of which the gratuity was awarded; and, what was the time actually found necessary?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I have been asked to answer these Questions, which deal with matters in which the Irish Government is concerned. The Registrar General informs me that the work of the Record Branch of his Department is in arrear. He is the judge of this, and he is certainly acting within his powers as Head of the Department in requiring his subordinate officers to work off the arrears in the manner stated. In 1877, after an inquiry held by the Treasury Remembrancer, the Chief Clerkship and one of the first-class clerk-

  641
  ships in this Office were abolished, and the office of Secretary created, with a salary the same as that formerly attached to the Chief Clerkship. These changes were made by the then Lord Lieutenant with the consent of the Treasury, and not at the instance of the gentleman who now fills the office of Secretary. The sum of £1,000 was given to the Secretary for work performed in connection with the Census of 1881. The time originally estimated for the work was four years. The Secretary was actually engaged for about three and a-half years. The Registrar General attributes, in a large measure, to the efficiency of the Secretary, the success of his efforts in bringing the work to a comparatively early close, whereby great economy was effected.

  PRISONS (IRELAND)—TREATMENT OF PATRICK BYRNE, A CONVICT.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he will cause inquiry to be made by some independent authority into the state of health of Patrick Byrne, a convict prisoner in Mary borough Gaol, and into the treatment to which he has been subjected since his removal from Spike Island Prison, and especially into the punishment to which he was subjected on the 9th, 10th, and 11th October last, and the effect of the said punishment upon his health?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I have received very full Reports as to the case of this man, and find that, with the exception of one month in October last year, he has been treated in the convict hospital at Mary borough since May, 1883, and has received every care and attention. The medical officer reports him to be phthisical, strumous, and spare, and generally of unsound constitution; but now in fair health for a man of his constitutional tendency. The convict was not subjected to punishment on any day in October last; but in October, 1883, when out of hospital, he was subjected to 24 hours' reduction of diet for a prison offence. The medical officer states that this could not have affected his health. I do not think that there is any ground for further inquiry in this case.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman state whether
  642
  special inquiries will be made as to the general condition of the prison?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, he had received a Report; but would like to go further into it.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman also inquire as to the amount of work executed by the officials, especially that of ordinary warders, as distinguished from convict warders?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Yes.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—CAPTAIN WHELAN, A RESIDENT MAGISTRATE.
  MR. GIBSONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Is it a fact that the inhabitants of Portadown, Lurgan, Banbridge, and Dun-garvan, without distinction of creed, have sent Memorials to the Lord Lieutenant protesting against the suggested removal of Captain Whelan, R.M.; whether, on the occasion of the recent riot, Captain Whelan was ill, and therefore unable to be present; and, whether, before deciding on the removal of Captain Whelan, R.M., from his present district, they will accord a full inquiry into any allegations that may have been made or insinuated against him?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Yes, Sir; such a Memorial has been received; but it has not been replied to— beyond an acknowledgment of receipt— pending an inquiry into the state of Captain Whelan's health. The most immediate question for consideration is whether, owing to the state of his health, he is able to discharge the duties of a Resident Magistrate. It is the case that he was ill and absent on that account from duty on the occasion of the recent riot; and there is no occasion for any except a medical inquiry.

  THE PATENT OFFICE, DUBLIN— INDEXES.
  MR. BIGGARasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he has any objection to supply to the National Library, Kildare Street, Dublin, for convenience of those classes of the public interested in patents and inventions, an index covering the whole period represented by the copies of specifications deposited in the library (to which index

  643
  the needful additions might hereafter be continually made), and thereby save a great deal of the time and money spent in searches; whether he is aware that only the indices for the years 1880–83 have been supplied to the Public Record Office, Dublin, in fulfilment of his recent undertaking; and, if the indices of previous years are out of print, whether ho will cause them to be reprinted and supplied to the Dublin Office, in order to enable any person resident in Ireland to ascertain whether any previous patent affects a contemplated patent of his own without being compelled to come and make a search in London, or pay a large fee to a London patent agent or solicitor?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: The Patent Office is now engaged in preparing revised consolidated indexes of specifications; but there is a very considerable amount of labour involved in this task, and some time must consequently elapse before these indexes can be published. When published, copies shall be sent to the National Library, Kildare Street, Dublin. The hon. Member states that, in spite of my promise to the hon. Member for County Sligo (Mr. Sexton), the indexes for the years 1880–3 only have been forwarded to the Public Record Office, Dublin. My information shows that indexes for the years 1875–83 have been forwarded, with the exception of one alphabetical and two subject-matter indexes which are out of print. As there is a complete set of indexes at the National Library in Kildare Street, there can be no necessity for an Irish inventor to visit London for the purpose of searching for a patent.

  CIVIL SERVICE COMPETITIONS AND THE IRISH CONSTABULARY.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether under the rule of the Civil Service Commissioners declaring members of the Irish Constabulary force admissible to compete for certain situations in the Civil Service, any member of the Constabulary force who so desires can present himself for examination; or whether, before doing so, he is required by any rule or practice of the force to ask the leave of the Inspector General, and must, in order to qualify himself obtain the leave in writing; whether, if this be the rule or practice, the Inspec
  644
  tor General can either give or refuse the leave at his pleasure, and, in the latter case, is not obliged to show any cause for his refusal; upon what principle, if it exists, is it founded; and, whether it will be discontinued?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: There is a rule of the Civil Service Commissioners, adopted at the instance of a late Inspector General of Constabulary, that members of the force of under 12 years' service should resign their position in the Constabulary before competing for a Civil Service ppointment, unless they obtain the Inspector General's permission to do so. The Inspector General has not, as a rule, refused to allow a man of good character to compete, even though his service was less than that named; but he can do so if he thinks the public interest require it. The principle upon which the rule is based is that young men upon whose police training much time and public money have been expended should not, as a rule, be encouraged lightly, or at too early a period of their service, to seek other employment. I understand that the power is seldom exercised; but the rule seems a good one, and I see no reason why it should be rescinded.

  INLAND REVENUE—LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—STAMPS ON APPEALS.
  MR. TOTTENHAMasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, At what date the Inland Revenue Department first began to challenge the notices of appeal under the Irish Land Act for not having a shilling stamp thereon, and what then drew their attention to the subject; if instructions have been given not to exact the penalty if the Court of Appeal decides that the notices either do not require stamping or can now be stamped; how many notices of tenants, to fix fair rents, have been issued and served, on unstamped forms, since the passing of the Land Act; and, how many of such last-mentioned notices were allowed to be afterwards stamped, without question or penalty?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): In reply to the first Question I have to say that these notices of appeal have not been challenged by the Inland Revenue Department. The question is one of fee stamps as distinct from revenue stamps proper;

  645
  and it is for the Land Commission to decide whether notices which have been served without stamps can be rendered valid by being subsequently stamped. The fact that any question had been raised was first reported to the Inland Revenue Board in London on the 28th of October last; and their practice since has been, and will continue to be, pending the decision of the Land Commission, not to require any penalty in connection with the stamping of these documents. I regret that the shortness of the Notice prevents me from answering the two last Questions. I should imagine that, if the hon. Gentleman thinks it necessary, a Return of these notices might be obtained; but it does not concern the Treasury?

  METROPOLIS—FREQUENCY OF FIRES —PUBLIC INQUIRIES.
  SIR JOHN KENNAWAYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, considering the frequent occurrence of fires, he will take into consideration the possibility of introducing a measure providing that public inquiry or inquest shall be held into the cause and origin of such outbreaks when they occur?
  SIR WILLIAM HAECOURT,in reply, said, no doubt this would be a very desirable thing, and he should be glad to do anything to encourage it. But the real opposition had been on the part of the Local Authorities, not unnaturally, for these were very expensive inquiries, involving a very heavy charge upon the rates. It would be extremely difficult to compel the Local Authorities to undertake such a task. He was happy to say the Metropolitan Board of Works had expressed a desire for an inquiry of this character in London.

  EVICTION'S (IRELAND) — ESTATE OF LORD INCHIQUIN—CASE OF THOMAS MALONY.
  MR. KENNYasked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, If the attention of the Irish Land Commission has been directed to the case of Thomas Malony, a tenant on the property of Lord In-chiquin, who was evioted for non-payment of rent; if he offered the landlord three-fourths of the amount due, which was refused and the tenant dispossessed; if within the period allowed for redemption the tenant sold his interest for an
  646
  amount which would enable him to pay the landlord in full, and leave a considerable balance, but the landlord refused to accept the purchaser as tenant; whether Lord Inchiquin's agent arranged with the tenant to have the value of the land fixed by the Court in order that the tenant might receive the amount to which he would be entitled after deducting the sum due for rent, but that the value has not yet been fixed; if, in addition to that, the growing crops of the tenant were seized upon and appropriated by Lord Inehiquin, who refuses to account for their value; and, if the tenant is entitled to any redress under "The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881," seeing that he has been dispossessed from his holding and his property nearly three times in excess of his liability taken possession of by the landlord?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER),in reply, said, the Government had no means of obtaining the necessary information on the subject.
  MR. KENNY: What I want to know is, if the landlord has the right to refuse to have a value put on a farm in order to ascertain the amount of money which is due to the tenant over and above the claim to arrears of rent due?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER): That is an abstract question, and impossible for me to answer on an ex parte statement.

  LAW AND POLICE (SCOTLAND)—THE EXPEDITION TO SKYE.
  MR. PEESTON BEUCEasked, Whether Papers will be laid upon the Table before the Adjournment of the House, or issued soon after, relating to the Military and Naval expedition to Skye, and explanatory of the grounds upon which the Government have taken that measure?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): Yes, Sir; Papers will be laid to-day, and will, I hope, be in the hands of Members to-morrow or Saturday.

  CENTRAL ASIA—RUSSIAN ADVANCES —PUL-I-KHATUN.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked, Whether the Russians have lately occupied Pul-i-Khatun, on the Perso-Afghan

  647
  frontier, 60 miles beyond Sarakhs, and 160 miles nearer to India than Merv; where the British Boundary Commission now are; where the Russian Commissioner is at present; and, whether the British Government accept the occupation of Pul-i-Khatun by the Czar's troops in breach of the engagements of the Russian Government?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, he had already answered this Question.

  ALLOTMENTS EXTENSION ACT, 1882— NOTICES TO TRUSTEES.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGSasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council, If the Charity Commissioners have sent out notices, or taken any steps to inform the Trustees of Charity Lands throughout the Country, of the provisions of "The Allotments Extension Act, 1882," and of the duties of the Trustees under the Act?
  MR. MUNDELLA,in reply, said, he was informed by the Charity Commissioners that they had not sent out such notices, the Act not requiring them to do so.

  UNION RATING (IRELAND)—LEGISLATION.
  MR. GRAYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is his intention to introduce a Union Rating Bill for Ireland this Session?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The Government are fully aware of the importance of this question, and are desirous of dealing with it; but I am not in a position to make any promise regarding proposals of legislation during the current Session.
  MR. GRAY: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether the late Chief Secretary did not give what, in fact, amounted to a pledge that a Bill dealing with the subject would be introduced?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: No; I think he made the same answer that the Government were very anxious on the matter; but he made no pledge.

  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS, REDISTRIBUTION, BILL—THE BOUNDARY COMMISSIONERS.
  MR. H. S. NORTHCOTEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If the instructions to the Boundary Commis-
  648
  sioners preclude the possibility of their recommending the extension of the limits of any existing borough constituency; and, should this not be the case, and should they recommend such extension as would bring a borough constituency at present scheduled for total or partial disfranchisement above the 15,000 or 50,000 population limit, what course Her Majesty's Government will propose to take in such cases?
  MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, he would also like to inquire, in connection with this Question, whether the Boundary Commissioners would be empowered, in the case of boroughs above 50,000 which retained two Members, to inquire whether the boundaries of these boroughs should be extended so as to include an urban population which, in the words of the instruction, ought to be incorporated in these boroughs?
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHwished to know whether any supplementary instructions to the Boundary Commissioners would be laid on the Table?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The answer to the last two Questions will be in the affirmative. In reference to the Question of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. H. S. Northcote), I have to say that the instructions to the Commissioners, which must be read in connection with the Bill, are not intended to embrace boroughs under 15,000, as they are all scheduled to be merged. The instructions, however, do not preclude an inquiry into the boundaries of the boroughs between 15,000 and 50,000 limits; but no extension of them is likely to increase the population above that of many much larger boroughs with only one Member. If the second Member were allotted to those boroughs, it could not be done without injustice to others with much stronger claims.

  EGYPT (BRITISH OCCUPATION).
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If he can give an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will not commit themselves to any arrangements, involving a prolonged occupation of Egypt, without first consulting Parliament?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am under the impression that I answered a corresponding Question very lately, which was put by the hon. Member for Greenwich (Baron Henry De Worms). Her Ma-

  649
  jesty's Government, I have always said, will be very careful of their duties and obligations to this House and to Parliament generally, and at no time more seriously than when they are in communication with any Foreign Powers. But it is impossible to say that we will not enter into any engagement with a Foreign Power without first consulting this House, because it would simply be handing over our whole responsibilities to Parliament.

  PARLIAMENT—RULES OF PROCEDURE —QUESTIONS.
  MR. D. GRANTasked the First Lord of the Treasury, with regard to the greatly increased number of Questions placed on the Paper, and the waste of public time consequent upon answering the same, If he would consider whether in future the replies to all Questions might be printed, excepting those which, in the opinion of the Government, would be best answered in the existing mode, or those which may be of immediate and pressing importance?
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONasked, Whether, during the adjournment of the House, the Prime Minister would consider the propriety of acceding to the' Motion for the appointment of a Select Committee on the subject, Notice of which he had given, and which he proposed to bring forward when he had an opportunity?
  MR. SEXTONasked, Whether the right hon. Gentleman had observed that 73 Questions, dealing with matters of great public interest, and a number of subsidiary Questions, had been answered that evening in the space of an hour; and, whether an hour could be put to better use?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he had not observed that the Questions referred to had been put in the space of an hour; but he thought that there had been considerable despatch on some recent days, and he wished that that despatch were the general rule. He did not wish to exclude the appointment of a Committee on this question, or any other matter of procedure, if the House should see its way to a beneficial result; but he would rather not bind the Government upon the subject until the matter was regularly brought forward for discussion, nor was it possible to give an affrima-
  650
  tive reply to one particular mode of dealing with the subject. He should commit himself too hastily if he did so. Undoubtedly, the matter did call for some attention; but he did not think that any reply that he could give in answer would advance the question.
  MR. JOSEPH COWENasked if it would not be possible for the Questions to be systematized, so that, for example, all Questions relating to Ireland or to foreign affairs should follow each other?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he supposed that might be done; but whether it would entail much difficulty he did not know. It was, however, a matter entirely within the discretion of the ordinary authorities of the House.

  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS, REDISTRIBUTION, BILL—THE DISFRANCHISED BOROUGHS.
  MR. CREEMER CLARKEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If it is the intention of the Government to make disfranchised boroughs, as far as possible, the head of county divisions?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Yes, Sir; my hon. Friend has rightly understood the Bill. It is intended to do as he supposes.

  EGYPT (FINANCE, &c.)—SUSPENSION OF THE SINKING FUND.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is a fact that the International Tribunals have condemned the suspension of the Sinking Fund which the Egyptian Government effected under the advice of Her Majesty's Ministers, as a breach of the Law of Liquidation; and, whether the Tribunals have declared the Khedive's officials responsible for the money thus withheld; and, if so, what steps Her Majesty's Ministers propose to take to relieve the Egyptian officials of this onerous responsibility?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am quite at a loss to know what is the authority upon which this Question has been put. My impression is that it is some rumour picked up by a newspaper correspondent, who is not in any way to be blamed for mentioning it. But I think the hon. Member must recollect that these rumours are very much connected with the operations of particular persons; and that to put Questions founded upon them in

  651
  this House gives them an importance which they would not otherwise possess. The facts are not as supposed in the Question of the hon. Member. The facts, as far as we know, are these— that, no doubt, there is a lawsuit of the Caisse against the Egyptian Government; but judgment has not been given in that lawsuit, and the information sent to us is that it is likely to be given on the 9th instant. When execution will take place, if judgment goes against the Government, I am not able to say. That will depend, I imagine, upon what may happen on the 9th. And with regard to the question of the responsibility of the Members of the Egyptian Government, that, I think, is altogether premature; and no official information has been conveyed to us upon it.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, that he gave Notice of the Question on Tuesday, and that the statement appeared in all the evening papers of that day.

  PEACE OF EUROPE—DIMINUTION OF ARMAMENTS.
  SIR WILPEID LAWSONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, before making final arrangements for the proposed costly increase to our Naval Armaments, he will consider the feasibility of consulting the Naval Powers of Europe as to some proportional basis on which the diminution of European warlike forces might be arranged?
  MR. PULESTONasked, if it was not a fact that final arrangements had already been made?
  MR. GLADSTONE: The question whether any steps have been taken by the Admiralty in anticipation of the judgment of this House is one which I could not answer without reference to the Admiralty. But I should suppose undoubtedly that, speaking generally, final arrangements have not yet been made for giving effect to the important statement by my hon. Friend the Secretary to that Department. With regard to the Question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle, I think that is a subject of very great importance and very great delicacy, which cannot receive the kind of reply to which it is entitled in answer to a Question. It is impossible to conceive a matter of greater
  652
  delicacy. I remember only one definite proposal for partial disarmament, it was in the year 1870—either 1869 or 1870, I am not quite sure. It received whatever support my noble Friend Lord Clarendon, who was then Foreign Secretary, could give it; but it took no effect. I remember also that so far back as the year 1842, when the military establishments of the European Powers were, I suppose, nothing like half so advanced as they are now, Sir Robert Peel spontaneously declared to this House his sense of what he thought a great public mischief, and expressed a fervent hope —at least, not a fervent hope so much as a fervent desire—that the Powers would reduce them. These general views are views which I think every Government would be glad to forward; but I have no positive assurance to give, and, further than that, I should be doing no good to anybody by undertaking to give any pledge.

  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS, REDISTRIBUTION, BILL—INSTRUCTIONS TO THE BOUNDARY COMMISSIONERS.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If his attention has been directed to that portion of the instructions given to the Boundary Commissioners, by which they are directed in forming the divisions of the different new County constituencies to exclude the population of the Parliamentary Boroughs; whether the practical effect of such an instruction will not be to disfranchise the existing County voters whose qualification (under section 10 of the Representation of the People Act) is a freehold within the limits of Boroughs; and, whether, in accordance with his distinct promise that the Franchise Bill should not be a disfranchising enactment, he will cause the instructions on this point to he so revised as not to disqualify this class of County voter?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The instruction does not touch the county voters having freehold qualification for the county in boroughs, who will still be entitled to vote for the division of the county in which the borough is situate. The population is only excluded for the purpose of determining the area of the county divisions of the county proper; but, where the county voters are numerous in a borough, some account of their

  653
  numbers may properly be taken in determining the extent of the county division.
  MR. NEWDEGATEwished to ask whether, in case of freeholders voting for divisions of counties from freeholds in towns, the Boundary Commissioners would have power to assign to the holdings the places in which they were to vote?
  SIR CHAELES W. DILKE: They will assign the divisions; but not the voting places.
  MR. CHAPLINasked, whether the Government had entered into any pledge to consider the maintenance of any specified points in connection with the Bill as vital to that measure and to the existence of the Government; and, if so, whether he would state to the House the particulars on which they had given any such pledge?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I must, with regret, repeat my expression of inability, consistently with my duty, and, I think, consistently with Parliamentary usage, to make any statement as to the points in the Bill for the redistribution of seats, which, in the course of discussion, the Government may or may not consider vital. I cannot, therefore, make any statement now. "With regard to the rest of the Question, I have only to say that the responsibility of the Government to the House with regard to the Bill is precisely the same, as full and as absolute, as with regard to any other Bill they have ever submitted to the House, and the House will feel itself equally free to deal with any proposition in that Bill as in any other measure ever brought forward.
  MR. CHAPLINinquired whether the Report and recommendations of the Boundary Commissioners were to be considered final by the Government, or were to be open to any modification by the House of Commons?
  MR. GLADSTONE: In the view of the Government, and, perhaps, in the view of the House, the most important of the duties in connection with the Boundary Commission is the selection of the names; and on that ground I was careful to state to the House the names which had been chosen in regard to England. It is obvious that great confidence ought to be placed in the Report of such a Commission, if the names of the Commissioners are such as will recommend
  654
  themselves to the approval of the House. Well, Sir, the Government certainly are inclined, from the selection that has been made, from our knowledge of the experience, trustworthiness, and ability of the gentlemen who have been chosen, to place very great confidence indeed, by anticipation, in the results of their inquiries, and I am unwilling to suppose that they will not give satisfaction to the House; but, at the same time, when one considers the details into which these things may go, I quite admit that it is impossible for the House to preclude itself from a freedom of judging of these recommendations. It is impossible to say anything absolutely on the subject of their finality.
  MR. GORSTasked if it were intended that a Select Committee of the House of Commons should be appointed to revise the Report of the Commissioners, as was done in 1868?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Certainly not. I should think it a very great misfortune if the House entered into any such measure, and I can promise that the Government will be no party to it.
  MR. O'DONNELL: With regard to the explanations of vital or non-vital points in the Parliamentary Elections, Redistribution, Bill, may I inquire if the period of consultation with the Leaders of the non-responsible Opposition is definitely closed; or whether there are any points upon which the Government will still have from time to time to consult the Leaders of the Opposition; and, whether Her Majesty's Government will in all cases state to the House the points upon which they are engaged with the Opposition?
  MR. GLADSTONE: The statement which I had the honour to make in introducing the Bill to the House supplies the House with sufficient information for the present. I am not able to make any addition to it.
  SIR JOHN HAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the names of the Boundary Commissioners for Scotland?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The work, such as in England will be done by Major Tulloch, Mr. Pelham, and Mr. Henley, will in Scotland be done by Major General Bailey, of the Royal Engineers; but the Commission—virtually the English Commission—will receive his Reports. That Commission will consist of himself, Sir John Lam-

  655
  bert, the Chairman of the English Commission; Sir Francis Sandford, Mr. Donald Crawford, advocate, Secretary to the Lord Advocate: with the same Secretary as for the English Commission —namely, Mr. Howel Thomas.
  DR. CAMERON: The right hon. Baronet mentioned the other day that the grouping of boroughs in Scotland was not to be entrusted to this Commission, and that that was to be left open to the consideration of the House. I wish to ask whether the Government have any scheme for re-arranging the Scotch boroughs?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I said in the House that we thought the grouping of the Scotch boroughs was one that ought to be threshed out before the whole House. If the Scotch Members could agree amongst themselves in advance, that would greatly facilitate the matter. What we have found is that, although there is a great deal of dissatisfaction in regard to the existing grouping, there is no agreement as to the principle upon which the re-grouping should proceed.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: Referring to the instructions of the Boundary Commissioners with respect to the division of boroughs, I want to ask what is the meaning of the following sentence:—
  "In the arrangement of the divisions special regard should be had to the pursuits of the population."
  I wish to know whether that means that the boroughs are to be divided upon class, or sectional, or social pursuits?
  SIR CHAELES W. DILKE: If I were a Member of the Commission I should understand that as being a general direction to have regard to the varying nature of the representation. I do not think I can give any fuller answer.
  MR. GRAYinquired whether the Government were still open to consider the desirability of including on the Irish Boundary Commission some gentleman or gentlemen of a non-official character, who would inspire general confidence?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, this was a question which had been carefully considered, and it was almost impossible to find a man in Ireland who would inspire general confidence. But really there was very little boundary work to be done in Ireland.

  THE CIVIL SERVICE (PARLIAMENTARY CANDIDATURE)—SIR W. BRAMPTON GORDON.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS),referring to the Parliamentary candidature of Sir William Gurdon, a senior clerk in the Treasury, said, that he had promised to make a further statement on the subject. He might now say that Sir William Gurdon had informed him that he was no longer a candidate.

  ARMY—BRIGADE MAJORS AND GARRISON INSTRUCTORS.
  MR. DALRYMPLEasked the Financial Secretary for War, Whether it is the case that Majors holding Staff appointments as Brigade Majors or Garrison Instructors only draw the allowances of Captains; and, if so, whether he will consider the hardship inflicted on such officers, who are denied the allowances of their rank because they hold Captains' appointments?
  SIR ARTHUR HAYTER: Sir, the relative rank of Captain is attached to the Staff appointments referred to. If officers, who are Regimental Majors, accept them, they do so with a full knowledge of the conditions. I may add that the present aggregate pay and allowances of a Brigade Major or Garrison Instructor exceed considerably, under ordinary circumstances, those of a Regimental Major.

NAVY—STATE OF THE NAVY.

  PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
  SIR DONALD CURRIE: I desire to make a personal explanation. During the debate upon the Navy, and while I was in the Lobby for a brief interval, the Surveyor General of Ordnance (Mr. Brand) contradicted one of the statements in my speech. He is reported in The Times to have said—
  "The hon. Member for Perthshire stated that the Government had never sent (guns) to Hong Kong until after the appearance of an article in The Pall Gazette. But they had sent these guns long before—viz., last June."
  Mr. Speaker, I said nothing whatever about guns. What I did say was this—
  "Hong Kong was only ordered to be fortified when The Pall Mall Gazette sounded the first note of warning as to the state of the Navy in September last. The instructions to fortify were then despatched by telegraph."

  657
  Now, this is confirmed by the following extract from a letter, written by The Times Correspondent at Hong Kong on the 17th of September last, three days after the first article in The Pall Mali Gazette on the state of the Navy—
  "During the week a telegram has been received from England ordering the immediate commencement of the works already sanctioned for the protection of Hong Kong."

PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

  MINISTERIAL STATEMENT.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I engaged on Tuesday to give such indication as I could to-night with regard to the Business of the House. I believe, Sir, the important Business of the House which we have to transact is, in the first place, to deal with the Parliamentary Elections, Redistribution, Bill on its second reading; and, in the second place, to meet for the purpose of attending the other House upon any occasion when Her Majesty may be pleased to give Her Royal Assent to Bills that may have passed through both Houses. At present there are two questions urgently demanding the attention of the House, and with which it is disposed to deal before the adjournment. Of course, it is a question of interest and importance to consider for how long the adjournment shall take place. We ought to recommend to the House, as we believe the House will desire, that the adjournment should be for what I may call a liberal length. But I ought to remind the House that the adjournment does not, in all circumstances, imply absolutely the cessation of Public Business. That is to say, that if an emergency arose, or, short of an emergency, if any serious occasion arose, upon which it was desirable to have an immediate reference to Parliament, Her Majesty is invested by Statute with power, where either House has adjourned for more than 14 days, of summoning them together, with the advice of the Privy Council, with an interval of not less than six days. That being so, and considering the serious demand that has been made on the time and patience of Members at these Autumn Sittings, we think the House, when it rises—if it rises—on Saturday next, may adjourn, with a tolerably good conscience, until
  658
  the 10th of February. [Loud cries of "Oh, oh!" and "Longer!"] I see that that requires explanation. I do not know whether it is that the rigour of the conscience of the House is alarmed and offended, or whether it is, on the contrary, that an equitable view of the circumstances leads the House to think that it might adjourn to a still later date. I need hardly state to the House that the view of the Government is to meet the general desire of the House, and that the announcement is not absolutely written in letters of iron until the Motion comes to be made. With regard to the mode of proceeding, we depend partly, and in a considerable degree, upon the proceedings of tonight. I do not know whether it will be the pleasure of the House to terminate the discussion on the second reading of the Parliamentary Elections, Redistribution, Bill to-night. If I may presume to form an opinion, I believe that lengthened discussion might probably be advantageously reserved till the Motion is made that the Speaker do leave the Chair. Assuming that the debate closes to-night, I would move that the House, at its rising on Saturday, should adjourn to the day I have named, unless I should have a clear indication that the House wishes for a longer period. In that case I should propose that the House, at its rising tonight, should adjourn until Saturday; and I am not aware that in that case there would be any necessity to tax a large number of Members for the purpose of appearing on Saturday. If the debate goes beyond to-night, I should to-morrow night make a similar Motion with regard to the adjournment on Saturday.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS, REDISTRIBUTION, BILL.— [BILL 40.]
  (Mr. Gladstone, the Marquess of Hartington, Sir Charles IF. Dilke, Mr. Attorney General, The Lord Advocate, Mr. Campbell-Bannerrnan.)
  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS, REDISTRIBUTION, BILL.— [BILL 40.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
    MR. COURTNEY: Sir, if I could have entirely consulted my own inclination, I should not have intervened in the debate in this early and prominent manner; but the representations of many friends to whom I felt I ought to pay deference, and whose arguments appeared to me to have great force, made me feel that it might not be deemed by the House an unfitting sequel to the action I took early in the week if I began the debate this evening, and that the House would not deem me unduly obtrusive if I occupied its attention at the commencement of this discussion. Perhaps, Sir, I may be permitted, before dealing with the merits of the Bill, to refer to some private remonstrances which I have received with reference to the step I have taken. Of course, so far as those remonstrances are based on the provisions of the Bill itself, my answer must be contained in the speech I am about to deliver. It must be the purpose and aim of that speech to express to the House my opinion of the Bill, and any suggestion that I should have delayed my resignation of the Office I had the honour of holding on account of a false impression of the Bill on my part is necessarily irrelevant. But there have been other objections made that whatever my opinion of the Bill might be I might have waited until some question arose when I might be called upon to vote inconsistently with that opinion. It has been said to me by more than one that a subordinate has no responsibility for anything conceived or proposed by the Ministry until it ripens into an act, and until by some action on his part he becomes a party to it—and until by a vote in the House of Commons he has committed himself to an absolute concurrence of opinion with the judgment already formed by his superiors. I confess, Sir, I cannot entertain that conception of the duty of a Member of Parliament. It appears to me that silence has its responsibilities as well as speech, and that to abide in the Government because you are a subordinate Member of it when proposals are made which, in your judgment, are vicious and ought to be condemned, is to derogate from your duty as a Member of this House—derogating from a duty you owe not only to your constituents, but to the House itself. I might have been urged to remain where I was if there had been
    660
    any probability held out that in the progress of this Bill the particular features to which I most strongly object would have been removed—especially any probability that they would have been removed before I had by silence become a party to them. But I foresaw no such prospect. Other circumstances that came to my knowledge seemed rather to imply that the Bill as presented to the House of Commons would remain in its original form and pass, but little modified, through this House, unless there was a vigorous and united action to which I did not at that time look forward, and to which I could not myself contribute. Although by retiring from the Government I may not aid in the smallest degree to increase the strength of criticism—although my efforts may be absolutely unavailing to influence any Member in the House or anyone outside it to change their opinions on the merits of the Bill, still I felt that I could not remain without making an effort to produce that change, although the effort might be ineffectual. With one further remark I will pass from this personal matter. The Prime Minister himself—and I hope I am committing no indiscretion—urged and appealed to me in tones of kindness, which I hope I shall ever remember, to remain where I was. Nothing but the strength of the conscientious conviction I had formed would have upheld me in resisting his appeal; and in departing as I have done from the Government let me take this the first opportunity of public speech to tender my most hearty thanks to him for the kindness he has ever exhibited, to make my acknowledgment of the honour I acquired in serving under him, and to say that in parting from him I feel my attachment to him to be increased rather than diminished. Why is it that I so solemnly protest against the creation of these new single-Member constituencies? It is because it is a new departure from the old lines of the Constitution. It is not only a new departure, but, in my judgment, it is a new departure in a wrong direction. In my opinion, the principle of single-Member constituencies is contrary to the Constitutional idea of representation in Parliament. Of course, I am aware that there were single-Member constituencies existing before this Bill was

    661
    placed upon the Table—indeed, I think there were single-Member constituencies existing in the Constitution even before the time referred to by the Prime Minister in his speech the other night. My strong impression is that when Wales was incorporated with the Parliamentary system of this country there was a creation of single-Member seats. Again, under the great change which was effected by the Reform Act of 1832, a number of single-Member constituencies came into existence by reason of one Member being taken away from double-Member constituencies which were not deemed to be of sufficient importance to retain the privilege of returning two Members to Parliament hitherto enjoyed by them, and by reason of a single Member being given to such new constituencies as were not entitled to a greater share in the representation. At that time counties were divided into two-Member divisions, and the authors of the Reform Bill of 1832 rejected the notion that the country should be parcelled out into single-Member constituencies. If a county was not large enough to be divided, and yet was too large to remain with two Members, a third Member was added to it. But we have an historic example which goes to a much greater length. The City of London is to be shorn of half its representation; but the fact is, that the City of London has throughout long generations returned four Members to this House, although it was divided into wards each of which had its Alderman for municipal purposes, which shows that the tradition of Parliamentary representation was not the division of the country into single-Member constituencies, but the maintenance undivided of that representation which the importance of the different constituencies entitled them to demand. And the same principle was carried out in the Reform Bill of 1867. Under that Bill, for the first time, boroughs received a third Member, and so became three-Member constituencies. It may be said that the political action resulting from the creation of those boroughs was subsequently very materially modified by the clause introduced relative to voting in three-cornered constituencies, and that was so. But the Government of the day, in submitting their scheme to the country, did not think of dividing
    662
    up the boroughs without respect to whether their increase of population required that the additional representation should be given, neither had they any thought of resolving them into single-Member constituencies. I think, therefore, that I have shown that this Bill does for the first time introduce the principle—be it good or bad—of at tempting to obtain the representation of the people in Parliament by cutting up the country into areas each returning one Member only. That I assert to be a novelty in our Parliamentary representation. If as I hope, and think I shall be able to show, it is a new departure of the utmost seriousness as it affects the character of this House and the political life of the country, then I think I shall have made out some case in support of the action I have taken. I should like to take this opportunity of putting an end to a misapprehension with regard to what took place elsewhere yesterday at a meeting of the Proportional Representation Society to which I belong. The report of that meeting, which was published, was made the subject of a leading article in The Times, in which our action was commented upon with some severity; and I we were charged—and certainly as far as appeared from the report not unjustly charged—with desiring to prevent the division of the large towns outside the Metropolitan area into single-Member constituencies, while we were willing to allow the constituencies within the? Metropolitan area to be turned into single-Member constituencies, and it was; justly said that such a course would be absurd. I may remark that the meeting of this society was a private one, and it was with some surprise that I saw a report of the proceedings in the newspapers. I was there, and I certainly saw no reporter taking notes of the speeches which were being made. Speaking, as it were, therefore, somewhat in camerâ, and not for a moment thinking that we were addressing the outer world about this important point, we may not have been as careful in the choice of the exact language used as we might otherwise have been; but there was no mistake upon the point among the members of the society present. We were speaking with reference to what action it might be necessary to take with regard to this

    663
    question in the House of Commons; and it was pointed out that the first clause to be attacked would be Clause 8, which provided for the representation of populous towns, and that upon that clause it might be necessary to raise the first issue; but it was never for a moment I intended by us that, having repudiated the single-Member system in connection with the large towns outside the Metropolitan area, we should abandon the Metropolis itself to that system. If we have an objection to the single-Member system being applied anywhere, we should have the strongest objection to its being applied to the Metropolis, with its different forms of life and its various forms of industries. We were agreed that we should not object to the clause in the Bill which disfranchised the small boroughs in Schedule A, nor to that which took away one Member from the constituencies in Schedule D, nor to that which related to areas which were to be allowed to retain two Members; but we were declaring that we should raise the first issue on Clause 8. We, however, never intended to stop there, and I hope that if we succeed in obtaining a reconsideration of Clause 8 we shall be equally successful in obtaining a reconsideration of that portion of the Bill by? which it is intended to divide the Metropolis into single-Member constituencies. I will now proceed to ask what are the objections to be made to the system of single-Member constituencies. My first objection to it goes to the very root of the object of Parliament. Why is it that we are met together in Parliament? Is it not primarily to obtain an indication of the balance of the judgment of the people with regard to questions which have to be determined? But this method of single-Member constituencies gives us no means of securing that first object. I crave the indulgence of hon. Members if I appear to enter into details which may seem wearisome, but I do so with the greater earnestness, because I remember not very long ago a I right hon. Friend of mine, a Member of I the Cabinet, laid it down to me in conversation, as an incontestable proposition, that if we divided up the country into constituencies of equal populations; and had one Member elected by each such constituency, the judgment of the Members so elected must correspond with that of the electors. [Sir GEORGE
    664
    CAMPBELL: Hear, hear!] My hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy thinks that is inevitable; but I hope to prove that that proposition is one of the grossest fallacies; in fact, its falsity has been proved by experience over and over again. Let me put the simplest case to the House—one that shall be as clear as A B C. You have in a town three wards of equal population, and one Member elected for each. They are found to be two of one opinion and one of the other. Does it follow that the two are on the side of the majority? Supposing there are 15,000 in each ward, and in Ward A there are 10,000 for the Whigs and 5,000 for the Tories, while in Ward B 8,000 vote for the Tories and 7,000 for the Whigs, and the same happens in Ward C; in these two wards you have got only 2,000 majority for the Tories, while in the other you have 5,000 majority for the Whigs. Yet you have a majority in the whole town of 3,000 Whigs, while the result is the election of two Tories and one Whig. That is an A B 0 example which I would like my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy to take to heart. [Sir GEORGE CAMPBELL: Take the whole Kingdom,] The whole Kingdom! The principle is the same, whether you take the whole Kingdom or a single place. I laid it down as a question of possibility or impossibility; and my hon. Friend, who is a man of great candour, will, I think, admit he was labouring under an error when he thought that what I represented to be possible was impossible. Take the historical case of the town of Geneva, which is divided into equal wards in this way. The Radicals of Geneva being massed in great strength in one ward, yet being in a slight minority in the other wards, lost the representation of them; and while in the whole of Geneva you had a majority of Radicals, the representation of Geneva in Council showed a majority of Conservatives. That is an historical case. My hon. Friends around me know the populous towns of the North, and they know perfectly well that if you are going to divide these big populous towns according to the principle which the President of the Local Government Board will not interpret—those who know the meaning of English know very well what it means —by segregating the poor from the rich, the professional man from the handi-

    665
    craftsman, you will have in these towns in the North the same experience as you have in Geneva, and the representation of the whole town giving a majority in this House, of "haves," while the majority in the constituency is a majority of "have nots." That, however, is a question of the future, and I have historical cases to which I can refer. Without dwelling upon the unknown contingencies of the future, let me take two or three towns in the United States which are divided up in this way, where the figures are so startling that I think they deserve attention. In the municipal elections of 18.70 and 1871 in the United States, 42 members of the Municipality were elected by Newhaven. There were 28 Democrats against. 14 Republicans, or two to one. Adding up the population of Newhaven who vote, and taking the proportion of voting, you have 16 Democrats and 26 Republicans, so that the voters are two to one one way, and the representation is two to one the other way, and that is got by dividing the town into wards and taking a Member for each ward. Boston is a bigger place than Newhaven. There the actual representation was 42 Democrats to 34 Republicans, while the proportion of voters was 29 Democrats to 47 Republicans. Here, again, there is a very considerable inversion of the real opinions of the town among the elected Members of the Council. The disproportion is almost as startling in the elections at Richmond, in Virginia, where four Democrats were returned as against 26 Republicans, the actual voting proportion being 14 to 16. My hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy will no doubt say that this is a matter which may be realized in a single place, but that when you come to a large area you get different results. Now I will proceed to a case of a larger area. I proceed to the case of the State of New York, which contains a great deal of population spread over a very large country and occupied in very different ways. There is the crowded population in the City of New York, and in other cities in the State, while there is a large number of rural inhabitants in the rural parts of the State. Now, what is the case in the State of New York with regard to its representation in Congress and the opinions of the voters themselves? I will give the figures for two consecutive Congresses—the 40th and the
    666
    41st. In the 40th Congress the State of New York was represented by 11 Democrats to 20 Republicans, whereas the proportion of the voters was 16 Democrats to 15 Republicans. The Democrats were actually in the majority, but as returned in single-Member districts to Congress they were in a minority. The judgment of the people of the State of New York was one way, while the judgment of their Representatives was the other way. In the 41st Congress the State of New York was represented by 13 Democrats against 18 Republicans, the actual proportion of voters being 16 to 15. Thus there was a reversal of the judgment of the people. These are facts, and remarkable facts, yet they have been left unnoticed; and the principle they illustrate has been overlooked, or even denied. I go further than that, and I may say, with great surprise and regret, that I have often observed how little studied these questions are in what I may call the light of comparative political science. Nobody has had more to do with the reform of the people in Parliament than the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government; but I never recollect observing in his speeches a single trace that he had studied the comparative action of other Legislatures and States —of our own Colonies and the United States—so as to ascertain, by some examination of free institutions elsewhere, what may be the result of the introduction of similar institutions here. But now I go a step further. I will compare the New York State Legislature with the action of the New York State as a whole at the Presidential elections. You have in New York State every four years, as in every State, an opportunity of taking a pl—biscite upon the election of President. For many years— and, in fact, until the recent election of Governor Cleveland—I believe it was the case that whereas the pl—biscite of the State of New York has always been Republican, the result of elcotion for the Legislature upon the one-Member system has invariably been Democratic. Take its judgment on a single issue and the State goes one way; take its judgment as filtered through single-Member constituencies and it goes the other way. Could any illustration prove more completely that the method of instituting single-Member constituencies fails in

    667
    that primary end and purpose of Parliamentary institutions—the ascertaining of? what is the will of the people at large? There is yet another reference which I think I must make in this matter before I have done. I have spoken of New York, and I will now speak of another State in connection with another man. It is the State of Ohio in connection with General Garfield. When this Bill was introduced the Prime Minister referred to Mr. Cobden, and said that he recommended the plan of single-Member constituencies. To my mind that was a rather strong representation of the case. It is true that Mr. Cobden on two occasions in private letters to Members of this House indicated a preference for that plan; but it was a mere obiter dictum, not expressing any fixed and decided result of his mental action, and not deserving of the words which the Prime Minister attributed to it. I have since taken the trouble to look at the admirable book of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle (Mr. John Morley), and I find so little importance attached to the expression of Mr. Cobden's views on this point, that minority representation is not even mentioned in the index at all. But it is mentioned in the book, and I think I can vouch my hon. Friend that I correctly state the fact when I say that the two references are mere obiter dicta not deserving the words which the Prime Minister employed. I am not one of those who would undervalue the authority of Mr. Cobden. His name is held in much honour; but of recent years it seems to me his doctrines have been singularly misrepresented. If Mr. Cobden was a man who had really given a decided judgment upon this matter I should have had a great difficulty in meeting it; but it is not so. Now I will turn to another authority, President Garfield, a man whose life and character are known the whole world through, and whose tragic death endeared him, and will for generations endear him, to the whole American people. What is the record— to use an American phrase—of President Garfield? He came to England in the year 1867, he attended the debates in the House, and sat under the Gallery there. My right hon. Friend (Mr. John Bright) introduced him, and it is rather a pathetic remembrance, if I may venture to indulge in the personal recollection, that I also was under the Gallery at the
    668
    same time, and, although I knew it not, must have been sitting next to this revered man, because I distinctly remember that in that discussion my right hon. Friend (Mr. John Bright) coming up and speaking to the one who was next me. General Garfield came and attended these debates upon the Reform Bill of 1867, especially with reference to the cumulative vote and the restricted vote. He heard the debates in this House, he heard the speech of Lord Beaconsfield —then Mr. Disraeli—and the speeches of the present Prime Minister, of my right hon. Friend below me (Mr. John Bright), and of the present Postmaster General (Mr. Shaw Lefevre). He also heard the speeches of Mr. Mill and Mr. Lowe; and in his diary, since published, he expresses his opinion that, on the whole, he thought the balance of his judgment was against the view of his right hon. Friend, to whom he was attached by so many ties, and who had brought him here to listen to the debate. General Garfield afterwards heard the speeches of Lord Cairns, Lord Salisbury, and other Peers, who intervened in the debate in the House of Lords on the same issues, and his opinion was strengthened by what he heard. Still, he came then to no decisive opinion, and ho held his judgment in suspense. Some three years later, in 1870, the question arose in the House of Representatives, of which he was a Member from Ohio. He made a speech which he began by saying that his attention had been directed to this in Europe, and that ever since he had given it his most careful consideration, and had come to a conclusion entirely in favour of minority representation. Now, Sir, if we are to put authority against authority, what are we to say about the opinion of a man like Garfield, listening here and keeping his judgment in suspense, thinking the matter over through years at home, and at last expressing his opinion, as Member for Ohio in the House of Representatives, against the casual observations of Mr. Cobden in a letter addressed to my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale? There can be no question that the one completely and entirely overwhelms the other. I will refer to Garfield's testimony as to the representation of Ohio. What does he say?—
    "When I was first elected to Congress in the fall of 1862 the State of Ohio had a clear Republican majority of 25,000; but by the

    669
    adjustment and redistribution of political power in the States, there were 14 Democratic Members and only five Republican."
    That was the result, although the Republicans were in a majority of 25,000, the Republicans having 250,000 votes as against 225,000 Democratic. In the next Congress there was a great change in the vote for Ohio, and the result was the return of 17 Republicans as against two Democrats. Thus there was an absolute turnover in the result, although there had been but little change in the proportion of voters. I do not see my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) present, who has been crying out recently. But I dare say he has an explanation to give of this apparent inconsistency. I will venture to give the House my explanation of the contradiction. It is this—the dispersion of the population within the territory is such that in certain crowded parts there is a great accumulation of people of one Party; whereas in other uncrowded parts there is a tolerably even distribution of the two Parties. Thus, in the crowded parts there is an immense waste of voting power, while in the uncrowded parts there is an economy of voting power. The crowded parts do not send anything like a representation according to their numbers, while the uncrowded parts send all they desire to send. If there is a considerable impulse running through the country which affects those parts of the country which are tolerably evenly divided, you may then secure a fair representation of the opinion of the country. If I could engage the attention of my right hon. Friend at the head of the Government, and once get him to appreciate this fact, he would expound it to the House with a fervour and clearness to which I can make no profession, but which would be delightful to listen to. I say that the distribution of the people of this country corresponds to these circumstances which I have delineated. In the great towns, for the most part, you will secure large Liberal majorities. You will also have country districts in which opinions will be pretty evenly divided. There a large number of Conservative Members will be returned. But whether you will not have a waste of power in the towns, allowing the Conservatives in the country to be returned so as to outnumber the Liberals of the
    670
    towns, is a point which experience alone will determine. But it is rendered extremely probable by what I have stated. You have just the same dispersion of people as there is in New York and Ohio; and if there you find the distribution of populations voting falsified by the distribution of Members, why should you not have the same result here? Why should you not again have the same turnover at the poll of which we have had recent repeated experience? It is very foolish, perhaps, to talk about things beforehand, unless, as the vulgar expression has it, you know. But, as far as we can draw a horoscope of what would be the action of single-Member constituencies, you will have this waste of Liberal power in the towns, and this economy of Conservative power in the country, which might even produce the result of a Conservative majority in this House with a Liberal majority of electors, to be again overturned when there should be a small accession of Liberal voters producing a large accession of Liberals in the House. Sir, I have dealt, at considerable length, with this part of my subject, because this is a consideration which, so far as I know, has never received sufficient attention, whereas other circumstances to which I propose to turn have often been dwelt upon. Next to this failure to secure the primary result of ascertaining what is the judgment of the country by an election, I strongly condemn the suggestion of single-Member constituencies on account of the effect which it will have upon the character of Members. I need not say much about that, because I know I have a great support already amongst the Members of the big towns themselves. I appeal here to the Prime Minister himself. The Prime Minister has borne evidence of a very remarkable kind to the decline of the character of this House even within his own experience. He has said that from the period of 1835 to 1850 this House reached a pitch from which it has since been perceptibly falling away. To what can that be attributed, except to the action of causes which you are going to intensify and multiply, and which he will facilitate by the course he is now taking? But of all moans of degrading the character of this House there is none more potent than that of dividing up the big towns into wards. If we have had to lament in recent years

    671
    any falling away from the standard which once prevailed, it is impossible that when instead of Members for Manchester you have Members for divisions of Manchester, and instead of Members for Liverpool you have nine Members for divisions of Liverpool, you should not have a still further degradation. I appeal to my right hon. Friend immediately in front of me (Mr. John Bright), because within the last few weeks, unless I deceive myself, he delivered an address to a set of young men at an Eighty Club in which he condemned the I proposal to divide up the big towns into wards, because it would produce a degradation in the Members returned. Need I say a single word, or go into reasons why the Member for a ward differs from the Member for a town; why a different class of person will be brought forward; why it is impossible to enlist men of the same standing; why it is impossible to confer upon them the same status, the same authority, the same dignity; why they must inevitably be of a lower rank, not merely socially, but morally and intellectually; why it must produce a degradation of representation which everybody condemns, and yet, if this Bill becomes law, we shall all have to deplore? We shall have vestrymen for the towns. We shall have local Guardians representing the divisions of the counties. No doubt, you cannot speak of county divisions in the same way as of towns. Here and there a county division will be dominated by some great landowner; but the mass of the district representation of the counties will be degraded like the mass of the ward Representatives of the towns. The county Members will suffer a decline answering to the decline of the town Members. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is now on the Front Bench. I am sorry if he is not, because I was going to express my sympathy for him. The relations between him and myself have always been so friendly and so cordial that I should feel a deeper anxiety if any peril appeared to be befalling him; and the financial prospects of the country are, perhaps, already not so bright that we need incur any fresh danger. ["Oh!"] I do not understand why some hon. Members say "Oh!" I am not saying anything which. I should not have freely said a month ago. If
    672
    I am asked to describe in a single phrase what will be the character of Members in the county divisions, I should say they would be ratepayers' Members. The question which will agitate them, and upon which they will all depend, will be the question of rates. My hon. Friend the Member for South Devon (Sir Massey Lopes) will have an immense accession of strength. But, at all events, those of us who know how the Treasury is acted upon, how it was acted upon under the late Government, how the present Government has been acted upon so as to extract a subvention in aid of the rates out of the National Exchequer, must look with alarm upon the prospect. We know how the late Government acted, and we are perfectly aware how much money is now drawn from the Imperial Revenues, which is almost all wasted so far as real economy is concerned. Well, but the present Government have not been able to resist a similar demand. We all remember when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister got up one Tuesday evening and anticipated an attack by the hon. Member for Oxfordshire by saying that he would be prepared to contribute £250,000 in diminution of the highway rate. If you get a lot of county Members representing these districts, returned in the interest of the ratepayers, I would advise the Chancellor of the Exchequer to seek peace with the enemy quickly, or else he will have on an early day to get up and make a further offer out of the National Exchequer in response to the demands of the ratepayers. I am quite well aware you will not all at once realize the degradation of the character of the Members of which I spoke. There will at first be a demand for present Members of the House among the new constituencies. Anyone who has a reputation here, and who happens to represent a borough in Schedule A or a borough in Schedule B that is to lose a Member, will probably be solicited by two or three constituencies to give them his services. But I do not see how the character of representation thus gained is to be kept up. Men of distinction may come in at first; but under the scheme of single-Member constituencies I fail to see how you will keep up the supply. New Members must come in through local knowledge fitting them to repre-

    673
    sent local interests, and you must then have that decline in the standard of representation about which my right hon. Friend (Mr. John Bright) expressed himself eloquently a few weeks ago. If this is the effect upon this House there must be a corresponding effect upon the electorate. You will have a narrowed, a single issue placed before each body of electors. You will have them restricted in their choice of candidates. You will necessarily have the alienation of a large amount of political energy from the political life of a large proportion of the electors. Whole classes will cease to be interested in what is going on. You will have decay and atrophy of political energy and power. The thing is known as a matter of experience already. It must become more known if you restrict your areas, if you narrow the issues, if you condemn us to carry on elections on these narrow and separate lines. All these things are, in fact, confessed. The discontent with the division of towns into wards is universal. There is not, as far as I am aware, a single newspaper in a large town which is not dissatisfied with it. The Pall Mall Gazette of this evening brings together a series of extracts from local papers, which are all united in condemnation of the proposal to divide their towns. I believe that condemnation is shared by the Representatives of those big towns in this House; at least, by everyone except the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster). I have hopes that he yet may be influenced by the general condemnation of the proposal. [Mr. JOHN BRIGHT: He never changes.] My right hon. Friend says he never changes; but one might give on a fitting opportunity a curious history, half pathetic, half humorous, of the changes of my right hon. Friend on this very question. I hope he will yet, in the search after truth, come round and cease to be the single defender of the division of large towns. You will further have, as is clear from an answer of the President of the Local Government Board to a question by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler), antagonistic sections in your towns. You will have one section of a town arrayed against another. Instead of that permeation of one class by another, which the right hon. Gentleman ought to appreciate, and the consolidation of all
    674
    classes into one political whole, you will get the Radicals of the working men's quarter set in array against the professional classes of the more aristocratic quarter, and that again placed in hostility to another quarter. These sharp lines of division, instead of making the people feel that they belong to one community, will divide one section from another, and will set class against class. What is the alternative? I am bound to suggest how these evils may, in my opinion, be counteracted. If it be objected that what I suggest is a novelty or a new departure, it cannot be summarily rejected on that account by those who are proposing what is equally novel or newfangled. The Pall Mall Gazette has this evening suggested that a solution of the difficulty as to the big towns might be arrived at by letting them decide for themselves how they will vote. Apparently that suggestion does not require much refutation here. It seems almost a logical contradiction to ask people to vote how they will vote, because you must first of all define a method by which they are to vote on that question. The probability is they would prefer to vote in the way they have voted. If you ask them by plébiscite they will probably say they are for plébiseite; if you ask them in another fashion they may prefer that other fashion. There is scrutin de liste. I do not suppose many would propose it seriously—that is to say, that instead of nine Members being elected for Liverpool in nine divisions, nine should be elected by a mere majority. I will say for myself, expressing my own personal opinion only, that if it came to a choice between the two, I should prefer scrutin de liste as an interim step, because I am quite convinced that if it were once adopted it would not be maintained. If you adopt the district system, the ward system, my great fear and anxiety are that it will be tenacious of life. Some seem to think that that will be a great recommendation, but it is the lower animals that are very tenacious of life; it is only the higher organisms that give way and die. If you have scrutin de liste it would not last more than one or two Parliaments. My impression is that it is very likely that a reproduction here of the experience of Belgium would certainly cure us of preference for scrutin de liste. In spite of the authority of M. Gambetta, I am

    675
    fairly well convinced that if we tried the Belgian system in England it would not last more than two Parliaments. It is, at all events, a little test of the apprehensions I have of the evils of the single-Member system that I am ready to run the risk of the scrutin de liste for two Parliaments as a means of avoiding that difficulty. There is no necessity for scrutin de liste. Why should we not adopt that principle which the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. John Morley) laid down in the words "One man one vote?" It is totally inconsistent with scrutin de liste; it is in contradiction with it. One man one vote; that is simple. Some would accept it as a sufficient solution of the question—that our big towns retaining five, six, or seven Members, one man should have one vote and one vote only. But there is an objection, and I will face it. If the Prime Minister were one of eight or nine candidates at Liverpool it would be most difficult to prevent all the Liberals voting for him; it would be impossible, as the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings) says. Still, I have an opinion that the sagacious electors would consult the wishes of my right hon. Friend himself, and that some of them by voting for others would give him real support rather than the appearance of it. But in order to prevent a waste of strength you would be bound to have a Caucus to direct the people how to vote. That is true. The waste must be prevented in some way; but is there no method of preventing it without a Caucus, without being subjected to the pain and ignominy of being compelled to vote as someone tells you? I think there is a very simple process of letting the voter himself say how he will pass on his vote from one candidate—his first choice—to a second, supposing it is not required by the first. Take the strongest example—that of Liverpool, with nine Members. Suppose that it is undivided, and a voter receives a ballot paper containing the names of all candidates. [An hon. MEMBER: Eighteen.] There would not necessarily be 18, and the voters would know well which were the Liberal and which were the Conservative candidates. Each voter would put a figure I against the name of the candidate whom he most desired to see elected, a figure 2 against a second to
    676
    whom he desired to give his vote if the first did not require it, and so on. What follows at the end of an election? All the papers are collected together and their numbers are known by the existing machinery. Suppose 40,000 votes are given, and there are nine persons to be elected. The first thing to be done, according to the plan of which I am speaking, would be to divide the 40,000 by 10, that is, one more than the persons to be elected, giving a result of 4,000. Any person who has 4,001 votes is sure to be elected, because the remaining votes could not be divided among nine people each getting more than 4,000; therefore the one who gets 4,001 is certain to be elected. That, I think, is plain to the majority of the House. The papers having been shuffled together, are arranged in heaps, according to the names marked 1, and there would be a great number of heaps. Some of the heaps would exceed 4,001, and those candidates who were found to have that number would be elected. The papers remaining after 4,001 had been taken away would be distributed afresh according to the names marked 2. That would bring up some more papers. The candidate who got 4,001 votes in these heaps would be declared elected, and then there would be another distribution. The process would thus go on, until in the end the nine persons would be elected, each receiving 4,001 votes. The plan is a simple one. It is as simple as—it is simpler than a sum in long division. I claim that the plan is simple and workable, and that it would secure the representation of the masses of your big towns. It represents them in their totality. It has been asked, Are you going to represent numbers or interests? There is no such distinction. The scheme which I am propounding gives representation to all numbers and to all interests. But under that of my right hon. Friend below me only half the numbers would be represented. Under my right hon. Friend's scheme the majority only is represented. One of the best represented towns, in more meanings than one, is Plymouth. The hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. E. Clarke) and the hon. Member on this side of the House (Mr. Macliver) represent nearly the whole constituency of Plymouth between them and the interests of the town also. Now, what

    677
    is the objection to our plan? I know the objection which weighs with many people; it is born of ignorance and is that of chance. It is said that, according as you got one set of papers or another uppermost, so one Member or another may be returned. But what is the risk you run? A man is declared elected because he has got a superabundance of votes. You put aside the votes that have secured his election, and you distribute the rest according to the second names on his surplus papers. The second name is always a Member of the same Party as the first. For instance, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham sitting below me (Mr. John Bright) would be elected by a vast number, and you have to strike his name off. Take two of the papers from which his name is to be struck off. My right hon. Friend would be the first on the first paper, and the President of the Board of Trade would probably be the second upon it. Now, is the theory conceivable that my right hon. Friend sitting below me would be the first on the second paper, and the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) the second upon it? I should like to see the Birmingham elector who would put the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock second to my right hon. Friend (Mr. Bright). The fact is, the choice and the chance refer only to two Members of the same Party. Upon the suplus papers of my right hon. Friend the names next in succession would be those of one or another of the same Party. Sir, the fears, anxieties, and trepidations entertained about this matter are of the most imaginary character. On the other hand, I invite hon. Members to remember for a moment what are its advantages. You liberate the electors of this Kingdom, you procure a just representation in this House by easy and natural methods of all divisions of opinion and character within the electorate. You would have a working man Representative among the Members for Birmingham; you would have Liberals of different character and of different degree, and Conservatives of different character and different degree; you would have all sorts of opinions in their proportions, and only in their proportions, represented in the House, and at the very same time
    678
    you would get insured, what no alternative method has insured—namely, the representation of majorities themselves. You would reanimate political life, you would bring into direct and immediate connection with this House and the working of the Constitution all the electors throughout the country. You would nowhere have people with their power thrown away; you would nowhere have people dying of political inanity; you would secure the reunion of political life, the reconstruction of political life such as we have been strangers to; you would have, in fact, a reflection in this House of the national will and the national wisdom. The plan of this Bill does not secure that. The plan I advocate is, in fact, the realization of Democracy in it freest and widest form. This plan is often represented as a crotchet, the object of which is to prevent the access to this House of the Representatives of the people you are about to enfranchise. It is nothing of the kind. It is a plan to secure their representation. You have long since enfranchized the artizans of the towns. How many Gentlemen are there here representing them? One, and one only. You are going to enfranchise the agricultural labourers. How do you know you will have Representatives of them here? You may or you may not. Under your system it may happen, but there are enormous difficulties to be overcome. But I will show you a plan by which you can secure their presence, and by which you may give any class whatever sufficient certainty of having a spokesman of their own within these walls. It was this vision, Sir, which animated Mr. Mill in that remarkable passage which adorns his autobiography which I have already read once before in this House. It was this vision which moved General Garfield in that speech which I have already quoted, when he said that, if realized, it would remove the obstacles which now threaten the existence of Representative Government throughout the world. The scheme would emancipate those who are enslaved by the false machinery you have adopted, and it would be a message of freedom to the people, giving them, not merely a barren privilege, but bringing them into direct relationship with this Assembly. The plan I have placed before the House would prove as firm as a rock in popular estimation. There

    679
    would be no single artizan or agricultural labourer or man of learning or man of letters who would not be able to say—"There is someone in the House of Commons for whom I voted who represents me, who possesses my political ambitions and my political life." Sir, it is not surprising that those who have once realized this vision should be somewhat carried away by its grandeur and breadth. No such Democratic future is held out under any other system; no such promise of freedom, no such promise of development can be secured by any other machinery. Your method may secure a Parliament, but it would never secure a Parliament which shall maintain the high traditions of this House, still less rise to the level of what; the political life of this country is capable. I cannot sufficiently deplore my own want of power to drive home this idea into the minds and imaginations of the Members who are listening to me. If they once possessed it, they would accept it as a new gospel; they would see, as Mr. Mill did, and as President Garfield did, that it was the means of the resurrection of the people. Sir, I have occupied the attention of the House long, and I regret and apologize for it. There is, however, one more word I would like to say before I sit down. I could not be silent to-night when I remember what has again and again come to my mind as I have been speaking. Had the proceedings of this night happened but one short month earlier, I should not have been alone in standing here; I should not have been alone in deserting that Bench. I speak this not in mere surmise nor yet from knowledge acquired by long friendship for him. I do not say it because the last words he spoke at Hackney were devoted to this subject. I do not say it simply because the last words that we exchanged on the last night he appeared in this House were upon the proposals which are now laid before us. I have higher authority than my own for knowing that had he whom we have lost so prematurely been present he would have borne his powerful testimony in the direction in which I have attempted to bear it to-night. You may accuse me of having no personal knowledge of this question. You may with truth say of me that I have never been Member for a big constituency or known what was the popular ideal. You
    680
    could not have said it of him. If he had been here he would have spoken with more power than I can, because he would have come fresh from the people themselves whom he so truly desired to serve. Sir, we desire to honour his memory. Those who shared his counsels, those who knew his thoughts, those who accompanied him so many years in his political life, cannot do him more honour, I think, than by being faithful to the doctrines which he held. I, for my part, would pray God that I may ever in this way be faithful to this trust.
    MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, my hon. Friend has addressed the House with an ability which never fails him, and with a fervour and sincerity of enthusiasm which has inspired life into what I might almost call, but for the effect of his speech, an army of dry bones. But my hon. Friend made a remark of which I acknowledge the justice in regard to my own speeches on this subject. Of those speeches he said he found no traces there of an extensive studying of the electoral systems of other countries, or of the application of a system or science of comparative politics to the elucidation of this subject. Sir, that is perfectly just, and I can tell my hon. Friends that I am quite conscious of my inability to grapple with details as in former years I might have been in some degree perhaps competent to do. ["No, no!"] I beg pardon; I am very much obliged to my hon. Friends who decline to admit that inability, but I am too conscious of it, and the record of nature and lapse of time are facts too stubborn to be confuted even by the most kind and indulgent partiality. I should not have arisen to enter into this debate—I should have left it, as I proposed to leave the general discussion of the Bill, to other and younger and abler men—had it not been for the personal portions of the speech of my hon. Friend. He referred to the action which he had taken in the early part of this week, and he spoke of the Government he has left and of myself in a manner which deserves my respectful gratitude. Not less, Sir, does it require of me an acknowledgment which I am sure the experience of the whole House will bear me out in making—that in the departure of my hon. Friend from the service of the Crown and of the nation we have sustained a heavy loss. In that official

    681
    career, not very lengthened, he has made his mark upon the administrative business of the country; and to this acknowledgment relating to the past, I desire to add an expression of a fervent hope for the future—that either with this or some other Government congenial to him he may for many long years be united without the untoward occurrences or impediments such as have now deprived us of his valuable services, and that when his career is run he may be able to record a long as well as useful and distinguished application of his great talents and business capacity to the Public Service. I will not follow my hon. Friend into the discussion which has occupied the last half of his speech. This is, after all, a debate on the second reading of the Bill; and I observe that, notwithstanding objections taken by my hon. Friend, in strong terms, to particular portions of the Bill, he has made do Motion adverse to the measure, has taken no step to prevent its passing, and I feel he himself will be the first to admit that the discussion is one necessarily without practical issue. When I stated to the House the method which we had adopted for the distribution of electoral areas, I did not refrain from making the admission that the subject was of such a nature that, adopt what plan you will, you must and will be open of necessity to a multitude not only of popular and plausible, but of real objections. Sir, had my hon. Friend not approached this question in the spirit of a philosopher, he would have stopped after the first part of his speech. No doubt the House felt that, in much that he stated in the exhibition of particular and possible failures of the system that we propose to attain electoral perfection, he stood upon solid ground. I think he must himself have observed that when, with that sincerity as remarkable as his fervour and talent, he came to develop the scheme which has really excited his own enthusiasm, and which he worships as embodying something very near political perfection, the sympathy of the House began to fail. He said that a few Members sitting in distant parts of the House did not appear to follow him. My impression was that the proposition presented to us, which he said was of so simple a character, was, in truth, a pons asinorum, which very few of us indeed, if a record of consciences and
    682
    understandings could at this moment be taken, would have been enabled to pass. But, Sir, we shall have opportunities, hereafter for the discussion of these matters. I would only say to the House that it appears to me that my hon. Friend in attacking that which is undoubtedly a material and substantial portion of this Bill, has not been happy at every point. I frankly own that I do not quite understand the doctrine of my hon. Friend. I cannot see how the authority of President Garfield can be considered altogether superior to that of Mr. Cobden. President Garfield was a man undoubtedly of great talent, and the tragic circumstances of his death have consecrated his memory among us, and raised an interest in him which I frankly own that I do not think the scope of his mind and the force of his ability would have availed to attract if it had not been for these extraordinary and almost unparalleled circumstances. I am sorry that my hon. Friend has given this prominence to the case of President Garfield on this occasion, because he has adopted him as a sort of normal example of the working of the human mind. See by what beautiful gradations he rose to the point at which my hon. Friend has seized him and has turned him to account. President Garfield came to the House of Commons and listened to the debate, when a certain progress was made; he went to the House of Lords and listened to the superior intelligence of that House, which gave him somewhat more effective assistance. He then made a voyage over the Atlantic, which we must presume was tranquil, and did not cause in him those disturbances which, in the case of many of us, are fatal to all continuous thought, and was the means of leading up to maturity and perfection of the intellect, and in the conclusion then attained, and in the steps by which it was attained, my hon. Friend finds a splendid example of the normal working of the human mind. Well, Sir, if that is so, I am very sorry; but I must illustrate the working of the mind of President Garfield, whom we are called upon to bow down to and to worship as to the image of Nebuchadnezzar—I must illustrate the working of General Garfield's mind upon this particular subject by reference to another subject, with regard to which we know something of him from public sources.

    683
    General Garfield was a distinguished member of the Cobden Club. My hon. Friend, like myself, values highly the principles of the Cobden Club, and no doubt regrets, like myself, that those principles are not so fresh and vigorous in their hold upon the minds of some of us as at one time, perhaps, they were. But they were lamentably weak in their hold upon the mind of General Garfield, for General Garfield, being a member of the Cobden Club when in this country, shortly afterwards appeared in America as a Protectionist candidate for the Presidency of his country, and became one of the great advocates of the system which, among us, he had foresworn. I have, therefore, not that perfect confidence in the normal character of the mind of General Garfield which my hon. Friend appears to have. My hon. Friend has, I think, not quite done justice to the facts with reference to the system of one-Member constituencies. In the first place, he says that it is a new-fangled scheme, and those who support it have no right to quarrel with, any other scheme on the ground of its being newfangled. Well, Sir, he places it on a par with the plan that he has propounded. Permit me to say that it is not quite in the same position in relation to human experience as the plan he has proposed. I admit that it was virtually unknown to our representative system in England and to Scotch representation; but before the Reform Act was passed our representative system was not worthy of the name, while Irish representation had been almost entirely paralyzed. But the system of single-Member constituencies came in with the Reform Act upon a certain scale; and in 1867, when we proceeded to amend the Reform Act, we proceeded also to extend that scheme; and it is a little hard upon the one-Member system which my hon. Friend treats as having produced great decadence in the character of this House that it is severely condemned by a Representative of a single-Member constituency. In the Cabinet my right hon. Friend who sits near me (Mr. Trevelyan) and I myself are among the degenerate individuals whom one-Member constituencies have chosen. My right hon. Friend on my left (Sir Charles W. Dilke) acts as the Representative of a one-Member constituency in some of those local duties and offices to which
    684
    we attach so high a value, and which have reared for this House, in one form or another, so many valuable Members on this as well as on that side. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain), nurtured as a politician in municipal labours, came by single election upon every occasion to the exercise of those duties. The municipal system is founded upon the one-Member system. That scheme, I well recollect, was adopted in deference to the representations of the Conservative Party in 1835, who were actuated at that time by excessive fears of the operation of municipal reform, and that scheme was accorded to them as a consolation for their apprehensions. But my hon. Friend says that the scheme is desperately unpopular. If so, why does he say that, once adopted, it is quite certain to be very tenacious of life? When we adopt bad laws, are they necessarily incurable? Now, what is the representation of my hon. Friend? He says that this scheme has every vice under Heaven. He has pointed out how it works on the character of the electors, and on the character of Members, and how it will depress and destroy the character of this House. But, then, is this scheme, which he calls so very novel and new-fangled, really novel and newfangled? Does my hon. Friend say that the hon. Members who sit in this House for one-Member constituencies are, as a class, in any way inferior to other hon. Members? The system is at work not here only. Go over the length and breadth of the representative world, and almost everywhere you will find the system of one-Member constituencies in operation. Surely it is a strong measure to call that a new-fangled system. Is it not a most extraordinary thing that if all these vices which my hon. Friend charges upon the system are really chargeable upon it, all those who have got it should have kept it, with the single exception of France, who has a peculiar reason, which I will mention in a moment, for rejecting it? I have never heard that there was serious controversy in any of those countries with regard to its maintenance. And what is the reason that this controversy is prosecuted so vehemently in France between the scrutin d'arrondissement and the scrutin de liste? It is obvious that by scrutin de liste there is a desire of giving

    685
    a more sweeping and resistless effect to the will of the majority. For my own part, I firmly hold that the majority ought to prevail; but I am not one of those who hold that the majority ought so to prevail that there shall be no check upon it whatever which might somewhat moderate its courses. And I wish the House to understand that, because if you except the single case in which scrutin da liste is vehemently supported in France, the whole of the representative systems of the civilized world which have this single-Member system do not show the least desire at present to get rid of it. It is the general system of Europe, and, I believe, of the Colonies and America. However, we shall have opportunities of discussing it hereafter. My hon. Friend himself says that such is its character that if you once enact it you cannot get out of it My hon. Friend made a very touching reference to the memory of Mr. Fawcett, of whom I have spoken on a former occasion. But my hon. Friend has hardly done justice to the facts of the case. Mr. Fawcett, I believe, upon a recent occasion expounded an argument very much in the nature of that which my hon. Friend has addressed to us. How was it received by his constituents? That is rather an important question. It is in vain that we argue, in a short and simple explanation of an hour long, that a system is perfectly clear and simple, unless you can in some way or other find an entry for it into the minds of ordinary and average people of the country. If I am not mistaken, Mr. Fawcett himself placed it upon record, after laying that exposition before his constituents, that he had never made a speech which was so little successful in obtaining their approbation; and I believe that there is also to be noted this fact, that my hon. Friend (Professor Stuart) who now occupies, and worthily occupies, I may presume to say, the seat of Mr. Fawcett, has come into Parliament after having been called upon to make a pretty decided expression of his own views on this matter in opposition to those of Mr. Fawcett. That is not very encouraging, after all, for the adoption of the system of my hon. Friend. Now, it is impossible to vouch for this universal acquiesence in a scheme which is so bad as my hon. Friend represents this scheme to be. If it had
    686
    all these mischievous consequences, it could not have the patient acquiescence and the general adhesion of that portion of mankind who are interested in the representative system of the country. Sir, the real truth is this. It is a choice of evils. When we come to the Committee on this Bill we shall have all these different plans placed in fair comparison one with the other. We shall then show what is to be said in mitigation of the charges of my hon. Friend, and we shall also know much more clearly than we do now what is to be said in favour of the scheme he propounds. He has kept back, however, the great authority which he might have quoted on behalf of his view—the authority of The Quarterly Review.
    MR. COURTNEY: I was not aware of if.
    MR. GLADSTONE: My hon. Friend's reading, wide as it is, does not extend, apparently, to Conservative publications. He is afraid lest his mind should be poisoned. Now, I do not mention that for the sake of referring to the practice of my hon. Friend, or the circumscription of his reading, but for this reason. This is a favourite scheme of The Quarterly Review. But my hon. Friend says that this is a scheme by which you are to give a completeness of triumph to the principles of Democracy that cannot be attained in any other way. The Quarterly Review, however, does not take it in that light. It seems to take it for the opposite reason—namely, that it would check the triumph of Democracy. But, then, if these two authorities are so fundamentally in difference and St variance upon the effect of the working of the scheme, are we to be told that it is so very simple that it ought to be acceptable to the intelligence of us all in a few moments, when its very propounders represent it some as leading to one pole in the political system, and some as leading to the other pole? Sir, I will not go further into this matter, for I own I do not think that more than a respectful acknowledgment of the argument that we have heard to-night is due from me at the present time, for the reason that this is not a period when practical discussion can be had in this matter. My hon. Friend said that the one-Member system was rejected in 1832. No, Sir; the one-Member system? was never raised in discussion in 1832

    687
    It was adopted experimentally, and as a foundation, and the adoption of the experiment led, after an experience of 25 years, to an extension of the system. To say it was rejected would, I think, be not only an exaggeration, but would be a statement absolutely beside and beyond the mark. It must be upon a careful examination of the details submitted by my hon. Friend and of many other details that the House can alone arrive at a safe and specific judgment. Of this I am quite sure, that no judgment which the House can arrive at will enable you to present a plan free from evils. You must take your choice about it. I do not say that the judgment we have arrived at is necessarily a solid and a irrefragable judgment. Do not let us set out with a fundamental misapprehension, such as my hon. Friend himself makes out, because he really does think that he has got hold of a perfect nostrum by which he can not only solve the main difficulty and which he can not only present as preferable to any other scheme, but which is, in his eyes, a system of perfect and faultless beauty—an allegation which, I think, upon reflection, he will find is convicted of the fault of exaggeration. Sir, I am glad that my hon. Friend has not thought it necessary to offer any objection to the second reading of this Bill. He will understand, I hope, that I am in no degree complaining of the fulness with which he stated his views. He was perfectly entitled to do so, and, from his point of view, he was bound to do something of the kind; but it appears to me that upon another occasion we shall more advantageously aim to bring into comparison our minds and ideas in respect to this undoubtedly very difficult portion of the subject; and in the meantime I am glad to think, and I hope it may be the case throughout the evening, that there has been no indication of a disposition to refuse to recognize by an affirmative vote the second reading of this Bill.
    SIR HENEY TYLER,in rising to move the following Amendment:—
    "That, in the opinion of this House, the principle of Representation in proportion to Population should be adopted in place of arbitrary figures as a basis, in order to obtain a logical, judicious, and permanent settlement of the question of Redistribution of Seats,"
    said, he was unable to agree with the
    688
    hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) that the system he advocated would be better than the single-Member districts provided by this Bill. In placing on the Paper this Amendment, he intended no disrespect to Her Majesty's Government or to those Members of the Opposition who had been engaged with them in modifying the Bill to some extent. On the contrary, he wished to give them every possible credit for their labours, as he was sure they had earnestly devoted their time and attention to the subject with a view of adapting the measure to what they believed to be the good of the country. The present proposals were, however, neither logical nor final, and whatever the result of the debate to-night or to-morrow might be, there would be increasing discontent expressed with regard to them. There was no principle establishing any connection between the numbers 15,000, 50,000, and 105,000, which were the key-notes of the Bill. There was no reason either why Wales should be more represented than other parts of the Kingdom, and why she should still retain 30 Members. This Bill left anomalies almost as glaring as those which now existed. Liverpool with 550,000 inhabitants would only have nine Members, while there would be 20 boroughs returning 20 Members whose aggregate population did not exceed 350,000. Then there was growing dissatisfaction with the Bill in the large towns of the North. This was merely an attempt to patch up a temporary settlement; but in the end they would have to come to dividing the country into equal electoral districts. Perhaps on the Conservative side equal electoral districts might be thought to be somewhat of a Socialist scheme; but believing that it was a good principle in itself, he had no hesitation in advocating it. He did not believe anyone could forecast what would be the result of the next Election after the passing of this Bill; but if the basis were adopted of dividing the country into districts averaging, say, 54,200 inhabitants, or, roughly, 8,000 electors each, then, at any rate, Conservatives, Liberals, and Radicals would all have had fair play together, and each constituency would contain a manageable number of electors. He, therefore, begged to move the Amendment of which he had given Notice.
    VISCOUNT CRICHTONhaving risen.
    MR. SPEAKERasked if the noble Lord rose to second the Amendment?
    VISCOUNT CRICHTON: No, Sir.
    MR. SPEAKER: Does any hon. Member second the Amendment?
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he would do so. It appeared to him that the Amendment would have the effect of curing the defects of the Bill, especially the defect as to the disproportional representation of Ireland, Scotland, and Wales. The Bill was good as far as it went, but it ought to go a little further. The hon. Member for Harwich (Sir Henry Tyler) asked that representation should be based on the principle of equal population, and he (Sir George Campbell) was of opinion that that was, if not the best, at all events the most practicable, method of dealing with the subject. In Scotland it was thought that some consideration might be given to intelligence, taxation, and other points as well as to population. They could see that there were practical difficulties in the way, and he believed he expressed the views of the Scottish Representatives when he said that if upon a fair principle of share and share alike they obtained representation according to population, they would be content. He regretted that the Government did not go as far as the hon. Member wished, because by not doing so they were forcing the country to make two bites of a cherry, as the settlement would inevitably require revision at an early date. They were going to acknowledge the system of equal, or nearly equal, electoral districts in the counties and large towns, and the same principle ought to be acted upon all through. He was not anxious to address any observations to the House on the general subject of the Bill; but the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) referred to certain objections which fell from him (Sir George Campbell). It was unfortunate the hon. Member should have selected him, for he was not at all a bigot on the subject. When he came into the House to hear the hon. Member's speech, his mind was in a fluid state; but he was convinced by the hon. Member's speech that they must come to single-Member constituencies, because the hon. Member proved too much when he said the single-Member constituencies would degrade the character of the
    690
    Members, and had supplied no other satisfactory plan. How could his hon. Friend expect Scottish Members to accept that doctrine? They had in Scotland single-Member constituencies, and they were not willing to believe that these Scottish Members were of a lower class than other Members. Their experience was that single-Member constituencies did not degrade a country. Coming to his own grievance, which he believed would be cured by the suggestion of the hon. Member opposite, he admitted that the scheme of the Government gave Scotland within a fraction of its fair share of representation, supposing the House to be confined to the number of 658 Members; but when he compared the treatment of Scotland with Ireland and Wales, no one who studied the figures could say that a uniform principle had been applied to the three divisions of the Kingdom. Take a few instances:—Lanark in 1881 had a population of 387,000, and it was to have six Members—equal to a Member to every 66,000 of population; but Cork, with a population of 391,000, was to have seven Members—equal to one to every 55,000 of population. Tyrone, with 197,000, was to have four Members—equal to one to every 49,000 of the population; and Glamorgan, with 235,000, was to have five Members—equal to one to every 47,000. From those figures it was plain there was great inequality, and that preference had been shown to Ireland and Wales; but he could quote another case in which inequality was even more palpable. The county of Armagh, in Ireland, might be compared with the county of Ayr, in Scotland. In 1881 Armagh had a population of 157,000. It was to get three Members, while Ayr, with a population of 162,864—more than 5,000 in excess of Armagh—was only to have two Members. The figures he had quoted were founded upon the Census of 1881; but when they went a little more minutely into the matter they found that the county of Armagh was rapidly decreasing in population, while the county of Ayr was rapidly increasing in population. The consequence was that before the Bill came into operation the county of Ayr would be in excess of population over Armagh by at least from 15,000 to 20,000, and yet the Scotch county was to have one Member less than the Irish

    691
    county. The President of the Local Government Board said that in Scotland they must take the counties as a whole, and that, considering the number of sparsely-populated counties, if Lanark were to get a larger number of Members, Scotland would have, on the whole, an excess of representation. But was this the fact? He had taken the trouble to analyze the figures, and he found that under the provisions of the present Bill each county Member in Scotland represented a little over 54,000 constituents, while each county Member in Ireland represented a little under 52,000, and each county Member in Wales represented a little under 49,000. Therefore, whether they took particular cases, or whether they took the aggregate of county Members of each of these divisions, it was palpable that Ireland and Wales were treated very much more favourably than Scotland. He could understand the reasons why some of the minor countries might receive a larger share of representation than the population warranted. The Prime Minister had given distance as one reason for such a course, although he did not think there was very much in that. But when a great country and a small country were united together, the small country was very apt to be overborne, and there was a tendency to that in the case of Scotland. The Scotch Members were too meek and mild, and did not combine sufficiently in opposition to get the things they wanted; but this argument about a minor country receiving a larger representation than the numbers warranted must not be applied to one country and not to another. He admitted that one uniform principle of disfranchisement had been applied to all; but with regard to enfranchisement there was an evident partiality shown to Ireland and Wales. He protested against the political opportunism which gave Ireland more than its fair share because it was a very troublesome country. He also protested against the earmarking of the 12 seats to be given to Scotland, as if they were new seats in the case of Scotland, while, in regard to England, these were simply old seats revived. Scotland was entitled to this extra number of Members; but, by way of favour and partiality, Ireland was to have 11 more Members than her population entitled her to, and Wales 4 or 5. An hon. Member had said to him that when the Bill
    692
    got into Committee, Scotland would not get those 12 extra Members. His reply was he could not believe such a thing, and if it took place he was inclined to say the people of Scotland would be prepared to secede from the Union. They ought to deal with the different portions of the country on a fair and uniform plan. He claimed one of two things,—either the division of the number of Members to the House between the different divisions of the Kingdom on the principle of population, or the application of equal rules of disfranchisement and enfranchisement to every division; and he supported the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman opposite He thought the effect of its adoption would be to take away a certain number of Members from Ireland and Wales, to which they were not entitled.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, the principle of Representation in proportion to Population should he adopted in place of arbitrary figures as a basis, in order to obtain a logical, judicious, and permanent settlement of the question of Redistribution of Seats,"—(Sir Henry Tyler,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    VISCOUNT CRICHTONsaid, that at the present stage of the Bill he desired merely to enter his protest against it, and to add one or two remarks as to what he considered would be its effect in Ireland. When the Franchise Bill was passing through the House last Session, several hon. Members on his side desired to exclude Ireland from its provisions on the ground that, in the present political and social state of that country, it would be highly dangerous to throw the whole power into the hands of the lowest, most ignorant, and most disaffected classes, and, further, that under the operation of household suffrage the peaceable, loyal, and well-affected minority, or over one-third, of the population of Ireland, would be almost entirely swamped and deprived of that share of political power which it was admitted ought to be accorded to them. But they were me t by the argument—"Oh, trust to the Redistribution Bill to be afterwards introduced, which will remedy nil that." Now, having

    693
    scanned the provisions of the present Bill carefully, he utterly failed to discover any of the promised safeguards. On the contrary, he must say that the result of his examination had led him to the conclusion that if the object of the framers of the measure had been to annihilate the political power of the loyal and well-affected portion of the population, to completely destroy the influence of those who were anxious to maintain the integrity of the Union, they could not have devised a more effectual scheme for the purpose than that now before the House. He had always looked to the undivided representation of the great Protestant constituencies of Belfast, Down, Armagh, Antrim, and possibly Deny, to redress the disadvantage which the Loyal Party in other parts of Ireland must inevitably suffer; but the system of single-Member constituencies which was put forward as a protection for minorities would probably give the Nationalists a seat in each of these constituencies, while it would give no chance whatever to the minority of obtaining a seat in the three Provinces of Munster, Leinster, and Connaught. As the Nationalists had it practically all their own way in those three Provinces, they might be left to take care of themselves in Ulster, where they were the minority. Again, he protested against the absurd pedantry of fixing the line of disfranchisement for boroughs at 15,000 in Ireland simply because they applied that line to England and Scotland. The circumstances of England and Scotland were totally dissimilar from those of Ireland. If they applied that principle to Ireland, there would not be more than eight borough constituencies in that country that would in future return Members to Parliament. And if the Boundary Commission used the pruning knife, as they probably would do, the number would be reduced to seven, because Galway, if shorn of its rural area, would hardly come up to the required standard of population. Practically, therefore, the proposed Bill would reduce the Irish representation to one uniform level of county constituencies; whereas, if they had drawn the line of borough representation at 10,000 inhabitants, they would have to some extent rectified this inequality, and also have preserved three or four seats which would have returned to the House Representatives of the loyal
    694
    minority to which he had alluded. Further, if the authors of the Bill were so enamoured of the principle of uniformity, why did they not apply it in its integrity? In Scotland and in Wales they left groups of boroughs which had answered very well. Why did they not extend grouping to Ireland? He had sat for many years as a Member for Enniskillen, one of the boroughs which would disappear under that Bill. He knew well the value of such towns in the Irish representative system, and he believed that by some judicious method of grouping in Ireland they might have maintained an element in their representation which was both necessary and dseirable. Another point to which he wished to refer was a somewhat painful one for an Irish Member to touch upon, nevertheless, he felt it his duty to draw the attention of the House to it. He meant the number of Members which it was proposed to leave to Ireland. Why, he would ask, when the representation was about to be thrown into the hands of the disloyal, did they propose at the same time to further favour the disloyal section by leaving Ireland a larger number of Members than she was entitled by her population? He knew he should be told that it would be dangerous to tamper with one of the Articles of the Union; but he thought that argument had been pretty well disposed of in 1869, when the House showed very little tenderness for what was called a fundamental and essential Article of the Union—he meant the maintenance of the Established Church in that country. But what had been the state of three-fourths of Ireland for the last five years? Had the conduct of its Representatives in that House been such, and was the prospect of an amelioration in it such as to entitle that country to exceptional favour at the hands of the House? If they accorded it that exceptional favour, and if the party of disorder were reinforced, as it was likely to be in the next Parliament, they would yet bitterly repent it. He did not ask for any vindictive measures, or that Ireland should be deprived of one seat to which she was fairly entitled; but, in justice to all the other parts of the United Kingdom, she ought not to have those exceptional privileges over them. He believed that the second reading of the Bill was not to be opposed. If it had been, he should have felt him-

    695
    self bound to vote against it. Believing, however, as he did that the Bill would enormously decrease the forces of loyalty, order, and progress in Ireland, and that it would make a corresponding increase in those of sedition and disunion, and he feared he must add of dynamite and the dagger, he, for ones, hould take every opportunity in his power of protesting against it.
    MR. CRAIG SELLARsaid, he should detain the House but a very few minutes, because, as he understood it, the discussion to-night was not really to be considered as a discussion upon the second reading, but rather as an extended discussion upon the first reading of the Bill. The real discussion in which they should be called upon to express their satisfaction or dissatisfaction with regard to the main principles and details of the Bill would be on the Motion, after the Recess, that the Speaker leave the Chair. He should that night only speak on the one point which had concentrated all the interest in Scotland at present. It had been admitted on both sides of the House by the introduction of this Bill that a large increase of Members for Scotland was a right; it was no longer a disputed claim. The Bill proposed that Scotland should have 12 additional Members. If that was not a very generous proposal, he thought most of them would be inclined to say that, at least, it was not inadequate; and he thought he might say for his Colleagues who represented Scotland, and he believed he might almost say for the people of Scotland, that they should be well satisfied with the 12 Members if Scotland got them. But the question was—from what source were these 12 Members to come? Different proposals had been made and suggested. There was one proposal that the principle of liberation, as the Prime Minister had called it, should be extended from the minimum of 15,000 to 20,000 or 25,000 inhabitants, and that the seats so liberated should be given to Scotland. Another proposal was that seats should be taken from the over-represented parts of the United Kingdom—he meant Ireland chiefly, and Wales—and that these should be given to the under-represented part of the United Kingdom—namely, Scotland. There was a third proposal—that the precedent of 1867 should be followed,
    696
    and that there should be an Instruction to the Committee that certain constituencies should be named, and should be transferred from England or Wales or Ireland and given to Scotland. A fourth proposal had been made, the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Picton) having stated that he would move an Instruction to the Committee that the University seats should be disfranchised, and that these should be transferred to Scot-laud. [General Sir GEORGE BALFOUR: Hear, hear!] He did not know what sympathy that Motion might meet with on the part of different Members; but, speaking for himself, he was bound to say that it did not much commend itself to his mind. He should be very sorry indeed that the whole of the University Representatives should be taken from the House, as he believed they added interest and colour to the House which they did not get from the existing constituencies, and could not get from the new constituencies about to be formed. Then there was a fifth proposal—the proposal in the Bill that there should be an addition of Members to the House. Well, he believed that in Scotland they should accept any of these proposals, provided they got their 12 Members. He was satisfied that they would not refuse the proposal of the Bill, and he supposed that the Scottish Members would be united in supporting the Government on that matter, provided they made it a really important and vital point of the measure. But the two Front Benches were not the only people to be considered in this matter. He was certain there would be a very strong feeling on the part of English Members that the numbers of the House should not be increased. It was quite possible the House might take this matter into its own hands, and defeat the proposed addition to its numbers; or the proposal might be defeated in the House of Lords, and where would the Scottish Members be? They would be left with their 60 Representatives, with not another Representative added, although it was admitted that they were entitled to a large increase of Members. The Prime Minister declined pointedly and determinedly to state what were to be the vital principles of the measure. No one would claim that the Prime Minister should state nominatim one by one what the vital principles were; but when a

    697
    question was put to him upon a definite point, not by one Member or by a particular district, but by a whole nation—a nation to which the Prime Minister owed a great deal—when he was asked to assure the Scottish Members that it should be a vital point that they were to have their 12 Members, considering that this question affected a whole nation, he thought they might claim that on this point at least the Prime Minister should give them an answer. They were entitled to say that they should not have the go by in this matter; and the only manner in which they could secure this was by the Prime Minister, or one of his Colleagues in the Cabinet, assuring them that this should be considered a vital principle of the Bill. A question on this subject was asked on Monday by the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Buchanan). The Prime Minister spoke in a cordial manner, but said this was not the time to state what were vital principles and what were not. When was the time? Was it now, or was it when they are going into Committee, or when they were in Committee, or when was it? There was considerable satisfaction in Scotland with regard to the Bill; but the satisfaction was mainly because it was printed in the Bill that they were to have 12 more Members. The hon. Member for Harwich (Sir Henry Tyler) had given a graphic and pathetic description of those who would have to pass the Speaker's Chair, with the words Morituri te salutamus! on their lips. No doubt he was speaking as one of those who, it was suggested, were to die. He felt a certain pang at his unexpected and violent liberation; but he hoped that these pangs would pass away with the Recess, and that, as a whole, even the doomed ones would not feel dissatisfaction with the Bill, provided, and provided only, they got some adequate assurance from some influential Member on the Front Bench that it should be a vital point that Scotland should get the Members given to it by this Bill. If they had that assurance, he believed there would be very little trouble given by Scottish Members in this matter; but if not, he could only say that he would raise the question on every stage of the Bill. If they got that assurance, they should be able to go down to Scotland with a clear conscience and say that this was a Bill
    698
    which ought to have the warm support of the country.
    VISCOUNT FOLKESTONEsaid, he did not think that any hon. Gentleman on the Opposition side of the House had said a word in favour of the proposition raised by the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney). This was not, he believed, because there were no Members on his own side of the House who were not in favour of the proposition. On the contrary, he understood that there were a large number of Members on the Opposition side who were in favour of it. The Prime Minister, in dealing with the question raised by the hon. Member for Liskeard, appeared to him to touch very lightly on the points raised. It seemed to him that the right hon. Gentleman passed over the question in a joking kind of way, and threw a certain amount of ridicule on the subject which amused the House very much. When the speech of the right hon. Gentleman was considered, however, he thought it would be difficult to find in it any argument which had been brought forward against the proposal. He was of opinion that the mode of voting advocated by the hon. Gentleman was as simple as the mode of voting in use at the present time. There might be some difficulty in the counting of the votes or in the allocation of the votes to the candidate, but surely there could be no difficulty in finding persons sufficiently educated to do this kind of work. He thought they were bound to acknowledge a debt of gratitude to the Leaders of the Government and to the Leaders of the Opposition for the patriotic manner in which they had saved the House and the country from a grave Constitutional crisis. Four or five gentlemen meeting together could not, in the course of a few days, find out every possible complexity that might arise. They had submitted to Parliament a foundation on which Members of Parliament could build a good system of representation. The Prime Minister, however, stated that the House of Commons, notwithstanding the circumstances under which the Bill came before it, had the fullest liberty in regard to it. If the Bill had proposed a uniform system of representation, it might have been more difficult to ask the House to alter it; but this was not a uniform system. Whereas the greater part of the country was to be split up

    699
    into single-Member districts, certain boroughs were still undividedly to retain two Members. He trusted that there might be such a concensus of opinion in favour of minority representation that the Government would be inclined to give to that proposal a very favourable consideration. If the old system of three-cornered constituencies had been further developed, the demand for minority representation might have been made with less force. But they were to be entirely abolished. His hon. Friend the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock) had consulted the Members returned by three-cornered constituencies as to its working, and the greater proportion of them spoke favourably of it. He know that it worked well in Berkshire, which now returned two Conservatives and one Liberal. If this Bill came into operation as now drafted, he had been informed by persons acquainted with that county, that Berkshire would certainly not return another Liberal. One of the great drawbacks of the present system was the undue preponderance which it gave to a small majority. Thus, it appeared that at the General Election of 1874 in Great Britain, there were 978,000 votes polled for the Conservative Party, and 921,000 for the Liberals. Yet the number of Conservative Members returned was 312, as against 230 Liberals, or a majority of 82, which was 72 more than the Conservatives were entitled to on the proportion of votes. In 1880 there were 325,000 Liberal votes, and 208,000 Conservative, and the Liberals had a majority of 127 Members, or 89 more than they were entitled to. He objected to the division of the large towns into wards, and it appeared that the large towns themselves were not likely to be satisfied. Manchester, at any rate, did not at all care for the proposal. He believed the Prime Minister had made an honest endeavour to get some form of minority representation; but it was a rough and ready form. In his opinion, the scheme for the division of constituencies into wards was a leap in the dark. They had had no experience of any such plan, and they might find that its effects would be directly contrary to what was anticipated. The Prime Minister had said that one-Member constituencies had returned some of the
    700
    ornaments of the House. But one-Member constituencies were very different to the separate divisions of one great town. There was another point he wished to mention, and that was that this system of single-Member wards was likely very much to reinforce the Party of the hon. Gentleman who sat below the Gangway on the Opposition side of the House; and he thought that ought to have the serious consideration of the House and of Her Majesty's Government. Although those who were in favour of the proposition for minority representation did not propose to go to a Division on the present occasion, they were determined to press the matter on the attention of Her Majesty's Government, and he trusted the Government would give their favourable consideration to the proposition. They were going to have a somewhat lengthened Recess, and if the country had not made up its mind with regard to the question of proportional representation it would have an opportunity of doing so by the time Parliament again met on the 19th of February. If there was such great difficulty in driving so simple a proposition into the minds of the electors of this country—although Members of that House admitted to him they could not understand it—then he did not think they were persons to be intrusted with an extension of the franchise. Those who thought with him, and he himself, were determined to press forward the suggestion of the hon. Member for Liskeard, and every endeavour would be made in the course of the Recess so to educate the people of the country that they would look with a favourable eye on the proposition for minority representation.
    MR. H. S. NORTHCOTEsaid, he wished to make a personal explanation, not so much on his own account as on behalf of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote). He had heard that evening with the greatest possible surprise that a story had got about with respect to the division of the large towns which would lead to the inference that the right hon. Gentleman had committed an unwarrantable breach of confidence in betraying to him the communications that had passed between the Leaders of the Opposition and Members of Her Majesty's Government. He did not know how

    701
    such a story could have originated, nor should he care in the least what anybody said about himself; but he thought the House would see that if he did not take the first opportunity in the absence of the right hon. Gentleman utterly and flatly to deny the truth of that charge, it would be thought that the right hon. Gentleman had committed such a breach of confidence. All he wished to say was that he never had the smallest idea what the scheme of the Government was going to be, and, as far as he was concerned, he was entirely guiltless in the matter.
    SIR HARRY VERNEYsaid, he feared that, under the proposed scheme of redistribution, a class of persons whose presence in the House of Commons he considered desirable would have scant opportunity of finding a seat. He alluded to civil and military officials who had done good service abroad—Consols, Colonial Governors, Ministers—and also men of learning and science, many classes, whose knowledge and experience would be very valuable in Parliamentary debate, who would not wish to inhabit a large town or its immediate vicinity, and would not become known in those communities which were so largely favoured by the Bill. He was glad that they would have ample time to consider how the different portions of this Bill would affect their constituents, and to ascertain the opinion of the electors upon it. He would suggest to Her Majesty's Government the advisability of acquiring between this and the Committee stage full information as to the single-Member system abroad.
    MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, that in the earlier years of this Parliament, when he had the honour of suggesting to the House the limit of 50,000 population, and also that the divisions of counties should be named by the names of boroughs associated with their local history, he was not confident that the present stage of Parliamentary Reform could be disposed of by this Parliament. He then thought there would be a waste of three or four years in barren conflict on the subject between the two great Parties in the State. When an independent Member had a strong conviction on this subject, he should not hesitate to acknowledge that if within the span of this Parliament there was a measurable prospect of a settlement they were, first of all, in debted to the profound
    702
    wisdom and statesmanship of the Prime Minister in determining and in adhering to his method of procedure. The House of Commons had declared in favour of that method, and the Prime Minister had not swerved from it in the slightest degree. He regretted that the interviews between the Government and the Opposition had been so ostentatious; he believed such proceedings had been much more common than was generally supposed, and he did not condemn any reasonable desire or efforts for accord in the presentation of a Bill. He had no doubt that the Prime Minister would have received suggestions for a Conference from any quarter of the House. Passing to the Bill itself, there were three salient points on which he wished to offer a few observations. The first was that upon which the Prime Minister justified the introduction of the Bill—namely, "the gross anomalies still remaining in our representative system." He would not deal with those which were removed by the Bill, but with those which would remain if the Bill should pass into law. The Prime Minister carried the House with him entirely when he said that the scheme of the Government would have reasonable regard to the maintenance of communities; but if the continuity of undivided existence was to end in the case of constituencies like Manchester and Salford, what reason could there be for retaining 16 communities in England with separate representation and under 20,000 population? Where was the principle in bidding the House to look upon the figure 54,200 as the pivot of redistribution, and to sacrifice the unity of the most active municipal life in the country, while in the same breath it was declared that 16 English boroughs, with an average of about 17,000 population, were to be maintained? That was the most atrocious anomaly of the Bill and had not a rag of justification to cover its naked absurdity. He now came to the second anomaly. In the county of Lancaster it was proposed that the townsmen of Salford as well as the citizens of Manchester and Liverpool should have but one vote; but in other Lancastrian boroughs, and notably in Oldham, which was second to Salford in the rate of increase of population since the last Census, every townsman would have two votes. Legislation of that kind could have no

    703
    finality. He felt confident that the proposal of the Government to increase the number of the House by 12 Members— to a total of 670—would not be sanctioned by the House. In 1866 the present Prime Minister said—
    "The House would be disinclined to add to its numbers because, if the proposal to increase were once assented to, it would be difficult to resist the continual intrusion of new places."
    That, he thought, would prove a conclusive argument with the House against acceptance of this part of the Bill, especially as the anomalous preservation of 16 English boroughs with fewer than 20,000 inhabitants presented the means of providing extra seats for Scotland. In 1866 the Prime Minister suggested that "England out of its abundance should minister somewhat to the poverty of Scotland;" and he felt sure it would be better that she should do so in 1885 than that the already enormous number of the House should be increased. So far from agreeing with the hon. Member for Haddingtonshire (Mr. Craig-Sellar) in wishing that the Government should make this a vital point, he was gratified to learn from the Conservative meeting that the increase of the present number of Members was not to be considered a vital point in the Bill. He regretted that the Bill did not deal with the anomaly of University representation. He hoped that it would be altered so that in future there might be no dual representation of any University. If there was any principle in the Bill, why was it not applied to the University of Oxford with 5,382 electors, to Cambridge with 6,458, and to Dublin with 4,074? Edinburgh and Glasgow Universities had each as many electors as Cambridge, and but one Member apiece. He should ask the House to adopt a principle in this matter, confident that if there was any valid claim for academic representation it would be found most efficient where the Universities each returned a single Member. He now came to the last and most difficult point—namely, the sub-division of the great boroughs. He had felt in the four years during which he had sat in that House that the representation of nearly 200,000 of his fellow-countrymen was the highest honour he could ever hope to attain. Was a Bill which would deprive him and others for ever of such an honour justifiable? Hon. Members in his part
    704
    of the House, who represented millions, while other equal sections of the House represented hundreds or even only tens of thousands, had always contended that any equitable scheme of redistribution must give a large increase of Members to the great towns. He had often mentioned the figures six and three, for Manchester and Salford respectively, as representing the fair acquittance of their claims. He acknowledged with hearty thanks that the Government had in this Bill satisfied the demands of those who shared his views in respect to the number of Members. He had a certain degree of preference even in the return of six Members for what was termed scrutin de liste, or the return of the whole number by a majority in the case of each candidate—for, in fact, retaining the present mode of election. This would lead to diversity of representation, for in no great community would it be possible to obtain the united support of either Party for any six or three candidates that could be selected. But he acknowledged that this system was costly and inconvenient unless some other arrangement could be made for filling vacancies occurring by death, resignation, or the acceptance of Office. The House was, therefore, forced to consider the alternative of some plan of subdivision, or some plan of proportional representation, which, however, did not necessarily exclude the plan of subdivision. In France there was a rule that every constituency must consist of 100,000 people; and if he were drafting a new Constitution there would, perhaps, appear many good reasons for limiting the number of the House of Commons to about 350, with single-Member constituencies of that magnitude. The great constituencies alone had been free from corruption. A Member representing a large constituency always felt confident that his political action would be judged upon broad grounds. He could not but feel that this comfortable assurance was endangered by the system which it was proposed to adopt. Experience taught that there was danger of corruption in constituencies with fewer than 6,000 electors. It was proposed to sub-divide our great towns into constituencies just above that level, for a constituency of 54,200—the Prime Minister's figure—would contain, roughly speaking, about

    705
    6,000 electors. He could not face the prospect without some misgiving. When, in 1882 and 1883, he spoke at length in that House upon that figure of about 50,000, he did not argue for the subdivision of large communities, but that no constituency should contain a smaller population. Everyone must, however, admit that the reasons which, 600 years ago, led to the two-Member system, when Members of Parliament were corroborating witnesses, not Representatives, had passed away, and that there were distinct and peculiar advantages in the single-Member system, as there were also in the dual system. The Prime Minister had referred to Cobden's opinion in favour of this plan. But in his well-known letter Cobden made no mention of constituencies smaller than 10,000 electors. The proposals of the Government would give increased force to the recommendations of proportional representation. That plan would be fully considered during the Recess. Mr. Fawcett once said that the three-cornered system in great towns was "a cloud" upon the fortunes of proportional representation. That cloud had been removed by the Bill of the Government. But Mrs. Fawcett, writing in conjunction with her lamented husband upon this subject, said of Mr. Hare's scheme—
    "It is not too much to say that some method must he contrived for removing the uncertainty as to the second vote before Mr. Hare's plan can be applied in practice."
    In that opinion he entirely concurred. He did not see that that uncertainty had been in any manner removed. Then it was to be considered that proportional representation, equally with election of the whole number of Members by a bare majority, made no provision for what were known as bye-elections; and the people would have to consider whether they could approve of a new method of election applied only in certain parts of the country. He had endeavoured to show that there were grave objections to the proposals of the Government; but because they were all sensible that there was so much in the Bill that they were not disposed hastily to part with, not only did they raise no objection to the second reading, but he was sure that they would part, after the second reading had been adopted, with a strong and confident hope that in the early part of next year this Bill might, by their united
    706
    efforts, be fashioned into even a yet more complete and satisfactory reform of the representation of the people.
    MR. CHAPLINsaid, he entirely agreed with the hon. Member who had just sat down that there were many grave objections to the measure of Her Majesty's Government. He (Mr. Chaplin) was one of those who viewed with much dislike the Bill and the means to which they were informed it owed its birth; and he should be glad if the House would allow him to make a few observations. His observations, however, must be necessarily brief, because, within the limited time at their disposal, it was impossible for him or for anyone to form as critical and accurate an estimate of its probable effect upon the destinies of the country as one would desire to arrive at before addressing the House on the subject. He regretted above everything what seemed to him the unseemly haste with which the second reading had been pressed upon the House. It was not very long ago that a distinguished Member of the present Government, a Cabinet Minister, and one of Her Majesty's principal Secretaries of State, described the measure of the Government in relation to this subject as one of the greatest revolutions which the country had ever seen, or was likely to see for many years. The right hon. Gentleman was probably not much mistaken as to the consequences of this measure. He had himself, since his entrance into Parliament, been a witness of many important measures; but not one of them would compare for a single instant with this Bill in the extreme gravity and importance of the effects which it would have upon the future of the country. And yet in their case, one and all, it was invariably agreed by the Leader of the Government then, who was the Leader of the Government now, and by the Leader of the Opposition at that time, who was Mr. Disraeli, that it was right, imperative, and absolutely necessary that the House of Commons should have adequate and even ample time for the consideration of those measures before it was committed to their principles. With respect to this measure, however, which from its very nature must be of a peculiarly intricate and complicated character, which must influence the fortunes of the country, and re-settle its

    707
    Constitution, or ought to do so, for a generation at least, and which he should have thought would be of special interest to every Member of that House, they were asked and expected by the Government to read it a second time almost at a moment's notice, and within 48 hours after the Bill had been placed in their hands. And that was done with the perfect acquiescence of the Leaders of the Opposition, and apparently of the majority of the House. He supposed that the approach of the Christmas holidays had a great deal to answer for on this occasion, because the thoughts of Members were naturally directed to far happier and more pleasing scenes than discussions in the House of Commons; but these considerations ought not to account for the conduct of the Government and the Leaders of the Opposition. He had wondered what could have been the motive of this unprecedented hurry; but he ceased to wonder since looking into the particulars of the Bill. He was strongly of opinion that unless the second reading had been taken at a time when it was manifestly impossible for the House, as a whole, to grasp the real meaning and effect of the Bill, it would, if not obnoxious to the whole House, have met with a very different reception at the hands of the Conservative Party as a whole from what it was likely to meet with to-night. The Government had told them over and over again that the main object and principle of their measures in connection with Reform was the enfranchisement of the agricultural labourer in the counties. How was that to be accomplished? He found upon reference to the Bill that there were 150 towns in England with a population which varied between 15,000 and 50,000. Of these 150 towns, 79 were boroughs having their own Representatives, and they would retain their Members; but the remaining 71, with a population which he believed he considerably under-estimated when he said it amounted to 1,500,000, were chucked straight into the counties, without any adequate provision whatsoever for the separation of the rural and urban interests. He would give the House a single illustration of what he meant, and he did not doubt that others could be found if time permitted. The county of Stafford now had 19 borough Members; under the new Bill it would have
    708
    17. Its six county Members would, under the new Bill, be increased to seven; but how would they be elected? They would be elected not only by the extended household franchise in the counties, but by the household franchise in the following towns:—Lichfield, with a population, in round numbers, of 8,000; Tamworth, 14,000; Audley, 11,000; Brierly Hill, 11,000; Brownhills, 11,000; Burton, 39,000; Cannock, 13,000; Handsworth, 32,000; Leek, 12,000; Rowley Regis, 27,000; Smethwick, 25,000, or a total of 208,000 inhabitants. The whole population of the county, excluding the boroughs that would still exist, was 411,300; and therefore 200,968, or just half that number from whom the voters were to be taken to return the county Members, would not be rural, but strictly urban, in their character. ["Hear, hear!"] Hon. Members below the Gangway opposite said "Hear, hear!" He quite understood that cheer. They naturally rejoiced because that would, happen of which he was afraid, and which they desired, that the agricultural labourer would be swamped, and the new vote which was to be given to him overruled by urban votes, a state of things which he had always understood it was the policy of the Conservative Party to prevent. Hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side were taunted with their new conversion to the cause of the agricultural labourer. So far as he was concerned, he denied that there had been any conversion whatsoever. ["Oh!"] An hon. Gentleman said "Oh!" but when he (Mr. Chaplin) first stood as candidate for a seat in that House he was asked to state his views with regard to the extension of the suffrage to the rural population. He said then exactly what he should say now—that, although he thought it most unwise for any country to be perpetually tampering with its Constitution, yet, as household suffrage had once been conceded in the boroughs, it was impossible to withhold it for any lengthened period from the counties, and it was only a question of expediency as to the time at which it should be granted. Upon the question of expediency of time he would not dwell. It was sufficient to say that in the condition of Ireland—a condition which was sufficiently attested by the devilish and dastardly outrage committed only a few days ago on the home and family of Mr. Hussey, and

    709
    with the present condition of affairs at home and abroad, he had always looked upon it as little short of a political crime on the part of a Minister of the Crown to raise this controversy at such a time. But having raised it, it was the business of the Government to make the new vote a reality, and not a sham, and to have placed before the House provisions for a just separation of urban from agricultural districts. But on this subject the Government had told the House nothing whatever, except as to some hazy instructions which had been given to the Boundary Commissioners, who themselves were bound by certain geographical considerations, and whose recommendations, no matter how distasteful they might be, were to be subject, with the consent of the Government, to no alteration whatever. Then, one of the chief merits claimed for the Bill was finality. He did not see how any measure could possibly be final which, like this, was full of anomalies from beginning to end. If finality was wanted, care should have been taken that votes should have approximated to something like an equal value. The Bill was full of anomalies. He would give the House a few instances which he had found on a most cursory search. The borough of Bedford, with 19,000 inhabitants, was to return one Member, while Luton, which was much larger, was to be a part of the county. The county of Bedford had 129,000 inhabitants and returned two Members—one for every 65,000—whilst the borough of Bedford had one for 19,000. Birkenhead, with 84,000, had one Member; Stockport, with 59,000, two Members. Macclesfield, with a population of 37,000, was to have no separate representation, because it was corrupt; while Chester, which was equally corrupt, was to retain a Member. Then Pontefract, with 15,000 population, was to retain a Member; while Burton-on-Trent, with 40,000, Rotherham, with 35,000, Gorton, with 33,000, and Aberdare, with 33,000, were to have none. So he might go on ad infinitum exposing the extraordinary anomalies of the Bill. A great deal had been said on the subject of single seats, and if that system did afford any kind of representation to minorities it would be better than nothing at all; but upon its merits, as applied to large boroughs, he absolutely detested
    710
    it. There was something to be said for it in the counties on the ground of convenience and practical work. There it was probably a necessity; but no reason of that kind could be given for the application of the single-seat system to the large boroughs. He believed its effect would be most pernicious to the standard of our public life; and, to coin a phrase, it would vestrify the House of Commons. He had often thought that there were already too many elements of the vestry in that Assembly. The system seemed to him to be calculated to destroy all esprit de corps, and what he might describe as the public and the corporate spirit of those great communities. Divided as the large towns would be, into wards, the spirit of the vestry would be dominant among them; and they would fall into the hands of the local wire-pullers, who would be nothing but agents and creatures of the Caucus, whose petty objects and private ends would become their chief and principal aims. The House would perceive that upon the grounds which he had stated—and they were by no means complete on account of the limited time that had been given for its consideration—this measure did not commend itself much to his approval. The Bill was full of anomalies from beginning to end; and finality, in his opinion, was out of the question altogether. He objected altogether to the system of single seats as applied to the large boroughs of the country, and believed that a general hostility to the Bill was growing from day to day. But what was the position of- the Conservative Party with regard to it, and what was the position of the House of Commons? If he spoke with perfect sincerity he should offer his most humble congratulations to the Prime Minister, for never on any occasion had he seen the victory of a Minister more triumphant, or the rout of his opponents more complete. They heard a good deal during the Recess about the iniquity of a Government seeking to pass a Bill for Redistribution under the pressure of a Franchise Bill already passed into law. He remembered the brilliant and unanswerable manner in which Lord Salisbury vindicated the rights of Parliament to a free and independent judgment in this matter. But, alas, "How are the mighty fallen!" It was lite-

    711
    rally, the truth that as far as their position in Parliament was concerned, the position they occupied then was precisely the position which they so bitterly denounced before. [An hon. MEMBER: Not at all.] He apologized to the hon. Member. There was a difference, and that was that the rope which was round their necks—which he seemed himself to feel already—was being pulled and tugged at by Lord Salisbury and the Leader of the Opposition in conjunction with the Government, instead of by the Government alone. He hoped, however, that the House of Commons would determine to vindicate the freedom and independence of Parliament, and would not submit blindfold to secret arrangements made behind its back, whatever might be the secret understandings and the pledges so carefully concealed, with reference to which he had failed to elicit the slightest information from the Prime Minister tonight. Whatever their secret understanding might be, he hoped the House of Commons would refuse to pass this measure in its present shape—a measure which he believed to be utterly unfair to our labouring population, injurious to the rural interests in the counties, degrading to our public life in the great towns and centres of industry in the Kingdom, and which he was honestly convinced would be detrimental to the best interests of the community at large.
    MR. GOSCHEN: I must really offer my heartfelt condolences to the hon. Member who has just sat down (Mr. Chaplin), because I am sure it must be an exceedingly painful position for the hon. Member to feel that rope round his neck to which he has made such an eloquent illusion, and to know that one end of it is in the hands of the Leaders of his own Party. I did not see, when he sat down, that any right hon. Gentleman on the Front Opposition Bench made any sign of rising to reply to him, or else I should have waited with patience, in order to see what reply could be made to his observations. I may also say that I greatly regret the absence to-day from the House of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, and especially the cause of it—namely, his indisposition, which we must all be sorry for. I am not sure that he might not have felt it to be his duty, if he could have been present, to
    712
    have risen to move the second reading of this Bill. But, in his absence, I should have thought that his duty in that respect might have been very fairly and ably discharged by the noble Lord the Member for North Leicestershire (Lord John Manners), who might have expressed to us his satisfaction at the result of those private conferences, which he denounced so eloquently and with so much earnestness a few days before they took place. There is one point on which I entirely agree with the hon. Member who has just sat down. I do not think that a certain amount of debate on this Bill at this stage is thrown away. It has been stated that the debating of the measure at the present stage is rather discouraged by Her Majesty's Government. The Prime Minister himself has said that there is no practical issue before us; but, in my opinion, we have a Bill before us of a magnitude and scope, and marked by general features bearing on the future Legislature of this country, such as have not characterized any Bill which has been introduced into the House of Commons since the great Reform Bill of 1832. I do not think, looking at the magnitude of this measure—a measure as great as, or possibly greater, in its effect upon the future of the country, than the Bill of 1832—that it would have been right that there should have been an absence of debate in this House on the present occasion, even before we broke up for the Recess. No doubt the time is short, and our information is incomplete, and any discussion on the question must necessarily be conducted under great disadvantages; but if we were to pass the measure at this, its most important stage, without any discussion whatever, and without giving some indication to the public of our views, the House of Commons would not, in my opinion, be discharging its duty to the constituencies. I do not think that we should be doing right in separating for some two months or more if the Members of this House, in their places, did not express some opinion with regard to the great principles of this Bill—principles involving the future efficiency of the House of Commons—and if we were to leave the whole discussion with regard to those principles to the local political organizations, to the platform,

    713
    and to the Press. It is our duty to see that the wishes of the different localities and communities are attended to; but we have a duty beyond and besides that—namely, to see that we pass a Bill which will send to this place an efficient Parliament, capable of battling with the increased business that must necessarily come before us. These are points with regard to which the Members of the House of Commons are competent to give, and, in my opinion, ought to give, an opinion. Therefore, in my judgment, those who interpose in this debate at this stage of the Bill ought not to be thought to be speaking at an inconvenient time, when they are really only discharging their duty to the country by endeavouring to throw some light upon this measure, the magnitude of which all of us must be prepared to admit. And, looking at the matter from that point of view, I hope the House will allow me to say a few words. While the Leaders on both sides of the House are agreed, in the main, with regard to the leading features of the Bill, there are many points of detail in it which I think should be left freely to the judgment of the House. For my own part, I deprecate the many questions which have been put to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister as to what he considers are vital portions of the Bill, and I hope that in reference to those questions he will commit himself as little as he possibly can. I hope, further, that there will be that confidence in the interchange of opinion between the Leaders of both Parties as may enable their followers on both sides of the House freely to discuss the details of the Bill; and I trust that they will not present the measure to us, as the hon. Member who spoke last (Mr. Chaplin) remarked, with a rope round our necks, but that we shall be allowed to discuss it with the feeling that Party influences have been, to a great extent, removed by the joint authorship of the measure, and that, therefore, the free judgment of the House of Commons may be taken upon this, one of the most important measures that has ever been submitted to Parliament. There are, of course, parts of this Bill which doubtless must be considered as vital, and I do not say that Her Majesty's Government would not be right to declare that the entire disfranchisement of boroughs up to a certain
    714
    line of population, and the partial disfranchisement of other constituencies up to another line, and a large enfranchisement of others, and an increase of representation to be given to others, are vital points in the Bill. For my own part, I say let the Bill be large, let it be even sweeping, let its lines of disfranchisement and of enfranchisement be drawn boldly; but when we go beyond that, and when we come to the questions of increasing the numbers of this House, and as to how the seats to be gained by disfranchisement are to be distributed, and as to how the voting is to take place, we ought not to be worse off in discussing such points of detail than if no arrangement between the two sides had been made; and I am sure from the tone of the Prime Minister's observation we are not to be coerced into accepting any preconceived settlement, even if it may have been agreed upon by the responsible Leaders on both sides of the House. Let us look, for a moment, at this proposal to increase the number of the Members of the House. I cannot help congratulating Her Majesty's Government upon having hit, by a most extraordinary piece of luck, and by a most curious coincidence, upon certain lines of disfranchisement and enfranchisement, the application of which particular principles to those two portions of the United Kingdom, Wales and Ireland, leave them in precisely the same position, as regards representation, as that in which they stood before this Bill was introduced—neither of them is to have one Member more, nor is to have one Member less. Difficulties might doubtless have been expected to arise; but so fortunate was the line which the joint authors of this measure struck that when they determined to adopt it, they found, to their great surprise, no doubt, but to their great gratification, that Ireland would be entitled under it to 103 Members, as she is now. The only fault that I can find with the arrangement is that the Government did not take the total number of Members of this House as they stand, and divide them fairly between the different portions of the United Kingdom. It is a decided flaw in the measure that it involves an addition of 12 Members to the numbers of the House, though I frankly admit that the claim of Scotland to additional representation has been,

    715
    made out. It appears to me that any increase at all in the number of Members of this House is a critical point. As we substitute, in the future, for the disfranchised places, centres of great political activity, there will probably be an increase in the number of those who will desire to take a part in the discussions in this House, which will still further increase the difficulties with which we have at present to contend in carrying on the Business of the country. With regard to the disfranchisement of the smaller boroughs, while I should certainly not oppose the line which has been agreed upon, it is a singular circumstance that the line which, according to our information, had been drawn by the Liberal Government—namely, 10,000 for the boroughs returning single Members, and 40,000 for the boroughs returning two Members, should have been raised, in concert with the Conservative Party, to 15,000 for the one set of boroughs, and 50,000 for the other set. That is a point upon which I should like to have heard the views of the Front Opposition Bench. But there is another point in this Bill to which I should like to call attention. Even in the next list you will find that boroughs between 50,000 and 165,000 have been far less favourably treated than the very big towns above 165,000. Now, I ask—although this is a matter on which right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are more entitled to speak than I am—is this a Conservative move? I am not sure that there is not sometimes a tendency among hon. Members opposite to look rather how they may get Conservative votes than how they can maintain Conservative principles. I am now referring to those boroughs which are disfranchised—I do not say by the action of the Conservative Party or their Leaders, because I know nothing of the negotiations that have taken place—but which were not before to be disfranchised, but? which have been disfranchised by the joint labours of the two sides. We have been informed by the Prime Minister that no one who might have listened at the door would have known which was the magistrate and which the thief. I can quite understand that no one who had listened would have known which was the Conservative and which the Liberal. But in disfranchising, or partially disfranchising, such towns as Oxford, Cam-
    716
    bridge, Exeter, and Worcester—towns whore there must be some Conservative force, although they may return Liberals—and transferring the Members for those cities to such places as Bethnal Green, Rotherhithe, and Battersea. [An hon. MEMBER: The Strand.] Well, the Strand may possibly be Conservative; but I trust that hon. Members opposite will do me the favour to listen seriously to this argument, because I think there is more in it than may strike them at first sight. I say that in such a transfer of Members the Conservatives, from their own point of view, will be committing a great error by neglecting the great forces of the middle classes of this country. They may disfranchise towns which now send Liberal Members in order to enfranchise places which may support advocates of the Tory democracy. If they have studied the addresses and speeches of such able men as Mr. M'Alister, who recently contested Hackney, they will understand what I mean. It appears to me that it is not sound Conservative policy to remove power from a certain number of boroughs which stand between the small boroughs and the very large boroughs, in order to concentrate power even on the Tory democracy of the large towns. I should like to make one observation upon the towns between 50,000—the line where a borough commences to be entitled to dual representation—and 165,000, which is the line where the large towns begin to have additional representation. Now, I admit that I am speaking without accurate information, and lam, therefore, throwing this out simply for information from those who understand these electoral questions better than I do; but I cannot help thinking that I have established, on the present information, that towns between 50,000 and 165,000 have been somewhat badly treated as compared with some very large towns above that line, and that the tendency has rather been to give Members to the very large towns, some 15 in number, than to distribute more equally among other towns the Members which will be gained from the small communities. There are three towns which I will take—Oldham, Newcastle, and Stoke-on-Trent—each having a population of about 150,000 and having a population of 450,000 together. They have six Members, and will still con-

    717
    tinue to have six Members. Then take Sheffield and Birmingham. Birmingham has at present about 400,000, and, with the constituency which will be added by the contemplated change of boundaries, may have about 450,000. Birmingham will have seven Members, with the same population as these three towns, which will only have six. That appears to me an error in policy, unless it can be explained. Then take two of these towns—Oldham and Newcastle. They will have four Members, with a population of 300,000; while Sheffield, with 285,000, will have five allotted to it under the Government scheme, though its population is 15,000 less. I should have thought that when you have to deal with increasing limits of population you ought not to concentrate more and more Members upon the very largest towns. I should have thought that it was undesirable that there should be seven towns, including the Metropolis, returning 100 Members to this House. I saw somewhere, this morning, in reference to the Proportional Representation Society, that the new system only applied to 17 towns. But when you have 17 towns and they receive nine, seven, six, and five Members apiece, having in the aggregate such an enormous number of Members, it is a matter of the utmost importance to see how this aggregate of Members acting for places of enormous importance, yet similar in character, and in a position in which they will be able to vote together, will be moved in their political course. How is that question to be dealt with? That leads me to the last point with which I wish to trouble the House. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has in many ways acted up to those principles which he laid down even before he came into contact with the Radical tendencies of the Conservatives, who have joined him in framing this Bill. There are, however, some points on which we see a departure from the principles which my right hon. Friend laid down. He has approached nearer to that numerical representation of the big towns than at one time we had reason to suppose he would. He has acted in the direction of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), from whom he seemed to differ at the time; and, on the other hand, he has departed, I am sorry to say, on one essential point
    718
    from one principle which it appeared to me he was anxious to act up to, and that is the continued representation of communities. The community is that which has hitherto been represented in this House, and when we come to the sub-division of the big towns we seem to me to be departing from that principle. When the Conservatives joined with my right hon. Friend in cutting down the representation of the small communities which have a small population less than 15,000 they were acting in a manner to which all the Parties in this House practically were pledged. Those communities could evidently not be preserved. I rejoice to say that in one respect the Bill is very satisfactory—that in regard to the large number of boroughs which exist having between 50,000 and 165,000 inhabitants, the principle of the community has still been preserved. But above that limit, and in the counties, the principle of the community has more or less been abandoned. And there, I think, we ought to lay to heart, to a great extent, much that fell from my hon. Friend the Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) in his most able speech this evening. The House may, or may not, agree with the particular application of his principles; but in his picture of the danger arising from the abandonment of the community as the body to send Members to this House, I believe my hon. Friend had with him the sympathies of a great portion of this House. I entirely agree with the Prime Minister that there are difficulties upon every side. There are difficulties which we must set ourselves in as harmonious a spirit as we possibly can, and I trust without introducing Party spirit in the least, to overcome. But the danger of this system of abandoning the community is one which I should wish the country to well consider in the interval which will elapse between the second reading of this Bill and our next meeting in February next. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister mainly answered my hon. Friend the Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) on the general principle of single-Member constituencies. Now, I confess I do not see the great objection to single-Member constituencies, provided that a single-Member constituency represents a community by itself. But it is one principle to assign a single Member to a

    719
    community which exists as an entity, and still more if it has always existed as an historical entity, and it is a very different principle to cut the Metropolis into 60 equal portions, and to say that every slice of the Metropolis is to send a Member to this House. That is a totally different thing. Let us, whatever our opinions may be, endeavour to see this matter clearly in all its bearings. Supposing you have a county which is not a community in itself, I can conceive that, for the sake of geographical convenience, there is no objection to dividing it into so many divisions. There is no corporate existence in a division of a county. There is, indeed, a Parliamentary tradition, and I am surprised to see with what readiness the existing two-Member condition of the county is to be abandoned—if it is to be abandoned—by the Party opposite. But still there is a great distinction. In a county which sends one Member—in that slioe of a county which you are going to make—the probability is that, at all events, you will find representatives of various classes of the community. You will find landlords, farmers, tradesmen, and agricultural labourers. They will all be in one division. But look at the division of the towns as it is drawn in the Bill and in the Schedules, and you will see that there you may have that which we have not yet had in this country, and that which I hope we shall not strive to arrive at in this country—namely, constituencies composed almost exclusively of one class. It has been the strength of this Constitution and the glory of English politics that in electoral contests the master and his servant, the manufacturer and his foreman and his factory hands, have served on the same Committees, have voted for the same candidates, have canvassed for the same men, and have influenced each other's opinions, not only at the time of election, but they have had their political education by the combination of all classes together. And are we to change that in our great towns? Are we to have representatives of the Proletariat in the East End of London and of the rich districts in the West? Are we to have a Member for St. George's-in-the-East and a Member for St. George's, Hanover Square? I admit that all classes must be represented; but I should wish them to be represented by still remaining to-
    720
    gether and fighting out their differences between themselves, each man being secured a chance of representing his own interests—by some such means, if necessary, as those which have been sketched by my hon. Friend. It may be said that that is difficult to arrive at; but the object is well worth the trouble, and in the Recess all men should attempt to arrive at something which, if it is not equivalent to that which I was sorry to hear the Prime Minister call the pons asinorum, at all events may be a mode of solving this difficult question. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister spoke with satisfaction of the single-Member system, which exists in all other countries, in our Colonies, and in America. My hon. Friend the Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) dissented from that expression of satisfaction. But I would ask the House, and I would ask the country—Are the conditions the same? They would be the same if this question were mainly a question of areas in the counties where you have men following the same pursuits and living under the same conditions. But it is a peculiarity of the Metropolis and of the big towns, which is only shared in a slight degree by other cities, that there is a separation of classes by localities; and geographically you have enormous differences in our big towns in England. It will be said that the big towns on the Continent have these differences also, and that they have this geographical separation. But what is the result? Are the Parisians satisfied with the representation of Paris? Should we be content in this Metropolis that its Representatives should be regarded in the future in the same light as the Representatives of Paris returned upon the single-Member system? I might ask the same question as to Germany. Are the people of Berlin satisfied with the mode of voting there? The cutting-up of big towns into single-Member districts has nowhere been a success. The result has been that these great towns, although they have been prominent in the politics of the country, have not redeemed their position as intelligent capitals of the countries in which that system prevails. I trust the House will forgive me for having touched on this point at this stage; but it may be too late afterwards, unless it is now understood what are the issues involved. I

    721
    have listened to the able argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Liskeard on the question whether single-Member constituencies would send better or worse Representatives to this House; and I would wish to add to what he said, that if these constituencies send even the same class of men to this House, they will send them here in a different character and under a different bond. Let us beware that the single-Member constituencies do not develop into one-class constituencies whose Members will come here feeling themselves responsible, not to the whole people of the country, but to the particular class living in the district by which they are returned. The Prime Minister spoke of the single-ward system as applied to municipalities; but surely that is a very different thing. And even in that respect, notwithstanding the success of our municipal life, I do not know how far it can be traced to the single-ward system. It is precisely because we do not wish simply to resemble the municipalities, great as they have been in serving their country—it is because we must shake off the idea of simply representing particular wards, and remember that there are great historical communities which have to be represented in the House of Commons—it is for that reason that we must weigh seriously the proposals which are embodied in this Bill. It is not against the Bill as a whole that I wish to raise my voice. I see that the Bill is necessary, and that in many respects its provisions are wise. I would wish to conclude, as I began, by expressing my hope that we may approach this question unfettered in every way, and not treat it as a matter between Conservatives and Liberals, because I feel confident that, however this may end, if we adopt the single-ward system, it will be disastrous to the character both of the Conservative and the Liberal Party. We have heard arguments to-night as to whether the Conservatives or the Liberals will gain by this system. I believe that both will lose; and it is parochialism, it is class interests, it is those who separate themselves from the general interests of the country who will gain. Let us endeavour to fall back upon the principle so eloquently laid down by the Prime Minister when he said that it is to the communities we must look, and that it is communities that shall be represented
    722
    in this House in the future as they have been represented in the past.
    MR. RAIKES: It was scarcely necessary for the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Gosehen) to comment upon the speech of the hon. Member who addressed the House in the early part of the discussion, and to remind us that the best and most perfectly established concert between the Parties may be broken up by the independent action of Members on the two sides of the House. To-night the speech of the right hon. Gentleman has had a double bearing. Whereas he generally poses as the Mentor of Her Majesty's Government, on this occasion he has been able to pose as the candid friend of both Front Benches at once. I listened to the speech with the admiration which we always feel for the oratorical exercises of the right hon. Gentleman; but I confess that in regard to his conclusions I have experienced the disappointment which always accompanies his best efforts, because we always know that whatever the right hon. Gentleman says it is entirely hopeless to expect him to give to his convictions any practical effect. I think this debate, from its outset, has been somewhat prejudiced by the fact that it commenced with an interest which was felt in a distinctly personal question; and it is because we commenced it with a certain amount of curiosity to know what was to be said by the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) as to the reasons which led him to break his connection with Her Majesty's Government that the discussion has been allowed to drift into a consideration of one particular part of the question rather than into a consideration of it as a whole. I will not deny that the speech which was made by the hon. Member for Liskeard was a very remarkable and a very interesting speech; but the earlier portion of it partook rather of the character of a sort of eulogy of his own official career; and when he quitted that view of the question the hon. Member proceeded to address himself chiefly to the Members who sit around him, indicating to them the various advantages which the single-Member system of the division of the great towns might give to the Party opposite. Perhaps, in so doing, the hon. Member has carried conviction as to the merits of the Bill to the minds of some of the more timorous of

    723
    my Friends who sit on this side of the House. At all events, I am inclined to think that he has been more successful in producing that effect on these Benches than on reconciling his Friends around him to any theory of proportional representation. Now, upon the question of proportional representation, and even to the extent of the particular scheme indicated by the hon. Member for Liskeard, I am very much inclined to support the hon. Member. I believe, myself, that if you could ever get the transferable vote introduced into your system for the election of Members of Parliament in this country, you would probably obtain the best representation which our institutions will admit of; but I confess that I am not so sanguine as the hon. Member for Liskeard. I do not think it will be possible, at any time at all events in the course of the next quarter of a century, to recommend that scheme to the mind of the English electorate. If we could see our way to experimentalize upon a single constituency, I should be glad to see the experiment tried; but in our anxiety to obtain this great good, and to secure the transferable vote, I am afraid we might find ourselves landed in a position in which we should obtain neither the one thing nor the other. And the hon. Member for Liskeard was so warmly enamoured of the scheme as even to express his willingness to submit the destinies of this country to a House of Commons elected by the scrutin de liste, because he is thoroughly satisfied that at the end of the first Parliament or two so elected the country would be thoroughly sick of the system, and extremely glad to get rid of it. But I venture to think that in two such Parliaments there would be a readiness to get rid of a good many other things also, and that after they had run their course there would be little occasion to care as to what form of representation was adopted for the future. I, therefore, felt that there was a certain amount of weakness in the argument of the hon. Gentleman, because a politician who is prepared to make so great a sacrifice in order to carry out a particular hobby of his own can hardly be supposed to approach with calmness the solution of this philosophic proposition. The hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen)—and it was the strongest part of their
    724
    position—contend that the adoption of the ward system of election would necessarily deteriorate the character of the Members of this House. I should like to ask upon what ground? What possible argument can be brought forward, from anything which has passed in former times, to show that their theory is correct? This is a matter which, I think, is really more a question of experience; and I fail to find that any argument, supported by experience, has been brought forward to show that the constitution of the House of Commons would be less satisfactory. I would not like to say that it is not possible for the House of Commons to be deteriorated; and although we have already had, perhaps, some experience as to the process of deterioration—I will not say by such process as that upon which the Prime Minister has descanted—I fail to see how this process of deterioration is to be accelerated by the fact that Members are returned by comparatively small constituencies instead of large ones. The House will remember that the Reform Bill of 1867 made one sub-division in the case of an important Metropolitan borough. The borough to which I refer was the then borough of the Tower Hamlets, which was divided into two, and the borough of Hackney established. If those dreadful results which are now anticipated by squeamish politicians follow from such a step, we ought to have seen an immediate deterioration in the representation of the boroughs of Hackney and the Tower Hamlets. But what is the fact? Has the representation of Hackney deteriorated? According to the argument of the hon. Member for Liskeard, the Members for Hackney ought necessarily to have been of the vestryman type, instead of which the borough for many years returned Mr. Fawcett, whose loss this House has so recently deplored, who, no doubt, like the hon. Member for Liskeard, was opposed to the principles upon which the Government have framed the present Bill. Only the other day, when there was an election to supply the place of Mr. Fawcett, did the people of Hackney go out of their way to select a vestryman or a politician of that type? On the contrary, they selected a Gentleman who had already won his spurs in political life by obtaining some 1,300 votes

    725
    in the most cultivated constituency in England. I think that, as that has has been the case in connection with a large and important Metropolitan borough, we have no right to contend that an extension of the principle of the further sub-division of boroughs would tend towards a deterioration of character in the Members returned. It, therefore, appears to me that there is no force whatever in the argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen). He talks about the separation of classes, and about the unconstitutional departure from the ancient traditions which have governed the history of our representative institutions involved in the separation of one locality from another. It may chance that, in some cases, persons of one class may be situated in a particular locality; but if this objection is to prevail, how can the separation of the Tower Hamlets from the City of Westminster be justified? Surely, if it was justifiable to cut up the Metropolis into larger boroughs, it is equally justifiable to cut it up, as now proposed, into smaller boroughs. I certainly fail to see upon what ground the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon can justify his argument, unless he is prepared to go the whole length of contending that the whole of London ought to form one constituency. We are told that in the great Provincial towns there is seldom so definite a local demarcation between classes than there is in London. That is probably in some degree the case; and, for my part, I would be happy to accept the scheme of the hon. Member for Liskeard, if I thought there was the faintest chance of its becoming law, because I think it would be a better scheme for testing the opinion of the community than that which is now proposed by the Government. But I am afraid it is absolutely impossible to reconcile the House of Commons to the transferable vote, and everyone who has heard the debate will fully realize that fact. Our object is to secure such a representation of all classes of the community as is compatible with the true theory of representation; and it appears to me that the only course which can be trusted for bringing about that result is the course which has been adopted by Her Majesty's Government in the present case. If we are going to have the large towns divided into wards,
    726
    we shall have, no doubt, a sufficient representation of all the interests in those towns; but if you do not make a subdivision, and allow all the Members to be returned by the majority, you will have men elected who will represent the class which happens to be in a majority for the time being. It is really a choice of whether you are to elect your Members by the scrutin de liste, or whether you are to give to the various interests and different classes which are to be found in the large towns such a fair share of the representation as may make the representation a sort of microcosm of all the classes proposed to be represented. And now, with the permission of the House, I should like to say a word or two on another matter which was particularly dwelt upon by the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin), although I do not think it has been noticed in the same degree by other speakers who have taken part in this debate. I allude to the question how far the Government have not thrown away a great opportunity of equalizing the representation by grouping together the smaller towns. The Government limit of disfranchisement was originally fixed at 10,000. I know it is the fashion to say that Her Majesty's Government are not responsible for the draft plan of a Redistribution Bill which appeared in one of the newspapers some time ago; but it is no secret that it was the original intention of the Government to limit the absolute disfranchisement to 10,000; but from representations since made from outside they have been induced to raise the limit to 15,000. For my part, I should have been perfectly content if they had raised the limit still higher—say to 25,000; but if that had been done, it would have been necessary to protect the interests of that particular class of boroughs, by grouping into constituencies which would bring them up to nearly 50,000. [Mr. ARTHUR ARNOLD dissented.] The hon. Member for Salford shakes his head. The hon. Member is himself an example of how a borough may be improved by the process of sub-division; but I think it is felt by all parties that there is a different scope of middle-class life in the smaller boroughs from that which exists in the large towns—and that there is a very numerous class of such boroughs which has no desire to obtain representation by being merged in the large cities or in the county districts. If

    727
    Her Majesty's Government were to set themselves to work to create a number of groups of what I may call the third-rate towns, of from 10,000 to 25,000 inhabitants in each, I think they would very much tend to diminish the anomalies of the present scheme, and they would introduce a much more equal representation, while, at the same time, they would preserve those historic traditions which attach to many existing communities which we are all sorry to part with, if we can avoid it. Let me take the town of Lewes as an example. It is a small town, containing about as many people as the town of Warwick. Warwick is to have the good fortune of being preserved, and we are all of us glad that it is so; but it preserves its existence because it happens to be in the immediate neighbourhood of Leamington, a large and important watering-place. But I may point out that in the case of Lewes there is another very large watering place—a town of great and rising importance of a similar character to Leamington—the town of Eastbourne, containing more than 20,000 inhabitants, and at no great distance from Lewes, which, with Lewes, is now to be merged in the county of Sussex. If Eastbourne were grouped with Lewes, the representation might be continued, in the same way as that of Warwick, without merging it in the county representation. Then, again, take the case of Scarborough. We have heard a good deal of Scarborough lately. It is proposed by the Bill of the Government that Scarborough in future shall put up with only one of the two Members who now adorn its representation. This, no doubt, will be a loss to Scarborough; but perhaps the country might gain if the constituency of Scarborough, which at present numbers only 30,000, were augmented by throwing in the borough of Whitby, a town of exactly the same character, which the Bill proposes to disfranchise. Whitby contains 14,000 inhabitants, is only three-quarters of an hour, by railway, from Scarborough, and, as I have said, is a borough of precisely the same character. I put a question to the Prime Minister, when the Bill was introduced, with regard to the groups already existing; but I am sorry to say that I did not obtain from him any information which I could regard as particularly satisfactory. I do not wish
    728
    that I should be at all misunderstood in the reference I made to the Welsh contributory boroughs; but what I desired was to point out that, whereas the right hon. Gentleman had made a great point of the fact that Wales was to be treated as part of and under the same conditions and in the same way as England, by admitting the fact that the contributory boroughs were still continued in Wales and in most instances without any proposed re-adjustment whatever, he had thereby opened the door for the creation of groups in this country. Of course, the grouping system is not altogether unknown in this country. The borough of Hythe is coupled with the town of Folkestone; and there is also another constituency in Kent, which includes three, I think, of the old Cinque Ports. Then, again, there is the borough of Huntingdon, which includes Godman-chester and Penryn and Falmouth. We have, therefore, had various examples of places contiguous with one another being formed into a system of groups. I would ask the Government, in the Recess, to see whether something cannot be done to raise, by grouping, the constituencies of the minor boroughs to a reasonable size, so as to preserve the ancient traditions of these corporate communities, by making them contribute to district groups of boroughs, and by that means lightening the load of urban population, which will otherwise necessarily fall into the counties. There is another point which I think it is desirable to take notice of in the interval which must elapse before the House meets again—and that is the way in which it is proposed to deal with the Scotch boroughs. I do not think that any Member of the House can have any idea of the utter enormity of the present system of Scotch boroughs. I have here a list of one or two, to show how utterly without rhyme or reason these boroughs have been grouped together. Take the case of the Falkirk District of burghs. That group, which contains altogether the respectable total of 50,000 persons, includes the town of Falkirk in the county of Stirling, the town of Airdrie in the county of Lanark, and the town of Linlithgow in the county of Linlithgow. That is to say, that it embraces towns which are to be found in three separate and distinct Scotch counties, It may be said

    729
    that if these were the only boroughs in those three counties there was nothing else to be done; but Falkirk, as a matter of fact, is not the only town in Stirlingshire, because the town of Stirling itself forms part of another and a distinct group; Rutherglen, in Lanarkshire, forms part of another group—namely, Kilmarnock; and Linlithgow is not the only town in the county of Linlithgow. Take also the case of another well-known group—the Kilmarnock District of burghs. That group of burghs embraces the town of Kilmarnock in Ayrshire, the town of Dumbarton in the county of Dumbarton, the two towns of Renfrew and Port Glasgow in the county of Renfrew, and Rutherglen in the county of Lanark. In that case there are five distinct burghs selected from four counties. Then, again, the Elgin group comprises towns in three counties—Elgin in Elginshire, Banff and Cullen in Banffshire, and two burghs, which are in the county of Aberdeen. In the same way I find that in the Ayr District of burghs the towns of Ayr and Irvine, in Ayrshire, form parts of a group with which are coupled Campbelltown, Inverary, and Oban, three towns in the county of Argyll. If anyone will take half-an-hour to study the map of Scotland they will see at once that it is sown broadcast with anomalies. In fact, it is impossible to point to anything that can be more absolutely indefensible, on any ground whatever, than the existing state of the Scotch burgh representation; and I am sorry to say that the Bill of Her Majesty's Government proposes to leave it altogether untouched. The Prime Minister, however, told us that this is a matter of such delicacy that it ought not to be entrusted to the Boundary Commissioners; but I trust that it may come under the consideration of the House before our debates on the Bill are concluded; and I also hope that the hon. Member who was the first to call attention to the matter will provide us with some scheme which will obviate, at all events, some of these anomalies. And now, Sir, I desire to say one word as to the Welsh boroughs to which I referred just now. I do not know whether the House is generally aware how these district boroughs, scattered as they are over entire counties, are made up. By this means one of these boroughs reaches a population of 24,000 altogether, and
    730
    therefore escapes the limit fixed by the Government in their Bill; it contains altogether eight towns, three of which have together a population of nearly 20,000; but five out of the eight towns only contain between them 5,000 people. Are you going to continue these anomalies in the contributory boroughs when you are disfranchising towns like Guildford and Lewes, with 12,000 and 14,000 inhabitants? Two of the existing Welsh borough districts fall short of the standard of the Bill—namely, Beaumaris, with 14,000, and Cardigan also with 14,000. Both of these districts are to be disfranchised, although it does happen that the Beaumaris District contains Holyhead, the most important town in the whole of North Wales—perhaps not the largest, but which must ere long become the most important, and the Cardigan District contains the town of Aberystwith, the most important town in Mid Wales. There is a place called Kenfig in the Swansea District in South Wales, which, although it has the honour to be a contributory borough, contains a population of 631 only; and there are several other places in other parts of the Principality which contain about 1,000 people each. I think it will not be a waste of time if the Government would depute some one of its subordinate Members—say my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Local Government Board (Mr. George Russell)—to turn his attention to the question of these Welsh and Scotch boroughs during the Recess, with a view of providing us with a certain number of clauses in connection with the present Bill, which would probably be all the more acceptable to the House if they proceeded from one who bears my hon. Friend's historic name. I have ventured to dwell on this point because it appears to me to be a great omission in the Bill; and if the representation of Wales is still to be governed by the same principles the Government ought to be prepared to extend that principle of grouping to the English boroughs. If, on the other hand, it is considered undesirable to extend the principle of grouping to England, the Government are bound, although I should see it done with regret, to extinguish this exceptional system of representation in Wales. I entreat the House not to be led away by any of these interesting and plausible pro-

    731
    posals for securing the representation of minorities until they are quite certain that the adoption of any such proposals may not land them in the position of having no representation of minorities at all. The hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) told us that he, for one, is prepared to face all the danger of the representation of simple majorities; but I fear that in rejecting the proposed scheme of minority representation we may lose an opportunity which will never recur.
    SIR JOHN LUBBOCK: Sir, no one could have listened to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister without appreciating the conciliatory spirit by which it was animated, and his anxiety to settle that great question in a just and equitable manner. The fact that this Bill comes before us in a form approved by the Leaders of the two great Parties in the State no doubt renders any attempt to modify it in important particulars unusually difficult. On the other hand, it has this advantage—that the discussion ceases to be a question of Party politics, and the House is all the freer to express its independent opinion. Everyone must, of course, speak with diffidence in venturing to criticize a Bill which comes before us backed by such eminent authorities; still I trust the House will allow me very respectfully to state why I cannot but regard it as, in some respects, of a retrograde character. So far, indeed, as it gives a more equitable distribution of political power, it is, no doubt, a great improvement; but in so far as it is an attempt to give the majority of the country their just power in this House, so far as it is an attempt to improve in any way the representative character of the House itself, I fear that it will prove a failure, and that a great opportunity will be lost if this Bill be adopted in its present form. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney), in his very able speech, I deprecate the proposal to cut our great cities into wards. It is one of the most remarkable phenomena of history how seldom any nation will condescend to learn from others. One after another they fall into the same mistakes. Just when America, having tried large constituencies, with mere majority voting, and found them a failure, gave them up and adopted
    732
    single seats; Geneva, on the contrary, having tried single seats, and found them a failure, gave them up as unfair and not securing a just representation of public opinion. Now, what has been the experience of other countries which have adoptod ward representation? The hon. Member for Liskeard told us that there are a number of men in this House who already represent single-Membered constituencies; but there is all the difference in the world between a contituency which is whole in itself, and another which is a mere fragment of a larger body. We might just as well compare an animal taken as a whole with the limbs and fragments torn from a living being. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Raikes) asked for some evidence as to how the system which we advocate works where it has been tried. I would refer him to the Report upon the subject by a Committee of the Senate of the United States. The difference in the character of politics and politicians between England and America has long been a subject of comment. It may be difficult to say how far that difference is due to the system of ward representation which exists in America, and which this Bill proposes to introduce here; but that this system is one main cause can hardly be doubted. In 1869 the Senate of the United States appointed a Committee to report on Representation Reform, and the Committee made an unanimous and very able Report, which is of great interest. They emphatically condemned the system of single seats, which, they say—
    "Has not secured fair representation of political interests; and it has continued in existence, in a somewhat mitigated form, the evils of the plan of election by general ticket, which is superseded. Still, one body of organized electors in a district vote down another; electoral corruption is not effectually chocked; and the general result is the unfair representation of political interests in a popular House of Congress. Besides, the single-district plan has called into existence inconveniences peculiar to itself, and which did not attach to the former plan. It excludes from Congress men of ability and merit, whose election was possible before, and this exerts a baneful influence upon the constitution of the House. Two causes operate to this end; in the first place, no man who adheres to a minority in any particular district can be returned; and, next, great rapidity of change is produced by the fluctuation of Party power in the district. Single districts will almost always he unfairly made. They will be formed in the interest of Party."

    733
    One great evil of the American system, as they point out, is that Members are never secure in their seats, and of this they report that the system of single seats is the chief cause. In fact, a large number in the House only sit for a single term. The single-seat system has carried the idea of local representation to excess. This insecurity of seats, they say, prevents Members from devoting themselves to Public Business with zeal or confidence. They are engaged in a perpetual struggle for existence. The Committee say—
    "In brief, his time, as his efforts, instead of being expended for the public, must he expended on personal objects, if he desires to remain for any considerable time a Representative of the people. Undoubtedly, many of the best men of the country must be deterred from entering upon a Congressional career, continuance in which requires such sacrifices to an evil system, so much of unpleasant effort, attended with uncertainty and probable mortification."
    Again, the system of single seats necessitated a continual re-arrangement of boundaries, and this gives rise not only to great trouble, but, to say the least, to suspicions of unfair dealing, which have given Governor Gerry an unenviable immortality. The Committee go on to say—
    "There is hardly a State of our Union in which the Congressional districts are not gerrymandered in the interest of Party."
    And, in conclusion, they endorsed the opinion of Mr. John Stuart Mill that the result of the single-Membered system, which we are now asked to adopt here, has, in the United States, brought things to such a pass that—
    "It is an admitted fact that in the American Democracy, which is constructed on this faulty model, the highly cultivated members of the community, except such as are willing to sacrifice their own judgment and conscience to the behests of Party, and become the servile echo of those who are their inferiors in knowledge, do not allow their names as candidates for Congress or the Legislatures, so certain it is they would be defeated."
    They then proceed to point out another evil, which is that if you are to have single-Membered seats, which are to be at all equal, it will be necessary to make re-arrangements of boundaries. Well, Sir, I will not advert to the case of France, because at this late hour I am anxious not to detain the House at unnecessary length. France also has a similar system; but it is perfectly notorious that the single-Membered system
    734
    does not work with satisfaction in France, and particularly the Liberal Party in France complain that it works badly. We are told by the Prime Minister that the system has been supported by The Quarterly Review. I do not know that that is any objection to it; but I would remind my right hon. Friend that if it is supported by The Quarterly Review it is also supported with equal energy by The Edinburgh Review. The Prime Minister seemed to regard it as a remarkable fact that it is advocated by The Edinburgh Review because it is a Liberal system, and by The Quarterly Review because it is a Conservative system. The system of proportional representation is, however, supported by Members of both Parties, because it is the only way in which to secure at the same time a hearing to the minority and power to the majority. It combines the two advantages for which both sides of the House contend—a secure hearing for the minority, and the certainty of power to the majority. Sir, I will not venture to express any opinion how far our great city communities may approve of being sub-divided in the manner proposed by the Bill. That is a matter of feeling. But I confess that I have grave doubt whether the tendency of this course would not be to weaken that local patriotism, that pride in their own community, by which many of them have hitherto been so honourably distinguished, the effect of which has been so beneficial. No one, I think, can question that anybody would rather represent a great historical community, such as Liverpool or Edinburgh, than a mere ward. Moreover, this Bill contains no provision for double elections. Now, in the Liberal Party there are always great differences of opinion. There are many ways of moving; but only one of standing still. I confess that I see in this a great danger to the Liberal cause. I should like to ask my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister whether he knows more than one or two cases in which an Assembly is chosen by single-Member constituencies without double elections? Without such a provision it would very often happen that, owing to some division in their ranks, or some miscalculation of their strength, the majority would fail to secure their candidate. In the recent German elections, out of 397 con-

    735
    stituencies, it has been found necessary to have a second election in no less than 97, or, in round numbers, 25 per cent. Then I come to bye-elections; and I was surprised to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Mr. Arnold) mention it as an objection that when we come to a bye-election the result must be decided by a bare majority. Of course, it must; but I confess I fail to see that that is any argument against our system. It reminds me of the remark of an old woman when 1d. papers were first introduced. She read The Daily Telegraph through, and then said she was a good deal disappointed, for the Id. papers did not seem to be any bettor than the 4½d. ones after all. So we are told that at a bye-election proportional representation is no better than mere majority voting after all. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister devoted a considerable part of his speech to a criticism of the mode of voting recommended by my hon. Friend the Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney). He seems to be greatly impressed with the difficulty of the system, which he said was so great that nobody would understand it. My hon. Friend, however, showed that, as far as the electors are concerned, there is no difficulty whatever about it. But then it is said that the Returning Officer would find himself in a difficulty; and that my hon. Friend, in attempting to explain the points of the scheme, found it difficult to do so. But if the attempt were made in a few words to explain almost any Act of Parliament, which must necessarily be very complex, and contain technical language, it would be found difficult. My right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke) has himself acknowledged that it was quite impossible to explain his own instructions to the Boundary Commissioners in answer to a Question. The complexity, however, such as it is, would not effect the elector. So far as he is concerned, it is simplicity itself; while, as regards the Returning Officer, all that would be required of him would be that he should have a knowledge of subtraction and addition, which, moreover, is requisite even now. That, I think, is a conclusive answer as to the difficulties of the system. Moreover, the system has been at work in Denmark for over a quarter of a century without hitch or
    736
    difficulty. Indeed, when the Danish Constitution had to be re-modelled at the end of the German War, the system had worked so well that it was re-introduced again. It is absurd to tell me that a system which is working well in Denmark is so difficult that it could not be worked here. With all respect I must maintain that that argument is not worth listening to. We are told that there would be a certain amount of uncertainty about the second vote. I admit frankly that there would be a certain amount of uncertainty in that case. I cannot say that there is none; but what does it practically amount to? Mr. Parker Smith has calculated—and Mr. Andrae, whose eminence as a mathematician is unquestioned, has put it still more strongly—that even if out of 10,000 votes for the favourite candidate so large a number of votes as 4,000 have to be transferred, there would not, on an average, supposing them to be equally divided, be a difference of more than 11, while it is 2,000 to 1 against the chance of making a difference of 60. For practical purposes, therefore, this is infinitesimal. I would now like to say a word or two about the question of the representation of Ireland as affected by this Bill. I have no desire to say anything discourteous to the followers of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell). I have always listened with respect to what they have said, and I can assure them with a sincere desire to meet their views, as far as possible. Neither do I, in the least degree, suggest that they should receive a lesser amount of representation than that to which their numbers fairly entitle them. But, believing, as I do, that the adoption of the main principle of the hon. Member for the City of Cork and his supporters would very likely land the country into civil war, I cannot support a Bill which, as I am informed, will to so great an extent silence and exclude both Liberals and Conservatives in Ireland, and give far more than their fair share of power to those who wish to destroy the Union. Our position at the moment is something like that of America before the Civil War. Now, the Committee of the United States Senate, in the Report to which I have already referred, shortly after the close of that great war, expressed their unanimous opinion that if America had adopted

    737
    proportional representation instead of single seats, that disastrous conflict might have been prevented. They said—
    "The absence of proportional representation in the States of the South when rebellion was plotted, and when open steps were taken to break the Union, was unfortunate, for it would have held the Union men of those States together, and would have given them voice in the electoral Colleges and in Congress. But they were fearfully overborne by the plurality rule of elections, and were swept forward by the course of events into impotency or open hostility to our cause. By that rule they were largely deprived of representation in Congress. By that rule they were shut out of the electoral Colleges. Dispersed, unorganized, unrepresented, without due voice and power, they could interpose no effectual resistance to secession and civil war."
    That, I take it, is very much our case at the present moment; and I do say that it would be sheer madness on the part of this country to adopt a system that would silence our friends in Ireland, and give an undue share of the representation to those from whose principles we entirely differ. Sir, I would implore my countrymen to take warning by the example I have cited, and on this account, if on no other, I should hesitate to support the Bill. I will not trouble the House with any remarks about the desirability of protecting minorities, because I imagine that enough has already been said on that point. There is, however, one other question—Will this Bill really secure to the majority in the country their fair power in this House? In this respect, also, it is open to great question. Hitherto, when public feeling outside has not corresponded with the preponderance in this House, it has generally been assumed that this was due to the small constituencies and the anomalies of our representative system. But this is by no means a complete explanation. My hon. Friend the Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) quoted a number of foreign cases that were very much to the point, and would seem to be conclusive; but I would venture to call the attention of the House for a moment to what our experience has been in our own country. Let me turn, in the first place, to the representation of Ireland. I am not now in the least degree questioning how far the voting for the Gentlemen who advocate Home Rule represents public opinion. I will merely take the votes as they were polled in contested elections
    738
    in 1880. At the General Election 86 seats were contested in Ireland out of 103. If I were to put in the uncontested elections it would make no material difference in the argument, but it makes the case more clear to take the contested seats only. Fifty thousand Liberal voters and 55,000 Conservatives—that is to say, 105,000 electors in all—only secured 34 seats, while 48,000 Home Rulers obtained 52 seats. This shows clearly how such a system of mere majority voting completely failed. It has been stated, and I believe accurately, that at the General Election of 1874 the Liberals in Great Britain polled 200,000 votes more than the Conservatives, and yet were hopelessly outnumbered in this House. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Heading (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) disputes these figures. Without admitting the accuracy of his figures, I will accept them for a moment for the purpose of argument. My right hon. Friend himself said in an article in The Contemporary Review—
    "In 1874 the polling strength of the Conservative Party for Scotland and Ireland was 978,000, that of the Liberal Party was 934,000—a difference of only 44,000, or about 2 per cent of the aggregate voters. If the Members returned had been in the same proportion, the numbers would have been about 276 Conservatives and 266 Liberals—a majority of only 10. In fact, the elections resulted in the return of 312 Conservative Members to 230 Liberals—a majority of 82, or 72 in excess of what should have been their majority in proportion to the votes given. In 1880 the polling strength of the Conservative Party was 1,022,000, while that of the Liberals was 1,199,000—a majority of 177,000, or about 7½ per cent of the aggregate votes. This majority on the proportional system would have given 290 Liberal Members, and 252 Tory Members—a majority of 38. The actual return was 335 Liberals and 208 Tory Members—a majority of 127, or 89 in excess of the true proportion."
    This was not due to any Conservative preponderance in small boroughs, as was sometimes supposed; indeed, the small boroughs which were to lose seats under this Bill returned a considerable majority of Liberals. Nor had it anything to do with the Liberal wave of opinion which passed over the country in 1880. That affected, of course, the number of votes, but not the effect of those votes as votes; yet, according to the right hon. Member for Beading (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) himself—one of the ablest of our opponents—chance gave the Liberal Party 72 seats too few in,

    739
    1874, and 89 too many in 1880, in proportion to the votes—a difference of 161 out of 658. Surely the country cannot consent to trust the result of a General Election to such chapters of accidents. Pure accident made a difference of 161 seats in two General Elections. It is sometimes said that the effect of mere majority voting is to give the majority rather more than their fair share. But this is not so. You may have a small majority in the country, and a large one in the House; but you might equally have a large majority in the country, and a small one here. The result really leaves the matter very much to chance. The noble Viscount the Member for South Wiltshire (Viscount Folkestone), who made a most admirable speech in the early part of the evening, said that my hon. Friend the Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) may have made some Members opposite think that, after all, the Bill was better than they had any reason to suppose. What I wish to point out to hon. Members opposite is that under our system they would always have that minority in the House to which they are justly entitled, whereas without the adoption of it they may be swept away almost entirely. It is most important, I think, that both Parties should be represented in this House approximately according to their strength in the country generally. But it is clear that the system of majority voting would by no means invariably give to the majority in this House a majority in the country. But there is another consideration pointed out by Mr. Mill, which has never been answered, and which clearly proves that proportional representation alone can insure to the majority of the country their just preponderance in the Legislature. The majority on a Division in Parliament is arrived at by eliminating two minorities which together might largely outnumber the so-called majority. This is no imaginary case. In Switzerland it can be brought to the test, because in that country, after laws have been passed in the Assembly they are submitted to the whole electorate, by whom they are often rejected. Thus, for instance, in 1882—to take a single year—a law on the reorganization of the Departments of Justice and Police was rejected by 214,000 to 150,000; a Revised Penal Code by 202,050 to 159,000; one on
    740
    Patents by 190,000 to 174,000; and an Education Bill by 317,000 to 170,000. Thus, we here see proved to demonstration in practice what is in theory perfectly obvious—that the majority of a majority may be and often is a minority. We have been taunted over and over again by our opponents with having no plan, no one system, on which we are all agreed. We have not, however, allowed ourselves to be hurried or dictated to. We carefully collected all the information we could bring together, and weighed as well as we have been able the relative advantages of the different possible systems. I hope Her Majesty's Government will not commit themselves too deeply on this question. I do not understand my right hon. Friend to have committed himself absolutely against the system. No doubt, he pointed out certain difficulties which struck him; but I hope I understood him correctly that he would give the matter his consideration. I am satisfied, if he does so, that he will find many of the objections he has brought forward to the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) will fade away when they come to be looked into more closely. My right hon. Friend objects that the Gentlemen who are in favour of this system have no plan. I hope, however, that he will not commit himself too deeply. At the general meeting of the Society held yesterday, the single transferable vote, as suggested by Mr. Hare, but confined to each constituency, was unanimously adopted. That represents a great principle. It would place Representative Government on a new basis. It is to the theory of government what gravitation is to astronomy, or evolution to biology. It is the representation not merely of the majority, but of all. It does not appeal only to Conservatives or to Liberals; it appeals to all. The principles for which we contend, and which we shall endeavour to introduce into the Bill in Committee, are—firstly, to leave the great local communities undivided; and, secondly, to provide that in such constituencies each man should have one vote, so that every vote would have an equal value. The result would be that able and trusted Leaders on both sides would be sure of their seats, that the minority would always secure a hearing, and last, although not least, the

    741
    majority would obtain the preponderance to which they are justly entitled.
    MR. R. N. FOWLERsaid, that if he had been able to obtain a hearing at an earlier period of the evening he should have gone at some length into the question of the reduction of the representation, of the City of London. As it was, he contented himself by giving Notice that he should go into the question on the Motion for going into Committee. It was perfectly true that the sleeping population of the City was only 50,000; but there were as many as 261,000 whose daily work was in the City. The electorate of the City was 26,000, and the rateable value was as much as £4,000,000. As regarded the general scheme of the measure, they had no course left to them except to give their support to it. In many particulars he thought it was a good. Bill. For his part, he believed in the one-Member constituencies; and as regarded disfranchisement he should have liked to have seen it go a little further—he should have preferred to see the limit of disfranchisement raised to 20,000. Indeed, if his hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Mr. Arnold) would modify his Motion in that respect and disassociate it from the question of University representation, he should be very glad to support him.
    MR. BRYCEsaid, that at that late hour (12.20) he should not detain the House more than a few minutes. There were one or two points, however, on which he wished to say a few words. The first point was that of the proposed increase in the number of Members returned to the House. He was aware it was felt by many Members of the House that they wanted, large numbers for the purpose of Committee work; but he desired to remind those who took that view that if they got rid of the Private Bill Committees, those large numbers would not be required. He also desired to remind the House that the tendency of all recent changes had been very greatly to increase the number of Members in permanent attendance on the House. Fifty years ago, there were seldom 150 Members in regular attendance; now, there were between 300 and 400. With the new constituencies, they would probably have an average attendance of 500. He did not put this view forward with any regard to the accommodation which the
    742
    House afforded, but he put it forward on the ground that they would become more than what Mr. Bagehot called them, "a public meeting." With such an enlarged attendance he did not hesitate to say they would have a House of less gravity and sobriety. He could not help thinking that this point would be carefully considered before they went into Committee on the Bill, and that some means would be found to provide for the altered circumstances without any increase in the numbers of the House. He would have liked, had time permitted, to have called the attention of the House to the representation of the Universities; he would, however, reserve any remarks he had to make on that subject until the Motion was made to go into Committee. He had, however, one or two words to say about the addition to the representation of London. It was not amiss that something should be said about London, because, under this Bill, London would contribute one-eleventh part of all the Members of the House. Some of the hon. Members who had spoken that night had shown very little knowledge of what London constituencies were like; they had spoken as if London constituencies were sure to take up with an inferior class of candidates. He hoped that would not be the case. Even if London were sub-divided, he believed the advantages would be great in one or two ways. In the first place, the areas would be much more limited; and, in the second place, the expenses of a contest would be very much diminished, and the seat would be available to many persons who now found a difficulty in entering upon a contest owing to the expense they were required to incur. None of the existing divisions of London could be called natural; therefore, the sub-divisions would not necessarily do harm. Nor did he believe that the division of the Metropolis into popular constituencies would tend to the acceptance of what were called parochial candidates. He thought it would be found that the same feeling which led the constituency of Hackney to accept their present junior Member (Mr. Stuart would be found in smaller divisions. People were apt to talk of one local man having great influence in a place; but it must be remembered that it constantly happened that in a locality there were a number of persons of influence, and,

    743
    therefore, the political parties were inclined to obtain a candidate from outside. He should also like to remind the House that there was one point in which, no doubt, the one-Member constituencies, even in London, was of the greatest advantage, and that was the difficulty at present of maintaining a good political local centre. He could not help feeling that it would be desirable to have somewhat larger constituencies than were proposed; but there were, of course, objections to every scheme which could be suggested, and the objection to the scheme which was propounded to them always seemed the greatest. In conclusion, he would tell the House what was the opinion to which the representatives of the local organizations of London were led. Their view was that their objections to one-Member constituencies were so serious as to make them not desire any pis aller, though they were of opinion that one borough might return seven or eight Members. One point on which they were quite unanimous was the opposition to the minority vote or to anything like a proportionate system of representation. He thought that in every constituency the minority vote or cumulative vote had been condemned by experience, and that it was admitted that proportionate representation was a thing that could not be made out. He believed that in London, at any rate, the general feeling was that the best thing would be to have scrutin de liste—that was that the boroughs should return five, six, or seven Members as the case might be, or that London should be split up into an increased number of boroughs, each returning two Members. He could not help hoping that the Government might see their way, before the House went into Committee on the Bill, to abandon the uniform and cast-iron system which they seemed to have determined to adopt. Politics, after all, was the next experiment to science. If he had time he thought he could convince his hon. Friend the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock) that the experience of the United States was entirely the opposite of that he imagined, and that, so far from furnishing argument against one-Member constituencies, it furnished argument in favour of such a system. In the same way the people of France favoured scrutin de liste,
    744
    because they wanted all the Members to be elected without the minority vote. He thought it would be well to try election by different systems. There were several large boroughs in the country; why should not the House assign different methods of election to different communities, or allow the municipalities to determine in what way their Members should be returned? He admitted it would be a novelty; but they were in a position in which novelties might fairly be given a chance, and if the House would try the experiment of allowing different methods of election to prevail in different localities, they would have a much better chance of reaching a satisfactory system than they would have by noting the experience of other countries. He hoped that particular care would be taken to see that a system was adopted, at all events as regarded London, which would not too greatly narrow the political life of the boroughs.
    MR. LYULPH STANLEYasked the indulgence of the House for a few minutes, while he made one or two remarks in answer to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen). He thought that when an hon. Member of the right hon. Gentleman's weight and influence made a statement which was entirely delusive, it was well some correction should be given as soon as possible. The right hon. Gentleman began by complaining that the Bill had treated the boroughs between 50,000 and 150,000 population with gross unfairness as compared with the boroughs over 150,000 population, and to prove his case he took three boroughs—Stoke, Newcastle, and Oldham—which had an aggregate population of 450,000, and compared their treatment with the treatment of Birmingham.
    MR. GOSCHENsaid, he did not speak of gross unfairness, but said there seemed to have been a tendency to favour the large boroughs.
    MR. LYULPH STANLEYsaid, he would take it, then, that in the right hon. Gentleman's opinion there was a tendency to favour the large boroughs against the medium boroughs. He maintained it was not fair of the right hon. Gentleman to pick out the three boroughs which stood at the top of the list. If he wanted to make a contrast

    745
    between the two classes, the right hon. Gentleman should have taken all the boroughs between 50,000 and 150,000 population, and if he had done that he would have found they worked out an average of somewhere about 50,000 inhabitants to one Member, or some 4,000 below their fair proportion—they were over-represented to that extent. Stoke, Newcastle, and Oldham were to have six Members; with Hanley, which was to be taken out of Stoke, they would have seven. Therefore, as compared with Birmingham, they would have a population of 450,000 as against 400,000. If the right hon. Gentleman would take the case of other boroughs, especially the large Metropolitan constituencies, he would soon find that the Bill had not unduly favoured large urban populations at the expense of the smaller boroughs between 50,000 and 150,000 population. The right hon. Gentleman also laid great stress upon the importance of representing communities rather than individuals. If they were to represent communities, and not sections of communities, they must obviously adopt what was stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Raikes)—they must represent London as one gigantic unit. But what was more opposed to the representation of communities than that which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen) seemed to support—either proportional representation or minority representation? Because, if they took communities and represented so many of the majority and so many of the minority, they no longer represented communities, but they represented individuals according to their individual opinions. Proportional representation was a most absolute contradiction of the representation of communities; and so emphatically was that proved, that when formerly some Members of the House introduced Bills on the subject they agglomerated boroughs near one another to make the aggregate electorate sufficiently large as to enable individuals, according to their numbers, to be fairly represented. He did not think, however, it would be well to go into the merits or demerits of proportional representation. He had risen because he thought it was fair to make it clear, in the first place, that there was no tendency to favour large boroughs at
    746
    the expense of small boroughs; and, in the second place, that the vexed question of the representation of the people would not be solved by minority or proportional representation.
    MR. BUCHANANsaid, that in the earlier part of the evening his hon. Friend the Member for Haddington Burghs (Mr. Craig Sellar) called attention to the invidious position in which the Scotch representation was put by the fact that the addition to it that was proposed was made contingent on the House agreeing to an addition to its numbers. What he (Mr. Buchanan) wished to urge upon the Government was that this question of increasing the numbers of the House of Commons was one affecting the United Kingdom, and not one that should affect Scotland alone. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon had stated that the claim to increased representation on the part of Scotland was acknowledged; but the satisfaction of that claim should be kept totally distinct from the question of an addition to the Members of the House. That was the view which he (Mr. Buchanan) wished to enforce. The question of an increase to the Members of the House was one upon which a good deal of adverse feeling existed in various quarters, and intimation of that opposition had been shown in the course of the evening by the hon. Member for Sal-ford and others. Scotland was not without experience of proposals similar to this in past times, by which an increase in its representation was made dependent on an addition to the Members of the House. In 1868, in the Bill for Scotland, Mr. Disraeli proposed that additional Members should be given to Scotland in this way. The hon. Member for Salford had alluded to the fate of that proposal; but he had rather understated what actually took place. So strong was the opposition that was developed, that Mr. Disraeli abandoned the proposal not only without Division, but without debate, and a decision was taken between two rival substitutes—one proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter) and the other by the hon. Baronet the Member for South Northamptonshire. More than this, both these Amendments reopened the question of English redistribution that had been settled the previous Session, thereby

    747
    showing the strength of feeling that existed against the idea of increasing the Members of the House. Nor was this the only experience that Scotland had had of such a proposal. In the previous year, 1867, the Scottish Reform Bill of the Conservative Ministry implied an increase of the Members of the House. And what was the view taken at that time by the present Prime Minister? This was the advice which he gave to the Scottish Members. Speaking on the 31st May, 1867, he said—
    "Scotland will have to meet the whole face of that adverse judgment which a very large proportion of this House have formed against the increase of Members of this House. I would earnestly invite the Scotch Members to hear in mind the assailable nature of the position in which they would stand, if they have no other available fund out of which to answer the credit which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to us in favour of Scotland, except the speculation of an increase of the number of Members of this House."—(3 Hansard, [187] 1426.)
    That advice was sound then, and it was sound now. He (Mr. Buchanan) was sorry that again Scotland was placed in this disadvantageous position. One of the most satisfactory features of the present Bill was that it was a Bill for the United Kingdom; the same numerical standards of population for enfranchisement and disfranchisement were to be applied throughout the country. Why should not the results also be worked out uniformly for the whole United Kingdom. Scotland should be treated as an integral part of the United Kingdom; and if so treated, Members from Scotland would abide by the result.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Main Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for Thursday 19th February.

  NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 11.]
  (Mr. Justin M'Carthy, Mr. Parnell, Colonel Nolan, Mr. T. P. O'Connor, Mr. Healy, Mr. Sexton, Mr. Justin Huntly M'Carthy.)
  NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 11.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYsaid, he did not intend to detain the House any undue length of time in moving the second reading of this Bill. He regretted very much that, in consequence
    748
    of the condition of the Business of the House, it had become necessary that the introduction of a Bill of such importance as this should take place at so late an hour. His excuse, however, was to be found in the importance justly attached to the measure by the people of Ireland. The case of the Irish National School teachers had been brought again and again, in successive years, under the notice of the House of Commons, and on no single occasion had any serious or solid objection been offered to a remedy of the existing grievances such as was proposed in the present Bill. Notwithstanding, however, that these grievances were exposed year after year, and that there had been no serious objection to the application of a remedy, nothing had ever come of the efforts of the Irish Members to obtain that remedy. The Government had made promises time after time, but on no occasion had they ever made any serious effort to redeem those promises; and it, therefore, seemed the duty of the Irish Members, having all but carried a Resolution, last Session, declaratory of the principle of the scheme contained in the present Bill, to bring forward a measure themselves this Session, and lay it before the notice of the House of Commons, and give the Government the opportunity either of supporting it or of adducing their reasons for adopting an opposite course. The grievances the Irish National School teachers had long complained of were three in number—first, insufficiency of pay; secondly, the condition of the residences provided for them; and, thirdly, inadequacy of the pensions and retiring allowances granted to them. The Bill, which was a very short measure, proposed to deal with every one of these three questions. It proposed to supply deficiencies in two Acts passed in 1875—one to improve the position of the teachers in regard to salaries, and the other to alleviate their condition in regard to their residences. These measures—like a great many other measures of relief for Ireland—were faulty, entirely inadequate, and came too late. The Bill he now proposed for second reading amended in two or three important respects the terms of these former Bills. It proposed to raise the fees paid to the National School teachers. The Act of 1875 provided that any Poor Law Union

    749
    in Ireland that was willing to do so might contribute a certain portion of the rates to be divided amongst the National teachers as result fees; and the Act also provided that if a Union did make such contribution, the Treasury might advance a small amount to them. It was left permissive to every Union to contribute or not, as it thought fit. The result was that although some Unions did contribute at first, the number rapidly fell away, until, at last, it became painfully evident that there was no practical value in the provision. The present Bill provided that result fees should be paid in each case, whether the Unions agreed to contribute or not, and that the teachers, who were a hardly worked and badly-paid class, should not be dependent on the caprice or at the mercy of this or that Union, but should have fair and decent salaries secured to them. The second portion of the Bill was simply to amend an Act which laid down conditions on which money should be advanced for the purpose of erecting houses for the teachers. It proposed to improve the conditions specified in the Act of 1875 by extending the period of payment and reducing the amount to be paid each year. The third part of the Bill placed the teachers in a better position in regard to pensions and retiring allowances. These were the points of the Bill. It would be wrong in him to detain the House at so late an hour in explaining at greater length all the interesting questions which naturally arose under this Bill. The House was already well acquainted with the grievances of National School teachers and the remedies the Irish Members wished to apply to their case. It was simply proposed to develop and improve the two Acts of 1875—to carry out the intention the House had in its mind when it passed them. The Irish Members asked Parliament to make a reality of what they had desired, but had failed to do, nearly 10 years ago, and to mete out a measure of justice to one of the most deserving and useful and ill-treated classes of public servants in Ireland, or any other country. He begged to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—{Mr. Justin M'Carthy.)
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I can hardly believe that the hon. Member expects the House, I will not say to read this Bill a second time on the present occasion, but even to proceed seriously to discuss it. [Mr. SEXTON: Why not?] The Bill was only printed and placed in the hands of hon. Members this morning; and not only is that the fact, but the history of the measure is rather singular. The hon. Member gave Notice of it at an early period this Session. It was introduced and read a first time on an early day, and for some time lately it has been put down day after day on the Orders of the House—for what reason I do not exactly know—but the House having no indication of what the Bill really was intended to be, it was put down day after day on the Orders of the House. It is, therefore, pretty clear that the hon. Member himself did not know what the Bill was going to be until a recent date—probably not until a day or two ago. [An hon. MEMBER: Long ago.] If the hon. Member has taken so long to make up his mind as to what his own Bill was going to be, it is only fair that the House should be allowed a little time to make up its mind as to what opinion it should form of it. It is a Bill of a very serious kind, largely interfering with the emoluments of teachers in Ireland. I am not going to express an opinion either for or against it; but it is a measure on which the Irish Government could not take any step without first consulting the Treasury, the Board of National Education in Ireland, and other authorities, so that it is quite impossible for us to express an opinion now. Under all the circumstances, and considering that the Bill is perfectly new to the House, and that it affects a very large question which cannot be dealt with in an off-hand way, I think that I best discharge my duty by moving at once that the debate be adjourned. I am not sure that a technical objection could not be taken to the Bill, on the ground that it largely affects many questions, and ought to have been brought in in Committee of the Whole House. I do not raise that objection myself; and I think that, under the circumstances, the best course for me to take on the part of the Government is to move the adjournment of the debate.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Campbell-Bannerman.)
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he regretted the course which had been taken by the right hon. Gentleman, and even more than the regret he felt at the Motion the right hon. Gentleman had made was the regret he was obliged to feel and to express at the tone of the right hon. Gentleman's observations. It was true the right hon. Gentleman had refrained from the crowning step of making the technical objection he had referred to; but whilst he had refrained from taking that course himself, he had indicated pretty clearly to every other enemy of the Bill that they might defeat it and prevent its progress by doing that which he himself would not do. Looking at the manner in which the Cabinet was now engaged in forwarding legislation on a question far greater and more important than that dealt with in the present Bill, he (Mr. Sexton) was bound to say that the objection taken by the right hon. Gentleman against proceeding with the Bill struck him as being exceedingly singular. The right hon. Gentleman said there had been delay in printing the Bill, and that it had been put down in the Orders from day to day. Well, the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. Justin M'Carthy), who was in charge of the Bill, felt it convenient and necessary to negotiate with those outside the House; and it was strange that a Member of a Government which had been quite recently engaged in private negotiations outside on a much more important matter should object to such a course on the part of the hon. Member.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I made no such objection.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, the right hon. Gentleman seemed to think the fact that the Bill had not been printed earlier—which was owing to these negotiations—was a reason why the Bill should not be proceeded with at present. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the hon. Member for Longford himself was not aware of the contents of his own Bill until a late period, and that he now desired the House to proceed with it suddenly. Well, how long ago was the House of Commons aware of the intentions of the Government with regard to the Parliamentary Elections,
    752
    Redistribution, Bill? They had been engaged in private negotiations for the past fortnight; they had sprung this Bill on the House of Commons a couple of days ago, and they had rushed it through a second reading that night. It was in presence of the fact, well known to everybody, that the Parliamentary Elections, Redistribution, Bill, which had been rushed through the House that night, had sprung out of a private negotiation carried on outside the House, that the hon. Member for Longford was reproached with delay in putting down the terms of his Bill. His delay was urged as a reason for not proceeding with the Bill. A measure of the magnitude of the Parliamentary Elections, Redistribution, Bill, could be proceeded with under such circum stances, but not a simple measure for the relief of the Irish National teachers. The hon. Member for Longford had, of course, put down the Bill from day to day, in the hope of being able to avail himself of such opportunities as might arise for bringing it on. There had been several occasions on which the House had disposed of its Business early, and on one of those the hon. Member had hoped, when his Bill was ready, to bring on the second reading. Such an opportunity had arisen that night. The propositions in the Bill were simple and just, though they were long. They were only long because long propositions were necessary to satisfy the justice of the case. The House, if it desired to do justice to a deserving body of public servants, ought to proceed with the measure without hesitation. The Irish Members asked, first, that the salaries of the National School teachers should be modified. He did not know whether he was in Order in referring to——
    MR. SPEAKER: I must remind the hon. Gentleman that we are now on the Question of the Adjournment.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he had apprehended that he was slightly out of Order from a significant and eloquent movement on the part of Mr. Speaker. Judging from the precipitancy with which the Government had forced a measure of great importance on the House, he thought the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary in the course he had adopted that night had behaved with great inconsistency and with great want of conciliation towards a long-suffering

    753
    body of public servants in Ireland. He (Mr. Sexton) hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not insist on his Motion for Adjournment. The Irish Members would oppose it, but they would not be able to resist it for any length of time. Under any circumstances, he hoped the Government would give the Irish Members a promise that they would not on its future stages oppose the progress of the Bill.
    MR. JUSTIN HUNTLY M'CARTHYsaid, it seemed to him singularly unreasonable on the part of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to move the adjournment of the debate that evening on the ground that he had not been able to find time to master the exceedingly simple details of this measure. The whole subject of the National School teachers of Ireland had been before the House for a very long time indeed—for something like 10 years—and the details of their grievances, and the manner in which it was proposed to remedy them, ought to be familiar even to the freshest of Chief Secretaries. If the right hon. Gentleman was not familiar with them, it would, of course, be the duty of the Irish Party to make him familiar with them during his tenure of Office, if that tenure were sufficiently long to enable them to do so. He (Mr. M'Carthy) had had the honour, two or three months ago, of bringing this subject of the National School teachers of Ireland under the notice of the House, and had only been unsuccessful in carrying his Motion by a very small number of votes. He had hoped that the warning then conveyed to the Irish Executive would have induced them to bring forward some measure of their own dealing with the difficulties of the Irish School teachers. But as the Government did not think it right to take any steps in the matter, it was left to the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) and those who followed him to have the case again brought before the House. The arguments the Irish Members might have used in support of the Bill, if the action taken by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had not silenced them, would have been more or less a repetition of the arguments which the right hon. Gentleman might have made himself familiar with if he had studied the previous debate. He (Mr. M'Carthy)
    754
    was aware they could not now go into the details of the measure before them, but they could protest with all the vigour at their command against the course the Government had taken of gagging them on this occasion. The Government were accustomed to gag the Irish Members whenever they could. They would hardly feel at home if they were not trying to do so. This was the first occasion on which the present Chief Secretary had been able to do so, and, very naturally, he seized his opportunity. He (Mr. M'Carthy) protested against the course pursued on behalf of the Irish National teachers, whose cause he had represented before now; and he also protested in the strongest manner against the tone assumed by the Chief Secretary.
    MR. KENNYsaid, he would remind the House that at the closing period of last Session a Resolution on this question was discussed at considerable length, and was tested by a Division. The result was that the Motion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Athlone (Mr. Justin Huntly M'Carthy) was only rejected by a majority of two. The question was at that time fully discussed, and the objections made by the Government were objections as to political exigency. As well as he could remember they were not objections advanced on principle. He desired to point out to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary that when, a year ago, his Predecessor (Mr. Trevelyan) had in charge a Bill, of a nature analogous to the present, to increase the pay and pensions not of teachers, but of Irish policemen, the Bill was passed through the House with the utmost expedition. The Rule of Urgency was not voted for it, but the Government took every opportunity in their power to press it forward. Even at 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning the clauses—the different Amendments—were discussed in Committee, and the Chief Secretary at the time turned a deaf ear to all the requests made to him by the Irish Members to give them time for the purpose of considering their action with regard to the Bill. He would suggest to the Chief Secretary that the measure had been amply discussed. The justice of the claims of the Irish National School teachers had been over and over again admitted by the officials of the Government on the Trea-

    755
    sury Bench—even by the officials of the present Government. The Bill was an extremely simple one and although it had been before the House but for a short time, nevertheless the time was sufficiently long for every Member of the House who cared to instruct himself upon the subject to become thoroughly master of the details of the measure. In view of these considerations, he would appeal to the Government to take the course they had taken in regard to a still more important measure, and agree to the second reading of the Bill, in order that they might give to the National teachers of Ireland an assurance that the Government were serious in their intention of legislating. If the Government would read the Bill a second time now, the Irish Members would consent to take a discussion upon its principle upon a later stage on the Motion that the Speaker should leave the Chair, and they would be ready to put down the date of that stage for some day not before the 19th of February, the date which had been fixed for going into Committee on the Parliamentary Elections, Redistribution, Bill. Under any circumstances, he hoped that Her Majesty's Government would give some assurance to so deserving a body of men and women as the Irish National teachers, that there was a bonâ fide intention on their part to make some provision for their future treatment and training.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he must express a considerable amount of surprise that the forcible appeal which had been made by the hon. Member for Ennis (Mr. Kenny) had not elicited any response from the Government. He saw the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland in his place, and he ventured to think that the hon. and learned Gentleman knew a great deal more about this than almost any other Irish question. The hon. and learned Gentleman ought, therefore, to be in a position to answer the hon. Member for Ennis, if he were willing to do so, and he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) would support the proposal put forward by his hon. Friend—that the Government should allow the second reading of the Bill, with the understanding that the discussion would be taken on the Question that the Speaker leave the Chair. He was sure that his hon.
    756
    Friend who had charge of the Bill would be perfectly willing to put down the further stages of it for any reasonable date, say, the last week in February or the first week in March. He put this forward only as a suggestion, and not for the purpose of raising a discussion. He joined in the regret which had been expressed at the manner in which the Chief Secretary had dealt with the question. There was certainly no reason for moving the adjournment of the debate at the moment that course was taken by the right hon. Gentleman. If the right hon. Gentleman had put forward his views to the Irish Members that this was not a proper time for discussing the question, they would have been quite willing to give fair consideration to any of the arguments he might have adduced in support of those views; but the right hon. Gentleman had preferred to take the course of endeavouring to apply to them an effectual gag, by moving the adjournment of the debate, before any real discussion of the question could take place, and at the very first moment that it was possible for him to do so. That course had been aggravated by the arguments the right hon. Gentleman had brought to bear in favour of an adjournment. One reason assigned was that his hon. Friend the Member for Longford (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) had put the Bill down on the Paper from day to day. Was there anything absurd, unusual, or reprehensible in an hon. Member putting down a Bill from day to day in such a ricketty and dissevered kind of Session as they had at the present moment? Nobody knew what was going to be done. They were in the midst of a great Party struggle, and the House might rise at 7 o'clock in the evening or sit until 3 o'clock in the morning. Under circumstances of this kind, his hon. Friend would have been grossly neglecting the important interests intrusted to his charge if he had not put down the Bill from day to day, in the hope that some occasion might arise when he would be able to bring it forward. What was the second reason of the right hon. Gentleman? It was certainly one upon which the right hon. Gentleman ought to have endeavoured to illuminate his mind before he put it forward. The Chief Secretary said that his hon. Friend did not know what was in his own mind when he gave Notice of the

    757
    Bill. Now, that was not so. His hon. Friend was fully aware of the proposals he intended to make, but he had some doubt as to the particular drafting that was necessary in order to put those proposals in a proper shape in the Bill. Several technical objections stood in the way of his hon. Friend; but his hon. Friend, from the moment he gave Notice of the Bill, always entertained exactly the same views in regard to the provisions required as those embodied in the Bill. Did not the right hon. Gentleman know that this measure was only the embodiment, in the shape of a Bill, of the proposals of his hon. Friend the Member for Athlone (Mr. Justin Huntly M'Carthy) in a Resolution he had moved in the House. The Government were familiar with all the proposals contained in the Bill. They had been brought before them time after time, Session after Session, in Resolution after Resolution, and speech after speech, until he thought it would have been a far more reasonable complaint on the part of the right hon. Gentleman if he had said that he was sick and tired of hearing of the subject, rather than that he was unfamiliar with the proposals contained in the Bill. Under these circumstances, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would withdraw the unreasonable opposition he had made to the second reading of the Bill, on a distinct pledge being given that it would not be carried to a further stage until the close of February, and that ample time would be afforded for a full discussion.
    DR. LYONSdeprecated the Motion for the adjournment of the debate on this important measure, which concerned very large interests in Ireland. He would remind the House and the right hon. Gentleman, if they were not already aware of the history of the measure, that it had formed to a large extent the subject-matter of a Bill which ought to be familiar to the House. When that Bill was passed it was passed on the distinct understanding that there should be a contribution on the part of the Unions. That part of the Bill had not been carried out, and it was necessary that the provisions should be reshaped. He believed he was perfectly justified in making that statement. In point of fact, the Bill, in a certain sense, was a secondary Bill.
    MR. SPEAKER: The Question before the House is the Question of Adjourn-
    758
    ment. The hon. Member is not entitled to go into the principle of the Bill, or of any amendment of it.
    DR. LYONSsaid, he had only been trying to recall to the mind of the Chief Secretary that the engagement made some time ago by a former Chief Secretary for Ireland was that the measure should be reconsidered if it was found necessary. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would now, by withdrawing his Motion, permit some discussion on the principles of the measure to take place, and some statement to be made of the circumstances which had already taken place in regard to this Bill. He sincerely hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not press his Motion to a Division, because it would have the effect of hanging up the consideration of the question until an indefinite period. He thought the right hon. Gentleman would be most ill-advised in taking that course. The Bill had now obtained a certain position, is which it was possible to make some advance; and in all probability if the Motion for Adjournment were pressed, on the part of the Government, the Bill would be killed, notwithstanding the fact that it was regarded as a necessity in the interests of a large class of the Irish people.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid, he did not think that, in refusing to allow this Bill to be read a second time that night, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary calculated at all accurately the degree of disappointment which would be created in Ireland by the course which he was adopting. The Bill which the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) had introduced was one which had for a very longtime attracted considerable interest in Ireland. It was a measure the provisions of which had long been felt to be a necessity; and he was perfectly sure that to-morrow morning, when the news reached Ireland that upon that night, which was practically the last night of the Session of Parliament, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had refused to grant the second reading of the Bill, there would be nothing from one end of Ireland to the other but deep disappointment and dissatisfaction. Upon what grounds did the right hon. Gentleman refuse to allow the Bill to be read a second time? He believed

    759
    the right hon. Gentleman had no fault to find with the principle of the Bill. At least, he (Mr. Redmond) was not aware that the right hon. Gentleman had given expression to any dissatisfaction or opposition to the principle which was contained in the Bill. He had not denied that the position of the National School teachers in Ireland required material improvement; and as far as they upon those Benches could understand, it was practically, although silently, perhaps, admitted by the right hon. Gentleman that the Bill was a necessary Bill, and that it was a measure which would meet with the approval and support of the Government at some future date. Why, then, did the right hon. Gentleman refuse, by not allowing it to be read a second time, to give to the people of Ireland the satisfaction of knowing that Her Majesty's Government did approve of the principle of the Bill? If the second reading necessitated the adoption by the Government of the provisions of the Bill, pure and simple, as they were presented within the four corners of it, there might, perhaps, be some ground for the right hon. Gentleman's objection that the measure had been but recently printed, and that sufficient time had not been afforded to the Government for fully mastering the details of the measure. It ought to be considered that the second reading was by no means a pledge that the Bill would be passed. The second reading was merely an expression of approval of the general propositions contained in the Bill; and it would be quite competent for the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant and his Colleagues in Her Majesty's Government to oppose any portions of the Bill which they did not think desirable, at a further stage of the measure—in Committee. It would be quite competent for anyone between the present time and the day on which the House would be asked to go into Committee upon the Bill, to master any detail which any hon. Member might now complain that he had not had time to enable him fully to master. He did not think that the position of the right hon. Gentleman was consistent. The right hon. Gentleman did not say that he disapproved of the Bill. He did not say that it was a Bill which Her Majesty's Government would not be
    760
    able to sanction; and yet, although he tacitly gave his approval to the principle of the measure, he would not allow that approval to take the form of consenting to the Bill being read a second time, so that it might give satisfaction to the people of Ireland. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider the situation. By allowing the Bill to be read a second time, what would he do? He would do an act which would give very great satisfaction to the people of Ireland, whom he would have to govern between this time and the time when Parliament would reassemble. By allowing the Bill to be read a second time, he did not pledge himself, nor did he pledge Her Majesty's Government, to pass the Bill in its entirety. By allowing it to be read a second time, he and the Government would be doing an act which would be graciously received throughout Ireland, and which would be fully appreciated by the Representatives of Ireland sitting upon those Benches. Upon the other hand, the right hon. Gentleman, by refusing to allow the Bill to be read a second time, would give rise to an impression throughout Ireland, which might perhaps be erroneous, that Her Majesty's Government were opposed to the Bill. As surely as the right hon. Gentleman pressed his Motion for Adjournment—as surely as he did not allow the Bill to be read a second time—the National School teachers of Ireland and their friends would construe the action of the right hon. Gentleman, in thus opposing the measure, into an expression by Her Majesty's Government of opposition to the general provisions of the Bill. Under these circumstances, he thought he was justified in asking the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider his position. It was not very much that they asked the right hon. Gentleman to do, and he was sure that if he acceded to their request, it would be altogether for the benefit of Her Majesty's Government in Ireland. It would render all the more secure the position of the right hon. Gentleman himself as Chief Secretary for Ireland, and satisfaction would be given to a very large and influential class of the Irish people. The right hon. Gentleman's plea for and justification of his refusal to allow the Bill to be read a second time, was that it had only recently been printed, and that, consequently, he and

    761
    other Members of Parliament had not had sufficient time to master its contents. That was a plea which he had certainly not expected to hear from the lips of any Gentleman in that House, much less from a Member of Her Majesty's Government. What was the nature of this Bill which required such a great deal of study in order to master its provisions?
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to discuss the Bill.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid, he was only about to point out why he thought it would be desirable that the Bill should be read a second time, in opposition to the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary that the debate should be adjourned. The Bill against which the opposition of the right hon. Gentleman was directed was a measure containing six clauses only. He did not know the average mental capacity of hon. Members of that House, and he did not know what amount of time the right hon. Gentleman required to enable him to master six clauses of a Bill.
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is exceeding the fair latitude given to an hon. Member in discussing a Motion for Adjournment. I must call upon him to confine his remarks to the Mosion before the House, which is strictly the Motion for the adjournment of the debate.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid, he was sorry that the Rules of the House would not allow him to explain why it was that he was opposed to the Motion for the adjournment of the debate. What were the facts of the case? A Motion for the adjournment of the debate had been made by the right hon. Gentleman, and that Motion, if adopted, would practically kill a most necessary and a most useful measure which had been introduced by his hon. Friend the Member for Longford (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) for the benefit of the National School teachers of Ireland. Of course, according to the ruling of the Chair, he (Mr. Redmond) was not allowed to show why he considered that ample time had been given to every Member of the House, of average intellect, to master the details of the Bill, and to approve of its second reading, as against the Motion for Adjournment. Therefore, he would confine himself strictly to discussing, for a few moments longer, the Motion which the
    762
    Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant had made. Upon very many occasions when it had been the duty of Members sitting on the Irish Benches to move the adjournment of the debate, or of the House, they had received a very great deal of opposition from Her Majesty's Government. Whenever they had, in accordance with the duty which they considered to be consistent with their position as Representatives of the people of Ireland, moved the adjournment of the debate, or the adjournment of the House, they had constantly called down upon their heads the indignation and disapproval of Her Majesty's Government; but now, when it suited Her Majesty's Government——
    MR. SPEAKER: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to resume his seat. I have twice told him that his remarks are irrelevant, and that he is exceeding all reasonable latitude. I must ask him, therefore, to resume his seat.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMONDremained standing.
    MR. SPEAKER: I must ask the hon. Member to resume his seat.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I was about——
    MR. SPEAKER: I ask the hon. Gentleman once more to resume his seat.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND,thereupon, resumed his seat.
    MR. O'BRIENsaid, he was in hope that the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland might, to some extent, have been softened by the entreaties made from the Irish Benches and from the Benches behind the right hon. Gentleman, and that he might not have pressed his Motion for Adjournment in the teeth of what was plainly the opinion of the Representatives of Ireland. He (Mr. O'Brien) and his hon. Friends could not help noticing, and he did not think that the Irish teachers would fail to notice, that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland was in such a hurry to give an ungracious reception to a Bill of so much importance to a large class of public servants in Ireland, that he actually jumped up to make the proposal for adjournment before the Motion for the second reading of the Bill was seconded. The right hon. Gentleman had made no objection to the Bill itself; but the Motion he had made would simply have the effect of killing the Bill

    763
    for this Session; and the only ground on which it was made was that this short Bill of a few clauses was only put into the hands of Members that morning. If he was not mistaken, it was only that morning that Members received the amended draft of the Parliamentary Elections, Redistribution, Bill, which had been read a second time that night. They excused a good deal of the right hon. Gentleman's inexperience of Irish affairs; but he should, have supposed that even one whose acquaintance with Ireland was of so very recent date would have known that this Bill was not in any respect sprung upon the House of Commons. Years ago, the House adopted the principle of the Bill, and the Bill that his hon. Friend (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) wished to have read a second time simply provided the machinery for carrying out what was already the expressed will of the House. He could not possibly understand that the almost technical excuse that this short Bill was only delivered that day should be allowed to stand in the way of the House entertaining this Session the claims of a hard-worked body of public servants, whose grievances—and they were many—had over and over again been acknowledged. He could not help contrasting the slowness with which the Chief Secretary for Ireland made, that night, the attempt to do justice to the School teachers of Ireland with the speed, the extraordinary speed, with which the claims of the Royal Irish Constabulary were entertained by the House.
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not now confining himself to the Question of Adjournment. He is going into matters which are quite irrelevant to the Question before the House.
    MR. O'BRIENasked if he was not at liberty to represent to the Chief Secretary and to the House that the course which the right hon. Gentleman proposed to take now in the case of the claims of an important body of public servants was not similar to the course that was taken by the Government when the claims of another body of public servants had to be discussed?
    MR. SPEAKER: No; that is quite irrelevant to the subject before the House, which is the adjournment of the debate.
    MR. O'BRIENsaid, it might, possibly, be one of the misfortunes of their case;
    764
    but he must say it was rather difficult for an Irish Member to find anything to say that was relevant to questions, when Irish intervention in debate was disagreeable to the majority of the House.
    MR. LEAMYsaid, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary would be courteous enough to reply to the arguments which Irish Members had advanced in favour of this Bill. Of course, he (Mr. Leamy) and his hon. Friends were only very small in number; but that was no reason why the arguments they had put forward against the Amendment which had been moved by the right hon. Gentleman should not, at least, be replied to by someone on the Treasury Bench. The awkward position in which they would be placed by the adoption of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment was that the discussion of the Bill would practically be prevented for the remainder of the Session. If this Bill had been an English Bill, it would have been mastered in five minutes. It had been suggested that the right hon. Gentleman should allow the Bill to be read a second time, now and inquire into its merits during the Recess, and before the Committee stage could possibly be taken. The right hon. Gentleman could command big battalions, and as he could defer the subsequent stage of the Bill until such time as he wished, and as he must know that he could read the Bill a second time without committing himself to the principle of the Bill or without tying his bands to pass the measure, he (Mr. Leamy) failed to understand why it was that the right hon. Gentleman persisted in his present Amendment. The right hon. Gentles man was new to his position; he was new to the propositions of Irish Members; but when the Motion was made to read this Bill a second time, he certainly had no right to meet it in the way he did. Were the Irish Members to go back to Ireland at the end of this Autumn Sitting and tell the people that when they brought forward a Bill of this character, which was not a controversial Bill, but one for the amelioration of the condition of a deserving body of public servants, it was not allowed to be discussed? He thought they had a right to ask the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain), upon whom, at present, the Leadership of the House de-

    765
    volved, to be courteous enough to rise in his place and tell them why they should adjourn the debate. It was only asked that the Bill should be read a second time now. If that were done, there could not possibly be any further discussion until they met again in February. If the right hon. Gentleman withdrew his Motion and allowed the Bill to be read a second time, it would always be in the power of the Government to say whether the discussion should be resumed or not; it would be in their power to say whether there should be any chance of the promoters of the Bill moving that the Speaker should leave the Chair. Seeing that the chances of resuming the discussion were so very remote if the Government did not desire that the consideration of the measure should be resumed, he did not see what the Government could lose by allowing the second reading to be taken that night. He put it to the House whether the claim put forward by the Irish Members was not a most reasonable one, especially as they could not by any possibility force the Government to take any future stage of the measure?
    MR. WARTONsaid, he was in favour of the Motion for Adjournment, because there was not time that night to go into the question properly and fully. He ventured to suggest, however, that the Government would save themselves a great deal of trouble if they now assented to the second reading.
    MR. P. J. POWERsaid, that the Representatives of Ireland were often told that the Government were very anxious to deal with Irish affairs on the same footing as they dealt with English affairs. He did not think the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary that night would, in the opinion of the Irish people, justify that assertion. This Bill was a very simple one. It was merely a Bill to put the teachers of Ireland——
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not in Order in discussing the principles of the Bill.
    MR. P. J. POWERsaid, he was sorry to say that the action which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had taken that night would encourage the opinion, now so largely prevalent in Ireland, that the people could not get anything from Her Majesty's Government unless they resorted to pressure.
    766
    It was very possible that the action of the Government that night would force the National School teachers of Ireland, if they wished to have their grievances redressed, to adopt something like the tactics adopted recently by the members of the Royal Irish Constabulary.
    MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYsaid, that, before the Motion was put to the vote, he should like to know whether anybody on the Treasury Bench meant to justify the Motion for Adjournment by offering any suggestion, or making any proposition, or giving any indication that anything whatever would be done by the Government? He hoped the Government would say something which might excuse or vindicate the extraordinary course they proposed, or that they would offer a promise to do something which would enable them to bring the question before the House at the proper time. The Bill was only 33 lines in length, and yet the Government had said nothing whatever in the way of pledge or promise, or in vindication or excuse of their conduct.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, that to the appeal made in the terms used by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) he had no hesitation in responding. Of course, in the remarks he had to make, he should confine himself strictly to the question whether the debate ought to be adjourned or not. So far as he knew, the matter was simply this. A Bill was introduced for the purpose of improving the salaries and pensions of the Irish School teachers. That Bill was introduced about six or seven weeks ago, and until that morning it was not printed, and nothing had been done to have it printed. No proposal for increasing the salaries of Irish teachers, or the salaries of any other public servants, could be made except by a Minister of the Crown. It was not in the power of Members, except by Motion set up by a Minister of the Crown, to make such a proposal. There was, however, a single clause in the Bill to which this did not apply, and, therefore, in point of form, it might come before the House; but when increase of salary was the real object of a Bill of which they only had Notice a few hours ago, a Bill which, in this respect, dealt with matters strictly within the power of a Minister of the Crown and no one else, was it

    767
    or was it not reasonable that the Government or the Treasury should have time to consider the matters with which the Bill dealt? In this instance, they had not had such time, because the Bill had only been printed that morning. That seemed to be an unanswerable reason for adjourning the debate. He was the last person who would take his stand upon technicalities; and, therefore, setting aside all technicalities, he would undertake that the Government would consider this proposal—not as a Bill, because as a Bill it could not be introduced. They would consider the proposal between now and the reassembling of the House in February, and if, after due consultation with the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland and the Irish Government, they thought that any proposal about School teachers salaries or pensious should be made to the House, they would, on their own responsibility, make it. He thought the course he suggested was a fair and reasonable one, and, therefore, he hoped the House would now agree to the adjournment of the debate.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 83; Noes 14: Majority 69.—(Div. List, No. 22.)
    MR. SPEAKER: Bill deferred until what day?
    MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY: This day.
    MR. SEXTON: What day is fixed?
    MR. SPEAKER: I asked the hon. Member (Mr. Justin M'Carthy), and I understood him to say "to-morrow."
    MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY: I said "to-day."
    Debate adjourned till To-morrow.

  ELECTIONS IN COUNTIES (HOURS OF POLL) BILL.— [BILL 19.]
  (Mr. Arthur Elliot, Mr. Grey, Mr. Stafford Howard, Mr. Cochran-Patrick.)
  ELECTIONS IN COUNTIES (HOURS OF POLL) BILL.— [BILL 19.]

    COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    MR. A. R. D. ELLIOT: I move that you, Sir, do now leave the Chair. I do not propose to proceed with the Bill in Committee to-night, my desire being to advance the measure a stage—that is to say, to get you, Sir, out of the Chair. The consideration of the clauses in Committee I shall propose to proceed with on some other day.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. A. R. D. Elliot.)
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he did not think it was desirable for Mr. Speaker to now leave the Chair for the purpose of enabling the Committee to proceed with this Bill, and he (Mr. Sexton) had more reasons than one for objecting. In the first place, he considered the hour was too late. It was an hour since the Irish Members had proposed to make progress with a Bill they considered of very great importance, since it affected the question of the livelihood of 16,000 men and women engaged in the Public Service in Ireland. The Irish Members had not been allowed to make progress with that measure notwithstanding its great importance; therefore, he certainly thought the hour was too late to attempt to make progress with another Bill which only affected the hours of polling at elections in counties, a great many of which were not likely to take place for more than a year to come. If Irish Bills of importance were not to be considered at half-past 12 o'clock, he did not think English Bills of importance should be considered at half-past 1. In the second place, this Bill, though brief and apparently simple, was not quite so simple as it seemed. It proposed that the hours of polling should be from 8 o'clock in the forenoon until 8 o'clock in the evening, and though that was a symmetrical proposal which would apply equally to every constituency in the country, yet it was desirable for Members to have more time for consideration before going into Committee. The hon. and learned Member (Mr. Elliot) in making this proposal was somewhat inconsistent. The Bill was only read a second time yesterday, and surely more consideration than a few hours was required before they could decide to go into Committee upon it. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who addressed the House a few minutes ago, was greatly averse to proceeding with measures after only a few hours' consideration. Well, if a Bill of six clauses, to which there was little or no opposition on the question of principle, could not get a second reading after a few hours' consideration, he thought an important Bill like the present, though it consisted only of one clause, could not

    769
    be allowed to go into Committee after a few hours' consideration. He believed the measure was only circulated on Monday or Tuesday last, and only passed the second reading yesterday; and he did not think that, under the circumstances of the night, and considering what had passed, it was desirable or even decent that further progress should be made. He thought he was only performing his duty when he moved the adjournment of the debate.
    MR. A. R. D. ELLIOT: The Bill was printed and circulated weeks ago.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Sexton.)
    MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid, he did not wish unnecessarily to detain the House. ["Oh, oh!"] If these interruptions from hon. Gentlemen opposite continued he was afraid that his remarks would necessarily be somewhat lengthy. He desired, very briefly, to support the Motion of the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) for adjournment. He could not conceive anything more thoroughly inconsistent than the action of Her Majesty's Government in refusing to accede to the Motion made a few minutes ago that a Bill much more extensive than the present measure be read a second time. It was now proposed to go into Committee on the Elections in Counties (Hours of Poll) Bill—["No, no!"]—which was of considerable interest to very many Members in the House. Many Irish Members were interested in it; and, in the interest of those Gentlemen who did not imagine that the Government were about to spring Business of this description upon the House at that late hour of the night, he was very glad that his hon. Friend had moved the adjournment of the debate. But, apart from this consideration, that there were Members interested in the Bill who were not now present, not having expected it to come on that late hour, there was another consideration which, he thought, rendered it absolutely necessary that Members from Ireland should oppose the measure at that juncture. A few minutes ago a Bill had been introduced by an Irish Member of Parliament. It dealt with a subject of very great interest to the Irish people. Her Majesty's Government refused to allow progress to be
    770
    made with it. Now there came on a Bill which was fathered by four English Members, and to that the Government offered no opposition at all. It was a mere insignificant Bill compared with the Irish Bill. The Government took up that position for the sole reason that the present Bill had the disadvantage—and it was always a disadvantage to any Bill with which it was desired to make progress—of being introduced by Irish Members of Parliament. He was sure if there was anything which could emphasize in the minds of the people of Ireland the action of Her Majesty's Government in refusing to allow the National School Teachers Bill to make progress, it would be the fact that now, within half-an-hour of having refused to allow that Bill to be read a second time, they were anxious to proceed with an English measure, fathered by English Members of Parliament. Such a course as that, on the part of Her Majesty's Government, led the Irish Members to the conclusion—a conclusion many of them had long since arrived at—that there was a great deal of latitude allowed to English Members and their measures, no matter how late the hour; whereas there was very little latitude allowed to Irish Members for any Irish Business which might be introduced to the House by them, and not by Her Majesty's Government. He considered that his hon. Friend, in moving the adjournment of the debate, had only done what was his absolute duty; and he sincerely hoped that it would be a lesson to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary—who had not altogether disappeared from the House—who, although he had slaughtered one useful Irish Member—[Laughter.]—or rather measure, fortunately did not have it in his power to slaughter Irish Members. If the right hon. Gentleman had it in his power to do that he (Mr. Redmond) was afraid that some Irish Members would meet with the same fate as some of their measures. The right hon. Gentleman had not retired, and he (Mr. Redmond) was glad of that, because the present would be a very good example of that which the right hon. Gentleman had to expect at the hands of the Irish Members, if he persisted unnecessarily and intentionally in obstructing legislation which those Members introduced into the House. He sincerely

    771
    hoped that not only would his hon. Friends support the Motion for Adjournment which had been made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sligo, but that, in their turn, very many of them would also move adjournments, and so teach English Members that though they might triumph in their attempts to suppress Irish Members in the measures they introduced, they would not succeed in that triumph without considerable loss of sleep.
    MR. KENNYsaid, he should like to know from the hon. and learned Member who was responsible for the introduction of the Bill whether or not it was to apply to Ireland?
    MR. A. R. D. ELLIOT: Yes; it is to enable Irish voters to get to the poll. ["Hear, hear!"]
    MR. KENNYsaid, that notwithstanding that fact, and the interruptions of hon. Gentlemen sitting opposite, Members of a "superior race" had declined to allow the name of an Irish Member to be placed on the back of the Bill, or to become in any way responsible for its passing into law. He entirely repudiated the right of hon. Members sitting on the other side of the House to attempt to force on, with consultation or without consultation, legislation of a grave and serious character on the House. This was said to be a measure affecting the interests of the Irish; and if it were so, it would be a matter upon which the Irish people might be expected to entertain some opinion. He thought it was due, therefore, to the Irish Members that before legislation of this character was proposed in that House by private Members of the standing of the hon. and learned Member whose name was first on the back of the Bill, some consideration ought to be shown to those hon. Gentlemen, even to those sitting on the hon. and learned Member's own side of the House, and the framers of the Bill should have had the courtesy to consult such Members with regard to their views upon such a subject. He could not protest too strongly against what he must characterize as the wantonness of English Members, with their affectations of superiority and their affectations of a right to rule.
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is neither respectful to the House, nor is he confining himself to the subject of the Motion before the House.
    MR. KENNYsaid, he had no intention of wandering beyond the scope of the measure.
    An hon. MEMBER: You have.
    MR. KENNYsaid, he was simply endeavouring to point out that the unusual course which had been adopted by hon. Gentlemen responsible for the introduction of the Bill was in itself sufficient to provoke the opposition of the Irish Members. He would like to know what did the hon. and learned Gentleman whose name stood first on the back of the Bill expect to gain by taking the stage he proposed to gain that night. If he succeeded in gaining that stage did he propose to run the Bill through Committee at once? [Mr. A. R. D. ELLIOT: No!] He (Mr. Kenny) should like to know, then, what object the hon. and learned Member could have in view in thus endeavouring to force on, at that extraordinary and unusual hour, a stage which was a mere formal one, in view of the fact that no further progress could be made with the measure for the next two or three months? If no further progress could be made with it for such a period the attitude of the hon. and learned Member was one of the most unjustifiable and extraordinary that could possibly be conceived. They were asked to proceed with the Bill at an unusual hour; they were asked to proceed with it without having had, as he conceived, an opportunity of having its merits sufficiently investigated; and they were asked to proceed with it at a time which was absolutely unsuited to its discussion. Even if an additional stage were taken it could not be of the slightest service to hon. Members who seemed so anxious for its passage. He doubted very much whether the Bill was one which would be of a serviceable or useful nature. He very much doubted whether the proposals involved would not result in the very greatest possible inconvenience.
    MR. SPEAKER: I really must ask the hon. Gentleman to observe the ruling of the Chair, and not to deviate into irrelevant matter. He is now discussing the principle of the Bill on the Question of Adjournment.
    MR. KENNYsaid, it was only that moment that he had learnt that the Motion before the House was for the adjournment of the debate; and to that Question, no doubt, he had not been confining himself strictly. He, however,

    773
    was perfectly unconscious that he was not now addressing himself to the Question before the House. ["Order!"] At the same time, he believed Mr. Speaker to be the best judge as to whether anything he (Mr. Kenny) was saying did or did not come, in a certain sense, within the meaning of the Motion made by his hon. Friend. With regard to that Motion for Adjournment, he sincerely hoped that the House, which a few minutes ago so speedily voted the adjournment of a somewhat similar and more important question, would now maintain its logical consistency, and also decline to proceed at that extraordinary hour with a measure which had not been sufficiently considered, which had been introduced without consultation with hon. Members sitting on the Irish Benches, and the pressing of which, if the hon. and learned Member in charge of it insisted in pressing it on, would only result in its meeting with more strenuous opposition in the future than was offered to it now.
    MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYsaid, he agreed with the proposal which had been made by his hon. Friend the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton). It would be much the best course to adjourn the debate. It was undoubtedly a measure which would require serious consideration; and, if this stage were taken, it would make an important difference to the Bill. When once the Chairman was got into the Chair the Bill could come on in Committee at any hour of the night; and if the House were to sit tomorrow it might come on then. He did not think that the House generally had given sufficient consideration to the provisions of the measure. He was himself inclined to support the Bill; but he did not think it could be discussed at that hour of the morning, and it would be more satisfactory if the hon. and learned Gentleman in charge of it would allow this stage to be postponed until a future opportunity.
    MR. A. R. D. ELLIOTwished to remind hon. Members that there had been an agreement between the two sides of the House in regard to the Bill, by which it was to be put down for this stage, and a date fixed for going into Committee, without real progress being made in Committee itself. No objection was taken to that course. A complaint had been made that the name of no
    774
    Irish Member appeared at the back of the Bill. He was sorry that that was so, and personally he could have wished that the name of some Irish Member should have appeared upon it, because it did so happen that the Bill was in tended to apply to the Three Kingdoms The object of the Bill——
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
    MR. A. R. D. ELLIOTbegged pardon, and regretted that for a moment he should have been about to trespass upon the Rules of the House. He hoped the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) would advise his Friends to allow this stage of the Bill to be taken, so that they might be able to make further progress with the measure in February next.
    COLONEL NOLANsaid, he would appeal to the Government not to allow this stage to be taken. It would look very badly in Ireland when it was found that the interests of the National School teachers of that country could not be discussed in the House of Commons, because the hour was too late, and yet that another Bill, which stood later on the Paper, could be brought on. No doubt, if the circumstances had been of an ordinary character, the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Elliot) would have had the assistance of the Irish Members in passing the Bill; but, at the same time, it was a measure for which nobody had asked in Ireland, and after the House of Commons had refused to go into the grievances of the Irish National School teachers—a matter which had been before the House for years—the next thing they proposed to do was to go on with a very important Bill of which nobody had ever heard before. His own opinion was that the Bill would require some little watching on the part of the Irish Members in Committee; but if once they got the Speaker out of the Chair, the measure could be brought on at any hour of the night and rushed through Committee without any discussion whatever. ["Divide!"] If hon. Members opposite were so anxious to join in the debate, it would be better for them to get upon their legs, instead of addressing remarks to the House from their seats. He really did not think that the National teachers of Ireland would be much pleased, or would consider that they had been fairly dealt with by Her Majesty's Govern-

    775
    ment, if the Government consented to support the Motion for going into Committee on this Bill. He would point out to the hon. and learned Member in charge of the measure that he would facilitate the progress of the Bill much more by getting the Irish Members on his side than in securing their opposition. For his own part, he was bound to say, as a matter of fact, that he had not heard one word in Ireland about the Bill.
    SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid, he only rose for the purpose of making one suggestion. Perhaps, if his hon. and learned Friend who was in charge of the Bill would consent to exclude Ireland from its operation, it might make all the difference.
    MR. O'BRIENsaid, he could not quite understand the enthusiasm of the hon. Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson), and hon. Members around him, in desiring to rush the Bill through the House at that hour of the morning (2.5). He should have expected that hon. Members, who in such troops had followed Her Majesty's Ministers into the Lobby a short time ago, in order to set their foot down upon an important Irish measure, on account of the shortness of the Notice and the lateness of the hour, would have got up to discourage the present attempt, at a still later hour of the morning, to pass a vital stage of a Bill, which involved an important principle, proposed for the first time yesterday. There was also some occasion to remark that the Government, who were so eager a short time ago to adjourn the debate on the Irish National School Teachers Bill, were manifesting no anxiety now as to the hour of the night, or as to the circumstances under which the Bill came before the House. It seemed to him that every argument that weighed with the majority a while ago for adjourning the debate upon the Bill which had been just decided was equally strong when applied to the present Bill. The Bill involved a new principle; it was only yesterday submitted to the House; and it did not, as in the case of the Bill of his hon. Friend the Member for Longford (Mr. Justin M'Carthy), involve a principle which had long ago been sanctioned by the House. On the contrary, it introduced a totally new principle. He was not about to enter into the dis-
    776
    cussion of that principle. All he would say was that hon. Members opposite who suggested that there was nothing to discuss in the matter were in error. The Bill involved some important considerations in reference to the convenience of voters in Ireland, the expense of elections, and whether time might not be saved and expense now incurred at elections obviated. He did not propose to enter into those questions now; but it seemed to him that there was no possible reason why the majority of the House should vote for expediting the passage of this Bill that night, and getting it practically through its vital stage, after having voted for the slaughter of the Irish measure. There was no possible distinction between the two cases, except that the one Bill was Irish and the other was not. He would urge hon. Members opposite, in the peculiar circumstances under which this Bill came before the House, to consider whether they might not possibly be facilitating the ultimate passage of the measure by consenting that night, in deference to the opinion expressed on the Irish Benches, to forego the present stage, knowing as they did that they would have an opportunity to-morrow, in good time, and with full Notice to hon. Members who were not then present, of getting the stage they desired.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORwished to assure the hon. and learned Gentleman in charge of the Bill, in reference to the remarks he had made, that several Irish Members were yesterday engaged upon an important Committee upstairs at the time this Bill was going through the House. The questions referred to the Committee were of vast importance, and required the serious attention of the Irish Members. Personally, he knew nothing of the present Bill until he took up the newspapers in the morning and read the report of the discussion. The Bill had, therefore, come upon him, to a certain extent, as a surprise. He did not propose to discuss the principle of the Bill. Probably, on the whole, he was inclined to be favourable to the general principle of the measure; but he thought it was unfair to ask the Irish Members to discuss it at that hour of the morning. The hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson), whose retreating form he saw departing from the House, had suggested that

    777
    Ireland should be omitted from the operation of the Bill. That was a proposition which would by no means meet the objections of the Irish Members. He confessed that he was quite unable to see the relevancy of that argument. A few moments before the discussion of this Bill was entered upon there was a Bill under the consideration of the House which excluded from its operation both England and Scotland. It was a Bill which applied to Ireland, and to Ireland alone; but the fact that England and Scotland were rigidly excluded from the operation of the Bill did not prevent the hon. Baronet, and the hon. and learned Gentleman who was mainly responsible for the Bill, and other hon. Members, whose impatience now to get to bed was one of the causes of the prolongation of the present debate—the rigid exclusion of England and Scotland from the operation of that Bill did not prevent those Gentlemen from enthusiastically and multitudinously following the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary in the Division which prevented progress being made with that Bill. Surely what was sauce for the goose in that case was sauce for the gander now. The arguments on one side applied equally to the others. Hon. Members had gone into the Lobby mere at the bidding of the Minister of the Crown to vote down the Irish Members and adjourn one of their measures; and they could not be surprised if the Irish Members attempted to pay them back in their own coin by adopting the same inconsiderate means they had themselves resorted to. It did not seem to him that the House generally was willing to accept the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) for the adjournment of the debate. He would, therefore, suggest to his hon. Friend that although the hour was advanced they were quite prepared to discuss the Bill, if a discussion were persisted in. He would, therefore, advise his hon. Friend to allow the Motion for Adjournment to be withdrawn, or, if the House refused to allow that course to be taken, to permit it to be negatived without a Division, and then to go on with the discussion of the Bill, although he certainly protested against being compelled to do so at such an inopportune and unreasonable hour of the morning.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he supported the adjournment of the debate, because he was strongly opposed to the provisions of the Bill; and he only regretted that he had not been able to put down a blocking Notice against it. If the Government did their duty they would give more scope to the half-past 12 o'clock Rule, and thus extend its utility.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, that if the House desired to go on with the discussion of the Bill he would ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question again proposed.
    COLONEL NOLANdesired to say a few words upon the Bill. He did not think the measure was very much wanted in Ireland. He had been engaged in several election contests, both in his own and other counties; and he thought they had always been able to finish them by 3 o'clock in the afternoon. He had certainly never heard anybody complain of the inconvenience to the voters either in the county districts in Ireland or in the large towns. By the fact of the poll being closed at 5 o'clock he was afraid that more and unnecessary trouble might be entailed. The longer the poll was kept open the larger would the number of the people be who would be required to watch the ballot boxes; and, of course, they would expect to be paid for their services. The Returning Officer and the Sheriffs were not in any way in the confidence of the great body of the people of Ireland. Those gentlemen had charge of the ballot boxes, and under the provisions of this Bill they would have to convey them from the polling booth in the dark. He thought it was highly objectionable that they should be permitted to be taken away in the dark. He had known several cases in his own constituency, in the county of Leitrim, and other places, where a large number of votes had been invalidated in consequence of the presiding officer writing a name on the ballot papers. There was not the slightest doubt whatever that whoever did it did it on purpose to invalidate the vote; and he maintained that any person who was capable of invalidating a ballot paper by writing a name on the back of it was perfectly capable of tampering with the ballot boxes when they were being conveyed away from the polling booths at

    779
    night. At any rate, their conveyance at night would very much assist persons who desired to tamper with the ballot boxes. There was an Amendment he would certainly like to propose in Committee on the Bill, and he would give Notice of it at once, because he had no desire to spring matters suddenly in the Committee itself; but he preferred to give time for considering them. He had proposed this Amendment before; but unfortunately the present Attorney General, and the Government, and the principal Members of Her Majesty's Opposition were against him. His Amendment, as the Attorney General would probably recollect, was simply this—that the presiding officer should not be allowed to go away from the polling booth in one carriage, and place the ballot boxes in charge of some other person who returned home in another. It ought also to be provided that the ballot boxes should be handed over to the Postmaster General, or his representative, wherever it was practicable, in order that they might be conveyed to some special and properly constituted establishment. He was satisfied that if this Amendment were passed, in addition to saving expense, it would materially add to the security in Ireland of the ballot papers. He could not conceive what possible objection there could be to hand them over to the Postmaster, instead of allowing them to be conveyed away as they were now. He certainly intended to propose this Amendment when the Bill got into Committee, and he trusted that it would be fairly considered. It was an obvious means of saving expense at elections, and it was rendered more necessary by the fact that at the present moment the ballot boxes were required in many instances to be conveyed for long distances. It was very unfortunate there had been no consultation with the Irish Members, because there were few counties in England in the position of Irish counties. English counties were largely made up of towns, and the distances between the different polling places were short. In Irish counties the ballot boxes had often to be conveyed 40 or 50 miles by car. In his own county—Galway—the ballot boxes had to be carried long distances on outside cars, and now they would have to be conveyed by night, and he was afraid the Sheriff would have to put off the counting until
    780
    the next day. He did not think they could be too particular in seeing that there could not be any possibility of suspicion that the boxes had been tampered with. He did not deny that the measure was required in England. No doubt it would in its operation prove very convenient in the large towns; but it certainly was one that was not much asked for in Ireland, and one which must, from an Irish point of view, be looked at very carefully.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Nolan), without committing himself on the subject, had indicated that there were several reasons why the provisions of the Bill should not be made applicable to Ireland. There were several things to be considered before the Bill passed through Committee. When the Bill was read a second time the general understanding in the House was that there were a large number of subjects in connection with the Bill which would have to be considered by the Government before any progress was made with the clauses in Committee. It was upon that understanding that his hon. Friend (Mr. A. R. D. Elliot) promised to postpone the Committee stage until March. The hon. and learned Gentleman had promised again that night to put off the Committee until March; and if when the beginning of March came they had not come to a clear understanding as to what alterations, if any, should be introduced in the Bill, he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had no doubt his hon. and learned Friend would put off the Committee to even a later date than that. Of course, he could not pledge his hon. and learned Friend, but he promised to put himself in communication with his hon. and learned Friend, and other hon. Gentlemen interested; and if he found it was generally felt that the Bill was not required in Ireland, he should strongly advise a concession to Irish opinion on the subject.
    MR. CALLANsaid, he was glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke) that it was a matter for consideration whether Ireland should be included in the Bill or not. He expressed no opinion as to the inclusion of Dublin and Belfast in the Bill. He had never been at an election at either place; but he had had

    781
    large experience of borough and county elections in other parts of Ireland. He had entered upon contests in three boroughs and two counties, and he had had something to do with other elections besides his own. As to the county elections, the constituencies were polled early to the last man; indeed, from 3 to 5 o'clock the polls were entirely idle. Those hours were merely spent by the polling officials in cracking jokes, or in preparing for the journey with the ballot boxes which had to be undertaken to the large town. He could see no possible good in applying this Bill to any county in Ireland. On the contrary, he could see a great deal of harm; and, therefore, before committing themselves for or against the Bill, it was as well he and his hon. Friends should consult their constituents. There was no need to hurry; no Party would be injured by a few weeks' delay. Unlike the National School teachers, no person would suffer by the Bill being put off until the 19th of February. He did not see why there should be an attempt to rush the Bill into Committee, and preclude discussion on it, when in the two months' interval which was to ensue in their Parliamentary labours hon. Members would have time to consult their constituents, and ascertain whether they should vote for or against the Bill. If it went to a division now, he should vote against the measure. He would much prefer that he was not called upon to record his vote until he had had time to consult his constituents. What objection could there be to a postponement of the debate? Why should they take a Division now unless it was to preclude them, with the full information they would obtain in the Recess, from discussing the question on the Motion that the Speaker do leave the Chair? He could not see that any valid argument could be advanced in favour of the Speaker leaving the Chair now. He interpreted the hon. and learned Gentleman's (Mr. A. R. D. Elliot's) persistence to mean that they should not, with the full knowledge they would acquire by consulting their constituents, discuss the question. He (Mr. Callan) should certainly vote against the Speaker leaving the Chair on the present occasion. He appealed to the hon. and learned Gentleman, who went into the Lobby against the Irish Members in the last Division,
    782
    to give them a quid pro quo; he asked the hon. and learned Gentleman to do the same justice to them as he did to the National School teachers of Ireland, and postpone his own child, however complete it might be, until the beginning of next year, and allow the House then to discuss the question on the Motion that the Speaker should leave the Chair. He had only had occasion during the last few minutes to look at the Bill and to refer to his own electioneering experience, which he should say was much more varied and larger than that of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. A. R. D. Elliot).
    MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke) gave one good reason at least why Irish Members should object to the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman told them there had been a consultation between both the English Parties. To that consultation the Irish Members were certainly not invited.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he was alluding to what passed in public in the House yesterday afternoon.
    MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYsaid, that to that public consultation the Irish Members were not invited.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he alluded to the debate in the Whole House.
    MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYremarked that, during the earlier part of the discussion in the House yesterday, some of the Irish Members were engaged on the Labourers' Committee upstairs. However, there were other reasons why Irish Members should object to the Bill. He had not heard any reason given why this Bill was required in Ireland. Personally, he was rather inclined to support the measure under certain conditions. Of course, the extension of the hours of polling must have the effect of keeping the results of elections in suspense, or unknown for a longer time. This would cause a prolongation of all public excitement, which was not in itself desirable. These were objections common to both England and Ireland. The people of Ireland, however, now lived under the most severe coercive measure ever applied to their country, and one of the provisions of that measure was that any person found out of his house at night might be arrested by a policeman on his own re-

    783
    sponsibility, and if he could not give reasons for his being abroad sufficient to satisfy the highly intelligent mind of the policeman he could be dragged off to the nearest police station. Another provision was that anyone found at night in any part of the country to which he might by any possibility be called a stranger was liable, in the same way, to be seized by any policeman, clapped into prison, and sentenced to a term of imprisonment. Under such circumstances, he wanted to know whether his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. A. R. D. Elliot) did not think there was very good reason indeed why Irish Members should be especially cautious in having a Bill of this kind applied to Ireland? What he should desire to see was the insertion in this Bill of some clause which should exempt from the fearful provisions of the Prevention of Crime Act every man honestly engaged in going to or coming from the poll. He was sure that his hon. and learned Friend, with his usual sense of fairness and justice, would see that Irish Members could not allow this Bill to pass without some such restrictions as he (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) had indicated. Was every man found ten or a dozen miles away from his home to be treated like a felon, though he happened to be there for the purpose of recording his vote? These were considerations which every English Member must admit made Irish opinion with regard to this Bill totally different from English opinion. He did not commit himself to any opposition to the Bill; all he wanted was that the Government should give them to understand that they were prepared to do something which would prevent a cruel coercive law from being made more cruel and more coercive in its application than it need be.
    MR. GRAYsaid, he did not profess to be of opinion that this Bill was required in Ireland; in fact, he had not now any opinion on the subject. He ventured, however, to suggest to his hon. Friends who were more or less opposed to it one or two considerations which he thought might possibly cause them to modify their views. The people of Ireland had suffered enormously in all matters affecting the franchise, and in all matters affecting redistribution, and generally affecting the powers and privileges of voters; the people of Ireland had suffered enormously owing to
    784
    Bills being introduced applicable only to England, and it had been years and years afterwards that they had been enabled to have the principles of those Bills extended to Ireland, and only then usually in a very modified and imperfect way. It was manifest that the only chance they really had had of obtaining an extended franchise and of obtaining a proper redistribution of seats in Ireland was by insisting upon equal laws upon those subjects being extended to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland; and he thought it was a little dangerous for Irish Members to say, in regard to a Bill of this kind, that they desired Ireland should be excluded. He recognized, of course, the force of the observations of his hon. Friend who had just spoken (Mr. Justin M'Carthy), and of his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Nolan); but he did not think the considerations they had set forth were of any great importance. He did not think it was likely that men would be arrested coming home from the poll, or that the ballot boxes, during their conveyance to the place of counting, were likely to be tampered with; but he thought that to stamp with their approval the principle of exceptional legislation on a question affecting the franchise was rather a dangerous step for Irish Members to take. He would be quite content that on all questions of this kind there should be a general un-standing that Ireland should share the conveniences or inconveniences, as the case might be, with England. For that reason, especially now that a pledge had been given that no further stage of the Bill would be taken until March, and that if then Irish Members were found adverse to the application of the Bill to Ireland the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke) would advise the hon. and learned Gentleman in charge of the Bill to yield to their views, he could not see why they should object to the Motion that the Speaker should leave the Chair.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke) would not be led away by the remarks addressed to the House that evening with the idea that the Irish Members were unanimous on this question. One of the disadvantages

    785
    of the manner in which this Bill had been precipitately brought forward and pushed on was that the Irish Members had not had an opportunity of determining this simple question amongst themselves—in fact, the majority of the Irish Members were quite ignorant that this Bill was in so advanced a state. Now, he himself was very strongly inclined to the principle of the Bill, partly because he thought the more facilities given for voting the better, and partly for the reason put forward by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray)—namely, that the more uniform the laws of England and Ireland were on such matters the better for England and Ireland. What was desired was that there should be a general uniformity of laws between England and Ireland, and he and his hon. Friends were particularly anxious to relieve Ireland of coercion laws. He appealed to the candid mind of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. A. R. D. Elliot) who had charge of the Bill. There was a Coercion Act in operation in Ireland as everybody knew. Under that Coercion Act, as had been pointed out by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Longford (Mr. Justin M'Carthy), a man who happened to be out of his house during the hours covered by this Bill was liable to arrest and imprisonment; a man could be put in the police lock-up for one night, and brought before the magistrate next day. What was the ground on which a man could be locked up? That he was a stranger to the district, and the person who was to be the judge of whether he was a stranger or not was a policeman—a policeman who, as a rule, was himself a stranger to the district. In other words, if a man in the county of Mayo was not able to establish his identity to a policeman from the county of Antrim he was liable to be arrested and cast into gaol. He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) thought he and his hon. Friends were perfectly justified in bringing forward in this manner the extraordinary meaning of the coercive legislation in Ireland, legislation which actually acted as a bar to the bulk of the people whom it was sought to benefit by this Bill. They meant to bring before the House the effect of the Coercion Act, and they would be wanting in their duty if they did not take every opportunity of so doing. He thought, there-
    786
    fore, they would be justified in saying to the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. A. R. D. Elliot) that their future attitude would largely depend upon the position he took up as to the very necessary addition to the Bill which would be proposed. The addition could be made in a few lines. A Proviso could be inserted to the effect that, from and after the passing of the Act, the "Curfew" Clauses of the Prevention of Crime Act—"strangers" Clauses, or whatever else might be the police name by which they were known—should not be in operation in any district in which an election was taking place. If the hon. and learned Gentleman would consent to that, it would do away with a great deal of the opposition which was likely, otherwise, to be offered to the Bill. He (Mr. O'Connor), in saying that, wished to guard hon. Gentlemen on the Irish Benches from being considered to hold anything like an unanimous view on the question. He had not had the experience of the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan) in connection with county elections, especially county elections of a hotly contested character. Hotly contested county elections might have prejudiced the mind of the hon. Member, as he had so successfully gone through those contests. They, who had not had the hon. Member's experience, believed that the longer the hours were and the greater the facilities for getting to the poll the better it was for them. He thought it would have been wiser to have allowed the debate to be adjourned; but he hoped that before the next stage hon. Gentlemen belonging to the Irish Party would have had a meeting, and would be able to present their opinions to the House.
    DR. LYONSsaid, that in consequence of some observations which had fallen from some hon. Members opposite, he wished to say that he should most strongly deprecate the exclusion of Ireland from the operation of the Bill. He was sure any proposal to exclude Ireland would be received with very great regret. All the arguments in favour of allowing the working classes of England plenty of time to get to the poll applied to the working classes of Ireland with even greater force, on account of the greater distances to be travelled and the difficulties attendant upon getting to the polling places.

    787
    Mayo, for instance, it was proposed to divide into four sections; and as the county was of no inconsiderable size, distances of very great reach would have to be covered by voters, and it was difficult for them to travel from their residences or their work, backwards and forwards, in the limited time allowed under the existing law. He, therefore, wished to enter his protest against the idea of Ireland being excluded from this very excellent Bill. The question of the difficulty of transmitting the polling boxes had been mentioned; and that seemed to him to be a matter it was very proper to take into consideration in connection with the amendment of the Bill. It was, he thought, one of the reasons why it was most desirable that the measure should be advanced from its present stage, so that they might be ready to proceed with the consideration of its details at once next year. He, himself, knew of a case in which a ballot box had been lost during transit at night. The whole of the county having been ransacked for it, it was eventually found on the bank of a river at 4 or 5 o'clock in the morning. It was a very fortunate thing that it had not fallen into the river; but, as it was, the episode caused great delay in the declaration of the poll. He (Dr. Lyons) was present when the Bill was discussed yesterday, and had found the House so unanimously in its favour that he had not had the least expectation that there would be the smallest objection to it coming from Ireland. He had reason to know that there was a strong feeling in many country districts in Ireland in favour of some measure for the purpose of facilitating access to the poll. There was a strong feeling that the difficulty of getting to the poll was very great, and that the hours of polling should be extended, and there could be no doubt that with an extended franchise this feeling would have double force. He trusted Mr. Speaker would now be allowed to leave the Chair.
    MR. O'BRIENsaid, he was surprised to find that the hon. Member for Dublin (Dr. Lyons) retained any lively interest at all in the hours of polling. He (Mr. O'Brien) could assure the hon. Member that he was under a totally erroneous impression, if he thought that anybody on those—the Irish—Benches had asked for, or declared for, the exclusion of
    788
    Ireland from the Bill. This discussion was an admirable illustration of the inconvenience of rushing the Bill through at that break-neck speed, in spite of the protests of the Irish Members. The effect of the course which was being adopted was, that considering the measure on the spur of the moment, as they were obliged to do, Irish Members were unable to make up their minds one way or the other in reference to it. The subject was one which had been very little discussed in Ireland. There was a great deal of force, he believed, in what had fallen from the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan) and the hon. Member for Calway (Mr. T.P. O'Connor) as to the great distances that, in some instances, the ballot boxes had to be carried after dark, and as to the delay in ascertaining the results of elections in consequence. There might be, also, a question as to additional expense to candidates in consequence of the prolonged hours the polling clerks and other officials would have to work, for he took it for granted that the fees for these long hours would have to be considered, and made greater than those which were now granted. On the whole, his own opinion strongly tended in favour of the Bill; for while he perfectly agreed with the hon. Member for Louth that under present circumstances the polling was practically over when the hour for closing the boxes arrived, yet they could not forget that the electorate at forthcoming elections would be an entirely different one, and that it might be a great convenience to many to have an opportunity of voting after their work was over, and after the present hour for closing the boxes. He thought that, considering that the principle of the measure had been already applied to towns, and that now it was sought to extend the hours of polling in counties it was desirable that it should be passed. He could conceive it possible that the present hours might have the effect of disfranchising many of the agricultural labourers in Ireland, who lived by their day's work, and who, perhaps, would scarcely be prepared to give up a day's wages, or half a day's wages, for the privilege of recording their vote. To that whole class, whose work did not finish until 6 o'clock, and who, at times, worked at long distances from the polling stations, the enlargement of the hours of poll to

    789
    8 o'clock might be a very important boon. For that reason he was inclined to favour the principle of the Bill. At the same time, Members representing Ireland had had such little opportunity of considering it, that he confessed he could not see why the hon. and learned Member who introduced the Bill could not consent to forego for that night his chance of getting this very important stage of the Bill. Let the consideration of the Bill be resumed in February on the same terms as that night. Hon. Members would then come to the discussion with their minds made up on the subject and having ascertained the feeling of their constituents. The hon. and learned Member (Mr. Elliot) would have lost nothing in regard to the progress of the Bill. On the contrary, he would have done a great deal of good, as such a course would, probably, result in his securing the unanimous support of the Irish Members. There was no special hurry for the passage of the Bill. There would be no General Election until the end of next year or the beginning of the year after next; therefore, there could not be said to be a killing hurry for the Bill. He would submit to the hon. and learned Member, therefore, that it would be worth his while to consider in this matter the strongly expressed opinion of the Irish Members.
    MR. CAINEsaid, that in regard to the question of expense, which had been mentioned by the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down (Mr. O'Brien), there had been a great deal of experience of the working of the Hours of Poll Act in the Metropolis, and they had found that the extension of the hours had not increased the expenses. It had been just as easy to get clerks, and so on, for 12 hours as it had been to get them formerly for the shorter period. He would remind hon. Members that those who had charge of the Bill had no intention of proceeding with the Committee stage until March next.
    MR. KENNYwished to know whether it was to be understood that those in charge of the Bill agreed that it would be expedient for the Irish Members to ascertain from their constituents whether they desired that the Bill should not extend to Ireland, or should be modified in regard to that country, and that the Government would then accede to the representations of the Irish Mem-
    790
    bers? Was he to understand that, or that the Government would take the Bill into consideration, and would be prepared, when the House re-assembled in February next, to state whether or not it should extend to Ireland? Because, on the one hand, if the Government expressed their determination to accede to the wishes of the Irish Members, as expressed, two or three months hence the reason for opposing further progress would be diminished. But, on the other hand, if the Government were to reserve the right to say whether the Bill should extend to Ireland or not, it was only fair that Members should not be precluded from discussing the principle of the Bill. With Mr. Speaker out of the Chair it would not be possible to place on the Paper that Notice of objection which would ensure its being considered at a reasonable hour. To his mind the expediency of extending the Bill to Ireland was very greatly in question. He was inclined to believe that in the industrial parts of Ireland the present hours of polling were quite sufficient—certainly were not such as precluded the voters from going to the poll. Even the labouring part of the population, who would be so soon admitted to the right of voting, would not be prevented from voting within the nine hours which were at the present time allowed. He had frequently witnessed contested elections in Irish counties; and he could corroborate the statement of the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan) that a great portion, if not absolutely the entire portion, of the polling had taken place two hours before the limit of time had been reached. He was afraid that extending the hours of polling in the Irish counties would give opportunities to certain agents for the exercise of corruption and other undue influences in Irish constituencies; and it was, he thought, the duty of the Irish Members very carefully to consider whether the extension of the hours of polling to 8 o'clock at night would not have the effect of demoralizing the Irish electors to a greater or less extent. English Members did not understand the real condition of things in Ireland, just as many Irish people did not understand the condition of things in England. There was great danger in some districts of Ireland of the agents and candidates exercising corruption, or in-

    791
    timidation, or inciting to riot—proceedings which there would be no reason to fear in England—by reason of continuing the excitement of the elections so long into the night in the country. Then there were the objections which had been stated to the measure by the hon. and gallant Member for Galway County (Colonel Nolan)—namely, the dangers and inconveniences which would result from conveying the sealed ballot boxes from the various polling places to the central district—sometimes a distance of 40 miles. In some oases the central districts were more than 40 miles away from some of the polling stations—indeed, he knew instances where they were over 60 miles away. In Mayo and other places they were sometimes 70 miles away. The dangers attendant upon carrying the boxes in these remote districts such long distances was, of course, extremely great. As to the objections which had been urged to extending the hours of polling in view of the fact that the Prevention of Crime Act was in operation in Ireland, and that persons engaged in elections might be arrested, he thought that if the Bill were extended to Ireland when it became an Act it would exist for a much longer time than any exceptional legislation in the nature of a Coercion Act; and that, therefore, there was no danger in that respect in the future, though there might be at the present time. It seemed to him that this proposal to extend the hours of polling to 8 o'clock at night, while it might be most excellent and desirable in England and Scotland, was one which would have to be considerably modified in its application to Ireland.
    MR. R. N. FOWLERsaid, he rose in consequence of the speech which had been addressed to the House by the hon. Gentleman the junior Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Caine). The hon. Gentleman had referred to his experience in connection with Metropolitan electors. He was quite aware that the hon. Gentleman was a candidate for the representation of Middlesex; but he was not aware that he had ever yet contested any seat in the Metropolis, although he had fought an election at Liverpool and a good many at Scarborough. There was no doubt, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman had had a considerable amount of experience in connection with
    792
    electioneering matters, although he had not had any experience so far as the Metropolis was concerned. He would prefer, therefore, to appeal to the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. E. Biddulph Martin). The hon. Member and himself were opponents at the last General Election; and ho thought the hon. Member would admit that in the contest they had fought the election was practically over by 4 o'clock in the afternoon. At that hour a very few electors indeed remained to be polled, although they included one or two Cabinet Ministers. That fact, however, made no impression on the result, and towards the close of the poll the clerks were found sitting in the polling booth doing absolutely nothing. From the personal experience he had gained in connection with Parliamentary elections he could only say that these long hours were altogether unnecessary; and he did "not think that the hon. Member for Tewkesbury, who really understood the question, would differ from him so far as his experience went in regard to elections in the City of London. He was glad to have an opportunity of making that remark, after the magniloquent speech they had heard from the junior Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Caine).
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he would not dispute that arrangements which were desired by the majority of constituencies might not be desired or even necessary so far as that very anomalous constituency, the City of London, was concerned. He had risen now to answer the speech of the hon. Member for Ennis (Mr. Kenny), who wished to know if the Government would give an assurance that they would consult the Irish Members in February, or, at any rate, before March, when the Bill would come up for its further stages. He thought that his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had already made that promise. If, however, there was any doubt on the subject, he was ready to say, on the part of the Government, that they certainly would desire, and would take an opportunity in the meantime, of learning what the wishes of the Irish Members were; and he would point out that, in regard to a similar Bill brought in for the boroughs, that was the course actually taken by his right hon. Friend. At the outset

    793
    the Irish Members were a little divided, and it was doubtful whether the provisions of the Bill would be extended to Ireland; but, in the course of the discussion which took place upon it, it was found to be generally popular, and, ultimately, by general consent, it was made to apply to Ireland as well as to England and Scotland. That being so, he was satisfied that his hon. and learned Friend in charge of the Bill and the Government would be anxious to consult the wishes of the Irish Members if the Bill now went into Committee before March next, when the natural proceedings in Committee would take place.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid, he rose for the purpose of emphasizing the statement made by his hon. Friend the Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien) that it was wrong to infer that the Irish Members on those Benches were opposed to the Bill. On the contrary, he believed that a great majority of the Party to which he had the honour to belong were altogether favourable, under certain circumstances, to the provisions of the Bill. It must not be understood by any hon. Members opposite, by any Member of Her Majesty's Government, or by the hon. and learned Gentleman who was responsible for the Bill, that the action of the Irish Members was indicative of their opposition to the principle of the Bill. On the contrary, they had not yet had sufficient time to consider the principle of the Bill. As a matter of fact, the Party who sat on those Benches had not had an opportunity of meeting for the purpose of discussing the Bill since it was introduced yesterday; and all they asked was that sufficient time should be given to them so that they might make up their minds as to whether they considered that the measure ought to be extended to Ireland or not. There was one assurance which might be given by some Member of Her Majesty's Government with reference to the Bill, or by the Gentlemen who were responsible for its introduction, which would, he thought, to a very great extent, insure the co-operation of the Irish Members in the progress of the measure; and that was the assurance already asked more than once by hon. Members on those Benches—that a provision would be inserted in the Bill when it came into Committee to provide that the clauses of the Prevention of Crime Act,
    794
    which now made persons in Ireland liable to arrest for being out after dark, should be suspended altogether in localities where elections were taking place during the time that elections were in the course of procedure. It was quite possible, and he sincerely hoped that it might be so, that the Prevention of Crime Act would cease to exist before this Bill came into operation; but in the event of that Act being still in existence in Ireland when the Bill became law the Irish Members ought to have an assurance to the effect that a clause would be added to the Bill to provide that the "Curfew" Clauses of the Act would be suspended in those districts in Ireland in which elections were taking place while such elections were actually proceeding. He thought that such an assurance would give great satisfaction to the Irish Members; and he trusted that some Member of Her Majesty's Government would feel himself in a position to make it.
    MR. MOLLOYsaid, he was one of those Members who had always supported the views of the hon. and learned Gentleman who had introduced the present Bill into the House, and he was inclined to continue his support in the Committee stage of the Bill; because, while he considered that some Amendments of a valuable character might be introduced, the principle of the Bill was one which appealed strictly to every Member of the House. He might say of his hon. Friends sitting on those Benches that not one of them had ventured, during the short time they had had an opportunity of considering the measure, to declare his opposition to the principle of the Bill. He begged to assure the hon. and learned Member in charge of the Bill that his support of the measure, as far as its principle was concerned, was very sincere indeed. He had supported it from the beginning, and he certainly took strong interest in its provisions. He was quite as anxious to see it passed into law as the hon. and learned Member who had introduced it, and he believed that in doing so he had the support of a good many of his constituents. Even in his own county, where, perhaps, an extension of the hours of polling was less required than in some other constituencies, the Bill would be really a very valuable one. There was, however, one point which he wished to put to hon. Members opposite. There was

    795
    no use in disguising the matter; but it was best to deal with it in a plain business-like manner, and it could not be denied that they were in an awkward position that night in regard to the Bill. It would, perhaps, be out of Order, and might not be very useful, if he were to trace back the confusion at which the House had arrived to the tone of a certain speech delivered that night by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland against himself as an Irish Member, and against all his hon. Friends who were sitting on those Benches. He most sincerely regretted the tone of the speech. It was not calculated to do the slightest good whatever to any individual, or to any measure, or to conciliate the feeling of any particular part of the House. There was a tone of levity about the speech which had certainly caused him a certain amount of pain; and he would appeal to his hon. and learned Friend who had introduced the Bill to consider the position in which the matter stood. There was no doubt he could get the stage of the Bill which he asked for that night. He took it for granted that any hon. Member who had the big battalions of the Government with him could get what he desired; but, granted that that was so, he would ask the hon. and learned Member whether he thought it would help him in passing into law the principle for which the hon. and learned Member and himself were so strongly in favour? He put that to the hon. and learned Member as a plain business-like matter. He asked him to consider seriously whether the progress of the Bill in its future stages would be promoted, or whether it would be injured by pressing forward the Motion they were discussing that night? He would grant at once that the hon. and learned Member would get this particular stage; but the hon. and learned Member knew, just as well as he did, that a serious opposition sometimes sprung up which not unfrequently began with very small matters. He, therefore, said, as one who was as much interested in the passing of the Bill as the hon. and learned Member was, that the wisest thing he could do, in the interests of the Bill he had introduced, would be to withdraw the Motion now before the House. If the hon. and learned Member would consent to do so, he felt assured that the future progress
    796
    of the Bill would be more facilitated than it could possibly be by pressing the Motion forward to a successful division that night. He made that appeal to the hon. and learned Member simply, as he had said before, as a business matter, and for no other purpose.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    MR. A. R. D. ELLIOT MR. A. R. D. ELLIOT moved that the Chairman report Progress, and ask leave to sit again on Saturday. He wished to explain that, in fixing the Committee for Saturday, his only object was to have an opportunity of consulting with his Friends near him as to what day in the month of March would be the best for bringing the measure forward again. He had no desire whatever to take any advantage in any way of the Irish Members.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again on Saturday."—(Mr. A. R. D. Elliot.)
    MR. SEXTONwished to give Notice that when the Bill went into Committee he would move the insertion of a clause to provide that the "Curfew" provisions of the Prevention of Crime Act should not be in operation in any county, place, or district in which an election took place, on the day of election or on the day preceding.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Saturday.

  MOTIONS.

    ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE.
    LORD RICHARD GROSVENOR LORD RICHARD GROSVENOR moved that the House, at its rising on Saturday, should adjourn until Thursday, the 19th of February.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the House, at its rising on Saturday next, do adjourn till Thursday 19th February."—(Lord Richard Grosvenor.)
    MR. SEXTONasked if this arrangement included the sitting of the House that day—Friday?
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONreplied in the negative. The Govern-

    797
    ment intended to propose, after the House had decided to adjourn from Saturday until the 19th of February, that it should not meet again until Saturday.
    MR. SEXTONwould ask Mr. Speaker whether he had not already announced that there would be a Sitting on Friday for the National School Teachers (Ireland) Bill; and if it was not contrary to the practice of the House to endeavour by a side-wind to defeat the ordinary Rules of the House?
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, the announcement made by his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in the early part of the Sitting was that if the second reading of the Parliamentary Elections, Redistribution, Bill were passed, the object of the present Sitting of Parliament would be practically attained, and a Motion would be made for the adjournment until Saturday. The fact referred to by the hon. Member that an Order of the Day had been fixed for Friday was not the act of the Government.
    MR. CALLANremarked that it was the act of the House.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, that hon. Members must know that it was always left to the Government to fix the day on which the House should meet.
    MR. SEXTON,as a point of Order, wished to ask whether, when the Speaker publicly notified the day on which a particular Bill should be taken, it was competent for the Government to set aside that Order of the House?
    MR. SPEAKER: So far as the Order of the House is concerned, it is understood that the Bill referred to will be put down upon the Paper for the next sitting day.
    MR. SEXTON: Which has already been fixed for this day.
    MR. SPEAKER: The fixing of a Bill for this day does not prevent the House from exercising the usual pleasure of the House.
    MR. SEXTON: Under the circumstances, I shall have to oppose the adjournment of the House until Saturday.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: We have not yet come to that proposal.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE.
    LORD RICHARD GROSVENOR LORD RICHARD GROSVENOR moved that the House, at its rising, should adjourn until Saturday.
    Motion made and Question proposed, "That this House, at the rising of the House this day, do adjourn till Saturday."—(Lord Richard Grosvenor.)
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he should offer to this proposal the most strenuous opposition. He regarded it, in the first place, as a positive breach of faith. Scarcely an hour had elapsed since it had been agreed that on this day—Friday—the House should resume, on the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, the adjourned debate on the National School Teachers (Ireland) Bill. The pledge was distinctly conveyed in the course then taken that the House would meet on Friday; and now the Government proposed to prevent the Irish Members from discussing the Bill, by adjourning the House, at its rising, until Saturday. If that course were taken the Irish Members would be deprived of every opportunity of discussing a subject which they considered of the first importance for at least three months to come. He maintained that the Irish Members could not, in the interests of the National School teachers of Ireland, in common honesty and good faith, and in their public duty to their constituents, consent to such a postponement. The people who were interested in the Bill were 16,000 in number; they were performing very important public duties, and yet they were required to live upon salaries which were scarcely sufficient to keep them from starvation. The life of a school teacher in Ireland was impoverished to such an extent as to be disgraceful to the Government of the country, and in point of health this unfortunate class of persons were below the condition of the poorest Irish labourer. He objected to the Motion on that account first, and next because the faith of the Speaker had been pledged from the Chair.
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is not justified in making that observation. No word of mine has been pledged in the matter. I simply act upon the order of the House. It is a common thing for the Committee of Supply and Committee of Ways and

    799
    Means to be postponed until "this day;" but that fact does not prevent the House from postponing the consideration of those Orders for a longer period. The hon. Member is not in Order in saying that the Speaker, when acting under an order of the House, has committed a breach of faith. The House is fully competent to give what order it pleases.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, that undoubtedly the Speaker acted upon the order of the House; but when the right hon. Gentleman had notified the order of the House, the House was entitled to expect that that order would be carried out. In this case the order was that the adjourned debate on the National School Teachers (Ireland) Bill should be taken upon this day; and this day was Friday, and not Saturday. In his four or five years' experience of the House he had never known an order of the House, after having been ratified by the voice of the Speaker, endeavoured to be defeated by the Government. He had never known such an attempt to be hitherto made. There were several questions down upon the Paper for consideration on Friday, the first of which was a proposal, on going into Committee of Supply, by the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock)—
    "To call attention to the state of Forestry in this country; and to move for a Committee to consider whether, by the establishment of a Forest School or otherwise, our Woodlands could be rendered more remunerative."
    He should have supposed that that was a question of very great interest in Soot-land, and in every district where people had so little to fall back upon, except the pursuits of agriculture. It was most undesirable that the question should be shelved, owing simply to a desire on the part of the Government to adjourn until Saturday. In the second place, there was a Notice by his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan)—
    "To call attention to the necessity of providing sites for certain public purposes in Ireland; and to move, 'That increased facilities should be afforded for acquiring sites for schools and churches, and also for the residences of teachers and clergymen.'"
    As the House had that night refused to give a second reading to a Bill for improving the position of the National
    800
    School teachers of Ireland, the least they could do was to devote a couple of hours to-morrow to an endeavour to provide improved sites for their schools. Unless the Government were prepared to drive home to the minds of the persons concerned, the male and female teachers of Ireland, the conviction that their interests were of no moment to the British Parliament, they would do well to recall the Motion of the noble Lord (Lord Richard Grosvenor), and sit to-morrow (Friday). Before the adjournment for the Recess he had intended to call attention to the action of the Government in connection with some of his constituents. Secret inquiries had been held; the endeavour had been made to get perjured and suborned evidence against them; but at the end of seven months the Tubbercurry prisoners were liberated, the Crown being obliged to confess that they had no case against them. He had hoped to be enabled to lay before the House Rome faint idea of the course pursued by certain officials of the Crown in the subornation of evidence, and to show the necessity of compensating the Tubbercurry prisoners and their families for the loss they had sustained. Perhaps he might have an opportunity on Saturday of calling attention to the subject. With regard to the particular Motion now before the House, he appealed to the Government to withdraw the Motion made by the noble Lord, and allow the House to meet as usual at 4 o'clock to-morrow (Friday), when the second reading of the National School Teachers (Ireland) Bill could be taken.
    MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYsaid, that nothing could have been more distinct than that to-morrow (Friday) was fixed for the second reading of the National School Teachers (Ireland) Bill. There was at first some misunderstanding as to what day was fixed; bat he maintained that the Question that the Bill be fixed for Friday, and not for Saturday, was distinctly put from the Chair, and agreed to. Under those circumstances, he held that to be as formal a decision of the House as could have been arrived at. He should like it to be understood by the Irish people that the House of Commons refused to sit two or three hours to-morrow (Friday) to consider the grievances of a very useful class of public servants in Ireland.
    MR. O'BRIENwas astonished that the noble Lord (Lord Richard Grosvenor) did not, when he made this proposal, offer to the House any substantial reason why they should adjourn over to-morrow (Friday). As long as hon. Members bad to be in attendance on Saturday, he could not see what inconvenience they would be put to by attending to-morrow (Friday) to discuss a matter of great importance. The National School teachers had in their hands the education of the minds of the young generation of Ireland; and he hoped they would take to heart the conduct of the Government that night. He trusted that the school teachers of Ireland would bear in mind that the Government had that night deliberately destroyed the chances of having a Bill passed this Session for the amelioration of their condition. He had no doubt the Irish school teachers would contrast their treatment by the Government with the treatment which the claims of the Royal Irish Constabulary received at the hands of the same Government. It was nothing short of a disgrace to this English Government that its policemen were better paid than its school teachers. No doubt, such was the character of English rule in Ireland. The English had a substantial reason for the difference in their treatment of the two classes of persons; they could do without teachers—they were not afraid of the teachers—but they could not do without policemen, and, therefore, they treated policemen with consideration. But the policemen of Ireland, when they bad grievances, went about the right way to get them redressed—they struck all through the country; and, within a very few days, they had ample assurance that their claims would be considered. Their claims were considered, and very promptly settled. The teachers, on the other band, had to adopt a humbler tone. They had had to submit year after year. Their claims, admittedly just, were, upon one pretext or another, thrown aside, and the promises of the Government came to nought. The House of Commons had already, by legislation, admitted the justice of the claims of the teachers; it had made a bungling attempt to satisfy those claims. That attempt had manifestly broken down. The Bill which had been under consideration that night would cure the defects in the legislation already
    802
    adopted by the House of Commons on the subject; but it was met with the miserable technical objection that though it was only 30 or 40 lines in length, it had been but a short time in the hands of Members. That objection would be amply met if the House were to meet to-morrow (Friday). By 4 o'clock to morrow the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland would have every opportunity of pondering over the Bill, and would, he (Mr. O'Brien) hoped, be in a position to tell the teachers of Ireland honestly whether the Government meant business. His hon. Friend the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) had mentioned another topic of very great interest to Ireland, to which he intended to call attention if the House sat to morrow (Friday). He (Mr. O'Brien) had a good deal to say on that subject too. He and his hon. Friends had had no opportunity of pointing out to the House that the verdict of a special jury in Dublin, the crême de la crême of jurors in Dublin, had stamped the conduct of the Crown in the case of Mr. Fitzgerald and the other Tubbercurry prisoners as a disgrace to public justice. Mr. Fitzgerald was seized in the streets of Lon don without a warrant, thrust into a cab, dragged over to Ireland, taken from his own part of the country— namely, Cork, to Sligo in the extreme West, examined there at least half-a-dozen times at secret inquiries, and it was now admitted at the end of seven months——
    An hon. MEMBER wished to know whether the Question before the House was not the adjournment of the House; and, if so, whether the hon. Member was addressing himself to that Question?
    MR. SPEAKER: The Question before the House is the adjournment of the House.
    MR. O'BRIENsaid, he could readily understand the hon. Member's difficulty in appreciating the situation. Mr. Fitzgerald was again and again examined at secret inquiries in the depth of the prison itself, no reporters being admitted. Again and again Crown officials visited men detained in that prison upon the same charge, and held out inducements of all sorts to them to turn approvers and to invent evidence. They succeeded in the case of one wretched man named Moran. They went then to the convict prison in Dub-

    803
    lin, and they fished out of that establishment one of the Phœnix Park murderers—a man who was, on his own confession, a murderer of the blackest dye—and they got this man to prop up their case against Fitzgerald. The Crown refused to try Fitzgerald at two Commissions; they postponed his trial to the very last moment; and then, when the matter came for trial, the whole evidence against this man, who was ruined in his business, whose health had been destroyed by incarceration, and whose character had been laid under the most fearful imputation—the whole evidence the Crown produced against Fitzgerald was that of this murderer and of the scoundrel Moran, who, it turned out, was actually in the pay of the police when he pretended to be a conspirator. This was only a small example of the system of administering justice which had been completely unmasked in Ireland during the last year. It must be remembered that it was not he and his hon. Friends who were accusing Earl Spencer's administration of foul play; it was their own jurors in Dublin; it was the men who, of all others, they had most reason to trust, men selected from the class who, of all others, ought to take the most favourable view of the conduct of Crown prosecutions in Ireland. Two verdicts of special juries had recently been given which directly impeached the manner in which Crown prosecutions were conducted in Ireland. There was the double charge against the Government — there was the charge against certain Crown officials that they had fabricated or suborned evidence against political opponents like Mr. Fitzgerald; and there was the charge that they had suppressed evidence against persons of their own class, the governing class in Dublin. These accusations were now upon record in the verdicts of two special juries in Dublin. What more was there to be charged against the Government? They had never had the slightest explanation of the allusion in Detective French's letter from prison to his friend. On the contrary, evidence was accumulating that the man McDermott, to whom French referred in that letter as a police spy, was a police spy. That man, at the time he was in the employment of Detective French and paid out of the Secret Service money, was going about
    804
    Cork inveigling people into conspiracy. He succeeded in doing so. He got some wretched young men to engage in a dynamite conspiracy. Two of his victims were tried in Liverpool and sentenced to penal servitude. [An hon. MBMBER: Hear, hear!] One of the two had since died. An hon. Member cried "Hear, hear!" No doubt the men who joined a dynamite conspiracy deserved penal servitude; but the man who got up the conspiracy deserved it also. More than that, the Crown officials who employed this police spy deserved it also; and, if justice were done, some of the persons who had lately been restored with honour to high places and great emoluments in Dublin Castle would be sent to join their victims in Chatham or Portsmouth. Then, again, there was the case of the man Noonan. There was evidence that he was deliberately paid to make an attack upon Judge Barry. That was not the first case of the kind that had happened. The man Delany, who afterwards turned out to be a murderer, first became notorious because he attacked Judge Lawson in the street. Judge Lawson's life, however, was not endangered at all, for Delany pulled a detective by the sleeve before attempting to make the attack. Now, it was perfectly plain, by the light of all that had been discovered in Ireland since, that the attack was an attack very much of the same character as Noonan was engaged to make in Cork upon Judge Barry. The whole system was, from beginning to end, a system of crime, manufactured and organized, no doubt, by inferior instruments of public justice in Ireland. Now, they would have had an opportunity to-day (Friday), if the House had sat, of going into these matters in more detail than was possible at that hour of the morning; and he thought that sooner or later the Government would find there was not much to be gained by attempting to smother these matters. Sooner or later Earl Spencer would have to take some better means of defending himself than supplying to The Times long columns from Irish Nationalist newspapers. The noble Earl might, sooner or later have to face honestly the public judgment on his administration in Ireland, and the conduct of the officials he had screened and, in some instances, promoted. To the

    805
    Irish Members it was perfectly—or it was almost—a matter of indifference whether he faced them honestly, or whether he shirked them and allowed judgment to go by default. In either case the action of the Irish Members towards him would have been perfectly justified. But to English Members it was another thing whether they were content that 19–20ths of the Irish people should believe, as they did in their hearts at that moment, that the whole system of government in Ireland, from beginning to end, was a system of injustice and foul play, and that the very Detective Department itself was used, for suborning false witnesses, in organizing crime, and in going about the convict prisons getting convicts to swear away the liberties of their political opponents. He would not go farther into the matter at that hour of the morning; but he hoped that even now the Government might see the advisability of accepting the proposal of his hon. Friend the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton), and give them an opportunity to-day (Friday) of discussing these two matters of vital importance—namely, the condition of the teachers in Ireland, and the administration of justice in that country.
    MR. LEAMYwished to suggest this—would the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) consent to keep a House on Saturday to allow the Irish Members to discuss the National School Teachers (Ireland) Bill? Hon. Members must have heard Mr. Speaker fixing the adjourned debate for "this day," and it was perfectly open for them at the time to propose some other day. If other days had been proposed, the Government, with their followers at their back, could have carried any day they most approved of. The Irish Members had been under the impression that the National School Teachers (Ireland) Bill would come on to-day. They took very deep interest in the measure, and its discussion might be left entirely to them—that was to say, if it were put off until to-morrow, and the English Members felt it was no concern of theirs, they might stop away from the House. Let them leave it to the Irish Members whom it did concern. When they considered, first of all, the action of the Chief Secretary, who had not even allowed the Bill to be seconded or to be adequately explained, or allowed
    806
    the Irish Members to express their views upon it, but had moved the adjournment of the debate at once, and when they considered that the Motion now made was one which would deprive them of the possibility of considering the matter to-day, they had a right to ask the noble Marquess that he would keep a House on Saturday to enable them to discuss the Bill.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: The hon. Gentleman has asked if the Government can undertake to keep a House on Saturday. I am afraid I can give no such pledge, as it would be an undertaking beyond our power. Hon. Members are aware that at such a season as this, when there is no Government Business on the Paper, it is absolutely impossible for the Government to secure the attendance of a sufficient number of Members to go on with other Business. I altogether deny that anything in the shape of an understanding was arrived at that the National School Teachers (Ireland) Bill should be taken to-day by the fact of the hon. Member in charge of it deferring it until to-day. The fixing of the day is always left to the discretion of the hon. Member in charge of a Bill, and neither the House nor the Government have anything to do with it. The hon. Member (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) fixed "this day," knowing that the Prime Minister had given Notice, at an earlier period of the evening, of the intention of the Government of moving at the end of this Sitting the adjournment of the House until Saturday. There are Orders of the Day fixed for Monday and Tuesday; but there is nothing to prevent us, if we think fit, from adjourning over the days for which Orders are put down. Further, I must observe that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant will not be in a position, either to-morrow or on Saturday, to enter into a discussion of the Bill the second reading of which was moved this evening. My right hon. Friend did not allege as the only ground why it should not be discussed to-night that it was only printed this morning. He stated very frankly that this was a Bill to which the Irish Government could not possibly give its assent, or on which it could express a final opinion, until it had had an opportunity of consulting the Treasury and the Board of Edu-

    807
    cation in Ireland. It must be evident to Members of the House that a Bill which proposes a large expenditure of public money cannot possibly be assented to by the Government off-hand with only a day's consideration—and this Bill does affect the taxation and expenditure of the country. It is said there is other Business of importance to be discussed to-morrow, or that other Motions of great interest and importance can be brought forward. But it is well known that, at this period of the year, it is not possible to secure the attendance of Members in sufficient numbers to continue discussions when the Business which has brought the House together in extraordinary Session is disposed of. "When we meet to-morrow, therefore, the House will not be disposed to discuss ordinary Business. Hon. Members would have had some reason to complain if the Motion now made had been brought forward at this period of the morning without Notice. But they are perfectly well aware that Notice of the Motion was given early in the Sitting when the House was quite full. Every Member was fully aware of the intentions of the Government; and I cannot help thinking, therefore, that we must accede to the proposal.
    MR. P. J. POWERsaid, he thought the National School teachers of Ireland had a great deal to complain of as regarded the action of the Government. The manner in which the Government had met two most reasonable propositions which had been made from the Irish Benches showed, he thought, that they were perfectly indifferent to the condition of the Irish National teachers. They wished the Irish Members to believe, no doubt, that they did not feel this indifference, but were very anxious to improve the condition of these people. Any traveller in Ireland, however casual an observer he might be, must have noticed that the state of the teachers, on whom the condition of the country so largely depended, was, to a great extent, a miserable one. Their salaries were—? as had been shown by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien)—considerably below those enjoyed by ordinary sub-constables; and the houses they occupied, in the vast majority of cases, were nothing better than hovels. In his own neighbourhood a man teaching an important school had
    808
    to travel three and a-half miles to his school every day throughout the year, and three and a-half miles back, which it was unnecessary to tell hon. Members was a considerable labour. But the Government, no doubt, wished to persuade the National teachers that they were favourably disposed towards them, and admittedly they were up to a comparatively recent date. Some of his friends who knew the feeling of the Irish National teachers, and the feeling in general of the people of Ireland, said that the apathy which the Government now displayed had arisen within the last year or so, owing to the fact that at a certain banquet the Irish National teachers refused to drink the health of Earl Spencer. That appeared a very ridiculous proposition; but the facts, he thought, had borne out the truth of the assertion. The very fact of the National School teachers refusing to drink the health of His Excellency had prejudiced the Government. He knew that in the Union to which he had the honour to belong one gentleman, who at one time occupied a seat in that House, and was a very distinguished Member of the House, and who was in the habit of making himself annually very busy in regard to these teachers, stated publicly at the Board that, owing to the conduct of the teachers in not drinking the health of this nobleman who had shown such impartiality in the disposition of the destinies of the Irish people, he doubted very much whether he would continue to take the least interest in their case. This gentleman said he doubted very much whether he should, as he was in the habit of doing, move that the Union be contributors. However, he was steeped to the lips in pledges, and he did move that the Union should be contributors; but he did it with no heart, and the Motion he was able to carry in other years fell to the ground. Well, under those circumstances—which might account for the apathy and indifference of the Government to the claims of the National teachers — they were told that it was their own fault that these teachers were not in a better position than they were, and that they had it in their power to pay them result fees. Without going into the matter deeply, there appeared to be a certain amount of good argument in that statement; but hon. Gen-

    809
    tlemen who told the Irish Members that it was their own fault that the National teachers were in the condition they were in should remember that the Guardians of Ireland would be stultifying themselves if they became contributories to a system they disliked. The system was called the "Irish National System;" but anyone acquainted with its curriculum and the mode of proceeding would acknowledge that instead of its being called the "Irish National System" it ought to be called the "Anti-Irish National System." It would be hard for it to be otherwise, looking at the composition of the Board which ruled the Education Question in Ireland. The most candid man would admit that there were very few on the Board who, in the slightest degree, enjoyed the confidence of the Irish people. He would admit there were many on the Board who enjoyed the confidence of what was called by some, and what they might call themselves, the garrison in Ireland. But we were not supposed to be educating the garrison. The garrison had means of its own. We were supposed to be educating the people; but he imagined that the Board of National Education was packed and filled with men selected from their anti-Irish spirit. Under these circumstances, it would be apparent to hon. Members that the Unions had a great many reasons for not becoming contributory, and that there was a necessity for fresh legislation on the subject. Certainly, it did not appear, from the conduct of the House that night in rejecting the moderate proposals of the Irish Members, that they had any idea of changing the system of Irish National teachers; and he could only repeat what he had said at an earlier period of the evening—namely, that he hoped those teachers would have learnt, from the course adopted by the Government, the lesson that the only way of bettering their position was by resorting to pressure. Certainly, from the Government point of view, he believed that no more injurious lesson could be taught to any people. The Irish people had been taught by the past that they would not obtain justice — that their demands would not be listened to — that they would not get justice to remedy their grievances until they had been driven to the eve of revolution. An influential elector of the county of Waterford, a
    810
    gentleman who was somewhat an opponent of his (Mr. P. J. Power's), and a great believer in the Prime Minister, had said to him the other day that he was almost coming round to the way of thinking of the Parnellites, that he had watched Her Majesty's Government for a considerable time, and was forced to admit that nothing could be got out of them for Ireland unless the country was kept on the eve of revolution. From the Government point of view, what more foolish lesson could be taught to men? Nothing that he could conceive could be more dangerous to the well-being of a State than that the people should have this conviction; and he certainly thought that the manner in which their most moderate proposals were received and put down, and the indifference with which their claims were treated, justified the Irish Members and the Irish people in coming to that conclusion. The Irish people had learnt and were daily learning the lesson more and more; and the following of the Prime Minister in Ireland, he was glad to say, was daily becoming beautifully less. It would be in the recollection of the House that they had had reforms from time to time, connected probably with the Prime Minister's name, some of the facts in connection with which had been most peculiar. The Irish Church Act, no doubt, was a step in the right direction; and he thought history recorded that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) used some rather ominous expression in regard to that Act in reference to Clerkenwell. Then, again, it must be in the recollection of most hon. Members of the present Parliament that the year before the Irish Land Act was introduced the Prime Minister put down his foot in the most positive way and declared that the Irish Land Question was settled, and that the agrarian question would never again be re-opened. Yet the year after that most positive statement the right hon. Gentleman came down with a measure dealing with that very subject. This, and other events which had occurred, and were occurring daily, had impressed on many people, as he was sure they would continue to impress upon them, that there was not much to be had from this Parliament by argument, seeing that, as a rule, the arguments put forward by the Irish Members were not listened to. He

    811
    might remind hon. Gentlemen opposite that they had expressed their surprise just now that in speaking of the extension of the hours of polling which was proposed in the Bill introduced by an hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. A. R. D. Elliot), some of the Members sitting on those Benches should have taken exception to such a measure. Personally, he had thought, at first sight, that there could be no doubt as to the usefulness of the measure; but he felt that, with the franchise as it now existed in Ireland, it would be of very little use. Of course, with an increased franchise, and with a great number of working men upon the roll of electors, he had no doubt that the provisions of the Bill would be of advantage. But in connection with that matter his hon. Friend the Member for Longford (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) had pointed out that the Prevention of Crime Act might be used, and, in all probability, would be used, as a means of intimidating the National electors, and of preventing them from recording their votes. Hon. Members opposite, who were not averse to any measure which proceeded from Dublin Castle, looked upon that assertion as an extravagant one; but those who lived in Ireland felt no surprise at any step which the officials of Dublin Castle took in order to carry out the views of the Executive. Even upon that very subject of the "Curfew" Clauses of the Prevention of Crime Act, to which his hon. Friend had alluded, they might, undoubtedly, be made an engine for preventing the free exercise of the electoral franchise by the National electors. He might mention that not many months ago two respectable electors of the county he (Mr. P. J. Power) had the honour to represent (Waterford) were found out at 11 o'clock at night by some busy sub-constable, who handcuffed them forthwith, and dragged them some miles to a neighbouring village, where they were thrust into a filthy cell. They were men of position, character, and of the highest respectability; but they were retained in custody for some hours, and brought before the Justice of the Peace in the morning, when they were discharged, the magistrate remarking that, as far as he was concerned, he saw no necessity for arresting these men, and added that if the police thought they had a case for prosecu-
    812
    tion they should proceed by summons. That fact only snowed the extraordinary length to which some portions of the Executive in Ireland would condescend to proceed under the monstrous laws which now prevailed in that country, and which would not be tolerated in England for one moment. It was much to be regretted that the Government and the House of Commons would not listen to the statements which were put before them by the Representatives of the Irish people. So long as that state of things prevailed they must expect to meet with determined opposition from the Irish Members. He hoped, however, that the Government would take a lesson from the past, and endeavour to display a more conciliatory spirit in the future.
    MR. KENNYsaid, he saw the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant in his place; and he wished to put a question to him on a matter which he had already brought to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman, and in regard to which he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be in a position to offer some explanation. The subject he desired to call attention to was the composition of the magistracy in Ireland—a question which was last year under discussion in that House. Attention was drawn to it not only by Members sitting on that side of the House, but also by Members from Ireland who happened to sit on the other side. A Return had been supplied to the House setting forth the names of the gentlemen who, at the present moment, held the position of magistrates—that was to say, gentlemen who were Justices of the Peace, and not stipendiary magistrates. One fact was clearly proved by that Return, and it was that the number of persons professing the Roman Catholic religion who were Justices of the Peace in Ireland were remarkably small. Indeed, while the Catholics in Ireland were four-fifths of the population, four-fifths of the magistrates were Protestants. He was sorry that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary did not appear to take much interest in the matter; but if the right hon. Gentleman would spare a moment in order that he might listen to the case that he (Mr. Kenny) was about to place before him he should feel obliged. He had asked the right hon. Gentleman to-day, in regard to the re-

    813
    commendations which were made to the Lord Chancellor by Local Bodies, what action the Lord Chancellor had taken in certain special cases? As he had expected, the Chief Secretary stated, in reply, that the Lord Chancellor had refused to appoint certain gentlemen of position to the Commission of the Peace, because the Lord Lieutenant of the county had refused to recommend the appointment of the gentlemen named. Now, if there was one point made more clear than another by the Predecessor of the present Chief Secretary last year it was this—that whenever a case could be established for the appointment of Catholics to the Commission of the Peace in Ireland the Lord Chancellor would exercise his inherent right to appoint without regard to the opinion of the Lord Lieutenant of the county. What were the facts? One of the cases he had submitted to the right hon. Gentleman was a case in which two gentlemen who happened to be Catholics were recommended by the Board of Guardians to the Lord Chancellor as suitable for appointment to the Commission of the Peace. He understood that by law the question of property qualification had a good deal to do with appointments to the Commission of the Peace in Ireland, especially when Catholics were recommended. In this case, however, no objection could be taken to the gentlemen proposed on the score of the property they were possessed of, for it was well known and distinctly stated that the rateable value of the property held by one of these gentlemen was about £500 a-year, while the rating qualification of the other gentleman was about half that sum. There were in the county of Clare many Protestant magistrates whose rating qualification was absolutely nothing; but they were recommended for appointment by the Lord Lieutenant on account of their connection with certain families in the county. Now these men, whose case he had brought under the notice of the Chief Secretary, were men of intelligence, of considerable education—men of good circumstances and position in society, and neither of them had ever attached himself, in any way, to what might be termed the Nationalist section of the community in Ireland. He put forward their case as a typical case, because, although they were recommended to the Lord Chancellor by
    814
    the only local representative Body in the district, although their claims and qualifications were unquestionable, yet, because the Lord Lieutenant declined to back up the recommendation of the Board of Guardians, the Lord Chancellor refused to give his sanction to the appointment in direct contradiction to the engagement given by the Government last year—that the Lord Chancellor would, exercise his inherent right to appoint to the Commission of the Peace in Ireland whenever a claim was made out that there were Catholics duly qualified to fill that position. In regard to the particular district for which these gentlemen were recommended, it extended for 20 miles in every direction—North, South, East, and West; and throughout the whole district there was only one regular Justice of the Peace. There was another who had a mansion in the locality, but he seldom resided there; and, in addition, he was a County Court Judge for the next county—the county of Galway. The result was that there was only one resident Justice of the Peace in the district, which extended, as he had pointed out, in every direction, for 20 miles. In addition to that fact, it was the duty of the Resident Magistrate to attend the Petty Sessions Court held in a particular place once every fortnight; and the inconvenience of the arrangement was made manifest by a recent circumstance that took place. Four men were arrested on separate charges. Two of them were arrested on a charge of firing into a house, or something of that nature; at any rate, it was a very serious charge. Those two men were taken to a village in the centre of the district; but no magistrate could be found to return them for trial. The result was that they had to be taken a distance of 20 miles to the nearest magistrate, in order that they might be remanded. Two other men were arrested on a trivial charge, under one of the provisions of the Prevention of Crime Act. No distinct crime was alleged against them, but they were simply charged with a trivial violation of an exceptional law; and in the face of the fact that the charge was of a trivial and trumpery character these men had also to be taken a distance of 20 miles, to be taken before the only magistrate that could be found, and although in this district the scarcity of magistrates

    815
    would be admitted, even by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary himself, the Lord Chancellor had refused to appoint gentlemen who had been recommended to him by the only representative authority in the district. He had also refused, in the face of the pledge given by the Irish Government, through the late Chief Secretary (Mr. Trevelyan)—that they would appoint wherever a good case could be made out—nevertheless, they had refused to appoint these gentlemen simply because the Lord Lieutenant of the county declined to give his sanction to the appointment. And what was the reason? He thought they were fairly entitled to inquire into the reason why the Lord Lieutenant of the county had refused to sanction the appointment of these gentlemen. The Lord Lieutenant of the county was a gentleman who held extreme Tory and Orange views; and he had repeatedly, not only privately but publicly, stated, until it had become notorious throughout the whole district, that he would not sanction the appointment of any person to the magistracy who was not a thick and thin supporter of himself and his Party. He would only say this—that if the Lord Chancellor departed from the pledge given to the House by the Irish Government, which he himself, as a Member of the Irish Government, was a party to, and if he refused to appoint to the magistracy any gentleman recommended to him, whenever the Lord Lieutenant chose to interpose his veto, the pledge made to the Irish Members last Session was a mere sham and humbug. He might instance another case which occurred in the county of Lietrim. In that county a number of gentlemen were recommended to the Lord Chancellor under some similar circumstances. He would take the case of two of them. There were five recommended altogether; but he would not press the claims in the other three cases, because, from information he had received, he believed there might be objections to three of the gentlemen recommended. There could, however, be no objection to the other two, and if the Lord Chancellor had been allowed to be guided by his own discretion he would have appointed them to the position they were recommended to discharge. But in this case, again, the Lord Chancellor had departed from the pro-
    816
    mise given by the Irish Government, and instead of making the appointment he consulted the Lord Lieutenant of the county. Again, the Lord Lieutenant, being a violent Orange partizan, of course refused to sanction the appointment of these gentlemen to the Commission of the Peace. The result was that the Lord Chancellor yielded to the views of the Lord Lieutenant of the county, and refused to sanction the appointment of these gentlemen. If he were to cite all the instances which had been brought under his notice, he would be compelled to detain the House for an inordinate length. The cases he had mentioned were only specimens of what had taken place in Ireland within the last six months; and he would ask the present Chief Secretary, who was responsible for the due observance of the pledge given to the House by his Predecessor, and who was responsible to the House for the action of the Irish authorities, whether he concurred in the policy now being pursued, which was, undoubtedly, a distinct violation of the guarantees and pledges by the Irish Government during last Session? This was a question which was regarded with a great deal of interest and anxiety in Ireland. The composition of the magistracy, though it might seem to the English people a matter of trivial importance, was to the people of Ireland a matter of the most vital concern. In Ireland the administration of the law was almost invariably used as an engine by which to strike terror and to create fear. It was, therefore, of the utmost consequence to the people that there should be persons engaged in the administration of the law who would be above the suspicion of being the creatures of any section of the ruling authorities. While the composition of the Irish magistracy was allowed to remain, as at present, practically the monopoly of one clique, and that clique opposed in every respect to the traditions and feelings, both religious and political, of the vast body of the Irish people, there could never be anything like confidence or trust in the administration of the law. He impressed upon the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary the importance of this question, and he asked of him some expression of opinion with regard to the course of procedure which now seemed to be adopted by the Lord

    817
    Chancellor. He asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he was now prepared to make an announcement in direct conflict with the pledges which the Government had given within the last three or four months? He knew that this was an inconvenient time to press forward so important a matter; indeed, it was only the serious and grave character of the question which had prompted him to rise on the present occasion. If the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary was not willing at the present time to enter into any lengthened defence of the action which had been pursued by the Lord Chancellor, perhaps he would give such an indication of his views on the subject as would enable the people of Ireland to come to a conclusion as to whether the pledges and guarantees which were given by the Irish Government last Session were to be adhered to.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, he was glad to be able to remove from the mind of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Kenny) the misapprehension under which he appeared to labour. He was sorry, however, the hon. Gentleman had felt it his duty to elaborate at considerable length an accusation against the Government, because, as a matter of fact, there was no foundation whatever for that accusation. The hon. Gentleman referred to two answers he (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) made at Question time to-day; but, as it was not always easy to hear what was said in the House, probably the hon. Gentleman did not catch what he said. What he said was that, in the case of the two counties to which the hon. Gentleman had alluded, the names of gentlemen had been submitted by the Boards of Guardians for appointment to the Magisterial Bench; but they had been objected to by the Lord Lieutenant of the county, and the Lord Chancellor thought that the objections taken by the Lord Lieutenant of the county were reasonable. The Lord Chancellor inspected the cases himself most carefully, as he inspected all such cases; and as to the claims and qualifications of the gentlemen proposed, he came to the same conclusion as the Lord Lieutenant arrived at. It was quite true that the Lord Chancellor had it in his power—and he did occasionally exercise the power—of overriding the objection made by the Lord Lieutenant of a
    818
    county. No one had ever set up the idea that the veto of the Lord Lieutenant of a county was final. He (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) also stated earlier in the day that in these cases the names had first of all been submitted to the Lord Lieutenant; that the Lord Lieutenant objected to them on certain grounds; and then the Lord Chancellor confirmed the opinion of the Lord Lieutenant. The Lord Chancellor had taken great pains, in cases where the composition of the magistracy was unsatisfactory, to find proper persons for appointment, and if the names of any gentlemen were submitted to him he would himself investigate their qualifications. There had been no intention on the part of the Government to depart from the terms of the understanding which was arrived at last Session.
    MR. KENNYasked the right hon. Gentleman to state whether any means could be devised by which the objections of the Lord Lieutenants of the counties to gentlemen who had been recommended for appointment by Local Bodies or otherwise could be notified to the gentlemen recommended, in order that the objections could be met, if it was right and proper they should be met, or, in other words, that the gentlemen recommended should be in a position to state their case to the Lord Chancellor directly?
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, he did not think anything of that kind could be allowed. The investigations were of a confidential and somewhat delicate nature. The Lord Chancellor judged each case himself, and did his best to find properly qualified Justices.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid, the speech which had just been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, and the speech which was previously made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ennis (Mr. Kenny), contained a good deal of matter which was highly interesting to Irish Members, and no doubt to other hon. Members of the House; but both the speeches were somewhat beside the mark. The question which had come to the front was—Would the Government give to-morrow (Friday) for the discussion of the National School Teachers (Ireland) Bill, or would they keep a House on Saturday for the discussion of that measure? It was

    819
    with extreme reluctance that he and very many of his hon. Colleagues were compelled, in the performance of that which they considered to be their duty, to trespass upon the attention of the House at that late hour (4.30). They had, however, felt it incumbent upon them to press upon the attention of the Government and of the House the claims of the National School teachers in Ireland. The question asked in this country and in Ireland to-morrow would be—Why did the Irish Members persist in prolonging this Sitting to such an extent? When the news of this discussion reached the people of Ireland and of England, what reason would be assigned for the present action of the Irish Members? The reason assigned would be that Her Majesty's Government refused the most reasonable demand of the Irish Members to have the National School Teachers (Ireland) Bill discussed tomorrow (Friday), or, failing to-morrow, upon Saturday. Two hours ago he left that Chamber under the impression that to-night's Business was over; and he was led to that conclusion because of the very distinct statement he heard from the Chair that the second reading of the National School Teachers (Ireland) Bill was set down for to-morrow (Friday). He was leaving the premises when he was called back and told that the noble Lord (Lord Richard Grosvenor) had moved the adjournment of the House until Saturday. He did not know how Her Majesty's Government explained the inconsistency which prompted them to allow the second reading of a Bill to be fixed for to-morrow (Friday), and then prompted the noble Lord to move the adjournment of the House until Saturday. Well, in the face of the apparent inconsistency on the part of the Government, what was the action of the Irish Representatives? They were willing to come to a compromise. His hon. Friend the Member for Waterford City (Mr. Leamy) made a speech which had for its object the effecting of a compromise in the matter. What did the hon. Gentleman suggest? He suggested that if they consented now to the adjournment of the House until Saturday, in accordance with the Motion of the noble Lord (Lord Richard Grosvenor), the Government should undertake to keep a House on Saturday for the second reading of the National School Teachers
    820
    (Ireland) Bill. He did not think that ever before had a more reasonable demand been made upon Her Majesty's Government by any section of Members; but what was the reply given by the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War (the Marquess of Hartington)? He told them that Her Majesty's Government could not keep a House for the second reading of the National School Teachers (Ireland) Bill, because, forsooth, the Session being nearly at a close, hon. Members would be leaving town, and could not, for one reason or another, be expected to attend on Saturday. That was no answer to the demand for justice which the National School teachers made upon the House. He asked the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland what would be thought by the National School teachers of Ireland and their friends when the news reached them to-morrow that, in reply to the very reasonable request made on their behalf that Saturday should be set apart by the Government for the discussion of the second reading of this Bill, a responsible and leading Member of Her Majesty's Government told them that because Members of the House wanted to get to their homes in the country for the Christmas holidays a House could not be kept? Of course, it was within the power of the Government to treat any class of the people of Ireland in the same way. He was very much mistaken if the Chief Secretary did not find out that the National School teachers did not harbour feelings of great resentment to the Government for the action they had pursued that night. He never heard in the House of Commons any dearer argument in favour of Irish National Self-Government than the reply of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington). Here were a class of people in Ireland who were suffering very great grievances, and a Bill, the principle of which did not meet with any opposition from the Government, was introduced for the amelioration of their condition. They asked that the Bill should be discussed in the Imperial Parliament, which arrogated to itself the right to rule Ireland; and what was the answer the Government gave? Why, that the Imperial Parliament could not, so to speak, make it convenient to keep a House on Saturday for the consideration of the Bill. A

    821
    better argument for Irish Home Rule could not be advanced. It proved that though this class were suffering great grievances, the Government and the bulk of the Members of the House cared so very little for those grievances that they could not cut short by one day their Christmas holidays to remove those grievances. He emphasized that, and asked the National School teachers of Ireland to remember that when the Irish Members endeavoured to induce the Government to give facilities for the discussion of the second reading of a Bill calculated to improve their condition, the Government absolutely declined, upon the ground that it was not convenient to the House. He hoped that the National School teachers would in future find it convenient to band themselves together, and to agitate in a manner which would effectually prevent, in days to come, any action upon the part of the Government such as had been experienced that night. But he might say it was not only with reference to the National School Teachers (Ireland) Bill that Irish Members were anxious to keep a House on Saturday. It was quite true that if they had been able to keep a House to-morrow (Friday) or on Saturday, the first measure which would have occupied their attention would have been the National School Teachers (Ireland) Bill; but there were other matters of the gravest importance and interest to the people of Ireland which it was intended to proceed with on either of those days. After the National School Teachers (Ireland) Bill had been disposed of, attention would have been called by his hon. Friend the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) to the case of the Tubbercurry prisoners. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary was laughing. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman was laughing at what he (Mr. William Redmond) was saying or not; but he assured the right hon. Gentleman that the majority of the people of Ireland, and the majority of the Irish Members, did not look upon the wrongful imprisonment of any man as a matter for laughter, especially on the part of a right hon. Gentleman who was directly responsible to Her Majesty's Government for the maintenance of law and order in Ireland.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Allow me to say I was not laughing at
    822
    anything the hon. Gentleman was saying.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid, if the right hon. Gentleman was not laughing at his remarks, it was quite evident he was not paying any attention at all to what he was saying. If by any strange accident—and it would, indeed, be a very strange accident—he (Mr. William Redmond) ever succeeded to the position of the right hon. Gentleman, and desired to keep the confidence of the people of Ireland, he would, at least, listen to what the Representatives of the country had to say in the House. The case of Mr. Fitzgerald had never been thoroughly discussed in the House of Commons. Since the Tubbercurry prisoners, after their long imprisonment, were discharged by a picked jury, or, if he might not use the word "picked," he would say by a jury composed of the especial favourites of Dublin Castle, no proper opportunity had been afforded to the House to go fully into the case. The case of Mr. Fitzgerald had been ably and very clearly stated that night by his hon. Friend the Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien). The hon. Gentleman had shown the House how Mr. Fitzgerald was arrested in London without a warrant, and no time allowed him to appeal or to give an explanation; how he was put into prison and kept there for seven months, without a single tittle of evidence against him which could have secured a conviction by any jury, however biassed; the hon. Gentleman had shown that, at the end of seven months, in spite of the efforts made by Crown officials to send him to penal servitude, this unfortunate man, together with the other Tubbercurry prisoners, were released. Now, the principal point which would be raised in the case of the Tubbercurry prisoners would be, what compensation did the Government propose to give to Mr. Fitzgerald and his fellow-prisoners for their continued and unjust incarceration? Mr. Fitzgerald was a gentleman of high principle and much honour, and it was doubtful whether he would, under any circumstances, consent to take any compensation; but it was well it should be known whether Her Majesty's Government intended to offer if not pecuniary compensation, at least some compensation in the shape of a statement which should go forth to the world proving the innocence of Mr. Fitz-

    823
    gerald, and proving also the truth of the statements made by Irish Members in the House regarding Mr. Fitzgerald while that gentleman was in gaol awaiting trial. It was all very well for English Members in the House to consider the imprisonment of a mere Irishman for seven months a light matter, and a matter which should not occupy the time of Parliament. He could assure hon. Gentlemen that if an Englishman had been treated in any part of the British Empire with one quarter of the heartlessness and injustice which had been meted out to Mr. Fitzgerald that gentleman's case would ring out through the whole Empire, and any Motion in the House condemning his treatment would meet with the support of the vast majority of Members. Probably those Gentlemen who were now opposed to granting Mr. Fitzgerald full justification were so opposed simply because he was an Irishman. He (Mr. Redmond) had no doubt whatever that if an Englishman had been taken off the streets of the City of London, without a warrant, and without evidence, and kept in prison for seven months, and at the end of that time it had been found that there was no evidence to justify his imprisonment, there would have been many Englishmen to take up the case, and urge it with far greater warmth than he (Mr. Redmond) and his Colleagues urged that of Mr. Fitzgerald. He did not doubt that the Radical and liberty-loving inclinations of the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson), whom he saw sitting opposite to-night—sitting there, in defiance of his Radical principles, for the purpose of voting down a measure which was to give relief to the unfortunate school teachers of Ireland—would induce him, as well as other Members of his section of the House, to take up the case of any Englishman in the position of Mr. Fitzgerald. No doubt, if such an Englishman there were, the hon. Baronet would make the rafters of that House ring with his wrongs. He (Mr. Redmond) would, however, pass from that case. There was great interest attached by many Members to the decision of the Government not to allow the House to sit that day. There were many Members of the Irish Party who had on the Paper for that day (Friday) Questions of considerable importance, and of considerable interest to their constituents
    824
    and to the people of Ireland. He, himself, had intended to ask a Question and to make an explanation in regard to some queries which he had addressed to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland the other day as to a gentleman of the name of Haughton, who had been a Court Valuer, and who was dismissed by the Land Commission from that position without the slightest reason being assigned. What was the case of Mr. Haughton? Why, he was not apprehended in London and imprisoned for seven months—he was not summarily arrested—but his case was, nevertheless, one of very great hardship. He was a Court Valuer because of his high character, and because of his great experience—his great practical experience—in connection with agricultural matters. This gentleman filled the office of Court Valuer with satisfaction, so far as it could be ascertained, to everybody with whom he came in contact, including those whose land he was called upon to inspect and value. Well, this gentleman had been dismissed from his position. He (Mr. Redmond) had asked in that House why he had been dismissed, and the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had replied that Mr. Haughton had been sent away because the Land Commission had thought fit to dispense with his services—that he had been dismissed, although his integrity had never been called in question. If Mr. Haughton was not dismissed because of anything wanting in himself—if he was not dismissed because it was necessary to call his integrity in question—if there was nothing to be charged against him, why was he dismissed? If he had not transgressed in any way there was only one reason for his dismissal, and that was that the Land Commissioners found that they had a sufficient number of Court Valuers and could dispense with the services of one. Was that why Mr. Haughton was dismissed? No, it was not; because Mr. Haughton was not, by two or three, the last of the Court Valuers appointed; and if the Land Commissioners found that they could do without one Court Valuer they were bound, in common fairness and honesty, to dispense with the services of the gentleman last appointed. Instead of doing that, they went back over the heads of two or three of the more recent appointments, and dismissed

    825
    Mr. Haughton from their service. He (Mr. Redmond) had asked in that House the reason of that dismissal—what the man had done that his appointment should be taken from him—and he was answered, in a flippant tone, that there was no reason to be given. "The Land Commission wished it, and no one must question the Land Commission." He maintained that the Government had a duty to perform towards the man. What was the effect of a summary dismissal from a position such as that of Court Valuer in Ireland? It might seem a light decision on the part of the Land Commissioners and to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland; but to the man who was dismissed what did it mean? It meant that a whisper would go round the country side, and would reach his home where he was well known—a whisper to the effect that he had been guilty of some evil doing. His neighbours would ask, "Why is he dismissed?" and the answer would very naturally occur to their minds—"He would not have been dismissed if he had not done something wrong—if he had not overstepped the bounds of his duty." Mr. Haughton, being dismissed without reason assigned, was left to suffer all the inconvenience of having his neighbours and the country side believe that he had done something contrary to the duties of the position which he held. He (Mr. Redmond) maintained that the Government had a right to press on the Land Commissioners to give a fair and solid reason for Mr. Haughton's dismissal. If the Government would say—"This gentleman was sent away because he did so and so or so and so;" if they would give a fair reason for the dismissal he (Mr. Redmond) should be perfectly satisfied. The Government had no right to support the Land Commissioners—they had no right to be satisfied with such a thing as the dismissal of a gentleman of high character and eminently qualified for his position, without the assignment of the slightest reason. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland would pursue this matter, and urge on the Land Commission the necessity, in common fairness, of assigning some reason for the dismissal of Mr. Haughton; but he could assure the right hon. Gentleman of one thing—namely, that he (Mr. Redmond) should spare no trouble
    826
    or pains to make this case as inconvenient as he possibly could to Her Majesty's Government until he obtained a full and fair answer. On the Motion for Adjournment he had already stated why the Irish Members wanted a Sitting that day, or, failing that day, why they asked the Government to keep a House for them to-morrow. A great and deplorable delay had taken place in dealing with the grievances of the Irish National School teachers, and the Irish Members were extremely anxious to make some progress with the Bill dealing with that subject. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland might say it was a matter of indifference whether the second reading of the National School Teachers' Bill took place to-day or in March—that it would make no difference, so far as the objects of the Bill were concerned. But it made this difference—it would give the National School teachers great satisfaction, and some confidence in the intentions of the Government, if they could to-morrow read that the Bill had been read a second time. Such news coming to them might induce them to refrain from perpetrating acts which he sincerely and truly feared they might allow themselves to be led into if Parliament and the Government turned a deaf ear to their appeals, cared nothing for their grievances, and persisted in their refusal to allow the Bill to be read a second time. There had never been at any time in Ireland a more exemplary class of people than the National School teachers. They had been hard working, they had been long suffering, and they had at no time been led by any considerations into transgressing the laws of the country. The tenant farmers of Ireland had had a grievance which they could not get redressed until they stirred up an agitation which shook the British Empire to its foundations. The farmers could not get their grievances remedied until the agrarian cry was rampant. He wished to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they would give the teachers in Ireland some promise or some guarantee that their grievances would be attended to before they were compelled to resort to criminal acts? He had no doubt in the world that if these people, who were living on the verge of starvation, and occupying miserable hovels, were excluded much longer from the consideration they de-

    827
    served they would be induced to break the law of the country, and resort to measures which would more earnestly attract the attention of Parliament than could the merits of the men sent to Parliament to represent the Irish people. He would earnestly ask the Government to allow the Irish Members to take the discussion of the Irish National School Teachers Bill on Saturday. He warned the Government that if they persisted in their refusal to allow the Irish Members to have a full and fair discussion of the merits of the Bill on Saturday the consequences would be not altogether satisfactory to the prospect the Chief Secretary for Ireland had before him in regard to the administration of law and order in Ireland. ["Oh, oh!"] He was sorry that his remarks were unpleasant to some hon. Gentleman opposite. He was exceedingly sorry, because he felt that it was his duty to say these things. He felt that the course that the Irish Members wore adopting was somewhat extreme; but bitter experience had taught them in Ireland that only extreme courses were ever likely to win anything from England. It was the duty of the Irish Members—and it must be for ever their duty so long as it was their misfortune to remain in that House—to show English Members and Her Majesty's Government that they would continue doggedly and sullenly to press the redress of the grievances of the people of Ireland on the people of England until sufficient remedies were applied. He did not think that a more reasonable compromise was ever suggested than that which was proposed by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Waterford. Surely the Government, exercising that great influence which the Government of Her Majesty was always known to exercise over the Whig and Radical Party, might, as the House was to meet on Saturday, either by coercion, wheedling, or entreaties, get 40 of their followers, who were always so ready to muster whenever there was a Coercion Bill before the House, to make some little self-sacrifice, and come down and sit here for a few hours to allow the grievances of numerous classes in Ireland to be fully and fairly discussed. If the Government objected to the Irish National School Teachers Bill, why did they not manfully say so? They were afraid to do so. The Chief
    828
    Secretary for Ireland was afraid to stand up and say that Her Majesty's Government could not accept the Bill. What did the right hon. Gentleman do? Why, in a sort of silent way, he killed the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman did not want it to be said, in Ireland that Her Majesty's Government refused to consider the Bill; and yet he did not want to have it considered. At any rate, the result of that night's proceedings would be to convince the people of Ireland that the Irish Members had done everything in their power to press the urgency of the demands of the National School teachers on the Government, and would also convince the people of Ireland that Her Majesty's Government were absolutely neglectful of the representations of the Irish Members and of the grievances which had led to them.
    MR. CALLANsaid, that although, perhaps, no Member of the House had suffered more through his stay that night in the House than he had done, yet it was one of the first few nights he had remained so long unwillingly. He yet anticipated that much good would result from these discussions. If the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland had that night been as dull as usual—had he been less lively, had he restrained himself in the absence of the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. Gladstone), whom he (Mr. Callan) was sorry to find was not in his place, but to whom he hoped the conduct of his subordinate the Chief Secretary for Ireland would be reported—if the Chief Secretary for Ireland had displayed a little of the dullness which was so characteristic of him when the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) moved the second reading of the Irish National School Teachers Bill, and if he had in his condescension permitted the discussion, and had not rushed at the Bill at once with all the fury of a M'Gregor, this prolonged Sitting would not have taken place. Had the right hon. Gentleman remained in his place until the Bill had been some time under discussion, had he heard the opinions of the Irish Members, and had he been guided by circumstances, and been actuated as the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been, all this unseemly wrangle would have been prevented. Why could he not have

    829
    contented himself with pointing out that the fact of permitting the discussion would not advance the Bill—that they would be no nearer passing it into law by carrying the second reading before the adjournment than if they allowed the stage to stand over?
    Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
    MR. CALLAN,resuming, said, that he was about to remark, when the attention of the Speaker was drawn to the fact that 40 Members were not present, in ignorance on the other side of the House of what the result might have been, that he hoped, to-morrow, the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister would be called to the circumstances which had occurred that evening, and to the nature of that prolonged Sitting. If the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had not assumed such a magniloquent air towards the Irish Members, but if he had allowed them, and given them his own gracious permission, to discuss a Bill in which the Irish people were deeply interested, and from the discussion of which the Government might have learned something more than he fancied the right hon. Gentleman at present knew in reference to the wishes of the Irish people with regard to the National School teachers of Ireland, and had then, after the discussion had continued for a short time, pointed out that it was being improperly or inconveniently gone into, it was highly probable that all this unseemly and prolonged harangue would have been saved. There was an old saying in the country that it would take a very considerable amount of force to knock a joke into a Scotchman's head; but he thought the five hours' debate which had now taken place ought to teach the Chief Secretary for Ireland—Scotchman though he was—that whenever an Irish question was brought, before the House, so long as representative institutions existed in Ireland, it was the duty of the right hon. Gentleman to pay deference to the opinions and wishes of the Irish Members. If the right hon. Gentleman would take that lesson to heart—and he was sure that when the attention of the Prime Minister was called to the facts of the case he would be ordered to take it to heart
    830
    —it would teach him something which might save him from many unnecessary hours of prolonged discussion in the coming year. With regard to the adjournment of the House until Saturday, he (Mr. Callan) objected to it for this reason. That evening he had prepared a Notice to place on the Table of the House for the discussion of a most important question which he was anxious to bring forward on Friday. If necessary, he would raise the question as a matter of Privilege for the ruling of the Speaker at the first Sitting of the House. On the 23rd of August, 1883, on his Motion, the House ordered that a Return should be forthwith made of the Grand Jury Panels in Ireland for the years 1882 and 1883, specifying the amount of property for which each Grand Juror was rated, and stating whether he was usually resident or non-resident, and also the names of cesspayers which did not appear on the Grand Jury Panels, together with the names of all persons on the Grand Jury Panels, distinguishing those who were in the Commission of the Peace. It appeared that during the régime—the unfortunate régime he might call it—of the late Chief Secretary for Ireland, now Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Trevelyan), a good many things ordered by the House were not attended to by the Irish Executive. Unfortunately for the right hon. Gentleman, he (Mr. Callan) obtained that Return, and, having obtained it, he wanted to utilize it, and to see it placed in the Library of the House. Upon making inquiry, however, he found that the Order of the House had been deliberately disregarded. He, therefore, went to the present Chief Secretary for Ireland to make inquiries, and what did the right hon. Gentleman say about the Return? He absolutely said that he knew nothing whatever about it.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The hon. Gentleman says it was a Return obtained in August, 1883, when I had no connection with the Irish Office.
    MR. CALLANsaid, that was so, no doubt; but he had gone to the Irish Office to obtain information, and, being unable to get any, he had intimated that he would call attention to the matter at Question time. At a subsequent period he was told by the right hon. Gentleman that the Return was in the Library. He

    831
    accordingly went to the Library; but found that there was no such Return, so that an Order of the House, made on the 23rd of August, 1883, and which he knew had been furnished by the Clerks of Unions in Ireland 12 months ago to the Chief Secretary's Office, had been, despite the distinct Order of the House, deliberately suppressed by the Irish Office. As he had already stated when he informed the Chief Secretary for Ireland that it was his intention to bring the matter forward in the House, he was told by the right hon. Gentleman that he had the Return already at his disposal; but, on inquiry, he found that no such Return was in existence, and that the Order of the House had been quietly set aside. For a period of 15 months the Chief Secretary's Office had set at defiance the Order of the House; and the question he (Mr. Callan) desired to raise was, whether the Irish Executive was entitled, with impunity, to set at defiance the Order of the House? That was one among other matters which he desired to bring forward on Saturday. He had certainly not felt it incumbent on him to give the right hon. Gentleman Notice of his intention to bring forward the question, because he considered that it was the duty of the right hon. Gentleman to see that the Orders of the House were not disregarded. With regard to another matter—a question which had already occupied the attention of the House in the course of the evening—he had not supposed that any Member of the Irish Party, or any Member of the House, would have been treated with greater consideration than his hon. Friend the Member for Longford (Mr. Justin M'Carthy). The hon. Member was the respected Vice Leader of the Party, who entertained for him the highest respect, and reposed the greatest confidence in him. Indeed, every Irish Member on that side of the House would resent, as a personal insult, to himself any slight attempted to be passed by Her Majesty's Government upon his hon. Friend. Nevertheless, the Chief Secretary for Ireland had refused to allow a Bill which had been introduced by his hon. Friend, and in which the Irish people took a deep interest, to be discussed. If the House had sat that day he had intended to call upon the Chief Secretary for Ireland for an explanation of the reasons why the Irish Office had suppressed a document
    832
    which had been ordered by the House to be laid upon the Table, and which had already been furnished to the Irish Executive by the Clerks of Unions in Ireland. He was afraid that these were circumstances which did not afford a happy omen in connection with the inauguration of the right hon. Gentleman as the new Chief Secretary for Ireland. He feared that the right hon. Gentleman was inclined to follow the old lines of officialism hitherto practised with such disastrous results by the officials of Dublin Castle. He regretted that the right hon. Gentleman was not prepared to follow the excellent example of the Chief Secretary for Ireland who, for a long series of years, had given the most satisfaction to the Irish Members and the Irish people—he referred to a Conservative Chief Secretary—the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach). If the right hon. Gentleman the present Chief Secretary for Ireland would consent to follow the course of conciliation pursued by that right hon. Gentleman towards the Irish Representatives, he would find that the more attention he paid to the representations made to him, and the more courtesy he displayed towards the Irish Members, the smoother would be his career in Office.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, he hoped the House would allow him to say one word in the way of personal explanation—not in regard to any matter which had been brought forward by the hon. Member who had just addressed the House (Mr. Callan), because the hon. Member promised to bring his complaints fully before the House on the first opportunity, but simply a word to explain that, in the course he had taken, he had intended to throw no slight upon the hon. Member who had introduced the National School Teachers Bill. His object in rising now, as soon as the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan) had sat down, was to prevent any misapprehension from existing. He must honestly say that he had not anticipated that there was any desire or intention to proceed with the Bill of the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) in the little time which was at the disposal of the House at the time the second reading was moved. He might have been mistaken; but he had thought it courteous, under

    833
    the circumstances, to take that course at once. Having had the opportunity of making this personal explanation, he had nothing further to say.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 43; Noes 9: Majority 34.—(Div. List, No. 23.)

    WESTMINSTER HALL (RESTORATION).
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE MR. SHAW LEFEVRE moved—
    "That the Committee on Westminster Hall (Restoration) have leave to sit and proceed, notwithstanding any Adjournment of the House."
    Motion agreed to.
    House adjourned at a quarter after Five o'clock in the morning till Saturday.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Yorkshire Registries Act (1884) Amendment* (14).
Second Reading—Committee negatived—Consolidated Fund (No. 1)*.
Committee—Report—Representation of the People (5).
Third Reading—Tramways and Public Companies (Ireland) Act Amendment* (8), and passed.

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.
  Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee."—(The Earl of Kimberley.}
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid, he did not rise to oppose the Motion, but he rose to make a few remarks. Their Lordships were about to go into Committee on a Bill which was to add 2,000,000 of voters to the electorate of the Three Kingdoms. Taking this Enfranchising Bill in conjunction with the very drastic Redistribution Bill which had been introduced in "another place," then he thought they could only characterize the change to be thus effected as nothing short of a peaceful, but great, revolution. A very great change was being made, and he noticed, with anxiety and some apprehension, that the effect of those two measures, in the long run, would be practically to disfranchise the middle classes who were enfranchised by the Act of 1832; and he, for one, looked upon that change with all the greater anxiety—he would not say alarm—on account of the Socialistic tendencies of the times, evinced not only as regarded foreign countries, but more or less in the case of our own country. They had only to look on the legislation of the last 14 years or more to see how many Acts of Parliament had been passed, bearing a Socialistic stamp. It was a well-known fact that some, of the ablest writers looked with grave concern upon this new development of ideas; and he could well recollect a conversation which he had in 1881 with one of the most thoughtful and able statesmen, whose recent loss, without distinction of Party, every Englishman deplored—he meant the late Postmaster General. In 1881, before the introduction of the Irish Land Bill, he had a conversation with Mr. Fawoett on this subject, in the course of which he (the Earl of Wemyss) said that, from what he had seen, the measure was likely to be one of a very drastic and Socialistic character, and one that would seriously affect the rights of property, if not property itself. What was Mr. Fawcett's reply? He said—

  573
  "Do not suppose that I approve of this kind of legislation. I believe it to be wrong; I believe it can lead to no good."
  Then he went on to use these remarkable terms—
  "Depend upon it, the days of the old Party distinctions between Whig and Tory, Liberal and Conservative, have for ever gone by; and that the next great division of Parties in this country will be into Socialists and Anti-Socialists."
  As somewhat confirming that view, he (the Earl of Wemyss) had recently read, in The Pall Mall Gazette, an account of an interview with a rising statesman of the Conservative Party—he meant Lord Randolph Churchill—and what he gathered from the interview was, that, in the opinion of the noble Lord he had mentioned, the Conservatism of the future might possibly be, so far as the noble Lord was concerned, of a Socialistic and Communistic character. Conservative Communism was certainly a startling anomaly—he might even call it a hybrid monster—and, he hoped it would never receive the approval of the Conservative Party; but, at a time like the present, he might be allowed to point out that there was a regular Socialistic organ in this country. It called itself The Organ of the Social Democracy, and, in a heading of a paragraph, in a copy which he held in his hands, in large letters, he read—
  "Send your shillings and pence for the propaganda fund to Mr. Win. Morris."
  In the same journal, he saw a paragraph which he would commend to the notice of the noble Duke on the Liberal Benches (the Duke of Argyll). It referred to the crofters, and was headed "The Campbells," not "are coming," but "are going." He pointed to that, to show the Democratic-Socialistic tendency of the age. He should like the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) to take that paper and study it; and he could assure him that he would find it contained, if not very amusing, at least very instructive literature. He (the Earl of Wemyss) was bound to add that if the old Whigs could only realize what was going on in the ranks of Society in England, they would hesitate before supporting any more of this kind of legislation that had lately been passed, and would fall back upon the lines of Adams, Smith, Ricardo, M'Culloch, and other writers on politi-
  574
  cal economy, whose teachings ho hoped had only temporarily fallen into oblivion. They might be recalled from Jupiter or Saturn, to which he trusted they had been only temporarily relegated. If they did so, he thought the result would be that they would put their foot down against any further application of Socialistic doctrines. The question they had now to ask—and it was why he introduced these remarks on this occasion—was, How would the great body of new voters think and act? When this new division of Parties took place, would all the new voters place themselves on the side of the Socialists, or of the Anti-Socialists? He hoped not on either, but that there would be a division of opinion among them as there was among their Lordships. Indeed, he knew that amongst the working classes there was, already, a marked division of opinion, and that they met and argued as Socialists and as Individualists. Having said this, he had only to add that both existing Parties were agreed in regard to the Bill now before them. There were no difficulties as to the extension of the franchise—the only difficulty had been in regard to procedure; and as to procedure—as one of those who had last Session been very anxious for compromise—he could only express the great satisfaction which he, in common with many others, felt at the arrangement which had been come to, and that a great Constitutional crisis had been thereby avoided. The events of the last three weeks were certainly of a novel character. During that time they had seen trial by jury, to a great extent, abolished by the Judges, and Parliament superseded by a Caucus of ex and in Cabinet Ministers; they had seen Party Leaders setting Party interests aside in the interest of the common weal. He himself was not a strong Party man, and he was very glad to find that for the interest of the public good Party interests could, if necessary, be set aside. The arrangement was certainly as startling in its novelty as any transformation scene, and what its effect would be on the Constitution he did not know, and could not pretend to say; but he thought that there were occasions on which it would be most desirable that Party should be set aside in the interest of the country, and that a Cabinet Caucus might advantageously deal, for example,

  575
  with great questions of national defence, and other matters affecting the unity and strength of the Empire. The difficulty in which they found themselves placed upon questions connected with the national defence often arose because the Leaders of both Parties knew perfectly well what was required, but they were afraid to come down and propose it, because they dreaded that the other side would immediately say that they asked them to support a Vote for bloated armaments, and perhaps they would be told that they were advocating a Jingo policy. Where questions of Imperial importance were concerned, he thought they could not do better than enter into some such combination as had been entered into with regard to this question of the extension of the franchise and the redistribution of seats. It was not, however, for the purpose of obtruding himself upon their Lordships that ho gave utterance to those candid remarks. They were making history now, and he was anxious that he should not be misunderstood, as he had been last Session. What he had suggested then was very much what had been done since. He found that some of his Conservative Friends were under the mistaken impression that, last Session, he had wished their Lordships to pass the Franchise Bill right off before they actually had the Redistribution Bill before them. Ho hoped, however, that he had made it perfectly clear last Session that, although he was anxious to go on with the Franchise Bill, he would not consent to pass it into law without their Lordships having some hold or other upon the Redistribution Bill. He only wished them to proceed to Committee in order that the Redistribution Bill might be introduced at a later stage. After the Bill had once been rejected, he had seen that it was impossible that it could not be accepted in the Autumn Session without conditions; and, speaking in his own county on a public occasion, as early as August, he said it appeared to him impossible that English gentlemen having acted as their Lordships had done, should take the Franchise Bill as if it had been presented to them at the point of the sword; and he added that, if their Lordships were asked simply to accept the Bill without any condition as regards redistribution, their Lordships
  576
  could only give one answer, and that was—"Is thy servant a dog that he should do this thing?" But, fortunately, the difficulty had happily ended; they had got a spirit of compromise which, had led to this union between the two Parties and an arrangement of their difference. He rejoiced that a grave Constitutional crisis had been happily avoided; and as a humble occupant of the Cross Benches, he desired to express his heartfelt thanks to the Government and the Leaders on both sides, for the spirit of conciliation and compromise which they had shown. While saying that, however, he was bound to add that the fact that a crisis was imminent, and to a certain extent had arisen, was due to the way in which the Government had at first endeavoured imperiously to force through Parliament an incomplete measure of Reform, and was not duo to the Constitutional action of their Lordships' House.
  LORD BRABOURNEsaid, he would leave his noble Friend (the Earl of Wemyss) to settle his differences with his Conservative Friends, and would ask leave to say two or three words before their Lordships went into Committee. By this measure 2,000,000 persons were about to be enfranchised; and so far as he was concerned, and, he was sure so far as the great majority of their Lordships were concerned, it was with the most hearty goodwill on their part that they saw this enfranchisement about to take place. He thought that when this was the case, it was a great pity to talk about Socialistic tendencies, and to speak of these new voters as if we were afraid of them. He had no doubt they would make quite as good electors as those who had already been admitted to the franchise; and he was of opinion that in admitting those persons to the franchise the less their Lordships prophesied of evil from that admission the better it would be for all parties. When this franchise measure was last before the House, he stated with pain that he was compelled to vote in favour of the Amendment to postpone the further progress of the Bill until the whole scheme of the Government had been produced. On that occasion he was subjected to a very severe attack from the noble Earl who hailed from Mid Lothian (the Earl of Rosebery). He regretted the absence of his noble Friend. On that last occa-

  577
  sion of this Bill being before their Lordships, that noble Earl referred in a sarcastic tone to his (Lord Brabourne's) position in that House, and made an allusion, the irreverence of which was probably excused by the House on account of its wit. Had his noble Friend been present that night, he (Lord Brabourne) would have offered him his sincere condolence; for he perceived, by the ordinary channels of information that morning, that his own coronet had, since making that speech, become so painful to him that he was willing to abolish the hereditary principle sooner than that so intolerable a burden should descend to his children. He (Lord Brabourne) understood that it had been stated that the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition would vote against the Amendment of a noble Lord on his own side (Lord Denman) dealing with the subject of woman suffrage. If that was so, he (Lord Brabourne) was inclined to believe that the noble Marquess would not be against the principle of that Amendment, but that he merely wished to express the opinion that it was not an opportune moment to bring the question forward. That, he thought, was an intelligible standpoint to take lip. The question, however, was one which had come into great prominence of late years; and he hoped it would not be long before the right of admission of duly qualified women to the suffrage would be recognized. If, therefore, he and others forebore to press their views upon this and other points at this moment, they must not be precluded from doing so at a more favourable opportunity.
  EARL FORTESCUEsaid, as a consistent Liberal, it did not seem to him to be a desirable thing that a measure of this great importance should be settled, not by Parliament, but by private arrangement between the Leaders of the two great Parties in the State. The compromise on this matter reminded him of what was said of the Peace of Amiens—"It is a Peace of which everyone is glad, but of which no one could be proud." He spoke as a consistent Liberal, for he defied anyone to cite any vote, speech, or publication of his inconsistent with his life-long attachment to the great principles of civil, religious, and commercial liberty. Indeed, as regarded the measure before
  578
  them, he had, as long ago as 1867, years before the conversion of the present Government to it, pressed upon their Lordships the justice and expediency of extending to the agricultural labourers, as, at least, equally deserving of it, the franchise, which they were then widely conferring upon the householders and lodgers in the boroughs. He had then shown from official statistics how little lower in education, and how much better as regards crime, immorality, and drunkenness, the agricultural labourers, on the average, were, mainly, no doubt, from their being so much more decently lodged than the inhabitants of towns, hundreds of thousands of whom had, with their families, only a single room to live in by day as well as sleep in by night. He congratulated the Government on their doubtless sincere, but somewhat tardy, recognition of the agricultural labourers' just claims to the franchise, and congratulated the noble Marquess and his Friends on their still tardier, but doubtless equally sincere, conversion. As a consistent Liberal, ho earnestly hoped that the Liberal Governments of the future would not convert this compromise into a precedent for superseding the deliberate action of Parliament, and preventing the discussion and amendment of the Bills brought before them. Measures might hereafter be rushed through the House, as he feared was likely to be the case in regard to this measure, with defects in the wording. It would, he thought, be a great misfortune if this Bill were passed without any verbal Amendments, because the want of clearness of expression in legislation would lead to difficulty and doubt, and to much costly litigation.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, he had not intended to say anything on the Motion for going into Committee; but a few words had fallen from the noble Lord on the Cross Benches (Lord Brabourne), who, he believed, had correctly interpreted the views of his noble Friend (the Marquess of Salisbury), which made him feel that, personally, at all events, it was desirable that he should add a caveat to the remarks of the noble Lord. He was quite aware that it was desirable, on all accounts, to pass the Bill substantially in the same condition in which it had come before their Lordships; and for that reason he, for one, would be averse to suggest the introduc-

  579
  tion of any new matter which might endanger the Bill; but he agreed with those who thought that the time was rapidly approaching when the claims of a very important section indeed of the community—namely, duly-qualified women—must receive the attention of Parliament; and it was no use putting the question aside by a bad joke. He considered all the arguments that had been used, whether logical or practical, really pointed to the admission of duly-qualified women. There was very little, indeed, to be said on behalf of the large class they were now about to enfranchise that could not be said with equal effect on behalf of duly-qualified women. In making these remarks he did not wish to raise any discussion, but simply to express his own opinion in consequence of what had fallen from the noble Lord, and he should make no Motion on the subject.
  Motion agreed to; House in Committee accordingly.
  Preliminary.
  Clause 1 (Short title of Act) agreed to.
  Extension of the Household and Lodger Franchise.
  Clause 2 (Uniform household and lodger franchise).
  LORD BRAMWELL,who had on the Paper a Notice to move, in page 1, line 13, the insertion of the words "not in a borough," said, that the object of the intended Amendment had been to dear up a doubt arising from its having been forgotten that all boroughs were in counties; and so a voter in a borough might claim to vote for a county, which could not have been intended. But there was no question of principle. After a certain amount of litigation, and an Act or two to amend, a meaning would be put on the clause. He meant his Amendment for the good of the Bill; but as the Government objected he would not move it. The noble Earl on the Cross Benches (the Earl of Wemyss) was quite mistaken in supposing that the learned Judge had done anything contrary to law. What he had done was quite in conformity with the practice.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he would point out to the noble and learned Lord (Lord Bramwell) that it was provided that the word "county" should
  580
  bear the same interpretation as it did in previous Acts dealing with the Re-resentation of the People; and these previous Acts expressly excepted the boroughs that had Parliamentary representation of their own.
  LORD BRAMWELLsaid, that the explanation might be right, but that it would be better that the clause should be so worded as to need no explanation. With reference to a remark made by the noble Earl on the Cross Benches (the Earl of Wemyss) with reference to the action of a certain learned Judge, that that learned Judge had done what had been done not only hundreds, but thousands of times before. He (Lord Bramwell) also had some personal interest in this matter; because he had done the same at least 150 times himself.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that, as their Lordships no doubt anticipated, the Government were not disposed to agree to the insertion of this large Amendment on their scheme of enfranchisement. He should, however, follow the example of the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Carnarvon), who had just now alluded to the subject, by declining to go into the question. He had only one remark to make with reference to what had been said by that noble Earl. The noble Earl said he saw no reason why duly-qualified women should not be admitted to the franchise. By that he supposed the noble Earl meant that ho considered the question as to women who paid rates settled, and that a large and not unimportant section—the women who happened to be married—should have no consideration for their claims. As to the question itself, he did not wish to express any opinion personally, but only to point out the distinction that was drawn between single and married women; and he hoped their Lordships would not agree to the Amendment.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, his noble Friend (Lord Brabourne) had correctly interpreted what he had said the other evening, as not implying any unwillingness to consider the principle of female franchise, but simply as an intimation that he would vote against the intended Motion. His own judgment leant certainly to some relaxation of the law in this respect, though he was not prepared to go all the lengths to which some of the advocates of the proposal

  581
  went. But he agreed with the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Kimberley) that this was not a suitable time—not suitable in the interests of women's franchise itself—to press the Amendment, because the House of Commons had clearly resolved not to agree to such an Amendment; and if it were inserted, when the Bill went back to the House of Commons, many would be compelled to vote against it, who otherwise might not be disposed to do so. Therefore, there was no advantage to be gained by pushing the Amendment; and the effect of so doing might rather tend to injure the chances of success of the movement for the extension of the franchise to women.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 3 (Tenure of house by office or service not to invalidate vote) agreed to.
  LORD DENMAN,who had given Notice of the insertion of new Clauses A, B, C, and D, on the first being read, said, he could only propose this clause as the House was pledged (by Speech from the Throne, June 1859) to pass a well-considered measure, and the late Lord Lyttelton proposed such a clause in l867. It was said that his Lordship did not write a legible hand himself; but he (Lord Denman) had great respect for some men who could neither read nor write—their memory was so good. A huntsman named John Shirley, quite illiterate, saved Sir Richard Sutton much money by keeping 30 horses and 90 couples of hounds at Burton for the same that 30 horses cost at Lincoln. Such men, for the sake of a vote, would soon learn to read and write; and he had seen, in a school on the borders of the county of Tipperary, in 1836, a man aged 60 learning to read and write. Since the last harvest he had had two letters from men who worked for him in County Galway, written in the best possible handwriting, and expressing the best possible sentiments. Voting papers might be used generally if this clause were carried; but to avoid delay he would withdraw it.
  Moved, after Clause 3, to insert the following clause:—
  (Disqualification for inability to write.)
  "Clause (A.) From and after the expiration of six months after the passing of this Act, no one shall be entitled to vote at the election of a Member of Parliament who cannot write a legible hand.
  "The Lords of Her Majesty's Privy Council are hereby authorised and required to frame and issue, within three months after the passing of this Act, regulations to carry the last preceding enactment into effect."
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that it was impossible to agree to clauses of this kind. The noble Lord proposed, for instance, that no one should vote who could not write a legible hand. He (the Earl of Kimberley) had in his official capacity considerable experience of illegible handwriting, and he could wish that people could be made to write legibly. But he thought the application of the clause would be very much wider than was contemplated by the noble Lord.
  Clause negatived.
  "Clause (B.) No person who has been three times convicted of drunkenness shall be entitled to be registered as a voter in the next election after the last of such convictions."
  LORD DENMANsaid, he had tried to carry it in 1867, as some persons were many times convicted of drunkenness; but he would not press it.
  Clause (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  "Clause (C.) During the continuance of the Contagious Diseases Acts no person receiving a registered woman or women as a lodger or lodgers shall be entitled to vote during the continuance of the harbouring of such registered woman or women."
  LORD DENMANsaid, the clause was framed to prevent the franchise from being in bad hands; but it was rather the subject of such a Bill as passed the House of Lords as to brothels last Session, so he would withdraw it.
  Clause negatived.
  "Clause (D.) All women not legally disqualified who have the same qualifications as the present (or future) electors for counties and boroughs shall be entitled to vote for knights of the shire and burgesses for boroughs at every election."
  LORD DENMANsaid, the clause was framed because, in the Bill in "another place," a marked exclusion of married women existed, and in cases where a woman was ill-used, as in the case of "Greenhill v. Russell," alluded to in the debate on the Custody of Infants Bill, 1859, July 10. Sufficient time might have been given to insert this clause, and if it had been rejected for it to have

  583
  been reinstated by this House, and to have been made the subject of a free conference between the two Houses of Parliament, Lord Fitzgerald's Infants Bill might, in the Select Committee, deal with the subject. In the 43rd year of the Reign of Queen Elizabeth Parliament met on October 27, and sat, with short intervals, till December 19; but the noble Marquess, whose ancestor had, in 1605, been on a Committee of this House for public piety, had pledged himself to expedite this measure, on the principle of which all their Lordships were agreed, therefore he would not press it.
  Clause (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Prohibition of Multiplication of Votes.
  Clause 4 (Restriction on fagot votes) agreed to.
  Assimilation of Occupation Qualification.
  Clause 5 (Assimilation of occupation qualification), agreed to.
  Supplemental Provisions.
  Clause 6 (Voter not to vote for county in respect of occupation of property in borough); Clause 7 (Definition of household and lodger qualification and other franchises, and application of enactments relating thereto); and Clause 8 (Definition of "Representation of the People Acts," and "Registration Acts,") severally agreed to.
  Clause 9 (Definition and application of Rating Acts).
  LORD BALFOUR,in moving an Amendment with the view of providing that in Scotland householders paying less than £4 of rent should not be put on the Valuation Roll, but should be enumerated in a separate list, said, he objected to the proposed inclusion in the County Valuation Rolls of Scotland of persons whose holdings were of less value than £4. They would run the risk of being rated, which they were not at the present time; besides, that would be adding the trouble and expense of keeping a Roll made for purely local purposes to the inconvenience of those who had to deal with it, and doing it not for local, but for Imperial purposes. If the clause were carried as it stood, the expense of preparing and printing Valuation Rolls would be largely increased. It would not be fair to throw on local funds
  584
  what ought to be an Imperial burden. The insertion of householders under £4 would lead to a great deal of inconvenience and expense, and would not serve any purpose that could not be equally well served by a separate list. In connection with the subject he had received a letter from one of the Assessors of Aberdeenshire, in which he pointed out that there were at present 25,000 names on his Roll, and that this Bill would require the addition of 12,000 more names, which would be of no use for rating purposes.
  Amendment moved, in page 6, line 11, after ("book") insert ("in Scotland a separate list, instead of a separate column, may be added for such entries.")—{The Lord Balfour.)
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he was unable to follow the technical arguments of the noble Lord, because he was not personally acquainted with the mysteries of Scotch valuations. A similar Amendment, however, had been brought forward in the other House, where it had been fully considered and negatived without a division. He understood there was a difference of opinion among hon. Members from Scotland on the subject, some thinking it would be better to have a separate list and others not; but, after considering all the circumstances, the Lord Advocate had come to the conclusion that it was better that all the names should be given in the Valuation Roll. He might simply add, as reference had been made to the Assessor of Aberdeenshire, that the Assessor of North Lanark had written a letter in which he expressed the opposite opinion.
  LORD BALFOURsaid, his Amendment was only permissive; and therefore, even if it were accepted, the Assessor of North Lanark could still follow his own course.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 10 (Saving); Clause 11 (Construction of Act); Clause 12 (Repeal of certain superseded sections); and Clause 1.3 (Commencement of Act) severally agreed to.
  Schedules agreed to.
  Bill reported without Amendment; and to be read 3a To-morrow.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.—RESOLUTION.
  LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELLwho had the following Resolutions on the Notice Paper:—

  "1. That in the event of two or more Lords rising to address the House at the same time, the Lord Chancellor or Chairman of Committees, whichever then presides, shall call on one of them to speak, and the Lord so called upon shall speak, unless the House do order otherwise:

  "2. That Private Bill Committees shall consist of three, and that all applications to Lords to serve upon them shall be in writing, and delivered at their residences:

  "3. That the House he lighted always at the commencement of Public Business and continue lighted until the adjournment, unless the Lord Chancellor or Chairman of Committees gives a different instruction:

  "4. That no Lord who has a Motion or Bill upon the Paper shall rise to bring it forward out of its precedence:

  "5. That where the House permits reply to any Lord upon his Motion or his Bill, the debate shall on no pretence be continued after the reply is over:

  "6. That a false roof be introduced, similar to that in the other House of Parliament, to correct the present difficulty as to hearing,"

  said: My Lords, I rose 10 days ago to explain these Resolutions, when I was stopped by the noble and learned Earl upon the Woolsack, on the ground that the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees (the Earl of Redesdale) was unable to attend. The noble and learned Earl did not inform me, at the same time, that, if my Notice stood first another day, the Government would put on important Business to precede it, or I might not so readily have yielded to him. The present hour may be thought inconvenient; but it will, perhaps, enable us to dispose of one Resolution without proceeding to the others. Let me meet at once the question which arises; whether the juncture is a proper one for considering the Standing Orders, or amending them. My Lords, on more than one ground it is specially a proper one. In the course of last Session a noble Earl now absent (the Earl of Rosebery) moved for a Committee on the modes of adding to the efficiency of the House. He did not carry a majority, in some degree because his Motion became entangled with the question of Life Peerages. But his remarks, which were most animated, elicited an obvious disposition to listen to, and even act upon, the views which he brought forward. Before the effect
  586
  of that speech has died away, since nothing in the way of Parliamentary exertion is immortal, the subject ought, if ever, to recur. In the next place, during the autumn there has been a vehement commotion, in order wholly to supersede this House, or radically alter it. Periodicals, before remarkable for talent, have abounded in schemes which rival one another in their crudeness and audacity, but which have still disturbed and exercised the public mind upon the subject. There is something further. Within a fortnight, a Motion highly adverse to the constitution of this House has been debated in "another place," and sustained by a minority of 70. No one who has watched the history of our age will deem that minority an unimportant one. The principle which I submit is that a threatened institution should correct itself, remove irregularities or blemishes, bring order into its arrangements, and thus destroy the pretexts for attacking it. Internal changes which are just may be the best security against external changes which are mischievous and violent. But even if, as some maintain—to-night I offer no opinion on that point—external changes are desirable, it is well to see what definite improvements are attainable without them, so that they may not be invoked for work which easier and safer as well as quicker operations can accomplish. Now, the gravest charge preferred against the House, by quarters whose criticism is of value, is the inadequate attendance, except on Party conflicts and remarkable occasions. It is observed that the Roll is about 500, the number generally present about 50. All these Resolutions are more or less directed to remove the causes by which such absence is produced, or by which it can, in some degree, be justified. These general expressions may suffice to explain and to uphold the general position I have taken. I will now confine myself to the 1st Resolution. In June, 1870, it was brought by me before your Lordships, in terms very similar to those I have adopted. It was supported powerfully by the noble Marquess who now leads the Opposition (the Marquess of Salisbury). It was supported by the late Lord Clanricarde, who had no little weight in this Assembly, not only as the son-in-law and representative of Mr. Canning, but as a statesman of rare

  587
  acuteness, eminent ability, considerable patriotism, and whose acquaintance with the Business of the House where he had sat from early youth was perfectly unrivalled. The Lord Chancellor of the day, who had not long been nominated, and rather underrated his capacity to preside over the House, was not inclined to favour it. It was withdrawn, to be renewed; but I was much blamed by some for not having divided. It would long ago have been renewed, had it not appeared desirable to connect it with other propositions kindred in their nature and identic in the object which they aim at. Now the evil is undoubted. The House will not require pictures which everyone can draw himself, or has already glowing on his memory. Not long ago the noble Earl the Leader of the House (Earl Granville) and the noble and learned Earl who occupied the Woolsack under the late Government both rose together. After much confusion the House had to divide. One vote determined the priority. We were all placed in the invidious necessity of publicly arraying ourselves against one of the competitors. It is to avoid necessity of this kind—as well as upon other grounds not now before us—that noble Lords are tempted to be absent. The only point which merits even slight discussion is the remedy. The noble and learned Earl who sits upon the Woolsack is well acquainted with the House and with its Members. He entered Parliament in 1847. He would inspire confidence in the decisions he arrived at. The new procedure would begin under the most favourable auspices. The fact is, no loss or injury could accrue to anyone. If he is called on he speaks; if he is not called on, he is nearly certain to speak later. In that case he has a better chance of guiding the division. In both Houses we look for the greatest efforts of persuasion about midnight. Should the Lord Chancellor be led into an erroneous choice, by the last words of the Resolution, to which the noble Marquess opposite attached great importance in 1870, the House might supersede his judgment. But that, of course, would rarely happen. If we have no confidence in the Lord Chancellor, he ought not to preside at all; if we have, he ought to be entrusted with at least a portion of the attributes essential to the function of
  588
  presiding. No doubt the Lord Chancellor may be considered as appointed by a Party. But the Speaker of the House of Commons is appointed by a Party, although the process is more hidden. Have we not heard of the great conflict in 1885 between Mr. Abercromby and Mr. Manners Sutton, when all the resources of the Government and Opposition were exerted to secure the victory of one over the other? The defence of the proposal is that there is no other remedy for a striking inconvenience. Freedom of debate does not exist, when noble Lords can only take a part in it under humiliating circumstances, at the risk of yielding when they ought not to yield, or of insisting on their claims when those claims ought not to be insisted on. The actual system may have been adapted to a former age, when the House was far more limited in number, and when there may have possibly been usages for settling precedence of this kind which have not been transmitted to us. It ought not now to be endured, and would not be endured in any other Chamber. I will now conclude by moving the 1st Resolution.
  Moved to resolve,
  "That in the event of two or more Lords rising to address the House at the same time, the Lord Chancellor or Chairman of Committees, whichever then presides, shall call on one of them to speak, and the Lord so called upon shall speak, unless the House do order otherwise."—[The Lord Stratheden and Campbell.)
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)said, he wished, in a few words, to state his objections to the proposal of the noble Lord. The noble Lord had made a comparison between their Lordships' House and the House of Commons; and he endeavoured to show that the Speaker of the House of Commons was in the same position as the occupant of the Woolsack. To his (the Earl of Redesdale's) mind, there was a great difference between the position of the Speaker and that of the Lord Chancellor. The latter was nominated by the Queen; while the other was elected by the Assembly over which he presided. The Speaker was the Representative of the House, and was shut out from taking any part in the proceedings of the House of Commons; and as he could not take part in any debate, he was, therefore, in the Chair as an impartial judge to decide

  589
  between one side and the other, whereas the Lord Chancellor had as much right to discuss any question which came before the House as any other Peer. These were points which required great consideration. The noble Lord had also proposed that the same power should be conferred on the Chairman of Committees. He would admit that the same objection did not apply in that case, because the Chairman of Committees was appointed by the House, and, as Chairman, could not take part in a debate in Committee. He thought, however, that it would be very awkward to have different powers on the Woolsack and in the Chair. Then, again, by the Resolution proposed, other persons who might be in the Chair would have the same power, which would thus be given to a very wide body. The occasions on which the grievance mentioned by the noble Lord arose were extremely rare. It occurred once last Session; but for a very long time before there had been no case of the kind. He could not, therefore, support that proposal.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, it often happened, in important debates, that a number of noble Lords rose at the same time to address the House, and no one knew who was to speak, or who was to decide the point of precedence. There was, therefore, a real inconvenience attending the present practice; and it would be more consistent with the dignity of the House to amend it. The present proposal was about the mildest remedy that could be devised; and, on the whole, he thought the balance of argument was in favour of the change suggested by the Resolution. He thought their Lordships should be not only ready, but anxious, to accept changes which public opinion seemed to prompt.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid, he thought that, on the whole, things worked very well in respect to that matter at the present. They heard a great deal in the present day of the principle of natural selection and the survival of the fittest; and the Rules of their Lordships' House might, therefore, find considerable favour among modern philosophers. The position of the Lord Chancellor in that House was entirely different from the position of the Speaker of the House of Commons. Not only was the Lord Chancellor appointed by the Crown, but he might possibly be called upon to exer-
  590
  cise the power proposed to be vested in him by that Resolution before he bad acquired any experience of the House. It would, therefore, be unfortunate if their Lordships hastily adopted the Resolution.
  THE EARL OF LONGFORDsaid, he did not consider that the inconvenience which had been specially referred to was of so marked a nature as to require interference by the proposed Resolution. At the very moment when his noble Friend (Earl Beauchamp) rose, he (the Earl of Longford) himself rose with him; but he had no difficulty in yielding, that he might have the pleasure of listening to his noble Friend's remarks. But there were some real defects, such as the want of a proper writing-room; and if the noble Lord would include them in a future Motion it would have his support.
  Earl GRANVILLE and Earl FORTESCUEboth rising together, the former gave way.
  EARL FORTESCUE,in supporting the Resolution, said, he did not think that any noble and learned Lord who attained the dignity of the Woolsack was likely to have any difficulty in soon mastering the Rules and procedure of the House. Notwithstanding the personal courtesy of Peers to each other, inconvenience arose when a number of them got up at the same time, many of them quite unconscious of the fact that anyone else had risen, perhaps from a Bench behind them.
  EARL GEANVILLEsaid, that, upon the whole, he was opposed to the Resolution, and the more so in consequence of the arguments which had been made use of in the course of the evening. The noble Lord who moved the Resolution (Lord Stratheden and Campbell) had alluded to the considerable number of the minority who voted the other day on a Motion respecting the House of Lords. He (Earl Granville) did not, however, think that that minority, whatever was its number, was influenced in any degree by the consideration whether one Peer—as, for example, himself (Earl Granville)—should be heard first, or afterwards. No doubt the motive they had was that they thought the House of Lords, from its constitution, was very often found not to be in perfect harmony with what was generally the character of the House of Commons. That might

  591
  be a great evil, but it was one to be corrected by one of two ways—either by heroio and drastic measures; or, on the other hand, by good sense on the part of both sides of the House, of which they had had a remarkable instance in that short Session. He thought, therefore, they need not trouble themselves with, regard to this particular question, and with the proceedings which took place in the House of Commons the other day. He entirely agreed with what had been stated by the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees in regard to the position of the Speaker and the Lord Chancellor being in every way different. The House of Commons elected the Speaker. He was their creature; and, being their creature, they invested him with powers more or less arbitrary, as they thought fit. The Lord Chancellor, on the other hand, was named by the Queen; and there was a natural jealousy on the part of the House—he thought a proper jealousy—to subject itself to the arbitrary ruling of a person in whose nomination they had had no share whatever. A noble Earl had objected to the difficulty which might arise of a Lord Chancellor being appointed who knew nothing of the orders of the House. He (Earl Granville) owned that this argument did not weigh in the slightest degree with him. He had the greatest possible respect for all the successive Speakers of the House of Commons, and some of them were very remarkable men; but he was perfectly certain that the Speakers in their Lordships' House would not have to give way to them either in ability or in character. They did not get any inexperienced Lord Chancellors in their Lordships' House. There had been no Lord Chancellor within his memory who had not had the greatest possible experience of the Forms in the House of Commons, which was naturally a good training for any position they might take in their Lordships' House. He had not the slightest doubt the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack, or the noble and learned Earl opposite (Earl Cairns), would be perfectly impartial in executing their duties; but they would be placed in a very difficult position, and in a very inconvenient one, if the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack, having made a most eloquent Party speech in defence of the Government,
  592
  should be allowed to select the noble Lord who was to answer him. A noble Lord said that it would not cause much inconvenience; but he (Earl Granville) could not agree with him. They had seen two or three noble Lords get up to speak; the House generally called for one. Sometimes, however, there was a division of opinion; but there was almost a unanimity of opinion as to which noble Lord should be preferred. He owned that he sometimes had a suspicion that their Lordships had been lately influenced in preferring a short speaker to one who was exceedingly tiresome. But the general principle of their selection was to select a speaker quite irrespective of Party feeling, and sometimes they saw one Conservative Peer follow another Conservative Peer, all being actuated with the desire that the man whom, on the whole, the House desired to hear was he who would contribute in the most forcible manner to the elucidation of the argument. He, himself, had yielded just now with the greatest pleasure to the noble Earl (Earl Fortescue), who had risen to speak at the same time, and he thought he had not suffered from being obliged to follow him. In reference to the case which had been mentioned as having occurred between himself and the noble and learned Earl opposite (Earl Cairns), he had to say that his experience in their Lordships' House had been considerable, and this was the only instance he remembered of a question of this kind going to a division. The noble Lord (Lord Stratheden and Campbell) said their Lordships were placed in a most invidious and disagreeable position in having to vote either for the noble and learned Earl or for himself (Earl Granville); but he doubted very much whether there was a Peer present who felt that he had been placed in an invidious position for having to vote for one or the other. The matter at issue being a peculiar one, affecting to some degree their personal honour, both he and the noble and learned Earl opposite had a justifiable anxiety to speak first in order to tell their own story, though, as it happened, it did not matter, for both were agreed as to the facts. When, however, the matter went to a division, to his great surprise, he got a majority of 1, and therefore spoke first. But supposing the matter had been settled by the noble and learned Earl on the

  593
  Woolsack, with the greatest respect for his impartiality, his suspicion was that, in his desire to be perfectly impartial, the noble and learned Earl would have decided for Earl Cairns instead of for him. He really did not see that they suffered any inconvenience of importance in this respect from the present system. He thought it was most Constitutional; in practice, it was not open to any grave or considerable objection; and therefore he thought it would be better not to agree to the Resolution.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that some 14 or 15 years ago, in consequence of some scandal that had taken place during one of their discussions, he voted in favour of a similar Resolution in company with the present Viceroy of India, then a Colleague of the noble Earl's. That was about the time of the Irish Church, or the first Irish Land Act; but since then he had been induced by several considerations to modify his former opinions. He agreed with the noble Earl who had just spoken (Earl Granville) that this was not a question of large dimensions. The number of cases in which practical inconvenience had arisen was very small. On the other hand, when they were told of the difficulty about the Lord Chancellor selecting a speaker, because he was new to their Lordships' House, he thought they had found that 11 years had passed away since they had had a Lord Chancellor appointed new to the House. That difficulty could not be regarded, therefore, as one of a practical, or of a serious, character. He confessed that, in listening to the debate, the difficulty which weighed on his mind had been in the consideration that they had altered the character of the tenure of their Speakership very considerably. A good deal had been said about the impartiality of the Lord Chancellor, and it had been said that it would be very difficult for him to select a Peer to answer him in debate. He had no doubt the noble and learned Lord would act impartially; but a still more serious difficulty arose. Suppose the Lord Chancellor desired to speak himself; what was he to say? The position reminded him of what was recorded of Pope Celestine V. Pope Celestine V. was convicted of heresy, and there was a great difficulty to know what to do with him. But he settled the difficulty in the most self-devoted and
  594
  heroic manner. He said, "Judico me cremari"—st crematus fuit. Such was the record that was found in books; and he did not know whether every Lord Chancellor would be as self-devoted. He had to remember, however, that, under our present rule, it was not only with Lord Chancellors they had to deal. He saw another noble Lord sitting on the Woolsack (Lord Monson) in conversation with the noble and learned Earl (the Lord Chancellor), whose aid in some cases might be sought as the arbiter in these instances. He did not think the side of the House which got the worst of it would submit to the decision of the Whip of the Party opposite. He thought considerations of this kind made the question one of serious difficulty; and, while not in the least degree believing that those persons who objected to the House of Lords as an institution would be pacified by this Resolution being passed, he thought, on the whole, the present system should be maintained.
  LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL: Before the House divides, I may be, perhaps, allowed to make a remark on what has fallen from the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees (the Earl of Redesdale). The House has formed too high an estimate of the noble Earl to concur in his opinion—that although he merits confidence when he is acting as their nominee, he cannot be depended on a moment when he becomes the organ of the Sovereign. The noble Earl the Leader of the House (Earl Granville) thinks it a matter of deep risk that the Lord Chancellor should call upon the speaker who would follow him. The noble Earl has disposed of his objection by the additional remark that, if the Lord Chancellor had possessed the right in question when he and the noble and learned Earl on the other side (Earl Cairns) got up together, it would have been exercised against the Government with self-denying rigour. As to the noble Marquess who now leads the Opposition (the Marquess of Salisbury), having lately read his speech in favour of this Motion, and to my astonishment to-night heard his speech against it, I can only say that the first is as conclusive as the last is altogether unconvincing. The noble Marquess had really nothing to advance, except a question which was put in the original debate, when he sup-

  595
  ported me—what would happen if the Lord Chancellor and other Peers all rose together? It was answered then, as it may be answered now, that in such an event, without, a Rule or Standing Order, the constant usage of the House would give the Lord Chancellor priority. My Lords, those who lead on either side are so favourably privileged that they cannot judge, in its extent, the inconvenience it is now desired to put an end to. Every noble Lord can form his own opinion on the question. It is not to be determined by authority or Party. I would venture to impress upon the House, and more particularly on the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees, a maxim Mr. Canning has bequeathed to us—
  "Those who resist improvement, because it is innovation, will afterwards submit to innovation when it has ceased to be improvement."
  On Question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 8; Not-Contents 46: Majority 38.
  Resolved in the negative.

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND)—SCHOOL BUILDINGS IN THE HIGHLANDS.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL,in rising to ask the Lord President as to the outlay on schools in the Highlands and Islands, said, he did so in consequence of a little incident which occurred the other night, when he directed the attention of their Lordships to the Report of the Crofters' Commission. In the course of that Report reference was made to the question of education; but he then said it was not his intention to analyze that portion of the Report. He had done so carefully since, and he found a great many material errors in it. He did not believe his noble Friend behind him (Lord Napier and Ettrick) was responsible for them, because he believed that that part of the Report was not written by him. For instance, he found that a very large sum, which the Report said was charged by the Department against these poor parishes, did not represent a debt due by them, but, on the contrary, a grant paid to them. There were various other errors of that sort, arising from the fact that the Commission did not examine any persons connected with the Department. What the Report said was perfectly true as regarded the heavy burden laid upon the
  596
  poor parishes of the Highlands for the administration of the Education Acts, and confirmed his (the Duke of Argyll's) impression that education in Scotland should be administered from there, and not by a Department in London. At the end of his speech his noble Friend the Lord President of the Council (Lord Carlingford) said that—
  "The fact is that these buildings, so far from being the work of the Central Education Department in London which has been assumed by the noble Lord—so far from being the outcome of an English authority, supposed to he ignorant of the state of the country and of its requirements, were from first to last in all respects the work and the outcome of a purely Scottish Board sitting in Edinburgh."
  Now, he (the Duke of Argyll) was very much astonished at this statement. He found, however, that that statement was an error, and he had it on the authority of the Scottish Education Board that his noble Friend was perfectly wrong. The facts were these. As he had said, on the occasion referred to, the Scottish Board were responsible for the number and sites and accommodation of the schools built; but the Department were entirely responsible for the style of the buildings; and it was not through them, but only through the Department in London, that these buildings could be sanctioned. It was true that the buildings and the estimates went through the hands of the Scottish Department; and the expenditure had been, to a considerable extent, due to the alleged extravagance of these buildings. Not only was this the fact, but he found that in two or three of the successive Reports of the Scottish Board, they directed the attention of the Department to the effect of the extravagant requirements of the Privy Council with regard to buildings that were to be erected in the poorer parishes in the North and West, where a great number of schools were required out of all proportion to the actual necessity, and he urged that it was alsolutely necessary that any intolerable burden should not be cast on these poor parishes, and that the requirements of the Department, which were quite suitable for other parts of the country, should be foregone in this case. That was what he had to say in contradiction to the statement made by his noble Friend; and he had to ask him whether it was not true that he made a mistake in the contradiction he then gave to his

  597
  (the Duke of Argyll's) statement upon the subject? Before sitting down, he must say that a subsequent inquiry had convinced him that the burden which rested on the poor parishes in the insular parts of Scotland, and in some parts of the West Highlands, was not entirely due to the Central Department in London, and especially that the burden would be much lighter at present if it had not been that the people in that part of the country showed, unfortunately, considerable indifference to the cause of education, which, in most parts of Scotland, the people did not generally show; and that if their attendance was more sufficient the burden would be less, because they would earn greater allowances. Still, the fact remained unquestionable, as regarded the building of the schools, that the extravagance of Local Bodies was not sufficiently checked by the Department in London as it would be by a Board in Edinburgh.
  LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICKsaid, that when he heard his noble Friend the President of the Council (Lord Carlingford) the other day say that the school buildings in the North of Scotland had been erected in accordance with the standard prescribed by the Scottish Board, and that they had been in every case sanctioned by the Board, he was greatly surprised; but he then found himself in a position in which he was unable to offer a contradiction. He, however, reserved the question for subsequent inquiry; but it was not long before he received a multitude of communications from Scotland, drawing his attention to the inaccuracy into which his noble Friend had in advertently fallen. Amongst these communications was one from the Chairman of the late Board of Education in Scotland, who requested him to offer a respectful, but very decided, contradiction to the statement of his noble Friend. He was informed by his correspondent that the Scottish Board of Education possessed no standard of school buildings; that it had no authority or option with regard to those buildings; that its functions were the selection of sites and the accommodation of members; but the estimates for the buildings were never submitted to them; and, if they had been, the Board possessed no power to modify or control them. Nevertheless, in the exercise of its discretion, the Board did, on various
  598
  occasions, remonstrate against the alleged extravagance in these buildings. These remonstrances, which were addressed to the Scottish Education Department, did not seem to have had any effect. They were not listened to; but the Chairman of the Board in Scotland remained to this day under the strongest impression that if local advice had been taken in Scotland, the aggregate expenditure in the Highlands might have been very much smaller. The noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) had observed that there were statistical errors in that portion of the Crofters' Report which referred to education. His (Lord Napier and Ettrick's) attention had been drawn to an alleged error, and he had directed inquiry to be made, and, should it prove to be the case, nobody would regret it more sincerely than he did; but, whatever other statistical error there might be, it would not materially affect the circumstance that there had been a very unjustifiable and extravagant school expenditure in the North of Scotland, and that a fair claim might be based on that fact for assistance hereafter. He agreed that the burden was by no means solely due to extravagant expenditure on the school buildings, but was undoubtedly caused, to a certain extent, by the non-attendance of children; and he thought it right to mention that this circumstance, so justly noted by the noble Duke, was emphatically set forth in the Report.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he believed a Report had been sent to the Department by an eminent official, as to the state of education and expense in the Hebrides and the North-Western Highlands; and he desired to ask his noble Friend (Lord Carlingford) if he had any objection to produce that Report and lay it on the Table?
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, he was glad the present opportunity had occurred, that he might correct the observations he made in a previous discussion with respect to the degree of responsibility which justly lay on the late Board of Education in Edinburgh, in regard to the schools in the Highlands and Islands. He would at once say that, in one respect, those observations were inaccurate—he meant in respect to the responsibility of the Edinburgh Board of Education for the school buildings in the Highlands and Islands, and in

  599
  Scotland generally. He believed he said on that occasion that the Edinburgh Board was responsible for the standard of building laid down for these schools. That was inaccurate, beyond what concerned the Edinburgh Board, because there was no architectural standard laid down by any authority with respect to these schools. He was sorry he had made the mistake; but he did not think the inaccuracy was a very unnatural one, as this question, for him, was one of an entirely historical character. All these transactions took place before the accession of the present Government to Office, and the Edinburgh Board of Education was wound up five years before he entered on the Office he now had the honour to hold. He knew, of course, that the Board of Education in Scotland had to deal with the school supply in that country; that it had to decide the questions which governed, he believed, more than anything else, the expenditure that had taken place—namely, the number of schools to be built, and the size of these schools. He knew, also, that it was responsible for the loans which now formed a charge on the rates in these Scottish school districts; and that those loans were obtained on the fiat and sanction of the Edinburgh Board of Education. Judging from these facts, he had been under the impression that it had the control over the plans and specifications of the schools themselves. There he was mistaken, and he gladly corrected the inaccuracy. He found that he was supposed to have made that statement with some deliberate purpose on the part of the Education Department, in order to remove the burden of the responsibility from their shoulders to those of the Board of Education. He could assure his noble Friend (the Duke of Argyll) that there was no such dark design involved in his words. He had spoken on the spur of the moment, and without consultation with the Education Department. He did not, for a moment, venture to say that no errors were made in the course of the great and most difficult task of supplying these poor and most exceptional districts in the Highlands and Islands with the full apparatus of a good education, which they now possessed. That was a most difficult and arduous task, and it was quite possible that more might have been done by the two authorities concerned
  600
  to keep down the expenditure, and that all the Local Authorities were not as wise and prudent and economical as they might have been; but this strong impression had been made upon his mind after carefully looking into the subject since it was last mentioned—that whatever might have been done in the way of greater economy in these matters, the real and main cause of the expense and of the heavy burdens which now lay upon the school rates in these districts, in spite of the liberality of Parliament, had arisen from unavoidable circumstances—from the circumstances of the cases themselves, and from a number of facts which made it inevitable that this great supply of school accommodation could not be provided under the provisions of the Act of 1872 without imposing heavy burdens on very thinly peopled and poor districts such as these were. Those exceptional circumstances were largely recognized by Parliament; but whether sufficiently or not was a question upon which he could give no opinion, and which would have to be considered by the Government in dealing with the recommendations in the Report of the Crofters' Commission. He felt confident, from inquiry, that they were fully recognized by the Scottish Education Department. It would have been strange indeed if that Department had been ignorant of the requirements of the districts under consideration. It was virtually a Scotch Body, with a distinguished Scotchman as its Secretary, and the Duke of Richmond at its head; it had an accurate knowledge of the circumstances of the country, and was in constant contact with all those schools through its Inspectors. The special interests of the districts were obvious to both authorities in England and Scotland, and they were now obvious to the Crofters' Commission. It was generally supposed that the Report of that Commission was very condemnatory of the Scotch Education Department; but that was not the case. The Report said that the chief cause of the heavy taxation was the building and maintaining of a large number of schools necessary for the scattered population in most of the Highland and Island parishes. The fact was that the main causes of the expenditure in the first instance and the charge now arose out of the circumstances of the case; and as to those

  601
  main causes of expenditure the Board in Edinburgh was the responsible party, though he was not imputing any blame to it. It was true that its discretion in that respect was questioned by the Scottish Education Department, and also by its own officer—Professor Ramsay—who, in his very able Report on the Orkney and Shetland Islands, made a strong recommendation that the accommodation to be required should be reduced by the Edinburgh Board. That Board, however, he (Lord Carlingford) believed, came to a different conclusion, and that view was generally supported by the school boards themselves, who were not unnaturally anxious to make the most of the opportunity offered to them of obtaining large Government grants, which had to be applied for within a certain time; and, for the most part, both the school boards and the Board of Education were determined to build on a large scale, so as to provide accommodation for the whole number of children of school age between 5 and 13, and more or less to provide for the future. The Report of the Crofters' Commission went on to say that the Highland and Island school buildings were erected under stringent regulations of the Scotch Education Department in a style and on a scale beyond the requirements of the population. But the scale did not depend on the Scotch Education Department, neither did the style. As to the requirements of the Education Department in this matter of school buildings, the truth was that in these cases, as in others, they consisted of certain conditions of a very elementary kind which were considered necessary for the health of the children and for the solidity and duration of the buildings, and it was perfectly possible to comply with all the requirements of the Education Department, and to put up the plainest possible schools. There were many such schools, and it was quite absurd to talk about palaces that had been multiplied in these districts. Most of the schools, he believed, were simple and sensible buildings, though he did not say they were all so. There was no doubt that some of these school boards were ambitious, and desired better looking and more ornamental buildings. Nothing of the kind, however, was imposed upon them by the requirements of the Education Department.
  602
  That was entirely their own doing; and if the Department were open to any blame, it would be that they had not sufficiently resisted the ambition of certain school boards. The Department, he believed, never interfered to increase the expenditure, but always to reduce it. He would like that some details and examples of the alleged extravagance had been given; but the fact was the Crofters' Commission did not put themselves into communication with any school board or School Inspector, or with the Education Department, and that would account for their making those statements about the action of the Education Department, which appeared to him very misleading. The noble Duke and the noble Lord (Lord Napier and Ettrick) referred to some remonstrances addressed to the Scotch Education Department by the Edinburgh Board on the score of the stringency of their requirements; but he (Lord Carlingford) entirely failed to make out what they meant, they were couched in such vague and general terms. No particular instance was ever given by the Board of Education of these supposed extravagant requirements, and no definite proposal was ever made on the subject to the Education Department. No; there was an exception. Professor Ramsay did make a suggestion, in one of his two able Reports, in favour of relaxing some of the requirements of the Education Department. He recommended that teachers' houses should not be required to be on so large a scale; and that, in the case of small schools, the school itself might be used for the teacher's purposes. Professor Ramsay, in his Report, had also spoken of unnecessary outlay in the case of certain schools, and went on to say—
  "In other cases boards are "building substantial schools and houses at considerably smaller cost; and I have before me an excellent plan for a house and school, approved by the Education Department, capable of holding 60 or 60 children, and which an excellent local builder in Lerwick estimates he can build in the Island of Fetlar at some distance from the sea for £660. Now, this is the average size of schools which will be required in Shetland. It is remarkable that the boards have seldom, if ever, taken advantage of the relaxations made by the Department in the conditions as to teachers' houses for poorer districts, as also in the matter of boundary walls. The Department have expressly stated that in Shetland and other poor districts they will be satisfied with smaller houses containing fewer rooms than they require elsewhere; that they will permit one of the

  603
  rooms of the teacher's house to he used as a class-room; and, finally, that they do not require boundary walls to he built; and yet in drawing out their plans the hoards have not taken advantage of these provisions in their favour."
  He (Lord Carlingford) supposed that that had arisen from a kind of rivalry between these boards. He could give many instances of the way in which the applications of school boards had been treated. He would give one. The original cost of the school as proposed by the School Board of Fetlar had been £906, which, acting on the advice of Professor Ramsay, the Education Department had induced the school board to reduce to £605. Then came the question of the Parliamentary grant; and under the terms of the Act £400 had been paid down, leaving only £205, while of this balance, again, one-half was paid by the Department, making in all a grant of £502 10 s. As to those general remonstrances which were addressed to them, he thought under a misapprehension, by the Edinburgh Board, the Scottish Education Department, in reply, used these words—
  "With reference to the comments of the Board of Education on our administration of the building grants for the Highlands and Islands, we think it right to observe that the Board do not appear to have acquainted themselves with our practice in dealing with these districts. Grants have been awarded to them on a much more liberal scale than that recommended by the Board, and in aid of the erection of schools on plans which would not have been approved in other districts."
  He would repeat his conviction, after looking carefully into the history of the matter, that whatever might have been done to reduce the expenditure which had taken place either by the Scottish Education Department, or the Board in Edinburgh, or the school boards themselves, who could have done much more in this direction than either of the two authorities, still the real and main cause of the expense and of the pressing burden on the rates arose out of the circumstances of the districts themselves, the scattered population, and the great cost of materials and labour. Further, a large number of the schools had to be built at a time of general prosperity, when everything was dear; but beyond that, and above all, these districts were some of the most thinly populated and poorest to be found in the United Kingdom, a state of things which rendered
  604
  what would have been a light burden, in any ordinary parish in the Lowlands of Scotlands or in England, a very heavy one for them. The school rates were, certainly, in many of these parishes, very painfully heavy. It must not, however, be supposed that the repayment of the building loan formed any great proportion of these rates. Much the largest part of them was incurred for the purpose of maintenance, and that undoubtedly would be very largely relieved if the school boards would bring about that great improvement in the attendance of children which ought to take place. That was a very grave and crying evil in these districts. The inadequacy of school attendance produced a loss of school fees and Government grant; and, in addition, it deprived those schools of the special provisions made in their behalf by Parliament—the extra grant which followed on a certain average attendance. He had the matter worked out in a number of school districts where it was evident that, if the school attendance could be brought up to a reasonable standard, the increase both in the ordinary and extra grants would be so large that it would go very far to relieve those districts from the heavy burden of rate which lay upon them. Nevertheless, he fully recognized that heavy burden which lay upon these poor districts, which greatly deserved their sympathy; and while it was not his business to express any opinion, or make any announcement on this occasion with respect to the recommendations of the Crofters' Commission, those recommendations would, of course, receive the most careful consideration of Her Majesty's Government. In reply to the latter question of the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) he would say that the Report to which it referred was made in the autumn for the Education Department for their own information; but, as he thought it could only do good, he should be very glad to lay it on the Table. In doing so, however, he must say that the Report did not bind the Department to any opinion—it was simply given for the purpose of information.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBY,as speaking for the Education Department under the late Government, said, he had to thank his noble Friend opposite (Lord Carlingford) for the ample way

  605
  in which he had vindicated the action of the Scotch Education Board. It had been presided over by his noble Friend (the Duke of Richmond), and had had the advantage of the assistance of Sir Francis Sandford, who had probably a greater knowledge of Scotch requirements than anybody else. They had taken the opinions of leading Scotch Members on various occasions; and, with regard to economy, they had frequently had occasion to entreat school boards in these poor districts to be moderate in their demands as regarded plans and buildings; and, in response, they had been remonstrated with for meddling with them, when they were dealing with their own rates. In fact, there had been a constant endeavour on the part of the Education Department to reduce the cost of the school buildings; and, unless his memory very much misled him, to reduce the rates; the school boards had constantly struggled to be allowed a greater expenditure, and the Department had had remonstrances against the Department's proposals to reduce the cost from Members representing the districts.
  House adjourned at half past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.