Sitting of 14 April 1885

MINUTES.
PRIVATE BILLS (by Order)—Second Reading—Bexhill Direct Railway*; London, Tilbury, and Southend Railway.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Heading—Gas Provisional Orders (No. 1)* [126].
Second Reading—Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 2)* [120]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 5)* [117]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 6)* [118]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 7)* [119].
Committee—Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) (re-comm.) [49]—R.P. [Thirteenth Night].
Considered as amended —Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 2)* [107].
Third Reading—Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Provisional Orders* [100]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 3)* [108], and passed.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  LONDON, TILBURY, AND SOUTHEND RAILWAY BILL (by Order)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, he hoped that his hon. Friend who had charge of the Bill would be prepared to make some statement before moving the second reading of it.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he thought it would, perhaps, be convenient if he were to say a few words in introducing the Bill, on the back of which his name appeared. The Bill itself seemed to have met with a certain amount of opposition upon more than one point. In the first place, considerable opposition was raised to one of the clauses of the Bill—Clause 8—in consequence of a proposal to deal with a certain disused burial ground, which came within the present limits of deviation, in regard to lands acquired by the Railway Company. It was an important question whether at the present moment, in regard to this power of purchase, seeing that the Railway Company had acquired it before the passing of the Disused Burial Grounds Act of last year, they were not legally entitled to exercise it without any fresh instructions being

    1609
    contained in a separate Act of Parliament to that effect. The Company, however, had inserted this 8th clause in their Bill with a view, if possible, of saving the litigation which would probably arise on their asserting the right to exercise their legal purchase rights over the ground which had been thus acquired, and which was acquired prior to the passing of an Act which would otherwise have certainly made it illegal to use them. He found that considerable opposition had been raised in the House to the proposal to refer that clause to a Select Committee; but he ventured to think that that was a tribunal where it might be more fairly dealt with, and the whole question more properly considered, than in the House itself. The Railway Company, however, in view of the Notices of opposition which had been given, had considered it best, under the circumstances, to abandon Clause 8 altogether, and thus to leave themselves in the position they were in before the Bill was introduced in regard to the exercise of any legal power they possessed in reference to this land. Therefore, they were prepared to abandon any fresh powers the Bill proposed to give them for utilizing the land they had acquired by purchase, apart from any legal opposition that might be raised against their right to utilize it. That was the position in which the Bill now stood. The Railway Company would remain with any legal powers they now possessed for dealing with this property; but they did not propose to ask Parliament, by this 8th clause, to override those legal rights, and to give them distinct powers under the Bill. That being the case, with regard to Clause 8, he might mention that there was another opposition raised against the Bill in regard to one of the other clauses with reference to the stopping-up of a footpath in the parish of Leigh, near Southend. He might explain that by the Bill, which was an Omnibus Bill, the Company proposed to close a certain level crossing situated on the property of Messrs. Wells and Perry. At the time of the passing of the Act of 1875—the London, Tilbury, and Southend Railway Act of that year—all public rights whatever were extinguished with regard to this level crossing, and the only right that was maintained in 1875 was the private user of the footpath by
    1610
    Messrs. Wells and Perry for the purposes of access to their property. So distinctly was that the case that the Railway Company had the power of closing the road at the present moment by putting up gates, and actually prohibiting the use of the road to all persons except the persons employed by Messrs. Wells and Perry. The Company had now acquired the land of Messrs. Wells and Perry, to which this right of way belonged, and they proposed to do away with what he believed everybody in the House would consider to be a most dangerous mode of crossing a railway. They proposed to do away with the level crossing altogether. Having become possessed of the land, and, consequently, of the rights reserved to Messrs. Wells and Perry under a case decided in 1875 by purchasing the whole of the land and the right of user, they proposed, to a certain extent, to improve the safeguards of the public by abolishing what had always been considered a most dangerous mode of passing a railway. He presumed that the objection which had been taken to this proposal was that this road, in consequence of having been left open for the purposes of Messrs. Wells and Perry since 1875, had been used by the fishermen and other people who lived close by on the other side of the railway, and who were able to pass by means of this crossing to the seashore for the purposes of their business. But there seemed to be some confusion in the Petition of these persons as to whether the right of way which the fishermen desired to have kept open for themselves was not a public carriage road and highway, and whether, in point of fact, they did not refer to another road not many yards further which had always been of a public character, and was at the present moment a public carriage way, and which it was not proposed to alter in the least as a public carriage way and highway. There was some doubt whether the Petition of the fishermen referred to that carriage way, or to this foot road which had been absolutely a private road since the decision that was given in 1875, and since the Railway Bill of 1875 was passed. Whether that was so or not, and whether this confusion really did exist in regard to this particular level crossing which the Railway Company proposed to abolish, even if a public right had

    1611
    existed over it before the passing of the Act of 1875—and there were considerable doubts in regard to that matter—those public rights were clearly and entirely abolished by the passing of that Act. The Railway Company set forth in their statement the judgment and opinion of Lord Bramwell, and Mr. Justice Amphlett. Lord Bramwell said that all rights of the public over these footways were extinguished, and if there were any other public right of way over them it was gone; but the private right of Messrs. Wells and Perry remained. Mr. Justice Amphlett said the Act appeared to have left the right of way granted by agreement entirely untouched; but it did prevent the general public from having a right of way over that road, and the fact of the Company having the right of closing the road against the public, except against Messrs. Wells and Perry, by putting up gates and stopping the public from using them was conclusively shown; and, therefore, since 1875 the public had had no right whatever to use this road. By the purchase of the rights of Messrs. Wells and Perry the Railway Company were now entitled to close and abolish this level crossing altogether. He believed that was the only point on which there could be any opposition raised to the second reading of the Bill. He would remind the House that it was very seldom the House consented to refuse the second reading of a Private Bill in the House itself; and if the Petitioners could show that they had legal rights outside the decision of the Judges, and which would override that decision, a Select Committee was the proper tribunal before whom they ought to be heard. It was idle to say that they came before the House pleading in formâ pauperis, because as poor fishermen they were unable to incur the expense of appearing before the Committee, seeing that they claimed this road as a highway, and one of the Petitioners was the Surveyor of Highways for this particular parish of Leigh, and, therefore, the cost of opposing the Bill would not fall upon the fishermen; but, he apprehended, it would fall upon the general rates of the district. Under these circumstances, believing that, as far as the Petitioners were concerned, they had no real locus standi at all, their rights, if they ever had any, having been entirely abolished
    1612
    by the Act of 1875—seeing, therefore, that they had no locus standi against the Bill, he asked the House not seriously to reject the second reading of the Bill at the instance of the present opponents; but if there was any doubt upon the point that they would send the Bill to the only tribunal where that doubt would be properly considered and decided. It certainly could not be dealt with in the House upon the second reading of the Bill, and could only be dealt with by a properly constituted Select Committee upstairs. 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."—(Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson.)
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, the statement of his hon. Friend showed that the course he had adopted was a more convenient one than the one which he had at first contemplated, because he had now made a very important statement as to what was proposed to be done with the Bill if the House consented to read it a second time. His hon. Friend said that it was very seldom the House refused to read a Private Bill a second time; but he (Mr. Ritchie) would remind his hon. Friend that it was very seldom a Private Bill proposed to set aside a Public Act of Parliament; and, therefore, the opposition which had been put down against the second reading of the Bill was, he thought, amply justified by the novel proposal contained in the measure to repeal, practically, for the purposes of the Bill, a Public Act of Parliament passed so recently as last Session. He had hoped, from an intimation he had received, that his hon. Friend who had moved the second reading of the Bill would have made such a statement as to what was proposed to be done by the promoters of it as would have rendered it unnecessary for him to trouble the House with any remarks, and would have prevented him from being under the necessity of taking the opinion of the House upon the second reading of the measure. Unfortunately, the statement which his hon. Friend had made was not of so satisfactory a character as to enable him to accept it as sufficient to induce him to withdraw the opposition he had placed upon the Paper to the second reading of the Bill. What was it that his hon. Friend told the

    1613
    House? He told them that the promoters of the Bill, having inserted in the measure a clause setting aside for the purpose of the Bill an Act of Parliament—namely, the Disused Burial Grounds Act, proposed now to withdraw that clause, and to do without the clause which was proposed under it in defiance of the Act of Parliament. That was practically what his hon. Friend said. [Mr. WARTON: No, no!] He (Mr. Ritchie) did not wish to misrepresent his hon. Friend or the promoters of the Bill; but what his hon. Friend said was this—that as there had arisen, in the minds of the promoters of the Bill, doubts whether the Disused Burial Grounds Act did not prevent them from doing that which they desired to do, they had inserted in the Bill a provision which would enable them to do a certain thing which the Disused Burial Grounds Act distinctly prevented them from doing.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, that was not what he had said. He was very sorry to interrupt his hon. Friend; but perhaps he might be allowed to state what it was that he had really said—namely, that the Railway Company, having, as they believed, a legal power acquired before the passing of the Act of 1884, were of opinion that they were in a position to do without any fresh Act of Parliament; but that as it might lead to expensive litigation, and as they wished to avoid such expensive litigation, they had inserted this clause in the Bill in order to make the question distinctly clear. However, as the clause was objected to they proposed to abandon it, and they would be placed simply in the position in which they stood before the Bill was introduced in regard to any legal rights they possessed and were prepared to exercise. If those legal rights did not exist they would not be in a position to deal with this particular burial ground; but if they did exist then their position would not be affected by anything contained in the present measure.
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, that was precisely what he had stated, and he was glad to have elicited this further speech from his hon. Friend, seeing that it fully confirmed the accuracy of his (Mr. Ritchie's) previous remarks. His hon. Friend said that the promoters of the Bill were in doubt, when they brought in the measure, whether the
    1614
    disused Burial Grounds Act did not prevent them from making use of this particular site; and in order to set aside any doubt on the matter they introduced a clause in the Bill confirming the power they desired to obtain. Then, finding that their proposal was opposed, they now said that they would withdraw that provision, and, do a certain thing without the authority of an Act of Parliament which they desired to do with the authority of an Act of Parliament. As to the question whether there was any doubt in regard to the powers the Railway Company proposed to take under this Bill, he wished to call the attention of the House to the manner in which the subject had been mentioned in the Preamble of the Company's Bill. The Bill said—
    "And whereas by reason of the Disused Burial Grounds Act, 1884, the Company are prevented from dealing with the said lands for the purposes of the said Acts of 1882, 1883, and 1884, and it is expedient that, subject to the provisions of this Act, the said lands and the Company in respect thereof should be exempted from the provisions of the Disused Burial Grounds Act, 1884."
    It would be seen, therefore, that, so far from the Company promoting the Bill being in any doubt as to whether the Disused Burial Grounds Act prevented them from doing what they desired to do, they expressly stated in the Preamble of their Bill that they were prevented by that Act from dealing with the said lands for the purposes of the Acts of 1882, 1883, and 1884. So much, then, for the doubts which had been expressed upon that subject. Under the circumstances, he was not disposed to rest satisfied with the proposal now made by the promoters of the Bill, because he desired, in the interests of his constituents, to preserve this piece of ground from being built over by the Railway Company; and although his hon. Friend said that if they had not got the power already and were to proceed to build upon this plot of land they would be liable to be stopped, he wanted to know what sort of position the poor of that locality would be in if they attempted to bring an action against a powerful Railway Company for covering in a piece of ground which an Act of Parliament said should not be covered in? Under the circumstances, he was sorry that he should be compelled to detain the House for a few

    1615
    minutes while he gave some explanation as to what it was this Railway Company proposed to do. But, in the first instance, he desired to say one word in reference to the Disused Burial Grounds Act of last Session. The object with which that Act was passed was to prevent buildings from being erected on disused burial grounds except for the purposes of a church or chapel; and the reason why that Bill was passed was that it was considered necessary, in the interests of public decency, to prevent the scandals which had occurred on other occasions in removing bodies from burial grounds acquired by public Companies with a view of being built over. There was also the question of the sanitary condition of buildings erected on such ground; and, further, the necessity of retaining, as far as possible, the very few open spaces which were now left in the Metropolis for the benefit of the public. He might say, in reference to this particular open space, that it was not a large one. It was only about 100 feet square; but it was situated in a locality so dense that even 100 feet square was of vast importance to the people occupying it. It therefore became of essential importance that it should be protected and rendered free from the encroachments of a Railway Company or of any other persons. The present Bill proposed to set aside the Act of Parliament which was passed last year, and to enable the Railway Company, first of all, to purchase this land—in regard to which he had no quarrel—in the parish of St. Mary's, Whitechapel, for purposes connected with the proposed railway delineated on the deposited plans, and forming the site of the burial ground of a community known as the "Seventh Day Baptists." One of the places proposed to be acquired was, in fact, not a burial ground, but a chapel. He did not object to the purchase of the chapel; but what he did object to was the purchase of the small piece of ground connected with the chapel and school buildings. He might point out that the Railway Company said not a word about this being a burial ground, although, as a matter of fact, a large number of persons were interred there. He now came to the point with which he had started in the opening part of his speech—namely, the attempt which was made
    1616
    by the Railway Company to set aside a Public Act of Parliament by the provisions of a Private Bill. He was sure the House would agree with him that every attempt of this kind ought to be watched with extreme jealousy, and that the House of Commons ought not lightly to assent to the insertion of any such provision in a Private Bill. It was obvious that such a provision might slip through the House of Commons accidentally if the progress of Private Bills was not carefully watched; and he might say that it was entirely by accident he had discovered that this provision was contained in the Bill at all. He asked the House to see what the effect of sanctioning provisions of this kind would be. The Disused Burial Grounds Act was passed in order to restrict the facilities that might be given to Railway Companies for acquiring grounds of this nature. The effect of the Disused Burial Grounds Act was to decrease the value of all such grounds; and therefore it was obvious that a Railway Company would be desirous of getting hold of land so lowered in value, seeing it could be acquired by the Company at a comparatively small cost. It was said that this was a hardship upon the proprietors of land, and he confessed that he sympathized with the proprietors; but he could not at all recognize their claim to sell this particular plot of land as a justifiable one. Burial grounds that had been filled and closed ought not to be looked upon any longer as the private property of any living persons. Such burial grounds, after they were filled and closed, were not the property of the living, but of the dead, and they ought not to be treated as goods and chattels to be sold to the highest bidder. The Railway Company said that they had entered into an agreement for the purpose of acquiring this property in May, 1884, before the Disused Burial Grounds Act passed; but although they might have entered into an agreement to purchase before the Act was passed, they did so with their eyes open, because the Bill had been read a second time practically without opposition, in March, 1884, two months before the Railway Company entered into any agreement to purchase at all; and, therefore, any loss they might now allege that they had sustained ought not to be considered by the House.

    1617
    Something had been said in reference to the Railway Company having a right to build over this land, and it was contended that that right was contained in Clause 5 of the Act. When he turned to Clause 5, he did not see that there was the smallest ground on which the Railway Company could take their stand for claiming any such right of exemption. Clause 6 simply said that nothing in the Act contained should apply to a burial ground sold or disposed of under the authority of an Act of Parliament. His hon. Friend had not told the House, nor did he pretend to say, that this burial ground had been disposed of under the authority of any Act of Parliament; and, unless that were so, it was impossible to contend that it came within the exception. He was, therefore, driven to the conclusion, looking at the words of the clause, and also at the provisions of the present Bill, which substantially said that the Railway Company were prevented from using this ground in consequence of the provisions of the Disused Burial Grounds Act of 1884, that what the Railway Company proposed to do was to withdraw Clause 8 from the Bill, and then to proceed to carry out their intentions without it, and to build over this land in defiance of the Act of Parliament. He hoped the House would not be led away by any such attempt, on the part of the Railway Company, from seeing the great importance of providing that this piece of land, in this densely crowded neighbourhood, should be retained as an open space. He trusted that the House would not rest satisfied with the assurance which had been given by his hon. Friend; and he would, therefore, ask the House to negative the second reading of the Bill. He begged to move—
    "That this House declines to assent to the Second Reading of a Private Bill which proposes to sot aside the provisions of 'The Disused Burial Grounds Act, 1884.'"
    COLONEL MAKINSsaid, he rose to second the Amendment; and, although he was not concerned in the point which had been raised by his hon. Friend, he was certain that there was a great deal of force in what his hon. Friend had said. The Bill was, unfortunately, one which not only interfered with the rights of the dead, referred to by his hon. Friend, but it also made a wanton attack
    1618
    upon the rights of the living. The proposal to do away with what was called a level crossing at Leigh was one which, if carried out, would involve an exceptional hardship upon a body of men who were deserving of the deepest sympathy. Leigh was a small fishing village near Southend, and he might fairly describe it as a village steeped in poverty. In 1875 the Railway Company stole a march upon these fishermen, and got a clause inserted in their Act of Parliament to which attention had already been drawn. Fortunately, that clause in the Act of 1875 only affected a footway; whereas the road now in question was a highway which had been used from time immemorial for the convenience of the people of the locality, and which formed a road between the wharf and the town. It was also an important road from the town for the supply of drinking-water, obtained from a public well upon the other side of the station; and if this road were stopped, and no bridge were constructed over the railway, the result would be that the fishermen and the general public would have to travel two or three times the distance they had now to go, by way of the station yard, and every woman and child who wished to obtain a little water would have to make the same detour in order to obtain access to the well. He quite admitted that the House was not in the habit of discussing details of this kind on the Motion for the second reading of a Private Bill; but he pleaded, as his hon. Friend the Member for West Essex (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) suggested that he would, in formâ pauperis, on behalf of these poor men. No doubt, it was the fact that the Petition was signed by the Surveyor of Highways; but he did not think that when that gentleman signed it he had any idea of committing the body he represented to any expense; and if the inhabitants of Leigh were compelled to appear before a Committee upstairs, the rate which would have to be made in order to meet the expenses would be a very serious burden indeed. He therefore hoped the House would not allow the Bill to be read a second time, unless his hon. Friend the Member for West Essex was prepared, on the part of the promoters, either to abandon this clause, as far as it related to the level crossing at Leigh, or to construct a bridge over the line in

    1619
    order to give proper access over the railway. The road had been an open one, and it had been used ever since the line was constructed in 1852; and although he knew perfectly well, from personal experience, how very objectionable level crossings were, he did not think this could be described as a dangerous level crossing, because a train, on approaching it on the one side, was driven at a slackened speed, while on the other side it was brought to a standstill. During all the years the line had been open there had only been three fatal accidents, one of which happened to a person connected with the working of the line; so that it could hardly be described as a dangerous level crossing. But under any circumstances he contended that these poor people should not be compelled to go to the expense of a costly opposition to the Bill for the purpose of obtaining the concession they desired from the Railway Company, which concession was to them a matter almost of life and death. He would, therefore, second the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie).
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House declines to assent to the Second Reading of a Private Bill which proposes to set aside the provisions of 'The Disused Burial Grounds Act, 1884,'"—(Mr. Ritchie,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    MR. BRYCEsaid, he had placed a Notice on the Paper of his intention to move—
    "That, in the opinion of this House, Railway Companies ought not to be permitted to acquire open spaces existing in crowded districts of London except upon the terms of their undertaking to provide in the same neighbourhood other open spaces of equal area available for the recreation of the people."
    He should have persevered with his opposition to the Bill if there had been anything left in it which tended to take away those open spaces from the people which he was anxious to preserve; and his hon. Friend the Member for Brighton (Mr. Hollond) had placed a Notice on the Paper for the rejection of the Bill on a similar ground. His hon. Friend the Member for Brighton had brought
    1620
    in a Bill last Session to prevent disused burial grounds from being built over; and it was conceived that this was an attempt on the part of the Railway Company, in the form in which they had brought in the Bill, to override the decision arrived at by Parliament in the passing of that Act. If the Railway Company had persisted in moving their Bill in the form in which it was originally brought in—that was to say, if they had insisted upon retaining the 8th clause, his hon. Friend and himself would have continued to offer a strenuous opposition to the Bill. But the Railway Company, recognizing the force of their objections, and seeing that the House was asked to set aside the provisions of an Act passed last year, had withdrawn the clause to which objection was raised; and in the Bill, as it now stood, he could find nothing which affected in any way the Disused Burial Grounds Act, or anything that took away any open space in the Metropolis. On the contrary, the Railway Company had, through the hon. Baronet opposite, who had moved the second reading of the Bill, given an explicit undertaking to the House to strike out Clause 8; and, under those circumstances, it appeared to him that his hon. Friend the Member for Brighton (Mr. Hollond) and himself had substantially obtained all they desired. It was now perfectly recognized by the Railway Company that open spaces in the Metropolis were not to be taken, and that the Act of last year was not to be overriden. Under the circumstances, he failed to see what was to be gained by continuing their opposition to the Bill. He had listened to the remarks of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Ritchie) in order to see if there was any additional reason which should induce the House to throw out the Bill; but he altogether failed to find in the speech of the hon. Member any suggestion that the power, if any, of the Railway Company to take this burial ground would be diminished by the rejection of the Bill. The case stood thus. The Railway Company contended that they already had power to take certain land, and to build upon it, and that power was entirely irrespective of whether the House passed the Bill or rejected it. If the House rejected the Bill, the question of the burial ground would not be one whit the more safe than if the House con-

    1621
    sented to pass it. Under those circumstances, he could not see that any question was involved in which the interests of the poor of London arose, and nothing would be gained by maintaining an opposition to the measure. Therefore, altogether apart from the question raised by the hon. and gallant Member opposite (Colonel Makins), he desired, on behalf of the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Hollond) and himself, to say that they were content to withdraw their opposition, that opposition having been completely met, its propriety admitted, and its objects attained, by the course which had been taken by the promoters of the Bill.
    MR. GREGORYsaid, the House would see that the Bill, with the clause to which objection had been taken withdrawn from it, made no difference whatever in the position of the parties with regard to the question of the burial ground. If the Railway Company possessed any rights, they would have them whether this Bill passed or not; and, therefore, the Bill did not affect the question. As to the level crossing, which had just been referred to by the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce), it appeared to be pretty clear that the Company did acquire certain rights under their Act of 1875, as against the public, to stop up a certain road, simply reserving a private right over the roadway. It was decided by the highest authority that that was the only right preserved, and that right the Company had now acquired under a deed of conveyance. As against the public, therefore, the Company had the right of stopping up this road. It might be a question whether that was desirable or not; but it was not a question that could be discussed there. If any improper course had been taken by the Railway Company, it was a question for a Select Committee upstairs to decide; and if the Company were taking away the rights of the public, without due cause, and without rendering them a proper equivalent or compensation, the Committee would have power to grant the costs of opposition to all of the parties who appeared before them, when the question was raised. He thought the parties ought to remain satisfied with that, and that no substantial ground had been shown for rejecting the Bill on the second reading.
    MR. WARTONquite agreed with the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory) that nothing had been shown by those who were opposing the Bill which should induce the House to depart from the ordinary and established rule of referring measures of this kind to a Select Committee. When questions were raised which were of considerable importance, it was impossible that they could be settled in a hurried debate in that House; and the House would not, therefore, be justified in departing from its ordinary rule. Two points had been brought forward as grounds of opposition to the Bill—first, that the Bill proposed to build over a burial ground in defiance of an Act of Parliament passed only last year; and, secondly, that the Railway Company proposed to shut up a public right of way. In regard to the first point, the hon. Baronet the Member for West Essex (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) had explained the exact position of the matter in the most fair and candid manner. If he had desired to be uncandid, he might have stated simply that the Company desired to withdraw Clause 8; but the hon. Baronet had stated with the utmost fairness that the Company had decided to stand upon their legal rights, unaffected by the Disused Burial Grounds Act of last year. He wished only to say, in regard to that Disused Burial Grounds Act, that he felt it his duty to oppose that Act when it was before that House in the shape of a Bill, and the ground upon which he opposed it was that it was calculated injuriously to affect the rights of property. No doubt before it passed there was nothing to prevent this Railway Company, or any other Railway Company, from entering into a contract for the purchase of any land whatsoever. In this case the Railway Company appeared to have entered into a contract long before the Act of last Session was passed, and any advantage which they had thereby gained they were entitled to retain now. He thought the House was indebted to the hon. Baronet for having stated, unquestionably, with the utmost fairness, that the Company proposed to stand upon their legal rights. No additional rights were now proposed to be given to the Company by this Bill; and there was no reason on that account, therefore, why the House should reject the second

    1623
    reading of the Bill. As to the other point—the disputed right of way—it was quite clear, if he understood the statement of the hon. Baronet, that for the last 10 years the Railway Company had exercised the power, whenever they chose to enforce it, of stopping, by putting up the gates or otherwise, the right of way of anybody over this level crossing, except the persons employed by Messrs. Wells and Perry. That statement of the hon. Baronet had not been contradicted; and if the Company possessed that right, no mere sentimental question of the privilege of a number of poor men to enjoy access to an easier way of going to fish should be allowed to open a door to every kind of spoliation. He considered that both grounds of opposition had failed; and he had only one word more to say. He was glad that his hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce), together with the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Hollond), who passed the Act of last year, had come forward to say that they were content with the Bill in the form which it now assumed.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Main Question put.
    Bill read a second time, and committed.

NOTICE OF QUESTION.

  THE PRINCE AND PRINCESS OF WALES —THE ROYAL VISIT TO IRELAND— RIOT AT MALLOW.
  MR. O'DONNELL: I beg to give Notice that on Thursday I shall ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether his attention has been called to the circumstances in which a large body of the people of Mallow and Cork, accompanied by the Member of Parliament for the borough, while peacefully awaiting the arrival of the Prince of Wales, were violently assaulted and driven from the station by the police and other agents of Her Majesty's Government; whether the excuse for this violation of personal rights is that bands of music were expected to play Irish national airs on the arrival of their Royal Highnesses; whether the Prince of Wales gave any intimation that he regarded Irish national airs and similar manifestations of Irish national sentiment as insults to be repressed by force; and,
  1624
  if so, why is His Royal Highness visiting Ireland?

QUESTIONS.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT (SCOTLAND)—SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION IN CAITHNESS.
  DR. CAMERONasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council, Whether it is a fact that part of the parish of Bowar, Caithness, with about forty children of school age, has no school accommodation within three miles; whether, in consequence of a Petition from the inhabitants and ratepayers in 1882, an Inspector was sent down to visit the district, and report to the Department, and that his Report was in favour of a school being built; and, whether the School Board has yet taken any steps to carry out this recommendation; and, if not, whether the Department intend taking any action to secure the erection of the school which their Inspector reported as necessary?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Yes, Sir; the facts are as stated in the hon. Member's Question. The Department wrote to the School Board in February asking them what they meant to do in the way of supplying the necessary accommodation. No answer has yet been received, and the Department wrote again on the 1st of April requiring an answer within a fortnight. We will take care that the educational deficiencies of the locality shall be supplied.

  INDIA—ADEN HARBOUR.
  MR. NORWOODasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the attention of the Indian Government has been called to the necessity for dredging Aden Harbour; and, if so, what steps are being taken to carry it out; and, whether it is true that the official account of receipts and expenditure of the Aden Port Fund for the year 1883–4, as published in The Bombay Gazette, shows a considerable amount at the credit of the Fund, and a large surplus for the year; and, if so, whether the Government will devote the said amount at credit and the annual surplus, after paying the expenses of the Port, to the dredging of the harbour?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: The question of deepening the Harbour of Aden by means of dredging has for some time

  1625
  engaged the attention of the Secretary of State and of the Governments of Bombay and India; and a dredger has been at work since January, 1883. The accounts of the Port Fund to the end of the official year, 1883–4, show an accumulated balance of Rs. 2,04,728. The balance of the year ending March, 1884, amounted to Rs. 62,532. The question of the creation of a Port Trust to carry out the improvements of the Harbour of Aden is now under consideration.

  LANDLORD AND TENANT (IRELAND)— TURF RIGHTS.
  MR. LEAasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If his attention has been called to words of Mr. Justice O'Hagan upon the Turf question, reported in The Freeman's Journal of March 19th, as follows:—
  "There would be nothing more desirable than some statutory power of arbitrating between landlord and tenant as regards Turf rights, because it is easy to see they would be the source of heart-burnings hereafter;"
  and, if the Government will undertake Legislation which the head of the Land Commission states to be so "very desirable?"
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am aware that the question of turf rights is one about which considerable interest has been felt; but the Government have no intention of bringing in any measure on the subject this Session.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES)—CROYDON SCHOOL BOARD.
  MR. GRANTHAMasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council, Whether, in consequence of the opinions of the Law Officers of the Crown in reference to the position of the School Board of Croydon that immediate Legislation is necessary to remedy the omission in the Education Acts of any provision to enable School Boards elected by a parish to continue to act as the School Board for the same area when it is afterwards created a Municipal Borough, he will at once bring in a Bill to remedy such omission, and hasten its passage through this House and the House of Lords; or, what other steps he proposes to take, or would advise the School Board of Croydon to take, to enable it to continue its duties, and to
  1626
  obtain its necessary funds from the Municipal authorities of the town?
  MR. MUNDELLA: The opinion of the Law Officers has been obtained in this case, to the effect that, by reason of the Charter creating the municipal borough of Croydon, the School Board for the parish has no longer jurisdiction, and that a School Board must be set up for the borough. But in order to settle some legal doubts legislation is required. I am prepared to introduce a Bill for the purpose of settling these difficulties, and this Bill will be introduced at once, and carried through as soon as possible. In the meantime, I understand that the Municipal Authorities will pay the precept to the existing School Board, in order that no difficulty may arise in carrying on the schools. I think it right to add that the Town Council and Town Clerk have shown the utmost desire to facilitate the settlement of this question.

  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (REDISTRIBUTION) BILL—THE WIMBLEDON DIVISION.
  MR. GRANTHAMasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether the parish of Mitcham has been omitted from the list of parishes in the Wimbledon Division by intention or by mistake, as it is within the limit of the proposed division?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The parish of Mitcham, which is outside the Metropolitan area, forms part of the Croydon Petty Sessional Division; and it will be seen, on reference to the Schedule, that it is proposed that the Wimbledon Division of the county of Surrey shall contain "the Sessional Division of Croydon (except so much as is within a district of the Metropolis)."

  MADAGASCAR—POSTAL COMMUNICATION.
  MR. BAXTERasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If communications have been received from the British missionaries and residents in Antananarivo, Madagascar, complaining of the stoppage of their incoming mails, of the neglect of the authorities in Mauritius to forward their letters, and of their isolation in this respect since British ships of war have left the station; and, if steps will be

  1627
  taken to provide a remedy for this state of matters?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: No communications have as yet been received at the Foreign Office of the nature referred to; but I believe that a representation on the subject is about to be addressed to Her Majesty's Government.

  SPAIN—COMMERCIAL NEGOTIATIONS —DECLARATION OF DECEMBER 21, 1884.
  MR. CARTWRIGHTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, When the Commercial 'Modus Vivendi' negotiated with Spain will come into operation?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: By the Declaration of December 21,1884, the Spanish Government engaged, subject to the approval of the Spanish Legislature, to grant most favoured nation treatment to Great Britain as soon as Parliament shall have given to Her Majesty's Government the necessary authority to extend the lower half of the alcoholic scale from 26 degrees to 30 degrees. The Spanish Bill passed the Cortes on the 28th ultimo. The date when the contemplated arrangement will take effect will be settled between the two Governments as soon as Parliament has given the authority, and due notice will be given.

  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES ACTS— RETURNS.
  MR. BULWERasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is a fact that the number of soldiers serving at home admitted to hospital for venereal disease has, during the past year, largely increased, and is still increasing; and, whether he has any objection to lay upon the Table of the House a Return similar in form and detail to, and in continuation of, that presented to the House on the 3rd of March, 1884, showing the number of soldiers admitted to hospital for venereal disease since the end of the year 1883?
  SIR ARTHUR HAYTER: There has been an increase of admissions to hospital for the cause referred to in the districts formerly protected from 110 per 1,000, in 1883, to 135 per 1,000 in 1884. The Return in continuation of that presented in 1884 can be given if the hon. and learned Member will move for it.
  MR. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: I wish to ask, whether, in the Return about to be laid upon the Table, the War Office will distinguish between the various forms of venereal disease, so as to show the proportions in which the soldiers have been affected during the past year?
  SIR ARTHUR HAYTER: I will make inquiry.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—AMALGAMATION OF NEWPORT AND WESTPORT UNIONS, CO. GALWAY—COMPENSATION TO OFFICERS FOR ABOLITION OF OFFICE.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, in view of the order for the amalgamation of Newport Union with Westport from 29th September next, it is proposed that the Newport officers should receive no allowance or compensation upon abolition of office, Can he refer to any instance where civil servants whose offices have been abolished have been so harshly treated; and, whether, in view of the Poor Law Act, 1 and 2 Vic, c. 56, ss. 16 and 33, it is competent to dismiss these officers without superannuation or compensation; and, if so, will any legislative steps be taken to prevent such hardship?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The Local Government Board have been advised that the officers of the Newport Union cannot, either by statute or at Common Law, be granted allowances or compensation on the abolition of their offices, which is involved in the amalgamation of that Union with Westport. It would, however, appear reasonable that some compensation should be given; and a clause to the effect might very properly be inserted in the Union Officers Superannuation Bill, which has long been under the consideration of Parliament, and which the Government would be prepared to introduce if there was any prospect of the opposition being abandoned which has hitherto obstructed its progress.
  MR. HEALY: Might I ask whether this, being, as the right hon. Gentleman says, a hard case, and there being no prospect, as he says, of the Bill he refers to being passed, the Government will introduce a short Bill dealing with the matter, which, of course, would receive general assent?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I did not say that there was no chance that the Bill would pass.
  MR. HEALY: There is not a ghost of a chance.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: But if there was any indication that opposition would not be offered to it the Bill would be introduced.
  MR. HEALYgave Notice that unless a short Bill dealing with this case of exceptional hardship affecting 20 officers was introduced he would call attention to the matter very strongly on the Vote for the Local Government Board.

  EGYPT—ZEBEHR PASHA.
  MR. GORSTasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, What were the respective dates at which the Government of Gibraltar was directed to prepare for the reception of Zebehr Pasha, and at which he was landed at Gibraltar; whether the Ordinance to authorise his detention in custody was made and published subsequently to his being landed; whether the Ordinance, as published, bore a date prior to that on which it was in fact made; and, what prevented the Ordinance being made before Zebehr Pasha was landed, and with that object it was ante-dated?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: The Governor was directed by telegram on the 25th of March to prepare for Zebehr's reception. Zebehr landed at Gibraltar on the 30th of March. The Ordinance was passed on the 27th of March, and its publication was reported by the Governor on the 30th of March, the day of the landing. It is clear, therefore, that the Ordinance was not ante-dated.
  MR. GORST: Can the hon. Gentleman say, whether it is not a fact that this Order was never published in Gibraltar until some hours after Zebehr Pasha had landed?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: No, Sir. We received a communication from the Governor on the 30th, at 6 o'clock, stating that the Ordinance had been published. He does not say at what hour.
  MR. GORST: Then I will ask again whether it is not a fact that the Ordinance was not published until several hours after Zebehr Pasha had landed, when it was published in an unusual and unprecedented manner?
  MR. O'DONNELL: Has the Legislature of Gibraltar power, whenever required by Her Majesty's Government, to pass an order for the imprisonment, without trial, of any foreign person who happens to land on those shores?
  [No reply.]

  EDUCATION (INDIA)—THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION IN INDIA.
  MR. SLAGGasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether he can give any information as to the reasons which have led to the supersession of Professor Wordsworth in the Directorship of Public Instruction in India?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: The India Office has no direct information on this subject, the appointment being one which rests with the Government of Bombay. It is notified in The Bombay Government Gazette of March 19 that Mr. Lee Warren, M.A., C.S., is to act as Director of Public Instruction during the absence of Mr. Chatfield, or till further orders.

  CYPRUS—THE REPORTED REVENUE FRAUDS.
  MR. GORSTasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, What are the particulars of the offences of which seven Revenue Officials of Cyprus have been recently convicted; whether one of the superior Revenue Officers of a higher grade than the convicted officials is a fugitive from justice, and what steps are being taken by Her Majesty's Government for his apprehension; and, whether any estimate has been made of the extent to which the revenue of Cyprus has been diminished by the corruption and depredation of Revenue Officials?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: Detailed particulars of the Revenue frauds in Cyprus will be found in Papers which will shortly be presented. They fall under three heads—forgery, embezzlement, and under-assessment of tithes. It is not true that the superior officer referred to in the Question is a fugitive from justice. On the contrary, he returned immediately from his leave to meet the charge made against him; and we have just learnt by telegram that the charge has been dismissed by the Court. The High Commissioner's estimate of the loss of Revenue is £3,500; but I hope that some of it may be recovered,

  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) ACT, 1884—FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
  MR. DUCKHAMasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Whether, upon inquiry, the administration of the laws of Germany "are such as to afford reasonable security against the importation therefrom of animals affected with foot-and-mouth disease," in pursuance of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act of 1884?
  MR. TREVELYAN: From the communications which have been received from the German Government the Privy Council are satisfied that the laws and the administration of those laws in Germany, and the circumstances generally, are such as to afford a reasonable security against the importation therefrom of animals affected with foot-and-mouth disease; otherwise the Privy Council would be called upon to prohibit the landing of animals from that country, or from a specified part thereof, in accordance with the provisions of Section 1 of the Act of 1884.
  MR. DUCKHAM: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform the House what regulations have been adopted in Germany?
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, the House would gather from his answer that the information of the Government was to the effect that Germany was practically free from disease; but that it was necessary that reasonable security should be taken against the introduction of disease to this country.
  MR. CHAPLIN: Does it not continue to prevail in Germany?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Yes; and has been for a long period; but no disease has been introduced here with German cattle. Foot-and-mouth disease has prevailed in Germany during the whole of 1884, and during that year 500,000 sheep were landed in this country from Germany.
  MR. CHAPLINasked whether they were to understand that, in the opinion of the Government, the prevalence of foot-and-mouth disease in Germany was no bar whatever to the reasonable security contemplated by the Act?
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, that, if he were to answer the Question briefly, it was no bar to security.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—ELECTION OF GUARDIANS—THE NEWRY UNION.
  MR. BIGGAR (for Mr. SMALL)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he can state the reasons why the Local Government Board in Ireland have not given any decisions on the cases reserved at the election of guardians for the Newry Division, although the particulars have been furnished to them more than a fortnight ago; whether he is aware that the returning officer has taken upon himself to declare certain candidates elected, although he might have waited for fourteen days from the 25th March; whether the Local Government Board will take steps to inform the candidates of their decisions on the reserved cases, and not permit the returning officer to keep them secret?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: There has been considerable pressure of election business at the Local Government Board; but I understand a reply will be sent to the Newry Memorialists to-day. The returning officer in this case made his return on the 5th instant, and there does not appear to be any reason why he should have delayed it longer. He is bound to send it in within 14 days.

  RAILWAYS (INDIA)—RAILWAY FROM QUETTA TO CANDAHAR,
  MR. ONSLOWasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether he could inform the House whether the consideration of the promotion of a Railway between Quetta and Candahar has been recently before the Government; and, if so, what decision has been arrived at?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: In reply to the hon. Member for Guildford, I may say that on the 12th of March I informed the hon. Member for Harwich (Sir Henry Tyler) that the railway would be carried on to Shebo and Quetta; but the question of its further extension to Candahar has not yet been under consideration by Her Majesty's Government.
  MR. ONSLOW: Has it been under the consideration of the Viceroy?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: It may have been under the consideration of the Viceroy; but no determination has been come to in regard to it.

  CENTRAL ASIA—RUSSIA AND AFGHANISTAN—THE RUSSO-AFGHAN FRONTIER—RUSSIAN ADVANCES.
  MR. ONSLOWasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he could not now, without detriment to the public service, lay Papers upon the Table on the subject of the Afghan Boundary Commission up to the date of the departure of Sir Peter Lumsden?
  MR. EDWARD CLARKEhad also a Question on the Paper on this subject—namely, Whether he will at once lay upon the Table the Correspondence which has passed between the British and Russian Governments with respect to the appointment and duties of the Commission for the delimitation of the Afghan frontier, and the instructions given to Sir Peter Lumsden?
  MR. GLADSTONE: With respect to the Question of the hon. Member for Guildford, and likewise that put on the Paper by the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth, I have to say that I have communicated with the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and we are of opinion that we could not with any advantage to the public lay this information before the House at the present moment.
  MR. MACFARLANE: I wish to ask the Prime Minister a Question on a point of fact. A few days ago the right hon. Gentleman was not able to answer my inquiry as to whether the Russian officers in Central Asia adhere to the statement made to Captain Yate, that they were not in possession of the arrangement entered into between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Russia. Can the right hon. Gentleman now say whether the Russian Government have since offered any explanation why their officers had not received that information?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I will answer the Question presently.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he can now communicate to the House the tenour of the Despatches, received from the Russian Government since 31st March, relating to the Boundary Commission; whether the report of a further Russian advance towards Herat has been received from Sir Peter Lumsden, or other reliable source; and, whether Her Majesty's Government
  1634
  have fixed a limit beyond which the advance of the Russian forces will not be tolerated?
  MR. GLADSTONE: There are three paragraphs in the Question of the hon. Member for Eye. On the first and the third I have nothing to add to what has been said before. As to the second paragraph, I have received information that the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Stafford Northcote) wishes to put a Question to me, and I will reserve my answer.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: The Question which I desire to put is of a general character. I was anxious to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is now in a position to give the House any fuller or further information in regard to the state of affairs on the frontier of Afghanistan, and especially in respect to the report of the further advance of the Russians?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I have nothing to communicate to the House today of a very important character, for nothing further has reached the Government in the course of to-day with respect to past events—a very important chapter of the whole matter that is before us. A telegram has been received from St. Petersburg to-day—not bearing upon past events—upon which communications are proceeding. I may say, in regard to the point raised in the Question of the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett), that no confirmation has been received from Sir Peter Lumsden of the report mentioned by him con-corning an advance by the Russians. I may say that the evidence before us today—the question arises only incidentally—certainly amounts to a renewal of an assurance that no such advance will take place, according to the intentions and orders of the Russian Government.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the third part of my Question—namely, whether Her Majesty's Government have fixed a limit beyond which the advance of the Russians will not be tolerated? I bog to point out that no Question of this sort has been asked before. Do I understand that he declines to answer it?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have nothing to add in reply.
  MR. MACFARLANEpointed out that the Prime Minister had not answered his Question.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I ask the hon. Member's pardon. The state of the case is this. As he said, and as I made known to the House at the outset, what seemed to me a very important statement was received from Sir Peter Lumsden respecting a conversation between Captain Yate and the Chief of the Russian Staff. The effect of that statement was immediately referred to St. Petersburg; but we have not yet received the answer, which, no doubt, the Russian Government will seek from its own officers, to that statement. Nor do I know that the time has yet elapsed that gives us any reasonable hope of obtaining that reply. When we have obtained that reply it will be for us, if we deem it of a character to convey a clear knowledge to the House, to communicate it to the House.
  MR. MACFARLANEwished, as bearing on the bona fides of the Russian Government, to ask whether the Russian Government had stated on what date the arrangement made between them and Her Majesty's Government was forwarded to the Russian officers on the frontier?
  MR. GLADSTONE: No, Sir; nor have I least idea that the Russian Government would state anything on the subject until they have received the Report from their own officers as to the grave allegation made against them. It is, I think, to be assumed without the smallest doubt—I do not question it for a moment—that it was the duty of the Russian Government, and I must presume that the Russian Government fulfilled that duty, to transmit to their own officers a knowledge of that arrangement at the very first moment after it had been made.
  MR. CHAPLINasked whether the report of the further advance of the Russians referred to yesterday had now reached the Government from Sir Peter Lumsden?
  MR. GLADSTONE: It was mentioned by Sir Peter Lumsden as a rumour; but without any attestation or confirmation of his own.
  MR. ONSLOWasked whether the break in the telegraph between Teheran and Meshed had been repaired?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: No positive information has been received at the Foreign Office on the subject; but from the time in which tele-
  1636
  grams now arrive I have no doubt that the wire has been restored.

  AFGHANISTAN—ARREST OF AYOOB KHAN.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Government had any information to give the House in regard to the circumstances attending the alleged arrest of Ayoob Khan?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: The hon. Member had better give Notice of his Question.

  VISIT OF H.R.H. THE PRINCE AND PRINCESS OF WALES TO IRELAND— THE DISTURBANCE AT MALLOW.
  MR. PARNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he has any information to lay before the House, or has he received any Report from Mr. Butler, R.M., in charge of the police at Mallow, with regard to the brutal attack of the police upon the people yesterday?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I have not received any Report directly from Mr. Butler; but I have received a telegraphic statement of a summary kind of the occurrence which took place yesterday; but the statement does not differ materially from what can be gleaned from the newspapers.
  MR. PARNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to give the House the benefit of the summary statement, and also be good enough to say from whom he received that statement?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: From the Police Inspector on the spot.
  MR. HEALY: Mr. Carr.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: No, Sir. If the hon. Member will put a Question to me I will answer it. My information does not come from Mr. Carr, but from one whose name at this moment I forget. The gist of it is simply this—that a short time before the train conveying the Prince and Princess of Wales was expected to arrive at Mallow certain persons, some from the town and a good many from a distance, took possession of the platform. The railway authorities directed that the platform should be cleared, and in order that this should be done the police

  1637
  had to eject those persons who were on the platform and who refused to leave peaceably and quietly; and it does not appear that any unnecessary force was used, or any more than was necessary to overcome the resistance that was offered.
  MR. PARNELL: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the action of the police was ordered by Mr. Butler, the Resident Magistrate in charge of the police on that occasion, or whether, on the contrary, it was ordered by Mr. Coote, a Railway Director, who had been with Earl Spencer the night previously, and had obtained from him authority to direct the action of the police upon the occasion in question; and also whether any special instructions were given to the police or to Mr. Coote by Earl Spencer; and whether it is the fact that the persons who were attacked by the police had return tickets to Cork; whether the people having return tickets, or any persons who were attacked and assaulted by the police on the occasion in question, were requested to leave before they were so attacked? [Cries of "Order!"]
  MR. HEALY: Chair, chair!
  MR. PARNELL: And whether the right hon. Gentleman considers that no more force than was necessary was used on the occasion in question, when, according to the accounts in the newspapers—
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is now putting his Question in a very argumentative form. If he will confine himself to a mere Question he will be in Order.
  MR. PARNELL: Then, Sir, I will ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the account which he has received, and which he says tallies with the accounts that have appeared in the newspapers, relates that the constables, having given no notice to the people that they were required to clear away from the plat-form, used their batons freely upon the heads of the crowd; and whether the constables pursued the people, beyond the precincts of the station, over several cattle pens into the road, severe punishment being inflicted upon all indiscriminately?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I have already said the Report which I have received is one of a very summary nature, and it does not contain the particulars which the hon Member has
  1638
  alluded to. My impression on reading the Report is that Mr. Coote, who is a Director of the Railway Company, claimed the right, which I presume he legally possesses—
  MR. WARTON: Unquestionably possesses.
  MR. CAMPBELL- BANNERMAN: To eject from the private property of the Company any persons who had no right to be there without the permission of the Company. But I merely assume that. I have no positive knowledge of the circumstances or of the grounds which he followed. If the hon. Member will put the Question on the Paper, I will obtain the information.
  MR. PARNELL: I will put further Questions on the subject; but in reference to the statement which has just been made by the Chief Secretary, that a Director has the right to clear persons away from the premises of a Railway Company, I wish to ask the Solicitor General for Ireland whether the law does not require that trespassers should be always requested to leave before force is used; and whether, if they refuse to leave, they can be expelled with the use of only such force as may be necessary?
  MR. BULWER: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman one further Question? Whether it is true, as reported in the newspapers, that one of the Parliamentary followers of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) got a well-merited rap over the knuckles on this occasion?
  THE SOLICITOR GENEEAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. Walker): The hon. Member for the City of Cork has asked me whether trespassers must be required to leave before force is used? It may be as he says; but how far it is applicable to this particular case it is impossible to say.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVAN: I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, Whether it is the fact that the people who occupied the railway station at one time were not merely hunted out of the station, but over what are called the Queen's highways, and over roads and fields belonging to other people, to such a distance as would prevent the sounds of National music from reaching the ears of the Prince of Wales?
  [No reply.]
  MR. SPEAKER: The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the Day.

ORDER OF THE DAY.

  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (REDISTRIBUTION) (re-committed) BILL.— [BILL 49.]
  (Mr. Gladstone, The Marquess of Hartington, Sir Charles W. Dilke, Mr. Attorney General, The Lord Advocate, Mr. Campbell-Bannerman.)
  COMMITTEE. [Progress 13th April.]
  [THIRTEENTH NIGHT.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  SEVENTH SCHEDULE.
    COUNTIES AT LARGE.
    NUMBER OF MEMBERS AND NAMES AND CONTENTS OF DIVISIONS.
  PART I.

    ENGLAND.
    MR. AINSWORTHmoved an Amendment, inline 15, the object of which was to describe the Penrith Division, No. 2, as the "Mid Cumberland or Penrith Division."
    Amendment proposed, in page 49, line 15, after "The," insert "Mid Cumberland or."—(Mr. Ainsworth.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he did not know what the local feeling in Cumberland was upon this subject; but his own opinion was that Cumberland was one of those counties which might be divided by the points of the compass. The question, however, in the case of Penrith, was whether the division ought not rather to be called "the Eastern or Penrith Division" in preference to "Mid Division?" Local opinion, he understood, was strongly in favour of retaining the name of Penrith.
    MR. RAIKESsaid, he had moved an Amendment on Monday, the object of which was to call this division "the Eastern or Penrith Division;" but that Amendment was rejected after what he considered a very inadequate discussion. He only wished to say that he was prepared to support the Amendment which was now moved by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Ainsworth) with the view of call-
    1640
    ing the division "the Mid Cumberland or Penrith Division," although he was bound to admit that, in some degree, they would be departing from geographical accuracy, because, although it was proposed to call it the "Mid" Division, it was, in reality, the Eastern Division. Sooner, however, than part with geographical divisions—although another designation would be more accurate—as he understood it was the desire of all persons in Cumberland to see the points of the compass used in designating the other divisions of the count, he would support the Amendment of the hon. Member for West Cumberland in giving the alternative name of "Mid or Penrith Division."
    MR. WARTONsaid, the Amendment, as it stood on the Paper, proposed to call the division "Mid Cumberland," whereas the rule in other cases had been simply to insert the word "Mid." He would suggest to the right hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill the propriety of considering whether the Amendment should not simply be the alternative of "Mid or Penrith Division."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he assumed that is was not seriously intended to adhere strictly to the words of the Amendment, and that the Amendment would be put in the form suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Britport (Mr. Warton). Otherwise it would be in conflict with every division contained in the Bill.
    MR. GEORGE HOWARDsaid, there was a unanimous opinion in the county in favour of the change proposed by the hon. Member for West Cumberland (Mr. Ainsworth). It would be most satisfactory to the people of the county generally if this change was made; and it was only because the Boundary Commissioners declined to accept the names which had been submitted to them that the Committee were troubled in the matter.
    THE CHAIRMANasked if the hon. Member for West Cumberland (Mr. Ainsworth) proposed to withdraw his Amendment, in order that another Amendment might be moved in accordance with the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board?
    MR. AINSWORTH: Yes.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. GEORGE HOWARDmoved, as an Amendment, to insert words describing the division as the "Mid or Penrith Division."
    Amendment proposed, in page 49, line 15, after "The," insert the words "Mid or."—(Mr. George Howard.)
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the next Amendment was consequential upon the decision which had been arrived at last night. He would move, in the first place, to omit, in page 49, from line 16 to line 22 inclusive, the words—
    "The Sessional Divisions of Keswick, and Penrith, and the parishes in the Sessional Division of Wigton, of—Allhallows, Bewaldeth and Snittlegarth, Blencogo, Caldbeck High and Low, Dundraw and Kelsick, High Bolton, High Ireby, High and Low Thurshy, Low Bolton, Low Ireby, Mosedale, Sebergham High and Low, Torpenhow and Whitrigg, Uldale, Waverton High and Low, Westward. Wigton, and Woodside."
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
    MR. WAUGHsaid, he wished to ask for some information upon this point. The Amendment proposed by the right hon. Gentleman was very similar to one which he (Mr. Waugh) had placed upon the Paper. The right hon. Gentleman proposed to omit from the Schedule the parishes of "Bewaldeth, Snittlegarth, and Mosedale," and to insert "Blennerhasset and Kirkland;" and the only difference between them was that he (Mr. Waugh) proposed only to include the Sessional division of Oulton, leaving out that of Dundraw and Keswick, and including Bothel and Threapland in the Sessional division of Allerdale below Derwent. He thought the places mentioned in his Amendment, as they were within a mile and a-half of the polling place, might fairly be included in the division; and the changes he proposed would give a population very nearly the same as that which was originally proposed, and of precisely the same character.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he gathered from the remarks of the hon. Member for Cockermouth (Mr. Waugh) that he intended to oppose the Amendment for the purpose of substituting his own, which he appeared to regard as
    1642
    forming a better division for the county of Cumberland. There was not a very large deviation involved; but, nevertheless, it was a change from the divisions proposed by the Boundary Commissioners. The hon. Member desired to make that change for the convenience of the polling districts; but the polling districts would still have to be set out in the divisions, and therefore any argument drawn from that point was not an argument which could carry any weight with it. As a matter of convenience, he thought it would be best to adhere to the proposal he had made.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, that he understood the Amendment proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke) to be more in the character of a verbal or technical Amendment. The Amendment suggested by the hon. Member for Cockermouth (Mr. Waugh) was, however, of a more substantial character, and was, in fact, an important alteration of the arrangement as laid down by the Boundary Commissioners. He thought the hon. Gentleman had been led astray in arriving at the conclusion that there was a general consensus of local opinion in favour of the Amendment he had suggested. The information furnished to him (Mr. J. Lowther) was on all fours with that which had reached the President of the Local Government Board, and he found that there was a decided objection, in certain quarters, to the adoption of the proposal of the hon. Member for Cockermouth. He therefore thought the Government deserved the support of the Committee, and that it would be best to adopt the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman. MR. PERCY WYNDHAM said, he took exception to the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke); but with regard to the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Cockermouth (Mr. Waugh) for the Amendment of the Amendment, he was inclined to think that the alteration suggested would not be received with general satisfaction. The hon. Member proposed to leave out Blencogo, Dundraw, and Kelsick, for the purpose of inserting Bothell and Threapland, and Bewaldeth and Snittlegarth. Now, he (Mr. Percy Wyndham) thought that

    1643
    proposal involved a very important change. He could quite understand the point raised by the hon. Member in reference to local convenience in reaching the polling booths. But this was a proposal which would do a great deal more than meet the case of local convenience, because two parishes were proposed to be left out from this particular division, whose position was fully discussed before the Boundary Commissioners, by whom it was decided that they were entitled to be inserted in this particular division. So far as he was personally concerned, knowing as he did the local feeling in the matter, he should certainly divide the Committee against the proposal of the hon. Member for Cockermouth.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 49, after line 15, to insert—"No. 2.—The Penrith Division. The Sessional Divisions of Keswick and Leath Ward; and the parishes in the Sessional Division of Allerdale Ward below Derwent, of—Allhallows, Blencogo, Blennerhasset and Kirkland, Caldbeck High and Low, Dundraw and Kelsick, High Bolton, High Ireby, High and Low Thursby, Low Bolton, Low Ireby, Sebergham High and Low, Torpenhow and Whitrigg, Uldale, Waverton High and Low, Westward, Wigton, and Woodside."—(Sir Charles W. Dilke.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. WAUGHsaid, he objected to the inclusion of the parishes of Dundraw and Kelsick.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that he had given to the Committee last night the views of the Clerk of the Peace for the county of Cumberland on this subject. If any fresh information could be brought to his knowledge before the Report stage of the Bill, he was ready to reconsider the matter; but the view of the Clerk of the Peace was perfectly clear, as was evident from the letter he had read last night.
    Question put, and agreed to; words inserted accordingly.
    MR. RAIKESmoved an Amendment, in page 49, line 23, the object of which was to describe Division No. 3 as the "Western or Cockermouth Division." He was quite ready to consult the wishes of hon. Members who represented Cumberland, and to substitute the "North-Western" for the "Western
    1644
    Division," if they so desired; but, as at present advised, he thought it would be more accurate geographically to describe it as the "Western or Cockermouth Division." He had understood the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Charles W. Dilke) last night to say that he was somewhat desirous of retaining the names of the Cumberland divisions as inserted in the Bill, on account of their intrinsic beauty; but he (Mr. Raikes) did not think that this applied to this particular division if they were to give to it an alternative name. With all due respect to the borough of Cockermouth, which he had no doubt was a very ancient and interesting place, he did not see why such a town of such very small importance should be placed in a different position from that of other merged boroughs—such as Aylesbury and Buckingham, which hereafter would only become alternative names. He begged to move the Amendment on the Paper.
    Amendment proposed, in page 49, line 23, after "The," insert "Western or."—(Mr. Raikes.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that the name was given to the division, because Cockermouth was a merged borough. He should not oppose the Amendment if it met with the approval of the Committee.
    MR. WAUGHsaid, that it was the unanimous wish of the Cumberland people, at the meeting held before the Boundary Commissioners at Carlisle, that the division should be called Cockermouth only. They all knew that Cockermouth was a time-honoured name, and the proposal now submitted would not really make the division more distinctive, because, as a matter of fact, it was neither North, South, East, nor West. It was an all-round place, both in sentiment and position; and if it were desired to describe it by a point of the compass, it could be only described as rather Northern than otherwise. It would require no such name as that to distinguish the Cockermouth Division. It might be called the "Northern Division," although it was far from being absolutely North; but to call it the "Western Division" would be altogether a misnomer. He, therefore,

    1645
    trusted that the Committee would not assent to the Amendment. He believed it was the unanimous wish of the county that the division should be called distinctively "the Cockermouth Division," and he hoped that that wish would be respected.
    MR. J. W. LOWTHERsaid, he could bear testimony in confirmation of the statement of the hon. Member for Cockermouth (Mr. Waugh) as to the wishes of the inhabitants of the locality. He believed there was practically a consensus of opinion as to the nomenclature of these divisions. It was generally desired that No. 1 should be called North Cumberland, that No. 2 should be called Mid Cumberland, both of which proposals had been accepted by the Committee, that No. 4 should be called West Cumberland; but that in regard to the No. 3, there was a general feeling, not only in the division itself, but throughout the county, that it should retain the name of the Cockermouth Division, and that it should be called the "Western or Cockermouth," as the right hon. Gentleman (.Mr. Raikes) proposed.
    MR. WARTONsaid, the point of the hon. Member for Cockermouth (Mr. Waugh) amounted to this—
    "Cockermouth is much the best,
    For it is neither East nor West;
    Nor can we call it North or South,
    For it is only Cockermouth."
    MR. RAIKESsaid, he wished to point out that if they had divisions in the county—Northern, Mid, and Eastern, and a fourth division was required, it would be creating an anomaly if they were not to take the other points of the compass. If, however, the name of Cockermouth was generally approved by the Committee, he did not think he would be justified in pressing the Amendment.
    MR. J. W. LOWTHERsaid, he would point out that if the Committee called this division "West Cumberland," it would be impossible to name a fourth division West Cumberland also, as the hon. Member for West Cumberland (Mr. Ainsworth) proposed to do, and it would be altogether inaccurate to call it South Cumberland. He believed that there was a strong wish on the part of the people of Cumberland that the Division No. 4 in the Bill, and there designated "the Egremont Division," which was
    1646
    largely identified with the Liberal interests of the county, should still continue to be associated with the name of West Cumberland, and a proposal to that effect would follow when this division was settled.
    MR. GEORGE HOWARDsaid, that the Cumberland people attached considerable importance to the name of "Cockermouth" in connection with this division. Cockermouth was fairly entitled to give its name to the division, seeing that before the Reform Act was passed, it was the place of voting for the whole county. It was a small division compared with the others; but he did not think there was anything unfair in making an exception in its favour.
    MR. RAIKESsaid, that, under the circumstances, he did not think it would be worth while to persist in the Amendment, and in deference to the views which had been expressed he would withdraw it.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, they now came to Division No. 4, the Egremont Division. He did not propose to say anything in regard to it himself; but he was prepared to hear anything hon. Members, who were interested in the matter locally, were prepared to submit.
    MR. AINSWORTHmoved an Amendment to describe the division as that of "The West Cumberland or Egremont Division."
    Amendment proposed, in page 49, line 26, after "The," insert "West Cumberland,"—(Mr. Ainsworth.)
    Question proposed "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he wished to call attention to the fact that the proposal now submitted to the Committee was to call the extreme South of Cumberland the "Western Division." They had cut out a considerable portion of the North-West, and called it "Northern;" they had also cut out the Western part of the county and called it "Cockermouth," and now they proposed to cut out the South and call that the "West." Hitherto the county had been divided into two divisions which were perfectly applicable; but now it was proposed to make the South the

    1647
    West, and he believed that a very small portion of the original Western Division would be included. If agreed to, it would amount to a complete disregard of all geographical accuracy. Certainly, if they adhered to the points of the compass, the proper designation of this division was South Cumberland. The one proposed was simply ridiculous.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he was disposed to agree very much with what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Charles W. Dilke). He thought if they adopted the compass points at all, they ought to adopt them completely. He, therefore, objected to the Amendment of the hon. Member for West Cumberland (Mr. Ainsworth), and be thought the President of the Local Government Board was quite right in saying that to call the Southern part of the county by the name of "West Cumberland" would be ridiculous.
    MR. RAIKESsaid, be should not himself have offered any opposition to the Amendment; but he quite agreed with the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) that it would be a flagrant disregard of a geographical fact to call the Southern Division Western Cumberland. But they had already disregarded geographical facts by refusing to call the Eastern Division East Cumberland; and, therefore, be did not think it was a matter of very great consequence what they did with the remaining divisions. At the same time, he thought it would be better to insert "Southern," instead of "Western;" and as be (Mr. Raikes) had spared the Committee the trouble of a division on the interesting question which had been raised by the last Amendment, he would ask the hon. Gentleman for West Cumberland (Mr. Ainsworth) if he could not see his way to withdrawing the Amendment in favour of one which would more precisely indicate the geographical position of the division?
    MR. WAUGHsaid, he was prepared to admit that, on the face of the map, this division was situated somewhat to the South of the county; but he ventured to think that there was not a single person in Cumberland who did not look upon that part of the county as West Cumberland. Whenever a man went to that part from Carlisle, he always spoke of going to the West from the East, although, no doubt, in so de-
    1648
    scribing his progress, he was entirely at variance either with the points of the compass, or the position of the county upon the map. At the same time, he (Mr. Waugh) was perfectly certain that the division would never be recognized as "South Cumberland," and it was much better to give it the name by which it was generally known—namely, that of "West Cumberland."
    MR. PERCY WYNDHAMsupported the Amendment.
    MR. AINSWORTHsaid, that he had throughout been in favour of geographical divisions; but this part of the county had always been known as "West Cumberland." Whenever a man travelled across the Border, he invariably went, not North and South, but East and West. He trusted, therefore, that the Committee would accept the Amendment he had proposed.
    MR. J. W. LOWTHERsaid, he was sorry to intrude upon the Committee again"; but he felt called upon to say a word in support of the view of the hon. Member for West Cumberland (Mr. Ainsworth). It did not really matter whether the Bill called this division "South Cumberland" or "West Cumberland," because, whatever name was given to the division, it would always be known as West Cumberland. He therefore thought that, for the sake of simplicity, it was desirable that the Committee should accede to the wishes of the Cumberland people, notwithstanding the fact that they were a little wrong in their notion of the points of the compass, and that this division should be named West Cumberland.
    Question put, and agreed to; words inserted accordingly.
    MR. RAIKESsaid, he was glad to say that the Committee had now left the county of Cumberland and had arrived at the county of Denbigh in Wales. That county had been divided by the Boundary Commissioners into two divisions, consisting of No. 1, the Bromfield Division, and No. 2, the Vale of Clwyd Division. He thought it desirable to give those divisions alternative names; and he, therefore, proposed an Amendment to describe the first division as "the Eastern or Bromfield Division."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he was prepared to agree with the Amendment.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, he must point out that the Amendment, as it appeared on the Paper, was to leave out "Bromfield" and to give no alternative name.
    MR. RAIKESsaid, he believed it was preferred to retain the alternative name. He had had a conversation last week with the Lord Lieutenant of the county, who was strongly in favour of retaining the alternative. He would, therefore, move, in page 49, line 32, after the word "The," to insert the words "Eastern or," which would make it the "Eastern or Bromfield Division."
    Amendment proposed, in page 49, line 32, after the word "The," to insert the words "Eastern or,"—(Mr. Raikes).
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    MR. RAIKESsaid, he now proposed, in accordance with the same principle, to move his next Amendment, which would describe the 2nd division of the county of Denbigh as the "Western or Vale of Clwyd Division."
    Amendment proposed, in page 50, line 1, after the word "The," insert the words "Western or."—(Mr. Raikes.)
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    MR. BARNESsaid, that, in reference to the county of Derby which came next, he proposed in regard to the 5th division to move, in page 50, line 29, to leave out "Belper" and insert "Alfreton." The town of Alfreton was a much larger and more important town than Belper. It was situated in the centre of a large iron and coal district, and it formed about three-fifths of the whole division. It also formed an important part of East Derbyshire, which he had the honour to represent. The Belper Division, as defined by the Bill, would comprise from 20,000 to 25,000 inhabitants; but the town of Belper itself, according to the last Census, had only a population of 8,000 or 9,000, and had very little manufacturing interests. It was almost entirely agricultural, and why preference should be given to Belper over Alfreton he could not conceive. The inhabitants of this part of the county felt very sore upon the matter; and seeing that in reference to Cumberland the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had acceded to the
    1650
    wishes of the people, even although by so doing the division was named in a way that was contradictory to the geographical facts of the case, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would accede to this Amendment. It would give satisfaction to the inhabitants of the division generally, who, at present, had a very just ground for feeling dissatisfaction at the proposal contained in the Bill. Certainly, so far as its importance and the number of its population were concerned, the town of Alfreton was entitled to have its wishes consulted. He, therefore, begged to move the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed, in page 50, line 29, leave out the word "Belper," and insert the word "Alfreton."—(Mr. Barnes.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'Belper' stand part of the Schedule."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he would point out that the Belper Division of the county consisted of the entire Petty Sessional division of Belper and the Poor Law Union; and as regarded the town it contained 10,000 inhabitants, while the town of Alfreton contained under 5,000. On those grounds, he thought that Belper had a strong case in favour of giving its name to the division.
    Question put, and negatived.
    MR. BARNESsaid, he had challenged the decision of the Chairman.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. Member had challenged his decision too late. The hon. Member had himself given his voice with the Noes.
    On the Motion of Mr. ACLAND, the following Amendments made:—In page 51, line 10, after "The," insert "Eastern or;" and in line 14, after "The," insert "North Eastern or."
    MR. WARTONsaid, before the hon. Member for East Cornwall (Mr. Acland) moved the next Amendment, he (Mr. Warton) had to propose the omission of the word "exclusive," in page 51, line 10, in order to substitute for it the word "except." He had not given Notice of this Amendment on the Paper; but he felt sure the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) would see the propriety of adopting the latter word, which had been made use of throughout the Bill.
    Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 16, to leave out the word "exclusive," in order to insert the word "except."—(Mr. Warton.)
    Question, "That the word 'exclusive' stand part of the Schedule," put, and negatived.
    Question, "That the word 'except' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, as he understood there was a general feeling in favour of naming the divisions of the county after the points of the compass—with the exception of the Torquay Division—he was, upon that understanding, ready to agree to the Amendments in the name of the hon. Member for East Cornwall (Mr. Acland).
    On the Motion of Mr. ACLAND, the following Amendments made:—In page 51, line 19, after "The," insert "Northern or;" in line 23, after "The," insert "North Western or;" in line 27, after "The," insert "Western or;" in line 32, after "The," insert "Southern or;" and in page 52, line 4, after "The," insert "Mid or."
    MR. RAIKESsaid, he had an Amendment to move to this division, the object of which was to substitute for the appellation "Teignbridge," that of "Ashburton." He hoped that the Committee might not be indisposed to adopt the word "Ashburton," an ancient borough which, in the 17th century, returned a relative of the right hon. Member for North Devon who at that time took a prominent part in the proceedings of that House. He trusted the right hon. Baronet might think fit to restore the name of Ashburton to the annals of Parliament.
    Amendment proposed, in page 52, line 4, after the word "or," insert the word"Ashburton."—(Mr. Raikes.)
    Question proposed, "That that word be there inserted."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the Question before the Committee was as to whether this portion of the county should be called the Mid or Teignbridge Division, or the Mid or Ashburton Division. He believed, from the result of a local inquiry that was held in connection with this subject, that the name of Teignbridge was rather preferred in the district. The River Teign ran through
    1652
    the division, and the affix "Teign," was to be found to the names of several places there, Again, Teignbridge was the designation of a large Petty Sessional district of 105,000 acres, and it was also one of the Devonshire Hundreds. The right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Stafford Northcote) would probably prefer the name of Ashburton.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, that as far as the feeling in the county was concerned, he believed that Teignbridge was the accepted name. But, personally, he had a little interest in Ashburton, which at one time returned two Members to that House. It having ceased to be represented as a Parliamentary borough, his ancestor, Sir John Northcote, who was Member for the county, by his influence obtained for it the restoration of its right of sending Members to Parliament, and subsequently sat as the Representative of Ashburton in the Long Parliament. On that ground, he should rather like the name of Ashburton to be preserved in the nomenclature of the representation.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he believed that the House would wish that the right hon. Baronet who now represented a division of the county of Devon should have the same interest in the electorate represented by the name of Ashburton as his ancestor had done formerly. He should, therefore, accept the Amendment.
    Question put, and agreed to; word inserted accordingly.
    Amendment proposed, in page 52, line 10, after the word "The," insert the words "Northern or."—(Mr. Raikes.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. PORTMANsaid, he hoped the Committee would be inclined rather to adopt the Amendment which his hon. Colleague (Mr. Floyer) had placed on the Paper than that of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Raikes). The feeling in the county was in favour of the designation contemplated by his hon. Colleague; and he believed that no county in the Kingdom had a stronger claim than Dorset to be styled after its simple and natural divisions of North, South, East, and West. It was in view of that fact that his hon. Friend had drawn his series of Amendments.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he should not offer any opposition to this Amendment, if it were acceptable to the Committee. If the view of his hon. Friend behind him (Mr. Portman) were carried out, he thought it should not be by adopting the words "Northern or." Personally, he should have prefered the divisions known by the points of the compass absolutely.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he had not been long connected with the county of Dorset; but he was aware that the view represented by the senior Member for the county (Mr. Floyer) and by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Portman) was that of all parties in the county. He suggested that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Raikes) should withdraw his Amendment, in order that it might be made in the form suggested by the right hon. Baronet. The Committee had, in the case of Cumberland, called the divisions of the county "North," "South," "East," and "West," and there was no reason that he could perceive why they should not do the same in the case of the county of Dorset, seeing that those designations were peculiarly applicable, and that there was an unanimous feeling in favour of them throughout the country.
    MR. MONTAGUE GUESTsaid, he did not agree with the hon. Member for Dorsetshire (Mr. Portman) that all the feeling in the county was in favour of his view and that of his Colleague; on the contrary, he (Mr. Guest) believed that the borough population was very anxious that the names of the boroughs should be associated with the divisions of the county.
    MR. RAIKESsaid, he should be glad to take any line that was most acceptable to the Members for Dorsetshire. But there seemed to be some difficulty on the point, as he understood the hon. Member for Wareham (Mr. Guest) to be under the impression that the names of the boroughs would disappear. If the hon. Member for Dorsetshire (Mr. Portman) would propose to amend his (Mr. Raikes's) Amendment, by leaving out the word "or," he would then be able to obtain an expression of opinion by the Committee as to whether they wished that word to be retained, and then he could move to leave out "Shaftesbury."
    MR. MONTAGUE GUESTsaid, he was speaking on behalf of Wareham, which included a large agricultural district 20 miles in length and 10 in breadth. He thought the name which had been in the annals of Parliament for many centuries ought not to disappear.
    MR. HALSEYsaid, as an elector of the county of Dorset, he wished to corroborate what had fallen from the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Portman) with regard to the feeling in the county in favour of naming the divisions after the points of the compass. As a county elector, he hoped the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) would understand that he objected to being turned into an elector for the "Bridport Division."
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, it would perhaps be convenient if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Raikes) would withdraw his Amendment, when the hon. Member for Dorsetshire (Mr. Portman) could move to omit the word "Shaftesbury."
    MR. RIKESsaid, he rather preferred, and he thought the Committee would prefer, the alternative, although he did not think the matter of very great importance so long as they had the points of the compass. On the whole, he thought the hon. Member for Dorsetshire (Mr. Portman) would do better to move the Amendment of his (Mr. Raikes') Amendment, by leaving out the word "or," and then he might, having obtained an expression of opinion on the part of the Committee, also move the omission of the word "Shaftesbury." In that case, there would be raised the issue as between the alternative and the points of the compass.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, in that case, he would move the omission of the word "or."
    Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, to leave out the word "or."—(Sir Charles W. Dilke.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'or' stand part of the said proposed Amendment."
    MR. MONTAGUE GUESTsaid, that although it was not his intention to divide the Committee on the point, yet, inasmuch as the boroughs of Dorsetshire would be very much disappointed at their names not being associated with the

    1655
    county divisions, he was bound to make a further protest against the proposal.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Original Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
    MR. RAIKESsaid, he would now propose to leave out the word "Shaftesbury" from the Schedule.
    Amendment proposed, in page 52, line 10, to leave out the word "Shaftesbury."—(Mr. Raikes.)
    Question, "That the word' proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule," put, and negatived; word left out accordingly.
    On the Motion of Mr. RAIKES, the following Amendments made:—
    In page 52, line 15, after "The," insert "Eastern;" in line 20, after "The," insert Southern;" and in line 28, after "The," insert "Western."
    MR. JOSEPH COWENsaid, he rose to move the substitution of the word "Blaydon" for "Chester-le-Street," in respect of the 3rd division of the county of Durham. He did so because there was a strong feeling in the most populous part of the district—which contained two-thirds of the inhabitants of the whole division—that the word "Blaydon" should be retained. He trusted hon. Gentlemen opposite would not object to the proposed alteration.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 53, line 10, after "The," leave out "Chester le Street," and insert "Blaydon."— (Mr. Joseph Cowen.)
    Question proposed, "That the word proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, there was a great deal to be said in favour of the view of his hon. Friend (Mr. Joseph Cowen); but, on the whole, he thought that local opinion was against the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman. A part of Gateshead was in the Chester-le-Street Division, and but for the fact that there was already a Member for that constituency perhaps that would be the best name. Chester-le-Street, however, was in the very centre of the division; it was a Poor Law Union, it was a market town, situated on a main road, and it had good railway communications. Petty Sessions were held there, it was a very ancient place, and it had a popula-
    1656
    tion at the present time of 7,000 people. Blaydon had a population of nearly 11,000 people, and it covered a very large area. Blaydon was the name given by the Commissioners to the division in their original scheme; but Chester-le-Street was an ancient town, and its name found more favour. The Commissioners thought that although Blaydon had a larger population than Chester-le-Street, Chester-le-Street was the better name to give to the division. There was another point which he was surprised his hon. Friend did not mention in the way of objection to the name of Chester-le-Street, and that point was that the name would very much resemble that of another constituency in the country.
    MR. RAIKESsaid, he had an Amendment on the Paper, to leave out Chester-le-Street, in order to insert Ravensworth. He confessed he found it inconvenient to discover the particular spot in that division to name the division after. His objection to the name of Chester-le-Street was entirely that indicated by his hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Joseph Cowen), and to which he thought the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) was inclined to attach a little importance. It was most desirable they should avoid the selection of names at all similar to those of other constituencies. Although he (Mr. Raikes) had not at the present time the honour of representing the city of Chester, he was, perhaps, as well qualified to speak on behalf of that constituency as anyone in the House. He was quite sure there would be a very decided feeling there against this proposal, because by the establishment of a Member for Chester-le-Street there must be a certain amount of confusion in the House. He believed that all the right hon. Baronet had said as to the antiquity and historical importance of Chester-le-Street was quite correct; and, if it were not for the confusion which would be created, he (Mr. Raikes) would be content to leave the name alone. Having regard to the confusion which would necessarily arise between Chester-le-Street and Chester, he should support the Amendment of his hon. Friend (Mr. Joseph Cowen). Personally, he (Mr. Raikes) thought that Ravensworth would have been a better title for the division.
    MR. DODDSsaid, he hoped the Committee would not accept the name suggested by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Raikes). Ravensworth, although it was the name of the Earl of Ravensworth, and his seat, Ravensworth Castle, was neither a parish, nor indeed a township. Between the other two names of Chester-le-Street and Blaydon a great deal was to be said, and had been said already. Now, he (Mr. Dodds) attended the local inquiry held by the Commissioners; and, on the whole, the great weight of argument was in favour of the name of Chester-le-Street being given to the division. He thought it was a good name, for this reason—that it was the older name, and that Chester-le-Street was more in the centre of the division than Blaydon. He believed that the general feeling in the division outside of the two places was that Chester-le-Street was a preferable name to Blaydon, and therefore he trusted the Committee would retain the name now inserted in the Bill.
    MR. W. H. JAMESthought it very desirable to avoid, as far as possible, creating local feelings of jealousy on the matter of a nomenclature of this kind. He could bear his testimony that in the division there was a strong feeling in favour of retaining the name of Chester-le-Street. No doubt, there was something in the appeal which had been put forward by his hon. Friend (Mr. Joseph Cowen); but Chester-le-Street had strong claims to give its name to the division, if only for its historical and antiquarian associations. He hoped the Committee would reject the Amendment.
    MR. T. C. THOMPSONsaid, that there need be no fear of confusing this name of Chester-le-Street with that of the city of Chester; for, in the North, the people invariably spoke of the town as Chester-le-Street, and not as Chester. Chester-le-Street had a very peculiar historical connection with the county of Durham. Chester-le-Street was the birthplace of St. Cuthbert, whose tomb was the foundation of the city of Durham, and whose body rested for many years in Chester-le-Street. He (Mr. T. C. Thompson) thought that historical associations were of very great importance indeed. It was most desirable that they should stamp upon districts—not something connected with the points of the compass—but some individuality,
    1658
    something which separated them from other parts of the country, and impressed them on the mind of the people of the country.
    MR. JOSEPH COWENsaid, that if this were a question of archeological contention, he could call attention to matters which went much farther back than the time of St. Cuthbert. The point really was the convenience of electors, and he could say from intimate knowledge of the district—for he had lived there all his life—that Blaydon would be found a much more convenient name. Gateshead, no doubt, would be an appropriate title, but there could not be two constituencies bearing the name of Gateshead.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle (Mr. Joseph Cowen) was so intimately associated with Blaydon, that it was but natural he should try to give the name of that place to the division. So far as he (the Solicitor General) could judge, outside of Blaydon, Chester-le-Street would be a much more popular name than Blaydon. Certainly, one thing in favour of Chester-le-Street was that, in the first instance, the Commissioners fixed, upon the name of Blaydon. They only changed the name of the division to that of Chester-le-Street because, after hearing both sides—after ascertaining so far as they could the general feeling of the constituency—they came to the conclusion that they ought to change the name from Blaydon to Chester-le-Street. He asked the Committee to consider if they were in a better position than the Commissioners were to determine what was the name that was most generally approved by the constituency. He submitted that considering that the change had been advisedly made as a result of discussion before the Commissioners, a very strong case ought to be made out before the name was changed. The only point of importance that he could see that had been raised in favour of the Amendment was that the name of Chester-le-Street would lead to some confusion. He could hardly think it would, because he could not understand how the Chester-le-Street Division of the county of Durham could clash with Chester. There had not been any confusion between Newcastle-upon-Tyne and Newcastle-under-Lyme, which

    1659
    names were, perhaps, more nearly alike than Chester-le-Street and Chester.
    Question put, and negatived.
    MR. DODDSproposed, as an Amendment, to omit "Lanchester," in line 21, page 53, in order to insert "North Western." He did so for the simple reason that although Lanchester had much to be said in favour of it, it being a place very similar, in many characteristics, to Chester-le-Street, it, like Chester-le-Street, was the place originally named by the Boundary Commission in substitution for Consett; Consett was the most populous place in the division, and had great claims for consideration; but the rival parties from Consett and Lanchester had met before Major Tulloch held his inquiry, and arrived at the conclusion that if the points of the compass could be used for the division, they would be content. Major Tulloch, however, said it was contrary to his instructions to give the division a title according to the points of the compass. He (Mr. Dodds) proposed "North-Western," instead of Lanchester, not because he objected to Lanchester, but in the interest of the peace of the division. There would be loss heartburning in the division if his Amendment were adopted. If the Committee accepted his Amendment, there would be greater satisfaction throughout the division—the Amendment would be acceptable to the people of Consett and Lanchester alike. He hoped the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) would, under the circumstances, adopt his proposition, especially as it had been agreed upon by all parties. A glance at the map would show that "North-Western" was a very appropriate title to give to the constituency.
    Amendment proposed, in page 53, line 21, leave out "Lanchester," and insert"North-Western."—(Mr. Dodds.)
    Question proposed, "That the word proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
    MR. JOSEPH COWENthought that if they accepted one name because of archaeological considerations, they ought to accept another. As a matter of fact, no one knew which was the North-Western Division of the county; but everybody would know the division if it were called Lanchester.
    MR. DODDSremarked, that everybody knew full well which was the North-Western district of the county. If a geographical name could have been found for the Chester-le-Street Division, he was sure that it would have been adopted. He (Mr. Dodds) did not object to Lanchester; but as the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had consented to adopt points of the compass, he thought it was quite right that this alteration should be made.
    MR. RAIKEShoped the Government would see their way to accept this Amendment.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Yes.
    MR. RAIKESsaid, that he supported the Amendment, not only because it introduced a point of the compass, but because it got rid of another of the ambiguities of which he had had to complain. Lanchester very much resembled both Lancaster and Manchester. He should support this Amendment for the very same reason that he supported the last Amendment.
    MR. WARTONsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had consented, in a very quiet manner, to accept this Amendment. He (Mr. Warton) hoped they would have the pleasure of hearing, on this question, some hon. Gentleman connected with the county. He could not understand how the right hon. Baronet had been so easily seduced by the arguments of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stockton (Mr. Dodds), because those arguments appeared to him (Mr. Warton) to be extremely weak. The right hon. Baronet had accepted the points of the compass in the case of Dorset; but in that case the divisions were merely called North, South, East, and West. In Durham, however, they had adopted local names for some of the divisions. He thought it was desirable to avoid, if possible, mixing up in the same county points of the compass and names not points of the compass. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Raikes) seemed to be very much pleased with the adoption of points of the compass. No doubt, the right hon. Gentleman had done good service in the consideration of this Bill; but then it must be remembered that points of the compass were not, in every in-

    1661
    stance, desirable. He (Mr. Warton) was inclined to think that the better plan was that where they had a county like Dorset, which was split up into four divisions, it was very desirable to adopt the points of the compass; but in a county like Durham, where they had adopted local names in some cases, why should they seek to adopt points of the compass in other cases? He hoped more consideration would be given to this Amendment.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he had every desire to save the time of the Committee. He had assented to the Amendment because he thought it would be difficult to find a good local name. He did not think that Lanchester or Consett were as good names as North-Western.
    MR. W. H. JAMESsuggested that the alternative name should be given— North-Western or Lanchester.
    MR. G. W. ELLIOTsaid, he was sorry the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had assented so quickly to the Amendment. Lanchester and Consett were well known in the division. Lanchester, Bishop Auckland, and Barnard Castle were perfectly well-defined places, and if these names were changed to points of the compass electors in the county of Durham would not know where the divisions were.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that as the matter had been discussed at greater length than he expected, he had better say something as to the reasons why he assented to the Amendment. Lanchester was a name very like Manchester. Lanchester was not a very important place; certainly it was the name of the Poor Law Union; but it was not a Local Board district, and it had only 3,000 or 4,000 people. Consett was a Local Board district, with a population of 7,000; so that if the Committee went by local importance Consett was of more importance than Lanchester, and Consett was the name originally taken by the Commissioners. He thought there was no good local name to give to the division; and, therefore, he had expressed his readiness to adopt the Amendment.
    SIR GEORGE ELLIOTsaid, that if the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had not been a little hasty in his acceptance of the Amendment, he (Sir George Elliot) would have given one or
    1662
    two reasons why Lanchester ought to be the name given to the division, and not Consett. Lanchester was an old place, Consett was a new place; and, therefore, he thought it was well to adhere to the name finally given to the division by the Commissioners. Consett was a place which consisted of coal pits. Now, he happened to be a Member of the Royal Commission appointed some years ago to ascertain the quantity of coal in the county of Durham; and in the course of the inquiries of the Commission, he learned that the coal at Consett would be used up in a century. In 100 years, therefore, there would be no Consett. Lanchester had existed as a place for hundreds of years, and would, he had no doubt, continue to do so. He thought that Lanchester was as good a name to give to the division as North-Western, because the people would know where the division was if Lanchester was its name. He believed there were Members of the Committee who would live to see Lanchester increased in power and importance.
    MR. T. C. THOMPSONregretted that the Committee were going to make these changes. The names adopted for the divisions were in his opinion, very beautiful, and were well known all over the county. Everyone, for instance, knew where Lanchester was; but very few people had heard of Consett. Consett was a place which probably would not exist very long. Lanchester, however, was a place in very remote times. It would be impossible to instil into the minds of the people of Durham which was the North and which was the North-Western Divisions of the county. The people liked to keep to well-known names. He did not hesitate to say that there were not half-a-dozen people who knew where the Southern Division of the county began. He hoped that they were framing a Bill which would last for a very considerable time; and, therefore, he desired that the names adopted for the divisions should be well understood.
    MR. DODDSsaid, he was astonished to hear the extraordinary argument of his hon. Friend the Member for Durham (Mr. T. C. Thompson). The hon. Gentleman knew, as well as any man in the House, that the two divisions, North and South, had lasted ever since the great Reform Bill of 1832. Now, whe-
    [Thirteenth Night.]

    1663
    ther or not Lanchester or Consett continued to be places, North-Western would always remain a point of the compass; and he thought that was an additional reason why they should adopt that title instead of Lanchester or Consett.
    MR. G. W. ELLIOTsaid, so far as he understood, there was no North-Western part of the county at all.
    MR. WARTONsaid, that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stockton (Mr. Dodds) proposed to adopt points of the compass in the cases of three divisions of the county—North-Western, South-Eastern, and Southern. Now, if the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) was not so very averse to the adoption of the points of the compass, as the titles of divisions of the counties, he (Mr. Warton) put it to him whether it would not be desirable to adopt points of the compass in the cases of all the divisions of the county? It seemed ridiculous to adopt names of locality in some eases, and points of the compass in others.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEpointed out that they had already mixed up points of the compass with local names. That, of course, was a matter entirely for the Committee. If hon. Members thought it worth while to divide upon the Amendment, he should not use any influence he might have to cause the Committee to come to one conclusion or the other.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Question, "That the words 'North-Western' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    MR. DODDSsaid, he now wished to move an Amendment as to which there had been a great conflict of local opinion. In the original scheme, the division to which he was directing attention was called Brandon; but that was very strongly objected to. It was proposed to call the district Mid Durham; but they had been told by the Commissioners that, according to their Instructions, points of the compass were not to be used in naming the divisions, and eventually Brancepeth had been decided upon. Although an important place, this was only a parish. This place had appeared to receive acceptance; but now that the Committee were at liberty to substitute geographical names instead of names of
    1664
    places, he thought that Mid Durham would be the most appropriate name for this division, seeing that the division was in the middle of the county. Every other division of the county, with one exception, abutted upon this, and he was sure the substitution of the name he suggested for Brancepeth would be well received. He would therefore move that that substitution should take place.
    Amendment proposed, in page 5.3, line 25, leave out "Brancepeth," and insert "Mid."—(Mr. Dodds.)
    Question proposed, "That the word proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
    MR. WARTONsaid, that "Mid" was not a point of the compass, except in the mind of the hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Dodds), which was usually somewhat confused.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that if it were the general feeling of the Committee that that name should be substituted for Brancepeth, he would raise no objection to the alteration.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Question, "That the word 'Mid' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    MR. DODDSsaid, he now desired to change the name of the "North Tees Division" to that of "South-Eastern Division." The name "North Tees" had no signification whatever. He had heard an hon. Member on the other side of the House declare it was a well-known name in the county; but, however that might be, it was nevertheless a fact that no one in the county had ever heard such a name applied to the district to which it had been affixed until they saw it in the Bill. The three most important places in the district were Stockton, Hartlepool, and Darlington; but none of these could be taken, as each of them retained its borough representation. As points of the compass could not at that time be taken, the Commissioners themselves had chosen this name "North Tees."
    Amendment proposed, in page 53, line 30, leave out the words "North Tees," and insert the words "South-Eastern."—(Mr. Dodds.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, in this case, also, he should leave the decision of the question to the Committee.
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule," put, and negatived.
    Question, "That the words 'South Eastern' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    MR. DODDSsaid, that, in the next case, he wished to propose a composite name—that was to say, to give the "Barnard Castle" Division the name of "Southern or Barnard Castle" Division. Barnard Castle was an important place; and if names according to points of the compass had not been decided upon it would have been desirable to have left the name as it stood. As, however, points of the compass names had been accepted, and as this district formed a very large part of the late Southern Division, he thought "Southern or Barnard Castle" would be a very appropriate name.
    Amendment proposed, in page 54, line 5, before "Barnard Castle," insert "Southern or."—(Mr. Dodds.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he should like to say a word or two upon this proposal, because he had no doubt it was one of those which were referred to on a former occasion when he was overruled by the Committee. In his opinion, this name would not be at all applicable to the division. No doubt this would be the southern part of the county if it were divided in two; but, in addition to being the more southerly parts, it was at the same time the more westerly part of the county. It seemed really to be more westerly than southerly, and he therefore thought that Barnard Castle, which was a most respectable name, should be retained as giving a title to this division.
    MR. DODDSsaid, that on reference to the map he could not understand the right hon. Baronet's (Sir Charles W. Dilke's) view as to this not being the southern portion of the county. The fact was, there was one extreme point which was now part of the South-Eastern Division, which extended further to the
    1666
    south than Barnard Castle Division; but for nearly 30 miles the southern part of this division was bounded by the Tees, and was, to all intents and purposes, the southern part of the county. At any rate, he should be very glad to withdraw the Amendment "Southern or," in order that the words "South Western" might be inserted, which the right hon. Baronet seemed inclined to accept.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: No; I do not desire that at all.
    Question put, and negatived.
    COLONEL MAKINSsaid, he wished to move, as an Amendment, in page 54, line 17, after the word "The," to insert "South Western or." This was the first of a series of Amendments standing in his name which he had put on the Paper with a view to applying the points of the compass—including the word "Mid," which was not a point-of-the-compass name—to the eight divisions of Essex. On the first day of the new Session he put a Question to the right hon. Baronet with regard to an Amendment of this kind. He had asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he would entertain such an Amendment, and the right hon. Gentleman had told him that he would be guided by the feeling of the House. Since then the right hon. Gentleman had shown, with regard to other counties, his willingness to adopt the evident sense of the Committee, and had accepted names chosen from the points of the compass. With regard to the county of Essex, at the inquiry before the Commissioners they had been precluded from raising the points-of-the-compass question, otherwise he had no doubt they would have carried their proposal. He (Colonel Makins) had been spending last week in the county of Essex, and had made inquiries on this subject, and had not found a single person take any objection to his proposal; on the contrary, everyone thought it a desirable change. He did not wish to take up the time of the Committee unnecessarily; therefore, unless arguments were raised on the other side of the House, he should confine himself to simply moving the first Amendment on the Paper in his name, the effect of which would be to add to "Walthamstow" the name "South Western or."
    Amendment proposed, in page 54, line 17, after the word "The," to insert the words "South-Western or."—(Colonel Makins.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, there were a great many divisions in this county. It was a suburban district, and might be said to be very largely in the Metropolis; consequently it was very much more difficult to deal with in the way proposed than was a purely rural county. One of the eight divisions was extremely small in size, smaller even than the Jarrow Division, to which had been affixed a local name instead of a point-of-the-compass name. On the whole, he certainly thought that the names in the Bill were better than those proposed by the hon. and gallant Member. Some of the divisions were almost Metropolitan, and should, therefore, retain their own names; and the Epping Division, generally following, as it did, the old lines of Epping Forest, should be named after that district. Two of the divisions were named after municipal boroughs, and the only difficulty was with regard to the Tilbury Division, as to which there had been a great difference of opinion. He (Sir Charles W. Dilke) should be more inclined to take a compound name in that case than in any other. Tilbury was an ancient name; but the district was certainly not agricultural; it was really a Thames or sea-coast division.
    COLONEL MAKINSsaid, that with regard to the particular division—namely, the Walthamstow Division—now under discussion, he was sure the people of that place were anxious to have this point-of-the-compass name added to the proposed name; otherwise it would appear to be a suburban district of the Metropolis rather than an integral part of Essex. As the right hon. Gentleman had accepted these alternative names in so many cases, he (Colonel Makins) hoped he would not go from the principle on the present occasion. He was sure that in this matter he had the support of every Member for the county of Essex. He saw below him an hon. Member who represented the Western Division of the county (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson), and he trusted that hon. Member would
    1668
    support him on this occasion. He was sure the hon. Member agreed with him in his desire to see this alternative point-of-the-compass name given to the Walthamstow Division. He trusted his proposal would be accepted by the Government.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he agreed with his hon. and gallant Friend who represented the Southern Division of the county (Colonel Makins), and he was convinced that if, at the meeting of the Boundary Commissioners; they had been able to propose points-of-compass names, the Commissioners would have been unanimous in applying those names to this county. Already, those points of the compass names had been introduced in the Bill; and he believed his hon. and gallant Friend had fairly stated the views of the county at large, when he said that the localities would urge upon the right hon. Baronet, if it were possible, the desirability of adopting the principle in the case of Essex, as in the case of other counties. The right hon. Gentleman would not be at all departing from the scheme of the Bill if he permitted these alternative names to be adopted in this case as they had been in the others.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he did not think the matter was worth dividing the Committee about; the question was whether there was a general assent to the proposal of the hon. and gallant Member. He would not divide the Committee against opinions so positively expressed, and therefore he would accept the alternative names, although he did not like them.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    On the Motion of Colonel MAKINS, the following Amendments made:—In page 54, line 19, after "The," insert "Western or;" in line 23, after "The," insert "North Western or;" in line 27, after "The," insert "Northern or;" in page 55, line 1, after "The," insert "North Eastern or;" in line 7, after "The," insert "Eastern or;" and in line 15, after "The," insert "Mid or."
    Amendment proposed, in page 55, line 19, after "The," insert "South Eastern or."—(Colonel Makins.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. WARTONsaid, that, before the Question was put to the Committee, he

    1669
    wished to say a few words which were not exactly regular, but which arose from something that had been said by the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke). The right hon. Gentleman had seemed to have it in his mind that it would be desirable to call this "the Thames Division," and there was a great deal of force in that suggestion. There was no such place as Tilbury in the world. There was a Tilbury Fort, but no town of Tilbury or Tilbury village. He (Mr. Warton), therefore, would propose to the Committee that they should call this the Thames Division. They had very few places named after rivers, and seeing how important the Thames was—that it was the river running through the English Metropolis, the greatest City in the world, he thought it would be a very graceful act to call this division after it.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he did not think that Tilbury was a very good name; and if the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Matins) liked to confer with the Essex Members before Report, and see whether a better name than Tilbury could be obtained, so far as he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) was concerned, he should be glad to agree to the result of their conference. He could not, however, say that he thought "the Thames Division" would be a good name, because the Thames flowed through many divisions in other counties besides this, although no doubt this district ran along the Thames for a greater distance than any other.
    MR. STRUTTsaid, he would urge upon the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) the desirability of calling this the Southend Division. The Commissioners had chosen the name of Tilbury for no reason whatever that he could see; and as the largest town in the division was Southend, and as that place was in the centre of the division, agriculture being the principal industry, he thought it would only be right to adopt that nomenclature.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that no doubt Southend was the largest place in the division; but it was clearly a pleasure resort and a watering place, and he did not know that it was a good place to give a name to a county division. Unless there was very general agreement on the matter, he should be rather disposed to strike out the alternative in
    1670
    this case. At any rate, if that course were proposed, he should not take exception to it.
    Amendment proposed, in page 55, line 19, to strike out the word "Tilbury."—(Sir Charles W. Dilke.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'Tilbury' stand part of the Schedule."
    MR. TOMLINSONsaid, it did not appear to him that the fact of Southend being a modern watering place was against its being chosen as the name of a county division. There were places in the county of Lancaster, such as Blackpool and Southport, which gave names to county divisions, and surely these might be taken as a precedent.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Question, "That the words 'South Eastern 'be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    MR. RAIKESsaid, he had an Amendment on the Paper, in page 55, line 26, to add to "the Caerphilly Division" the words "Eastern or;" but he thought he had better leave the question in the hands of the hon. Baronet the Member for Glamorganshire (Sir Hussey-Vivian).
    SIR HUSSEY VIVIANsaid, he begged to move the Amendment standing on the Paper in his name—namely, in page 55, line 26, after "The," leave out "Caerphilly," and insert "Eastern." The term "Eastern" distinctly applied to this division of Glamorganshire. Caerphilly was a very small place on the borders of Monmouthshire—in fact, only one mile from Monmouthshire, and containing a very small population indeed. It was quite true that Caerphilly gave the name to a Petty Sessional division; but that, he thought, was the only title which it had to give a name to this Parliamentary division. The name "Eastern" would geographically and distinctly describe the division; and he was able to state that it was the unanimous, or almost the unanimous, wish of the county that this alteration should be made. At any rate, if it was not the unanimous wish of the county, he had heard nothing to the contrary. He would not detain the Committee by going any further into the question, but would simply move the Amendment he had read.
    Amendment proposed, in page 55, line 26, after "The," leave out "Caerphilly," and insert "Eastern."—(Sir Hussey Vivian.)
    Question proposed, "That 'Caerphilly' stand part of the Schedule."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he would not oppose the Amendment, if it was the general feeling of the Committee that it should be accepted; but, at the same time, he thought that some other Amendments standing on the Paper in the name of the hon. Baronet were of a very doubtful character. For instance, the hon. Baronet proposed to leave out the word "Gower," and to put in its place "Western," and that did not seem to him to be a very desirable alteration. Cower was an extremely well-known name in Wales.
    MR. BRYCEsaid, he would earnestly appeal to the Committee to retain the name "Gower."
    MR. WARTON: Not yet; we have not come to Gower yet.
    MR. BRYCEsaid, he knew very well what he was saying; he raised the question at this point for a purpose. He had no objection to the substitution of the name "Eastern" for "Caerphilly," if it was not to be taken as a precedent for the substitution of the name "Western" for "Gower." Gower was a name which he should conceive it a great pity to lose; it was a name of the utmost interest in the earlier history of Wales.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Question, "That the word' Eastern' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    SIR HUSSEY VIVIANsaid, he would now move the next Amendment standing in his name on the Paper—namely, after the word "The," in line 29, to leave out "Gower," and insert "Western." He knew the district in question as well as anyone alive, and he had not heard any expression from those who lived in it of a desire that the name "Gower" should be retained. On the other hand, he had presented a Petition to the House praying that the name should be omitted, and that "Western" should be inserted in its place. It was true that Gower was an ancient definition of a portion of Western Glamorganshire; but it had long ceased to occupy an important position in the county. The inhabitants of Gower proper were
    1672
    less than 4,000; whereas the division represented the whole of the populous valley of Swansea, and a large portion of a populous district adjacent to Carmarthenshire, Gower proper did not in reality represent more than a twelfth of the district, and he thought that the term "Western" would distinctly define the division, and that "Gower" would not. Whatever historical value the name "Gower" might have, he thought that in this Bill they ought to adopt such definitions as would distinctly describe the divisions of which they spoke; he knew of no other that would define this division except that he had suggested. He desired to press the name "Western" upon the attention of the Committee.
    Amendment proposed, in page 55, line 29, after "The," leave out "Gower" and insert"Western."—(Sir Hussey Vivian.)
    Question proposed, "That 'Gower' stand part of the Schedule."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he thought it would be better to retain the name in the Bill, although it did not exactly represent the whole of the district, as in the case of the Isle of Thanet. As a matter of fact, it only contained half the district; but "Gower" was a very important historical name, and he thought it right that the name should be preserved.
    MR. RAIKESsaid, that he had had an Amendment on the Paper for the purpose of proposing an alternative name; and he would put it to the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) whether it would not be a more prudent course to substitute this alternative name for the Amendment now before the Committee? He quite felt the force of the argument that "Gower" was only a small part of the division; but there was also a great deal to be said in regard to the interest attaching to this very ancient name; therefore, would it not be better that "Western or," should be put before "Gower?"
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I am not opposed to that.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. RAIKES: Then I propose to insert the words "Western or" as I have indicated.
    Amendment proposed, in page 55, line 29, after "The," insert "Western or."—(Mr Raikes.)
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    SIR HUSSEY VIVIANmoved, as an Amendment in line 1, page 56, to substitute "Mid" for the "Vale of Neath." He was of opinion that the Vale of Neath would not be an appropriate designation to attach to this division. The Vale of Neath was only a strip, about two miles wide, in the western part of the division. The division itself extended along the West Coast of Glamorganshire, and embraced a large and populous district, including the borough of Aberavon. He was of opinion that if they wanted a new name, "Aberavon" would be much better adapted to the district than the "Vale of Neath." It was known before the Commissioners went down that it was intended to move that the definition he now proposed should be adopted. He had received many communications in favour of that name, and not one against it; and he believed it was the general wish that it should be adopted.
    Amendment proposed in page 56, line 1, after "The," leave out "Vale of Neath," and insert "Mid."—(Sir Hussey Vivian.)
    Question, "That the words 'Vale of Neath' stand part of the Schedule," put, and negatived.
    Question, "That the word 'Mid' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    SIR HUSSEY VIVIANsaid, he would next move an Amendment, the object of which was to describe the fifth proposed division as the "South" instead of the "Llandaff Division." He said that Llandaff was undoubtedly a very ancient city, but it was a comparatively small place, and it was situated in the remote eastern corner of a division which would extend for something like 20 miles to the west. A large portion of Llandaff was already included in the borough of Cardiff, and the Eastern portion of the division was almost entirely composed of the southern boundary along the sea coast of Glamorganshire. He did not think that the word "Llandaff" at all appropriately described the division, nor would the word
    1674
    "Eastern;" and he, therefore, moved to substitute the word "Southern." His proposal would receive the support of everyone who was acquainted with the county of Glamorganshire.
    Amendment proposed, in page 56, line 6, after "The," leave out "Llandaff," and insert"Southern."—(Sir Hussey Vivian.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'Llandaff' stand part of the Schedule."
    MR. WARTONsaid, he wished to call attention to the curious way in which line 16 had been printed. By the insertion of a comma, the sense of the Schedule was altogether altered. As it appeared in the Bill the present division was to comprise various Sessional Divisions, the municipal borough of Cardiff, and certain parishes in the Sessional Division of Newcastle and Ogmore, and in the Sessional Division of Miskin, Lower, of Llantrissant. On the previous page, page 55, this Sessional Division was described as Miskin Lower, without the comma between the two words. He wished to know which was correct?
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that it was a printer's error, which would be rectified.
    MR. WARTONsaid, that it was admitted to be another printer's error added to the numerous other printer's errors which had been pointed out.
    SIR HUSSEY VIVIANsaid, that no doubt the insertion of the comma after the word Miskin was wrong.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Question, "That the word 'Southern' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    MR. RAIKESsaid, the Committee had now reached the county of Gloucester, and his next Amendment had reference to the first division of the county—namely, the proposed Stroud Division. Gloucestershire was a county which divided itself more easily into the geographical divisions—North, South, Mid, East, and West, than some others. He proposed, therefore, to constitute the Stroud Division the "Mid" Division, and he would therefore move in line 20 an Amendment to that effect.
    Amendment proposed in page 56, line 20, after "The," insert "Mid or."—(Mr. Raikes.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that he was prepared to accept the Amendment as carrying out the alternative plan.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, that he had an Amendment upon the Paper, to insert after "Stroud" the words "and Tetbury." He wished to know whether this was the proper time for moving that Amendment?
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that it would not come in here. The Committee had not yet reached the point at which it would be proper to insert the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman.
    MR. STANTONsaid, he hoped that, so far as Stroud was concerned, no alternative name would be given to the division.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that it was only proposed to describe the division as the "Mid or Stroud Division." It would still be a very short title, seeing that Mid was short and that Stroud was short also. That was a more important point than it seemed to be, because some of the names were extremely long, and they would have to be printed on every page of the register. Perhaps the difficulty would be got over by using either one word or the other, if a provision were inserted in the Bill to that effect; but as the Bill now stood the name of the division, however long, would have to be used.
    MR. STANTONsaid, it was with reluctance that he gave way to the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Charles W. Dilke); but he thought it very unnecessary, when they had such distinctive names as were proposed to be given to the Gloucestershire divisions, that they should adopt the points of the compass at all. The definition "Mid" in reference to Stroud was no doubt accurate, but unnecessary. But to call Tewkesbury Division "Northern" was wrong, for Cirencester was the most northerly; and to call Berkeley, which was to be part of Tewkesbury, "Northern" was contrary to geography and common sense.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    On the Motion of Sir CHARLES W. DILKE, the following Amendment made: —In page 56, line 22, after "Dursley," insert "except the parish of Slimbridge."
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, the Amendment to which he had now to
    1676
    ask the attention of the Committee for a few minutes was one of rather more importance than the mere insertion of a name, because it dealt with the area of the divisions formed by the Boundary Commissioners. He fully acknowledged the extreme difficulty of the task the Commissioners had been called upon to perform in setting out the different divisions of the county of Gloucester. The peculiar nature of the county made it extremely difficult to divide it into five parts. No doubt, the Commissioners had done their best to arrive at a fair decision in the scheme which they had produced at the local inquiry. But that scheme was based almost entirely upon Petty Sessional divisions, irrespective of natural boundaries, and of the pursuits of the population. One part of it was very strongly objected to on the ground of the difference of local pursuits between Stroud and Cirencester; and when the Commissioners came to revise their scheme by the light of other proposals made to them, they adopted the plan which now appeared in the Bill. He must, however, say, in regard to two of the divisions of the county, that the present Tewkesbury and Cirencester Divisions were laid out in a very inconvenient form, both in regard to shape and means of communication; and the Amendment which he had placed upon the Paper had been devised in order to render them somewhat less inconvenient than they were at present. In regard to one of the divisions—Cirencester—as defined by the Commissioners, it would be more than 50 miles long—a narrow strip of land shaped something like an old-fashioned purse, with two ends almost entirely cut off from the centre. Nor was there any communication whatever between the North and South of the division. As a matter of fact, when the inhabitants desired to have a general meeting, they had been obliged to hold it in some place outside the division, because there was no place of meeting within the division itself that was at all convenient for general access. The object of his Amendment was to make the Cirencester Division more convenient by taking away the Petty Sessional division of Tetbury on the extreme south of it, and adding it to another division to which anybody who looked at the county upon the map

    1677
    would see that it really belonged. Now, the second division, Tewkesbury, was also a long and narrow strip of something like 35 miles in length; and, as indicated on the plan of the Commissioners before that plan was amended by the right hon. Baronet, one part of it would have been absolutely cut off from the rest. It would still, however, be in one place only one and a-half miles broad. He proposed, by his second Amendment, to leave out two parishes proposed to be included in the Stroud Division—namely, Eastington and Frocester—in order to make the Tewkesbury Division of a somewhat better shape. Those parishes which were in the Sessional Division of Whitminster would then be included in the Tewkesbury Division, and would be excluded, as they were at present excluded, from the borough of Stroud. He did not propose to ask the Committee to divide upon this proposal. All that he was anxious to do was to point out the extreme inconvenience of the two divisions as proposed by the right hon. Baronet. He thought anybody would see how extremely inconvenient in shape the two divisions were; and what he hoped was, that the right hon. Baronet would consent to refer the matter to the Commissioners, in order that they might take it into further consideration, and, if they thought fit, agree to some Amendment to be proposed on the Report. He quite saw the difficulty of asking the Committee to deal with an Amendment of that kind against the opinion of the Commissioners; but as it was a local grievance which ought to be remedied, he thought the matter should be further considered, and if in the opinion of the Commissioners the grievance could be remedied, some change ought to be made in the present proposal. The proposal he had placed upon the Paper could hardly be said to have any Party bearing, because it was identical with that which was submitted to the Commissioners by those who represented the Liberals of Gloucestershire. There was a general feeling that the Commissioners should have accepted it, and have embodied it in their Report. It might be said that he was proposing to unite an agricultural district with Stroud, which was a manufacturing district; but the new district of Stroud would comprise an enormous area of agricultural coun-
    1678
    try precisely similar to that which he proposed to add to it. Therefore, the change would not involve any mingling of dissimilar populations in different parts of the county. The sole reason for regarding the parishes of Eastington and Frocester as a manufacturing district was that Eastington contained one woollen manufactory; but he did not think that that was sufficient to warrant a resistance to the plan he now proposed. If his scheme were accepted, the result would be to equalize the divisions of the county rather more than at present. According to the present form of the divisions the population varied from 59,000 to 48,000, and under his arrangement it would vary from 59,000 to 50,000. He had no wish to detain the Committee at any greater length; but he would ask the right hon. Baronet to consider what he had said, and see whether he could remedy the grievance by an appeal to the Commissioners. He begged to move the Amendment which stood in his name.
    Amendment proposed, in page 56. line 22, after "Stroud," insert "Tetbury."—(Sir Michael Hicks-Beach.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'Tetbury' be there inserted."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he should be very glad to meet the views of the right hon. Baronet, and make him the promise he asked for, if he thought he could do so honestly and fairly. The right hon. Gentleman had brought the matter in a very reasonable way before the Committee, and he should have been very anxious to meet the views of the right hon. Gentleman if he could; but he was afraid it would only be misleading the Committee if he were to comply with the proposal the right hon. Gentleman made, and were to refer the matter back again to the Commissioners. The fact was that this point, which had attracted the attention of the right hon. Baronet and of other Gentlemen, had already received very careful consideration at the hands of the Commissioners, and he knew that they were in favour of adhering to their scheme. There would, therefore, be no good result obtained by a further reference, unless it were to be in the form of a direction from the Committee to the Commissioners to give effect to a view that was different from their own.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he did not ask that that should be done.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he quite understood that that was not the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman; but he was afraid that if the matter were referred back to the Commissioners the Committee would only receive the same answer. He knew personally that the matter had been considered over and over again. It was felt that Tetbury was mainly agricultural, and that Stroud was mainly manufacturing, and that to take out the two parishes of Eastington and Frocester would not be a satisfactory arrangement of the two divisions. As a matter of fact, the Commissioners had framed this division strictly in accordance with their instructions. As the right hon. Baronet had stated, the original scheme was not exactly in the form it now assumed in the Bill, and he quite admitted the extreme irregularity of the division, so far as its shape was concerned. Nevertheless, all these points were brought before the Commissioners at their local inquiry; and the Commissioners, having regard to their instructions, felt that it was desirable to include in one division what might be considered the agricultural population, and the manufacturing population in the other. He believed that the arrangement devised by the Commissioners was, generally speaking, approved of everywhere except in Tetbury.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHpointed out that the proposal he now made was made at the local inquiry by the Liberal Representative of the county.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the Boundary Commissioners had given the proposal the most fair consideration, and they had come to the conclusion that Tetbury ought not to be included in the Stroud Division; that, in point of fact, it had a community of interests with the Cirencester Division; while, on the other hand, it had no community of interests at all with the Petty Sessional divisions and parishes proposed to be included in the Stroud Division. Under those circumstances, he did not think it would be necessary to refer the matter back again to the Commissioners, but that Tetbury should remain in the Cotswold District.
    MR. STANTONsaid, it was quite true that this proposal was discussed at
    1680
    the local inquiry at Gloucester. The gist of the Amendment was, that the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) wished to take out from the Cirencester Division the Petty Sessional Division of Tetbury, with a population of 5,500, and insert it in the Stroud Division, and to take away from the Stroud Division two parishes with a population of 1,800. The result would be that the Stroud Division would contain a population of 59,800, as against 56,000; while those of Cirencester and Tewkesbury would consist of 50,000, as against 55,500, and 51,200, as against 49,500. The Tewkesbury Division would, no doubt, be rendered more equal; but, although Tewkesbury had a smaller population than the other divisions, it contained within it the boroughs of Cheltenham and Gloucester; and, no doubt, in both of those boroughs there would be a large number of voters who would have qualifications outside their respective boroughs. Therefore, in all human probability, the influence of the Tewkesbury Division would be quite equal to that of any other division of the county. He should like to say one word to the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), who seemed to think that the pursuits of the population had not been duly regarded in the scheme of the Commissioners. He thought the right hon. Gentleman was mistaken. There was not the slightest doubt that the interests of Tetbury were purely agricultural; and, although it was quite true that no one division could be regarded as strictly so, yet in the district of Stroud generally the places included were principally concernedin manufacturing perations. That was not the case in regard to Tetbury, which was practically an agricultural district; and by including it in the Stroud Division, which contained an essentially manufacturing population, they would diminish the amount of aggregation which was considered desirable in connection with the pursuits of the population. He would also remind the right hon. Gentleman that the people of Cirencester attended before the Boundary Commissioners at their local inquiry, and were highly favourable to the inclusion of Tetbury in the Cirencester Division. Mr. Ellett, who represented the views of Cirencester and its neighbourhood, adverting to the inclusion of Tetbury, said

    1681
    that the residents of that part of the county were unanimous in their desire that the hill lines should be preserved, and that the entire population of the Cotswold District should form one distinct and an inseparable division, and that this desire could be complied with, in accordance with the Instructions which had been given to the Commissioners. He went on further to say that a more homogeneous district could not have been obtained, and that no one who was at all acquainted with the county would have thought of proposing any scheme which would have divided the hill district, and have taken Tetbury from it, in order to carry it elsewhere. Those remarks applied with the same force to Eastington parish, which contained a manufacturing population of 1,500, and which by its industrial pursuits and geographical position should be attached to the Stroud Division. As regarded the parish of Frocester, which the right hon. Gentleman proposed to take out of the Stroud Division, it was a very small agricultural parish with a population only of 271, situated between other parishes of the division, and through which the main road of their communication passed. It was not desirable, therefore, to disturb the divisions arranged by the Commissioners. The Commissioners throughout their inquiry had displayed the utmost impartiality; and after the attention they had devoted to the county divisions he really thought the Committee ought to be satisfied, and that they should accept their decision. It was quite true, as the right hon. Baronet had pointed out, that the distance of Tetbury from the extreme end of the division was very considerable; but it was essentially a hill district, and there was no communication except by roads. The roads were good, and the fact that there was no railway communication was due to the geographical formation of the county rather than to any other cause. He hoped the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet would not be pressed, but that he would consent to withdraw it. He (Mr. Stanton) was satisfied that, industriously, numerically, and geographically, the division proposed by the Commissioners would be the best and most satisfactory for the county which could possibly be devised.
    MR. J. R. YORKEsaid, he thought that, after what the right hon. Baronet
    1682
    the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had said, there was very little use in discussing the matter further; but any hon. Member who had any knowledge of the Eastern portion of the county of Gloucester would understand the extraordinary difficulties the people there would labour under in conducting the Parliamentary business in the division under the scheme of the Commissioners. There was no railway communication that would be of the smallest service in getting from one end of the division to the other. If a man started now to go from Tetbury to Stratford-on-Avon, he (Mr. Yorke) hardly knew how he would get there, unless he went round by Cirencester or Didcot. He would have to drive some 50 miles or so, and then continue the rest of his journey by a most circuitous route. He imagined that the Commissioners could not have been in the least aware of what the circumstances of the county were, or they would not have dismissed the matter with what appeared to him (Mr. Yorke) to be the somewhat superficial observation that there was no similarity of interests in the division between Stroud and Tetbury. They were both towns in the same county, and the pursuits conducted in Stroud were very much of the same character as those carried on in Tetbury, and one place was at a very short distance from the other. If Tetbury were added to the Stroud Division, a very considerable improvement would be effected as regarded the symmetry of the division as well as in that of Cirencester, which was at present of extraordinary length and shape. As, however, the right hon. Baronet was not disposed to give way to the wishes of the locality in the matter, there was no further use in discussing the question. At the same time, he believed that hereafter those who were interested in the matter would very much lament the refusal to make this alteration.
    MR. ACKERSsaid, he was inclined to think the right hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill was in favour of the alteration the right hon. Baronet the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) proposed to make; but he resisted it, because he felt himself bound by the opinion expressed by the Boundary Commissioners. In regard to the observations of the hon. Member for

    1683
    Stroud (Mr. Stanton) in reference to the population of the district, he did not think that was an important matter, because they would have in the county, as the hon. Member perfectly well knew, another division—namely, that of Thornbury—which would be identical with that of Stroud if this alteration were made. He was surprised at the assertion of the hon. Member that the Petty Sessional Division of Tetbury was a very hilly one, and therefore ought not to be included in the borough of Stroud.
    MR. STANTONsaid, he had spoken of the district of Stroud.
    MR. ACKERSsaid, he knew every part of the borough of Stroud, including that in which the hon. Member himself lived; and he would ask the hon. Member if it was not far more hilly than any portion of the Tetbury district? Then, again, the hon. Member said that this was purely an agricultural district. There were no cloth mills in the district of Tetbury at the present moment; but in a large portion of the Stroud district there were no cloth mills. There were parts of the borough of Stroud, five miles in extent, in which there was not a single cloth factory; and they were going to add to the borough of Stroud a district which would make more than six miles in which no manufacturing operations were carried on. Any hon. Member who would look at the map would see at once that Tetbury belonged to Stroud, and that it was altogether cut off from Cirencester, and that, therefore, there was good reason for asking the Government to reconsider the matter. The Cirencester Division, as at present proposed, was not only of enormous extent, but would be an exceedingly unworkable division, seeing that there was no real communication in it from one end to the other. It contained no place for a public meeting, and when it was considered necessary to hold a public meeting the people were obliged to go to Cheltenham, or to some other place outside the district. But Tetbury was within an easy walk of Stroud, and actually belonged to it. As the right hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill had consented to so much, he (Mr. Ackers) hoped the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider his decision upon this question, and be prepared to deal with it upon the merits of the case. He sincerely trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would not
    1684
    hold the Committee too strictly to the arrangement proposed by the Boundary Commissioners. It was not a Party question in any respect, seeing that the inclusion of Tetbury in the Stroud Division was supported by the Liberal Party at the inquiry at Gloucester, just as much as by the Conservatives.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he had never had any desire to ask the Committee to overrule the decision of the Boundary Commissioners. He had, therefore, no intention of pressing the Amendment to a division, and after the discussion which had taken place he would withdraw it.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHmoved, as an Amendment, to omit from the Stroud Division the parishes of Eastington and Frocester in the Sessional Division of Whitminster. This Amendment, he said, related to a point which the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke) might probably consider without reference to the larger question of the Petty Sessional district of Tetbury. The right hon. Baronet had refused to insert the Sessional Division of Tetbury in the Stroud Division, on the ground that it would involve the introduction of a community with entirely different interests. With the exception of one woollen manufactory, the two parishes comprising the district of Eastington and Frocester were purely agricultural. They had always been contained in the county of Gloucester; because, from their nature, they had never been considered to be manufacturing in their character, and, consequently, they were not included in the borough of Stroud when that borough was formed under the Reform Act of 1832. He asked the right hon. Baronet whether, looking to the physical character of the country in this district, and the fact that these places had never hitherto been included in Stroud, he would allow the Boundary Commissioners to re-open this point, and place these parishes in the Tewkesbury Division of the county of Gloucester? By so doing he would materially improve the proportionate population of the Tewkesbury Division. At present the population of that division was 48,000; but the addition of these two parishes would increase it to 51,250,

    1685
    while that of Stroud, instead of being 57,000, would be reduced to 54,345. By that means the population of the two divisions would be rendered more equal, and the parishes of Eastington and Frocester would be represented not only in accordance with the agricultural pursuits they followed, but in the division to which they properly belonged.
    Amendment proposed, in page 50, line 24, leave out "Eastington, Froces-ter."—(Sir Michael Hicks-Beach.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he had intended to cover this case in his reply to the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman opposite in moving the first Amendment. He had thought it convenient to take them together, although, perhaps, he was not strictly in order in adopting that course. As a matter of fact, the Boundary Commissioners had referred to this Amendment as well as to the former one, and he was bound to say, from the information he had received, that the case of the right hon. Baronet was not so strong upon this point as it was upon the other. Frocester was on the high road from one part of Stroud to the other—namely, between Stonehouse and Stroud, and he believed there were other parishes intervening which would also remain in the Stroud Division. The right hon. Baronet would probably be better acquainted with the fact than he was; but, at any rate, the Boundary Commissioners had a strong opinion upon the matter, and, therefore, he did not think it was desirable to ask them to reconsider their decision.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, that he would withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. RAIKESmoved an Amendment, the object of which was to describe the second division of the county of Gloucester as the "Northern or Tewkesbury Division."
    Amendment proposed, in page 56, line 26, after "The," insert "Northern or."—(Mr. Raikes.)
    Question, "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that, while not opposing the Amendment, he wished to point out that this division did not comprise the northernmost parts of the county, and, therefore, to call it "Northern" might be somewhat anomalous. He could not say that the points of the compass, considering the curious shaped divisions which were provided for this county, were altgether applicable. He, therefore, asked the right hon. Baronet (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) to consider whether it would be proper to apply the term "Northern" to the Tewkesbury Division.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, the right hon. Gentleman was quite right in saying that there was a part of the county of Gloucester which was north of this division; but there was not very much, he thought.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that was so. It was a very small portion.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he was anxious that the names of "Eastern" and "Western," which now applied to the two divisions of Gloucester, should still be retained; and, therefore, as it was impossible to call this division "Southern," the only alternative was to designate it "Northern." He hoped that at some future time the boundary would be rectified; but at present he approved of the Amendment.
    MR. J. R. YORKEthought the division ought to be named in accordance with the actual fact, and with due regard to the convenience of the population. He thought, also, that for the sake of simplicity in the issue of Writs, and in regard to the naming of Members by the Speaker, and other hon. Members, Tewkesbury would have been a better name without an alternative. He thought it would be difficult to find a more Northern Division of Gloucester than the fifth division.
    MR. RAIKESsaid, he thought his hon. Friend the Member for East Gloucestershire (Mr. Yorke) was labouring under a misapprehension. He did not propose to take away the name of Tewkesbury, but merely to give an alternative name, in accordance with the arrangement which had been generally adopted in regard to other counties. The hypothesis that there was a part of a district north of this division was true; but it extended into Worcestershire, and barely

    1687
    touched the county of Gloucester. Leaving that small portion out of this division, it included the whole of the northern part of Gloucestershire; and he did not know any case that was stronger for a name taken from one of the points of the compass. He therefore saw no necessity for departing from the rule which the Committee, in almost every case, had laid down for other counties up to the present moment. This was a new division in a somewhat irregular-shaped county. He quite appreciated the conciliatory manner in which he had been met upon the subject; but he could not see any difficulty in adopting the alternative name in this case, similar to that which had been adopted in other counties.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEremarked, that the Members for the county did not appear to agree among them-selves.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: As to the alternative?
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Yes, as to the alternative. He understood the hon. Member for East Gloucestershire (Mr. Yorke) to prefer "Tewkesbury" without "Northern."
    MR. STANTONsaid, that there were parts of the proposed division which were certainly not in the northern portion of the county of Gloucester.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he thought it would have been desirable, in the first instance, to have adhered to the points of the compass; but that proposition had not been adopted, and the names of places well known from their antiquity and associations had been, in many instances, retained. That was proposed to be done in this case; and it would, therefore, be impossible to secure anything like a symmetrical arrangement if, in one case, they were to retain the name of the borough, and in others were to adopt the plan of naming the divisions after the points of the compass. They had already adopted "Mid" in regard to the first division—namely, that of Stroud; and, although the whole of this division was not, strictly speaking, in the northern part of the county, it might be termed "the Northern or Tewkesbury Division." They came next to the Cirencester and Forest of Dean Divisions, both of which were well-known names. But he could not say the same with regard to the
    1688
    Thornbury Division, which was the fifth in the list.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEthought the best course would be to maintain the compass divisions. It was said that the Tewkesbury Division was more northerly; but as Berkeley was in the division it would be difficult to call it Northern. As to Thornbury, he believed that was the place where the Mayor of Bristol formerly did homage.
    MR. ACKERSsaid, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Charles W. Dilke) would accept what had been practically the rule of the Committee in regard to this Bill, and not altogether yield to the suggestion of his hon. Friend the Member for East Gloucestershire (Mr. Yorke). It must not be forgotten that the hon. Member, some years ago, represented the ancient borough of Tewkesbury; and it was quite natural, therefore, that he should cling to old associations, and should desire to preserve the name of that borough. But anyone who lived in the district would be aware that great dissatisfaction had been occasioned in consequence of the proposal to call this the Tewkesbury Division.
    MR. J. R. YORKEsaid, he thought his hon. Friend (Mr. Ackers) was mistaken. There was certainly nothing like general dissatisfaction.
    MR. ACKERSsaid, that might be so in regard to those who lived in the Tewkesbury District; but there were in the division the ancient City of Gloucester and the flourishing borough of Cheltenham, who would not consider themselves very much magnified by being absorbed in the name of Tewkesbury. In point of fact, there was a considerable part of the division in the northern portion of the county. He should be sorry to hear that there was any idea of giving up the name of "Western" for the Forest of Dean Division. That was a part of the county in which he was considerably interested; and he hoped the word "Northern" would be retained in the present case, and "Western" would be the alternative name for the Forest of Dean Division. If it were a question between "Northern" and "Tewkesbury," he might prefer Tewkesbury; but as it was only an alternative, and would give satisfaction to a large portion of the constituency, he hoped the word "Northern" would be accepted.
    MR. STANTONexpressed a hope that, for the sake of simplicity, the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) would not find it necessary to adopt either "Northern," "Eastern," or "Western," except as an alternative. He was, however, quite certain that the Forest of Dean, Tewkesbury, and Stroud would be perfectly well known without the cardinal points of the compass being attached to them.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he did not know upon what ground the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Stanton) spoke on behalf of the Forest of Dean, or of Tewkesbury, seeing that he had nothing to do with either of those places. It was almost absurd to talk of the town of Tewkesbury in competition with the other towns which had been attached to the Gloucester Division; but he did not see why the Western Division should not be adopted as an alternative name for the Forest of Dean, because it was really in that division now. The new division comprised a large tract of country altogether outside the Forest of Dean, and known by the name of West Gloucestershire. They were in precisely the same position as Glamorganshire. In that case, the Committee had decided that there should be the alternative name of "West Glamorganshire" or "Gower." He could not see why the name of "Northern" should not be applied to the Tewkesbury Division, seeing that Tewkesbury was only a very small town compared with Gloucester and Cheltenham, which were both now in the same division.
    MR. STANTONsaid, the observations he had made were founded upon what took place before the Boundary Commissioners, and the views which seemed to prevail there as to the names which were proposed to be given to the divisions. If the cardinal points of the compass were not introduced, there certainly would be more simplicity arrived at in the designation of the different divisions.
    MR. ACKERSsaid, that he was not present at the inquiry before the Boundary Commissioner; but he had heard all through the division since what the opinion of the people was, and he knew that there was a strong feeling in favour of the alternative name being accepted.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he thought the matter had now been suffi-
    1690
    ciently discussed, and that it ought to be brought to an end. He trusted that it would not be necessary to divide the Committee. He thought that, on the whole, the words "Northern or" might be accepted.
    Question put, and agreed to; words inserted accordingly.
    On the Motion of Sir CHARLES W. DILKE, the following Amendment made:—In page 56, line 32, after "Tewkesbury," insert, "and the parish of Slimbridge."
    MR.RAIKESmoved a further Amendment to describe the third division as the "Eastern or Cirencester Division."
    Amendment proposed, in page 56, line 33, after "The," insert "Eastern or."—(Mr. Raikes.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he had no objection to the Amendment.
    Question put, and agreed to; words inserted accordingly.
    MR. RAIKESsaid, he now came to the Forest of Dean Division, and he still ventured to hope that he might persuade the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Charles W. Dilke) to allow an alternative name in regard to that division. No doubt, it was an interesting and well-known locality; but the Forest of Dean did not constitute the whole of the division. The district included in the division at the present moment formed part of West Gloucestershire; and there was a great desire on the part of the sub-divided district to retain the name of the division which had hitherto been attached to it. This part of the county formed, at the present time, the greater part of the Western Division of Gloucestershire, the boundary being the River Severn. No doubt, there were cases like the New Forest where it might be desirable to keep up the name, because it was rather difficult to assign the division to any point of the compass. But, in this case, the division was altogether free from the objection which had been urged against the Tewkesbury Division. In the case of Tewkesbury, there was some force in the objection, because the Tewkesbury Division would ramble all over Gloucestershire, although there was

    1691
    probably a considerable part of it in the northern portion of the county. But in the case of the Forest of Dean it was purely and essentially western; and, as far as he (Mr. Raikes) could gather, there was no feeling in Gloucestershire against the name of "Western" being attached to it. He, therefore, hoped the right hon. Gentleman would accept the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed, in page 56, line 38, after "The," insert "Western or."—(Mr. Raikes.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he thought a strong argument had been raised against the insertion of the compass names on account of the confusion it might create between the existing divisions of a county and the new divisions. The argument now used was that the alteration ought to be made, because there was a similarity of name between the new division and an existing division. He congratulated his right hon. Friend (Mr. Raikes) on thus confirming the view which he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had originally expressed. As to the New Forest, which was proposed as the name of one of the new divisions of Hampshire, there was a great similarity between that case and the present. The New Forest, no more than the Forest of Dean, comprised the whole of the division; but each locality was very well known by the name it bore.
    LORD MORETONsaid, he opposed the Amendment on the ground that the voters themselves would prefer being included in the Forest of Dean Division rather than in the Western Division. The Forest proper did not certainly cover the whole of the division; but the bulk of the population were in the Forest.
    MR. ACKERSsaid, he supported the Amendment on behalf of himself and of his constituents. It was quite true that the noble Lord who had just spoken (Lord Moreton) was also one of the Representatives of the division; but he was more connected with the other side of the division, divided by the River Severn. On the other hand, he (Mr. Ackers) had his property in the Western Division, pure and simple—in the very division which it was now proposed to call either by the name of the Forest
    1692
    of Dean Division, or the Western or Forest of Dean Division. The larger portion of the division was not in the Forest of Dean. This was the case in the district in which he happened to live, so that he was perfectly satisfied as to what the opinion of the inhabitants of the district was. They were almost unanimously of opinion that this Amendment should be adopted; and he trusted that the right hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill would accept it.
    Question put, and negatived.
    On the Motion of Mr. RAIKES, the following Amendment made:—In page 57, line 1, after "The," insert "Southern or."
    On the Motion of Sir CHARLES W. DILKE, the following Amendment made:—In page 57, line 6, after "Hants," insert "exclusive of the Isle of Wight."
    MR. RAIKESsaid, the county of Hampshire, under the arrangement in the Bill, roughly speaking, consisted of two squares, the larger square, which was the object of the series of Amendments he proposed to move, being divided into North, South, East, and West Divisions, and the smaller square, forming a separate division—the Lymington Division—to which he should ask the Committee to give the alternative name of "New Forest Division." The particular Amendment which he had risen to move was that of inserting the words "Northern or" before "Basingstoke Division." Although he was aware that it might more accurately be called the "North-Eastern Division," yet, as it included the northernmost portion of the county, he considered that the most appropriate style would be that of "the Northern or," which he begged to move.
    Amendment proposed, in page 57, line 9, after "The," insert "Northern or."—(Mr. Raikes.)
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    SIR FREDERICK FITZ-WYGRAMsaid, that there was a strong feeling in favour of giving the name of "Alder-shot" as the alternative in the case of the first division of the county. Yet, although he thought the name not unsuitable, and had given Notice of an Amendment in the direction indicated,

    1693
    he believed the inhabitants of the Aldershot District would, on the whole, be satisfied with the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge which the Committee had just agreed to; and he should not, therefore, move the next Amendment on the Paper.
    On the Motion of Mr. RAIKES, the following Amendments made:—In page 57, line 13, after "The," insert "Western or;" and in line 21, after "The," insert "Eastern or."
    SIR FREDERICK FITZ-WYGRAM,in moving, as an Amendment, in page 57, to leave out lines 29 and 30, said, it was proposed by the present Bill to place the three south-eastern parishes of the Fareham Division, bordering on the sea, in the Mid Division of the county. Now, the case he had to lay before the Committee in support of his Amendment was a very simple one. The southern portion of the county was divided from the other divisions by a line of hills called the South Downs; the people living on the south side of these hills were engaged in commercial and seafaring pursuits; whereas those on the north side were people of an entirely different class, who were engaged in agricultural pursuits, and had no interest whatever in trade or commerce; and he might mention that there was a line of railway which ran entirely along the sea coast. The question had been treated by the Commissioners as purely a question of numbers, and under the arrangement in the Bill one division would contain 49,000, and the other 48,000 inhabitants. The number of inhabitants living in the parishes to which he referred was about 4,800; and, therefore, he admitted there would be a disparity if the proposal he made were carried out. But he gathered that the Commissioners were to look to community of interest rather than numbers. Now, the community of interest was very strong all along the south coast of the county. The towns of Fareham and Gosport were mere annexes of the great borough of Portsmouth; there was a direct community of interest and trade with them and the people living on the south side of the hills, whilst there was no connection with those living on the north side of the hills; and therefore he said that in the scheme of the Commissioners com-
    1694
    munity of interest should have been considered rather than the mere abstract principle of numbers. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had told him a few days ago, that if there were a general wish in its favour, and if he could obtain the consent of the representative bodies in the three parishes he would probably accede to the alteration he was now urging upon the Committee. He had obtained the consent of the vestries to the present proposal, all of whom wished that they might retain their connection with the Western Division in the future, as they had in the past. He believed that the only objection that could be raised was on the ground of numbers; but he ventured to hope that regard would be had to community of interest, and that it would not, in this instance, be overridden by the numerical difficulty.
    Amendment proposed, in page 57, leave out lines 29 and 30.—(Sir Frederick Fitz-Wygram.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he did not feel justified in accepting the Amendment. He admitted the truth of all the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir Frederick Fitz-Wygram) had said with regard to means of communication; indeed, the hon. and gallant Gentleman had made out a very strong case. But the Commissioners had distinctly considered this matter, and the population of the divisions, as proposed by the Bill, would be very nearly equal; whereas under the Amendment there would be a pretty considerable disparity, amounting to as many as 9,000 or 10,000 people. Looking to the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition (Sir Stafford Northcote) last night, in which he strongly impressed upon the Committee the importance of following the recommendations of the Commissioners generally, he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) felt bound to oppose the Amendment.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that in the absence of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition (Sir Stafford Northcote) he was bound to say he should have with great regret to oppose this Amendment on the grounds the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W.

    1695
    Dilke) had just put forward. The right hon. Baronet's, and, indeed, his (Sir R. Assheton Cross's) opinion was very-strong, that they ought—at this period, at all events, of the Bill—to maintain all that the Boundary Commissioners had put down. He should certainly support the right hon. Baronet in upholding the recommendations of the Boundary Commissioners in all these county matters. Although he felt the force of the observations made by his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir Frederick Fitz-Wygram) he should be bound, if a division were taken, to support the view of the Government.
    MR. WARTONsaid, that after the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) it might be well to ask a question of the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) in charge of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir B. Assheton Cross) said it was important that they should, at that stage of the Bill, at all events, support the recommendations of the Commissioners on this subject. What length of time would elapse between the Committee and the Report stage? Was it the intention of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Charles W. Dilke) to allow several days to transpire between Committee and Report? If it was the intention of the right hon. Baronet to allow several days to transpire between Committee and Report, and then to give his attention to a great number of matters, he might conciliate opposition, which otherwise would be raised now, and therefore facilitate the progress of the Bill.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he thought he would be more in Order if he reserved his statement of the intentions of the Government on the points raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Warton) until the concluding minutes of the Committee stage. He would try between Committee and Report to meet the views of the House generally as to the best time to fix for Report. He thought the general desire was to make rapid progress with the Bill, and, therefore, he should propose as short a time as was reasonable between Committee and Report; and, at the same time, a sufficient time to enable hon. Members to put down any Amendments they considered desirable.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    On the Motion of Mr. RAIKES, the following Amendment made:—In page 57, line 31, after "The," insert "Southern or."
    MR. HORACE DAVEYsaid, he had put down an Amendment, to insert after "The," on page 57, line 35, "New Forest or," so that the Lymington Division would read, "The New Forest or Lymington Division." He did not propose to move the Amendment in the exact form in which it appeared on the Paper unless his right hon. Friend (Sir Charles W. Dilke) preferred that form. Personally, he (Mr. Davey) should prefer to substitute the words "New Forest" for the word "Lymington."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he would accept the alteration in the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed, in page 57, line 36, to leave out the word "Lymington," and insert the words "New Forest."—(Mr. Horace Davey.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'Lymington' stand part of the Schedule."
    MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he understood that his right hon. Friend (Mr. Raikes) intended to propose the insertion of the words "New Forest or," after the word "Lymington."
    MR. RAIKESsaid, that the Amendment before the Committee was that of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Horace Davey), which came before his (Mr. Raikes's) Amendment.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Horace Davey) had moved his Amendment in an amended form.
    MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he was sorry he was not in the House when the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Horace Davey) rose. He (Mr. Sclater-Booth) understood that it was intended to give an alternative name to the division—that the division should be called the Lymington or New Forest Division. He did not understand why that course should not be followed.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The Question before the Committee is, "That the word 'Lymington' stand part of the Schedule."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that if the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sclater-

    1697
    Booth.) preferred that course, he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had no doubt his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Horace Davey) would move it in that form, which was his original proposal. The points of the compass had been adopted with regard to the rest of the county; but there was no exact analogy in this case.
    MR. HORACE DAVEYsaid, that his reason for moving the Amendment in the amended form was that the most appropriate name should be given to the division. In this case there was no need of keeping up the alternative name—indeed, it would be out of place, because Lymington was, in fact, part of the New Forest. This was the reason why he preferred New Forest to Lymington, taking the analogy of the Forest of Dean.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Question, "That the words 'New Forest' be there inserted," put, and agreed to; words inserted accordingly.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he had an Amendment to propose which he had not had an opportunity of placing on the Paper. It was to insert after the word "and," in line 43, page 57, the words "in the Sessional Division of." He pointed out that the words were adopted in the other divisions of the county; but that in the case of this division they did not find anything to identify the parishes of Chilworth and North Stoneham. It was only by going through a long process that they arrived at the idea that these parishes must be in the Sessional Divisions. There was an absolute necessity of preserving similarity of expression, and therefore he begged to move the insertion of the words he had read.
    Amendment proposed, in page 57, line 43, after the word "and," to insert the words "in the Sessional Division of."—(Mr. Warton.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he did not like to accept Amendments of this kind when they were not on the Paper, because they very frequently involved points one did not see. He therefore begged the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Warton) to place his Amendment on the Paper, so
    1698
    that he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) might have an ortunity of considering it before Report. He had no doubt that on Report he would be able to accept the Amendment, because he was inclined to think that the hon. and learned Gentleman was right on this point.
    MR. WARTONsaid, that there could be no mistake about the desirability of inserting the words. He had, however, no objection to put the Amendment down for Report; but he hoped that they would not have too short an interval allowed between Committee stage and Report.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that if the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Warton) would give him a note of one of the cases covered by Amendments such as this, he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) would undertake that the matter was considered in advance of Report.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman withdraw his Amendment?
    MR. WARTON: I will do so if I am pressed.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEpreferred that the hon. and learned Gentleman would adopt the course he had suggested.
    MR. WARTONsaid, that his Amendment was a very proper one, and therefore he should like to have it negatived.
    Question put, and negatived.
    MR. RANKINsaid, that in the unavoidable absence of the hon. Baronet the Member for Herefordshire (Sir Joseph Bailey), and at his special request, he (Mr. Rankin) rose to move the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Baronet, which was, in effect, to change the word "two" which stood in the Bill to the word "three," or, in other words, to allow the county of Hereford to retain its three Members. He thought it might be fairly said that the county of Hereford was rather hardly used by this Bill, because it was the only county, except Rutland, which lost a Member at all; and the number of Members for the county, including boroughs, would be by this Bill only half the number which now existed—namely, three, instead of six. The City of Hereford lost a Member, and the borough of Leominster lost a Member, and one Member was proposed to be

    1699
    taken from the county; therefore, he thought they might very fairly ask the Committee to reconsider the question as regarded the county. If they looked at the case of some of the other counties, they had a very strong case indeed. He found, for instance, the county of Rutland had only an area of 94,000 acres.
    MR. WARTONrose to Order. He submitted that under the very stringent words of the 9th clause of the Bill they could not raise the question of special representation.
    MR. RANKINsaid, that his Amendment was to the second line on page 58, where the words "two Members, two Divisions" appeared. The Amendment he had to move was that the word "two" be left out, and the word "three" inserted.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE,on the point of Order, submitted that the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) was wrong, and that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Rankin) was right. He apprehended there could be no doubt it was competent for the hon. Member to move the Amendment.
    MR. RANKINsaid, he was obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention, for he could hardly believe that he was out of Order in moving the Amendment.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, he thought the hon. Member (Mr. Rankin) was in Order in seeking to amend the Schedule by the substitution of one word for another; but, at the same time, the Amendment was in flat contradiction to one of the clauses of the Bill.
    MR. RANKIN: Do I understand, Mr. Chairman, you will allow me to proceed?
    THE CHAIRMAN: Yes; the hon. Member is in Order.
    MR. RANKINsaid, that when interrupted by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Warton) he was calling the attention of the Committee to the fact that there were several counties which had an undue representation compared with Hereford. The county of Rutland, for instance, had only 94,889 acres, and a population of 21,000; and Huntingdon, with 57,000 population, retained its two Members; whereas Herefordshire, with a population of 101,241 and an acreage of 519,000, was to be deprived of one of its Members. It
    1700
    might be said that the argument with regard to the acreage did not go for much; but he thought, when it was considered that the new voters in a great number of instances were persons who could not come great distances owing to their occupation, and that it would be necessary for Members to go greater distances to them, the argument of acreage did apply with some force. He also begged the Committee to observe that if the county of Huntingdon was allowed to retain its two Members, with a population of only 57,000, surely Hereford, with a population of 101,000, might be allowed to retain its three Members. He also begged to point out to the Committee that as there were 79 boroughs thrown into the counties, the purely agricultural interests would not be represented in the new Parliament as well as now, although there would be a greater number of county Members than at present. He thought, therefore, that a county which was purely agricultural, such as Hereford, should be favourably considered in this matter. The county might easily and naturally be divided into three instead of two divisions; and, of course, if the present Amendment were carried, a consequential Amendment would be submitted to this effect—there could be the Eastern, Northern, and Southern Divisions. The Eastern Division was one celebrated for its fruit growing, and they had the authority of the Prime Minister that fruit-growing and jam-making would form an important part of the agriculture of the future. The Northern Division was celebrated for its breed of cattle, and the Southern Division celebrated for its sheep and corn; it would, therefore, be seen that there might be three very simple and natural divisions of the county. If the Committee agreed to the retention by the county of its three Members, he would like it to remain exactly as at present—namely, a minority clause county with three Members, each elector having two votes. As he did not desire to take up any further time, he would merely add that the people of Hereford thought they had been rather hardly dealt with in this Bill, and he thought the adoption of this Amendment would only be a graceful concession to them. He begged to move the Amendment which stood on

    1701
    the Paper in the name of his hon. Friend (Sir Joseph Bailey).
    Amendment proposed, in page 58, line 2, to leave out the first word "two," and insert "three."—(Mr. Rankin.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'two' stand part of the Schedule."
    THE CHAIRMANdesired to point out that the 9th clause provided that the number of Members for the different localities should be those mentioned in the Schedule. Of course, it was competent for the hon. Member to amend the Schedule, and to alter the number of Members allowed to Hereford. In that respect, he (the Chairman) wished to modify the opinion he had expressed on the point of Order.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that this Amendment was like many others that had been proposed with regard to boroughs; and he thought county Members had shown great self-restraint in not making similar Motions with regard to counties. This Amendment was certainly not more defensible than those put forward with regard to boroughs. The low-scale counties were treated in the same way as boroughs; and the hon. Member (Mr. Rankin) had altogether omitted to tell the Committee what was the true position of the county of Hereford. The county was a little better off than the average at the present moment; not worse off, but better than some counties. It was by no means a hard case, like the cases of the Isle of Wight or Cardiganshire. [Mr. RANKIN: It loses half its Members.] The Isle of Wight lost its only borough Member, and Cardiganshire was treated in the same way; and, therefore, he could hardly agree that the case of Hereford was exceptionally hard. The population of the county amounted to 101,000; it was not an increasing, but rather a decreasing population. The average population per Member was between 50,000 and 51,000; but if the county had three Members, as proposed by the hon. Member, the population would only be between 33,000 and 34,000 per Member. The average population per Member throughout all England was 53,400, so that the county was considerably better off than the average; and he thought it would be impossible to rob a county
    1702
    which was in a worse position of a Member, in order to give an additional Representative to Hereford. This case could not stand by itself; if they gave three Members to Hereford, they would have to give other Members to other counties standing in a similar position. He must remind the Committee of the exact balance of the number of Members allotted to boroughs and counties by the Bill; if any seat were to be taken for this county it must be a county seat, and according to the agreement between the two Parties in the House, the seat would have to be obtained by taking a Member from one of the counties which had received an increase of Members. He thought the hon. Member would have great difficulty in persuading the Committee to do that.
    MR. BIDDULPHsaid, he felt bound, in justification of the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Rankin), to say that this question had caused the most lively interest in the county he (Mr. Biddulph) had the honour to represent; and, therefore, he felt his hon. Friend (Sir Joseph Bailey) was fully justified in putting the Amendment on the Paper. In Herefordshire it was felt to be very hard that they were to be deprived by this Bill of one-half of their representation. He was fully of opinion that the county was entitled to a third Representative, although he did not quite know where the additional Member was to come from; it was the business of the promoters of the Bill to settle that difficulty. He entirely agreed with his hon. Friend (Mr. Rankin) as to the desirability of maintaining the minority vote in the county. The minority vote system had worked remarkably well in Hereford; so far from its deadening political life, as had been stated by one Cabinet Minister, who evidently did not understand the question at all, it had stimulated the political life of the county to a very great degree. He (Mr. Biddulph) had no difficulty in supporting the Amendment.
    MR. WARTONsaid, the question had been asked where the additional Member was to come from. Now, he thought that one of the great defects of the Bill was that it had no principle, and the course pursued in the Bill with regard to this county fully proved it.
    MR. DUCKHAMsaid, the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Rankin) had

    1703
    quite represented the feeling that existed throughout Herefordshire on this question. At the recent Quarter Sessions there had been a very strong feeling expressed with regard to it. Hon. Members had been urged to use their best efforts to persuade the Committee to allow the county to be divided as proposed in the Amendment. He (Mr. Duckham) was very sorry that they had not to-night the attendance of their senior Member (Sir Joseph Bailey); and if the right hon. Baronet the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke) could see his way to carrying out the wishes of the county Members, he was sure the concession would be received with great pleasure by the inhabitants of both the County and City of Hereford. They all felt they were placed at considerable disadvantage by losing half their representation.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    On the Motion of Mr. RAIKES, the following Amendments made:—In page 58, line 4, after "The," insert "Northern or;" and in line 9, after "The," insert "Southern or."
    MR. DUCKHAMsaid, he rose to propose the Amendment of which he had given Notice—namely, that the word "Ross" be inserted after the word "The" in line 9 of page 58. The Committee had, however, agreed to the insertion of the words "Southern or," to follow the word "The;" and he now, therefore, proposed that the word "Ross" should follow the words "Southern or."
    THE CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member is in error in this matter.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: No; he is quite right.
    MR. DUCKHAMsaid, that if the Committee would look at the map of the county, they would see that Ross was almost at the southern extreme of the county. Ledbury, which was the name the Commissioners had decided to give the division, and for which he (Mr. Duckham) wished to substitute Ross, was in the eastern part of the district, almost at the extreme end of the division. If it was intended in the working of this Bill that the ballot boxes should be conveyed, after an election, to the town giving its name to the division, it
    1704
    would prove extremely awkward to take them to Ledbury. It would be much more awkward and much more expensive, at an election, to convey the ballot boxes in this division to Ledbury than to Ross. If they looked at the present population of these two towns, they would see that they were very similar; but they must bear in mind that the population of Ross was increasing, and that the population of Ledbury was not—in fact, that it had absolutely decreased during recent years. He thought, therefore, it would be a much better arrangement, and a great improvement in the Bill, to give to this division the name of Ross, instead of Ledbury. In the neighbourhood of the town of Ross a very strong feeling prevailed on the subject; a Petition had been presented by the Town Commissioners and the inhabitants of the district, in favour of the proposal he was now making. The town of Ross was very nearly in the centre of this great division. He thought the Committee would see the correctness of the view he had laid before them; and he was sure it would be in accordance with the general feeling of the district that his Amendment should be accepted.
    Amendment proposed, in page 58, line 9, after the word "or," to leave out "Ledbury," and insert "Ross,"—(Mr. Duckham,)—instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the word 'Ledbury' stand part of the Schedule."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he thought the chief objection to the name "Ross" was one that was less tenable than the objection he had taken previously—namely, the fact that there was another Ross in Scotland. In addition to that, the name "Ross" was familiar to them in connection with the fable of "the Man of Ross." Therefore, if Ledbury had no special claims on the Committee he should agree to the Amendment.
    MR. RANKINsaid, he hoped the Committee would accede to the Amendment. There could be no doubt that Ross was the more important town, and he believed now that the only name that could clash with that proposed was New Ross in Ireland, which was no longer a borough. Ross had three railway lines running into it, whereas Ledbury had only two; Ross was an increasing town,

    1705
    and Ledbury was not likely to do very much in that line.
    MR. BIDDULPHsaid, he did not intend to take part in this controversy; for the reason that he happened to know there had been a good deal of local jealousy excited with regard to these names; and, further, he hoped one day to represent this division in the House. His hon. Colleague (Mr. Duckham) had urged that if Ledbury were chosen for the name of the division, the ballot boxes would have to be taken a long way in some cases. That was not necessarily the case, because if the hon. Member would inform himself upon the subject, he would find that the authorities had power to fix whatever place they liked in the district for the opening of the ballot boxes. That argument, therefore, had nothing to do with the question before the Committee.
    MR. DUCKHAM: I said that if Ledbury were fixed upon as the place where the ballot boxes were to be opened great inconvenience would be felt.
    MR. ECROYDsaid, that as a newcomer in the county of Hereford, but as one feeling an interest in it, he should like to say that if there had been a proposal made to divide Hereford into East and West, they could not have proposed a better name for the Western Division than Ledbury; but as the proposal was to divide the county into North and South, he thought Ross was undoubtedly the right name for the Southern Division. Ross was an important town; and there was nothing very alarming to future candidates in the suggestion of the right hon. Baronet that the hon. Member representing the division would, if this title were adopted, be known as "The Man of Ross."
    Question put, and negatived.
    Question, "That 'Ross' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    MR. RAIKESsaid, that the next Amendment had reference to the county of Hertford, and it was in line 17 of page 58 to insert after the word "The," "Northern or." Those familiar with the map of Hertfordshire would see that it was of a polygonal shape; but that there was a large abutment upon an adjoining county to the Northern end which, under the scheme of the Commissioners, was in the Hitchin Division. The southern portion was divided into
    1706
    three nearly equal strips attached to Hertford, St. Albans, and Watford. He did not think there could be any objection to the adoption of the arrangement he proposed. The division in question was the largest of the four, and occupied a more northern position than any of them.
    Amendment proposed, in page 58, line 17, after "The," insert "Northern or."—(Mr. Raikes.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he had no objection to make to the proposed Amendment.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    MR. HALSEYsaid, that in line 8, page 59, he wished to move to leave out the word "Caddington" for the purpose of inserting it lower down, because the place was in two counties. The county boundary went right through the middle of the parish of Caddington; the village church was in one county and the rest of the parish in another.
    Amendment proposed, in page 59, line 8, leave out"Caddington."—(Mr. Halsey.)
    Question proposed, "That the word proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he had a map before him which did not agree with the statement the Committee had just heard from the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Halsey). His (Sir Charles W. Dilke's) impression was that the detached district in question had been conveyed to the county of Hertfordshire by statute. He would agree to the Amendment at present; but if he found that the hon. Member was wrong in his view the matter could be amended on Report.
    Question put, and negatived; word left out accordingly.
    On the Motion of Sir CHARLES W. DILKE, the following Amendment made:—In page 59, line 10, leave out "Whips wade" and insert "Whipsnade."
    MR. HALSEYsaid, he quite agreed with the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Charles W. Dilke) with regard to the last Amendment, as its object was simply to correct a mis-spelling; but he

    1707
    certainly could not agree to what had fallen from him with regard to the insertion of "Whipsnade" elsewhere, because the whole of the place was in the county of Bedford, and none of it in Hertfordshire. He (Mr. Halsey) was a magistrate of the district, and therefore thought that he ought to know the place pretty well. He thought that "Whipsnade" should be left out.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that, as a matter of fact, he believed that if an Amendment in the sense of the hon. Member's observations were adopted, the effect would be to take "Whipsnade" out of all the divisions.
    MR. HALSEYpaid, that the place had to do with Bedford—it had nothing whatever to do with Hertfordshire.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: That is not my view; I believe that "Whipsnade" parish is in the county of Hertfordshire.
    MR. HALSEY: No, no!
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, it was, therefore, a question of fact. As he had not the Ordnance Boundary Survey in his hand, perhaps the Committee would allow him to keep the name as he proposed; and then, if the hon. Member would confer with him, and proved him to be wrong, he should be glad to make any alteration necessary on Report. He had already been proved in the wrong by the hon. Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Hastings), and what had happened before might happen again. He was told that the detached portion of this place was in Hertfordshire, having been transferred there by Section 26 of 2 & 3 Will. IV., c. 64, and also by a Statute of Victoria.
    Amendment proposed, in page 59, line 10, leave out "Whipsnade," and insert "Caddington."—(Mr. Halsey.)
    Question, "That 'Whipsnade' stand part of the Schedule," put, and negatived.
    Question, "That 'Caddington' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    On the Motion of Mr. RAIKES, the following Amendment made:—In page 59, line 12, after "The," insert "Western or."
    MR. RAIKESsaid, that the next Amendment in his name had reference to the county of Huntingdon, which, as the Committee was aware, was to have
    1708
    only two divisions which stood entirely to the North and South. His Amendment, as it stood on the Paper, was to leave out "Huntingdon" in line 20, and insert "Southern." He was told, however, that there was a strong feeling in the district in favour of an alternative name as against a point-of-the-compass name; although it would be rather awkward to speak of the Member for this division as the Member for the Huntingdon Division of the county of Huntingdon. In deference to that public opinion, therefore, he should move his Amendment in the alternative form—namely, after the word "The," to insert the words "Southern or."
    Amendment proposed, in page 59, line 20, after the word "The," to insert the words "Southern or."(Mr. Raikes.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he should have been rather inclined to think that it would have been better to have taken the points of the compass absolutely in this matter. There were many counties which had boroughs of the same name as the county, and that would be in no way unique. There was some difficulty in finding a good name for this division of the county, and the right hon. Gentleman himself was suffering under the difficulty. Ramsey had been adopted as a name in the other division; but it was a very small place, and St. Ives might have been taken; but that had been given to a division of Cornwall. In this case one of the two names was not that of an important place, and the other was that of the county. He thought it would be best here to take an absolutely county division. He was, however, willing to abide by the general sense of the Committee in the matter.
    SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, that in the interests of his constituents, who had requested him to oppose the Amendment placed on the Paper by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Raikes), he wished to say that of course it made a great difference when the right hon. Gentleman proposed to call it the Southern or Huntingdon Division. In the Amendment brought forward the right hon. Gentleman had proposed originally to strikeout "Huntingdon" altogether, and that would have been a departure from

    1709
    the suggestion formerly made by those in charge of the Bill by the Letter of Instruction issued to the Boundary Commissioners under the authority of the Home Secretary. [Sir CHARLES W. DILKE: Hear, hear!] In those Instructions it was stated that merged boroughs should have the preference in giving their names to the division of the county in which they were situated. Surely Huntingdon was an illustrious borough, which was, at all events, deserving of some recognition. It was understood that, where boroughs were absolutely disfranchised, their names should, if possible, be retained as a compliment to their Parliamentary existence in the past. If the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Charles W. Dilke) agreed to the Amendment of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Raikes) he had not another word to say; but he had felt bound, in the interest of his constituents, who were much interested in this matter, to state that they were anxious that the original Instructions issued by the Home Secretary to the Boundary Commissioners should be adhered to.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) had not been present all through the Sitting, and was not aware that he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had said on some previous occasions that his own preference would have been for the scheme of the Bill. But considerable alterations had been made by the Committee, after strenuous resistance on his part. He had more than once been obliged to yield to the general sense of the Committee on the question of naming the divisions of counties. In the present case, as he had said, he would take whatever course the Committee thought best, and he was not at all inclined to waste much time over this matter.
    SIR ROBERT PEEL: I trust the right hon. Gentleman will adhere to "The Southern" or "Huntingdon Division."
    MR. RAIKES: That is what I propose.
    SIR ROBERT PEELsincerely trusted that the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Charles W. Dilke) would not endeavour to abolish Huntingdon altogether. The borough was to be disfranchised, therefore he (Sir Robert Peel) could have no further connection with it; but he did hope that in the interests of the people
    1710
    of Huntingdon the name would not be altogether abolished.
    MR. RAIKESsaid, that was what he was aiming at; he was endeavouring to preserve the name of Huntingdon as an alternative name in consideration of its ancient character. He would ask the Committee to adopt the alternative name.
    Question put, and agreed to; words inserted accordingly.
    On the Motion of Mr. RAIKES, the following Amendment made:—In page 59, line 23, after "The," insert "Northern or."
    MR. RAIKESsaid, that they now came to the county of Kent. This had a great number of divisions—namely, eight; and it would be very difficult to apply points-of-the-compass names to them; but he found a strong feeling in favour of this course being taken, and as it was possible to deal with the Isle of Thanet by not attaching it to any point of the compass, he had ventured to put his Amendments on the Paper dealing with the other seven divisions. His first Amendment had reference to the Western Division in line 30 of page 59. He proposed to insert, after the word "The," the words "Western or," which would mean "The Western or Sevenoaks Division." There was no doubt that that would be the most westerly part of Kent. He did not know whether the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) intended to accept these Kentish Amendments. If he did, it might be convenient that he (Mr. Raikes) should speak generally upon the question. The three Western Divisions of Kent were, Dartford, which he proposed to call North-West, and below it Sevenoaks, which he proposed to call West, and Tunbridge, below that again, which he proposed to call South-West. Then the Medway Division, which was entirely Mid Kent, he proposed to give that name to. Faversham fell to the North-East, Ashford to the South, and the St. Augustine's Division to the South-East. In passing he could not refrain from complimenting the right hon. Baronet on his assumption of a more than Papal prerogative, because he had canonzied St. Augustine. Augustine, he believed, as a matter of fact, never had been canonized by the Court of Rome; but it had been reserved for his right hon. Friend

    1711
    to bestow that honour upon him now with an electoral district. St. Augustine was not the Augustine who was the first Archbishop of Canterbury. He ventured to submit, as to the Sevenoaks Division, that the term "Western" might most appropriately be applied to it. He begged to move to insert the words "Western or" in page 59, line 30, after the word "The."
    Amendment proposed, in page 59, line 30, after "The," insert "Western or."—(Mr. Raikes.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he could only assure the right hon. Gentleman that, according to the best information he had been able to obtain, St. Augustine was a Petty Sessional and not a Governmental Saint. The Petty Sessional division that contained Canterbury itself had the alternative name of St. Augustine's. He disagreed with the last statement of the right hon. Gentleman, and would point out that the present case constituted one of the greatest difficulties in applying the points of the compass by way of nomenclature to so many divisions. He was willing, however, to abide by the general sense of the Committee on the subject.
    MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid, he was glad to hear that the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Charles W. Dilke) was prepared to accept the Amendment proposed by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Raikes); and, as one who had taken a great deal of trouble in the inquiry, he might be allowed to say a word or two. The name of this division was selected by the Boundary Commissioners after considerable discussion. It was the best name they could find, though, perhaps, not a good one. The towns in that division were situated on the outskirts, and one of the most important was the disfranchised borough of Sandwich, and the county was not willing to accept the name of a constituency which had been so unfortunate in its career. No doubt the proposal to retain the name of the Isle of Thanet would be most popular in the county.
    Question put, and agreed to; words inserted accordingly.
    On the Motion of Mr. Raikes, the following Amendments made:—In page 60, line 1, after "The," insert "North Western or;" in line 6, after "The," insert "South Western or;" in line 11, after "The," insert "Mid or;" in line 19, after "The," insert "South Eastern or;" in line 23, after "The," insert "South Eastern or;" and in line 30, after "The," insert "Eastern or."
    MR. RAIKESsaid, his next Amendment was on page 61, line 6, after the word "The," to leave out the words "North Lonsdale," in order to insert the word "Furness." He did not intend to divide the Committee on this and other Amendments unless he received some encouragement from the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill. North Londsdale was, no doubt, known to those who lived in those parts; but many were not aware that North Lonsdale formed part of Lancashire. However, he believed Lonsdale was a popular name in that and in another district called South Londsdale; and it appeared to him that if the name North Lonsdale were retained, the adjoining division ought to be called South Lonsdale, although in the Bill it was proposed to be called the Lancaster Division. Perhaps hon. Members would have made themselves aware of the fact that the district in which North Lonsdale was situate contained the very much more celebrated district of Furness. Everybody had heard of Furness—of Barrow-in-Furness, Broughton-in-Fur-ness, and Dalton-in-Furness—in that part of the peninsula of Lancashire which lay on the extreme north-west. Then there was the Furness Railway. In point of fact, Furness was probably as well-known as any part of Her Majesty's Dominions. True, it was not co-extensive with the proposed division; but no more was North Lonsdale. He had endeavoured to put his case before the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Charles W. Dilke), and he should be content with his decision; but he thought it rather absurd that the occasion should pass without a protest on behalf of a district more famous, and containing the great bulk of the population of the new division it was proposed to constitute. If the right hon. Gentleman thought the Commissioners had exercised a right

    1713
    judgment in adopting the name in the Bill, he would accept his decision; but, in the meantime, he would move his Amendment.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 61, line 6, after the word "The," to leave out the words "North Lonsdale," and insert the word"Furness."—(Mr. Raikes.)
    Question proposed, "That the words 'North Lonsdale' stand part of the Schedule."
    MR. HIBBERTsaid, he was glad to hear that the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Raikes) did not intend to divide the Committee on this Amendment; but he was sorry he had ever brought it forward, because there was no name which had been proposed for any county which had given more satisfaction to all the people interested than this name of North Lonsdale. In the first place, it bad been settled by a Committee of Conservatives and Liberals as being the proper name, and it had been received as a satisfactory name by all the people who lived in the district, and to change it to the name of Furness would not be acceptable. He had himself lived in North Lonsdale, but not in Furness; and to change it from the more celebrated name to that of Furness would be to give it the name of a district which did not include the bulk of the constituency. North Lonsdale also contained a small portion of South Lonsdale; but the great portion of the division would be composed of North Lonsdale, and as it was one of the well-known portions of the county of Lancaster he trusted it would be allowed to remain.
    COLONEL STANLEYobserved that, as representing the division of which North Lonsdale formed part, he wished to say there was only one feeling throughout the whole district, and that was in favour of the name of North Lonsdale. His right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Raikes) had proposed many Amendments and had met with great success, many of his proposals being accepted as real Amendments to the Bill. But in this case he thought his right hon. Friend stood almost alone; and it was hardly necessary, after what the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Hibbert) had said, for him (Colonel Stanley) to repeat that this question was gone into tho-
    1714
    roughly when the Commissioners visited the locality, where they found only one feeling expressed—namely, in favour of the name of North Lonsdale. It was true that this division took in a portion of South Lonsdale; but that was not considered objectionable, and the other district assumed its natural name of Lancaster, now a merged borough. He hoped the name of North Lonsdale would be retained.
    MR. ECROYDsaid, he was one of those Lancashire men who very much regretted the disappearance of the ancient names of the hundreds. The name Furness applied to the district north of the sands, and to apply to it the comparatively modern name of North Lonsdale was ridiculous. If Lonsdale meant anything, it meant the Valley of the Lune. He could therefore quite understand why the country above Kirkby Lonsdale should be called North Lonsdale, and the country below South Lonsdale. But why the country beyond the intervening Valley of the Kent should be called Lonsdale had always appeared to him incomprehensible. In consequence of this and of the disappearance of other ancient names coming down from a period considerably anterior to the Conquest, he very much regretted the proposed nomenclature.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he could not allow the observation of his hon. Friend behind him (Mr. Ecroyd) that the name North Lonsdale was not applicable to the proposed division. North Lonsdale was one of the old names, and marked the division between North and South, which were divided, as the hon. Member (Mr. Ecroyd) said, not by the Lune, but by the Valley of the Kent. It was one of the old hundreds of the county, and was perfectly well known. He therefore sincerely hoped, living as he did in the district, and knowing the unanimous feeling of the inhabitants on both sides in politics, that the name of North Lonsdale would be retained.
    Amendment negatived.
    MR. ECROYDmoved, in page 62, line 2, to leave out "Four Members—Four Divisions," and insert "Five Members—Five Divisions." It might, perhaps, save the time of the Committee if he were allowed, on this the first of a series of Amendments, to state the case

    1715
    generally, as all the other Amendments except one were consequential. It might seem somewhat presumptuous to raise an Amendment of such great importance as this upon the Schedule; but he believed this case to be unique, and he thought he should be able to show the Committee that whether Her Majesty's Government were able or not to afford a remedy, a great and grievous injustice had been done to North-East Lancashire in the allotment of representation. The division of North-East Lancashire was now represented by two Members, and he thought those hon. Gentlemen could not but sympathize with the step he was now taking. This division would now, under the arrangements which had been made of territory and population, contain about 259,176 inhabitants, according to the Census of 1881. The first grievance which he had to allege was that since the division of this region into four constituencies, and the allotment of four Members, no fewer than 12,751 inhabitants had been added; 9,743 in that portion of the borough of Bacup which hitherto had been in South-East Lancashire, and 3,008 by the recommendation of the Commissioners—a recommendation which was approved by the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Charles W. Dilke)—not to include the ecclesiastical district of St. Leonard's, Walton-le-Dale, in Preston, as at first suggested. The reasons against that inclusion did not need to be here repeated. It was quite enough to say that both political Parties in Preston and St. Leonards, Walton-le-Dale, entirely objected to the inclusion of this rural district within the borough of Preston. In comparing the representation of North-East Lancashire with other county divisions of a similar character, he would leave out of the reckoning altogether those rural county divisions which had, under this Bill, lost some share of their representation, or which on account of their sparse population had been thought to be entitled to special consideration. But comparing it only with other county divisions of similar character in regard to size and population, and containing both urban and rural populations, his task was easy. There was no Party motive whatever in the Motion he had to make; it was founded only on common justice and on the great importance of adopting some more conve-
    1716
    nient arrangement of the constituencies than that which had been forced on the Commissioners by the limitation of the representation of this district to four Members, when on every principle of justice it was entitled to five. He did not ask that any remedy should be given at the expense of surrounding districts, nor did he desire that any of their population should be taken away and given to other county divisions, for the sufficient reason that all those county divisions had been very fairly and reasonably treated in the Bill, and none of them were over-represented. What he complained of was that 259,000 inhabitants in North-East Lancashire had been allotted four Members; whilst Worcestershire, for instance, with 245,000 inhabitants—that was 14,000 fewer—had been allotted five. He could give several other instances of county divisions, none of which could be considered to be over-represented, but in all of which, if one Member was taken away, the representation would still be more liberal than that allotted to North-East Lancashire. Take, for example, the county of Chester. If one Member were taken away, each Member would then represent 62,137 inhabitants; whereas in North-East Lancashire each Member would represent 64,794 inhabitants. If a Member were taken away from Cornwall, each Member would still represent 2,000 inhabitants fewer than in North-East Lancashire. In Derbyshire, South-East Lancashire, Leicestershire, Staffordshire, Warwickshire, the Eastern Division of the West Riding, and Glamorganshire, it would be the same. In every one of these, all of them combining urban and rural districts, if one Member fewer were given, they would still be more liberally represented than North-East Lancashire. But he would not rest there. Let them look at this matter from the other point of view. If North-East Lancashire had five Members allotted to it, each Member would still have to represent about 3,000 more inhabitants than the Members for Cumberland, or the four Members for North amptonshire, or the four Members for Nottinghamshire; and these could not be regarded as counties which had been too liberally treated in the present Bill. So that, whichever way they made the comparison, North-East Lancashire was invidiously and unjustly treated, and

    1717
    that was precisely the complaint he made. There were 12 or 15 counties of a similar class and of average magnitude; and instead of arranging that that which contained the largest population should have five Members, they had selected others having a smaller population to have five, and had alloted only four to North-East Lancashire, the most populous of the group. He complained that the principles laid down and embodied in the Instructions to the Commissioners had not been followed in the case of North-East Lancashire; and he wished to hear some solid reason alleged for their having been treated in a manner so remarkable. He did not wish to refer to the special case of the county of Warwick, and the fusion of Warwick and Leamington; but if Accrington had been treated in the same manner as Leamington, and abstracted from the county and created a Parliamentary borough, with as large a population as that of Barrow-in-Furness, there would still have remained in North-East Lancashire more than 212,000 inhabitants, which if represented by four Members would give 53,019 for representation by each Member, after the abstraction of that large and important town, which, as he believed, was entitled to become a Parliamentary borough. The case would not be so bad if there were anything in the borough representation of North-East Lancashire to give them consolation. But the borough Members in that division would each represent more than the average number of inhabitants. That, therefore, rather added to the grievance than diminished it. The case was very different in some of the other instances he had named. In the case of Cumberland, besides a very superior county representation, the two boroughs of Carlisle and Whitehaven, containing 36,000 and 10,000 inhabitants respectively, were considerably over-represented. North-East Lancashire, therefore, in whatever aspect they looked at it, was grievously under-represented. Again, looking at the matter on the ground of prescription—and the Prime Minister attached considerable importance to the consideration of prescription—they lost the ancient borough of Clitheroe for the want of a few hundred inhabitants. That was one of the most ancient boroughs in the Kingdom, in
    1718
    the centre of an extensive rural and pastoral district; and yet for its extinction they received no consideration whatever, and the county in which that borough was merged was allotted the most meagre and inadequate representation. Again, he thought that where an arrangement was made which gave so serious an under-representation to a large and populous division, the grievance was greater when it could be shown that it was perhaps the most rapidly-growing division outside the Metropolitan district. He would give an instance from his own immediate neighbourhood, in which he had lived all his life, and with which he was intimately acquainted. He had ascertained from the Clerk of the Burnley Union and other officials connected with the Local Government Boards of the two principal urban centres of the Clitheroe Division that those two Local Government districts, which in 1881 contained 21,000 inhabitants, had increased by 5,410 during four years, or 25 per cent since the last Census, on the assumption that there was an average of five inhabitants to each house. Now, another consideration might fairly be brought into play with regard to this matter. Here was a population, growing not so much in consequence of the general growth of the trade in which it was engaged, as in consequence of its exceptional energy and industrial capacity; and there were some features in connection with that growth in every respect remarkable. He supposed there was no district in the Kingdom where employment was more steady and secure, and to which large numbers had been attracted from other districts, with the result of so great and permanent an improvement of this condition, as in the case of North-East Lancashire. He believed that no labouring population in the Kingdom was so well and substantially housed, and none more efficiently educated. Therefore, in whatever way they regarded this vast and increasing population, it was entitled to its full share of representation in that House under the present re-arrangement. Now, the population at that moment in these four divisions was undoubtedly more than 280,000, and probably more that290,000. The population of the great borough of Burnley, which was almost in the centre of this division, although only represented by one Member,

    1719
    amounted at that moment to considerably over 70,000. It was not his business to say where the additional Member demanded was to come from. He only pointed out that the Government, which had had to consider the case of 10 or 15 county divisions of similar magnitude and character, had treated them in the exceptional manner he had just described. Therefore, he said it was for the Government to remedy the injustice that was being done to them, although he wished it to be understood that they did not wish it remedied at the expense of their neighbours. They said that one Member ought in common justice to be added to the number which the Government proposed to give them; and that the arrangement arrived at between the two Parties ought not to be the cause of a gross and indefensible injustice being done in an individual case of this kind. He now passed to the consideration of the great inconvenience resulting from the arrangement of divisions which this inadequate representation had rendered inevitable. Burnley contained 70,000 inhabitants. In the Clitheroe Division, in which his interest lay, and in which he resided, the arrangement was as inconvenient and distasteful as it could be made. The populous Calder Valley on the East was linked in one division with the wide pastoral area round Clitheroe on the West, the two being separated by the mountain range of Pendle, nearly 2,000 feet high, and having no railway communication without making a long and circuitous journey round by Blackburn. The representation of the inconveniences which this arrangement would entail was entirely lost upon the Commissioners, whose only answer was that they had no power to alter either the number of Members or the number of divisions. He regretted to have been obliged to occupy so much of the time of the Committee; but he was obliged to state the case fully, because there was, he felt satisfied, none parallel to it in all the counties of England and Wales. The only case which could at all compare with it were the very exceptional one of the Isle of Wight, and that of the County of Bedford. In the latter, however, the excess of borough representation fully compensated the defect of county representation—the average of the borough and county together being,
    1720
    he believed, one Member to only 49,000; while the average representation of each borough and county division in North-East Lancashire was one Member to 61,000, although an enormous increase of population had since 1881 taken place in this most important district. Finally, he believed that he had shown that this claim was in every respect and from every point of view founded on justice; and he had only to express an earnest hope that no arrangement between the two Parties in that House would prevent a remedy being found for the wrong that would otherwise be done.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 62, line 2, to leave out the words "Four Members—Four Divisions," and insert the words "Five Memhers—Five Divisions."—(Mr. Ecroyd.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that the hon. Gentleman had placed this case in a very excellent manner before the Committee. The hon. Member had shown that there had been a very large accession of population in the case of the North-East Division of the county. Even if the hon. Member's proposal were agreed to, there would remain the question as to whence the additional Member was to come. The Clitheroe and Accrington Divisions were not above the average divisions of Lancashire; but one of the four divisions of North-East Lancashire was very large indeed. The ratio of representation in North-East Lancashire was under the arrangement proposed in the Bill—one in 54,000; and if the hon. Member's proposal were agreed to, and there were five Members allotted to it instead of four, the ratio would be one in 51,000. But there were divisions in various parts of the country considerably larger than the division in question; for instance, there were two divisions in Kent larger, and one in Surrey. Supposing they were to give another Member to this division, where was such Member to be found? In looking through the county scale he found that the county most favoured by that scale was Wiltshire; and, accordingly, he had considered this question as between the two counties. No doubt, the latter

    1721
    county, before the framing of this Bill, had been the most over-represented county in the Kingdom; but it had been very severely dealt with in this measure. Looking at the fact that the grievance complained of was concentrated in the one division of Rossendale, a compact Petty Sessional division which did not wish to be intersected, and looking at the fact that although it was a large county division it was not so large as many borough divisions, he thought it would be preferable to maintain the Bill as it stood.
    SIR E. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, his hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Ecroyd) had said everything that could be said in behalf of the division of North-East Lancashire. His hon. Friend had urged that the division was treated with great hardship; but, on the other hand, the right hon. Baronet had pointed out that the real hardship was in respect of one division, and that all the others were satisfied. Then, with regard to the additional Member, the right hon. Baronet had said that if they took that Member from any county they must look to Wiltshire. But he would point out that that was entering upon a wide sphere, and that if the discussion were to be continued in that direction the whole question of the representation of counties would be re-opened. Representations had been made to him on this subject; and if the right hon. Baronet were to give way upon the point he would find a number of applications would come upon him from other directions which it would be quite impossible for him to meet. It was stated that the increase of population in this division of the county was due to the influx of people which took place from Bacup; and then, again, it was said that it was due to the fact that a district had been included which had no right to be included. It was evident, therefore, that there was some mistake about the matter, and accordingly he would not pursue that part of the subject. With regard to the present population, however, he could give an instance in which there had been a much greater increase of population than in the present case, and where more representation was wanted—namely, the borough of Bootle, in which the population had almost doubled since the last Census, a fact that was sufficient to show how necessary it was
    1722
    not rashly to interfere with the scheme of the Bill. He was convinced that if the right hon. Baronet gave way on this point such a flood of Amendments would be brought forward on the Report that it would be impossible to get through them in any reasonable time. The inhabitants in the North-East Division of Lancashire would be perfectly satisfied with the way in which his hon. Friend had placed their case before the Committee and the Government. His hon. Friend had undoubtedly shown that a grievance had existed; but he (Sir R. Assheton Cross) thought he had shown how difficult it would be to remedy that grievance. He would remind his hon. Friend that they wore passing this Bill under a certain amount of difficulty, because there had been an agreement entered into with respect to its passage through the House; were it not so, he should, of course, have had more to say than he thought it desirable to say under the circumstances.
    MR. ECROYDsaid, that both right hon. Gentlemen laboured under a great misapprehension. It was true that the grievance of excessive population was confined to the district of Rossendale; but it was also true that the grievance of inconvenient arrangement was concentrated in the Northern Division of Clitheroe. Both those grievances resulted from the inadequate representation which had been given to North-East Lancashire as a whole. He felt, under the circumstances, that it was his duty to take a division on his Amendment.
    MR. TOMLINSONsaid, he rose to support his hon. Friend in his endeavour to deal with the insufficient representation given to the North-East Division of Lancashire. It appeared to him that the answer given to the proposal was no answer at all. Right hon. Gentlemen had simply concentrated their minds upon one part of the case; and, having admitted that that constituted an exceptional hardship, they left the other part of the complaint out of sight altogether. The right hon. Gentleman had pointed to the South-East Division of Lancashire as being also inadequately represented; but his hon. Friend had shown that the North-East Division suffered, in addition, from inconvenient arrangement. He (Mr. Tomlinson) could not avoid the conclusion that the whole scheme provided an

    1723
    inadequate representation of the whole county. The right hon. Baronet then asked where the additional Member was to come from, and suggested Wiltshire as the only county to which he could look. But it seemed to him that there was a much easier way out of the difficulty; and he would suggest that the extra Member to which Wolverhampton was not entitled should be given to North-East Lancashire.
    MR. GORSTsaid, he considered the Committee were indebted to the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Ecroyd) for having brought forward this question, because it was clear that the Bill could not be regarded as final in view of the circumstances to which their attention had been called. It was evident that the hardship suffered by North-East Lancashire from inadequate representation, seeing that the population was rapidly growing, would become every year more intolerable. It was said that the additional representation could not be given after the decision arrived at by the Commissioners. But he would point out that the hon. Gentleman was not making any appeal against the decision of the Commissioners, which was not called in question, but against the plan of the Government, and not even that, because the original plan was not to make the division so large as it was now. His hon. Friend had said fairly that the grievance brought forward had been caused by the influx of population from the borough of Bacup, and by the original intentions of the Government not having been carried out. This was an important question; for here was the case of an anomaly being created since the Bill was originally favoured by the Government; and this was an appeal by the hon. Member to redress a wrong which had come about not by any fault of the Commissioners, but owing to a change which had been forced upon them by the Government. While he had always supported the proposal of the Government, and while he should be very sorry to do anything which would in any way throw the Bill again on the House, he was bound to say that he regretted extremely that the right hon. Baronet could not see a way in which to remove the anomaly that had been created, and which every year must become greater. There was also one point referred to by
    1724
    the hon. Member for Preston which required an answer—namely, that where there was inadequate representation of any county it ought to be redressed at the expense of the boroughs which had more extensive representation. But in North-East Lancashire the boroughs had a right to complain of insufficient representation—the boroughs of Burnley and Blackburn, for instance. The population of Blackburn was one which at the very least required two Members; and it could not be said that the borough population of North-East Lancashire was at all over-represented. Therefore the Committee had before them a case in which the county was under-represented, and the boroughs which it contained adequately represented. Finally, he hoped that a remedy would be applied to the condition of things proposed to be created by the Bill in respect of North-East Lancashire, because he was convinced that no case could be produced in which there was a greater anomaly.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman had spoken of this as an extreme case of under-representation as compared with the country generally; but he would remark that language of that kind was in the nature of exaggeration, because there were many stronger cases than that of Rossendale. The Isle of Wight, for instance, was a county in which the population was rapidly increasing, and it had one Member to 73,560 inhabitants. Cardigan was also worse off than Rossendale. The same, again, in the case of the county of Clare, where there was one Member for every 71,000 persons; and turning to Scotland, the counties of Stirling and Mid Lothian had one Member to 78,000 and 79,000 inhabitants respectively, and the population there was very rapidly iucreasing.
    MR. LEAKEsaid, he thought the case of Rossendale was not so very bad— there were much grosser cases in South-East Lancashire which ought to be very differently dealt with if the same proportion of representation which the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Ecroyd) claimed for North-East Lancashire were to be allowed. If the hon. Member rested his case upon the fact that the boroughs were under-represented, the case for South-East Lancashire was three times stronger. There were in South-East Lancashire six borough constituencies

    1725
    in each of which one Member would represent a population of more than 68,000, and there would be two Members representing more than 80,000 each. There was no class of the people more deserving of consideration and representation than the householders of North-East Lancashire; but in comparison with other parts of the county they were not unfairly treated in the Bill.
    Amendment negatived.
    MR. ECROYDproposed to correct a mis-spelt word in the Schedule, and moved to substitute "Leagram" for "Leagrin" in line 11, page 62.
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. A. F. EGERTONmoved an Amendment to insert in page 63, line 9, after "The," the words "Farnworth cum." As the Schedule stood at present, it was proposed to give to this division the name of Radcliffe; but his proposal was that it should also bear the name of the town of Farnworth. This was one of the divisions of South-East Lancashire, and it was one of a very peculiar character. Radcliffe was an important town, and so was Farnworth. They were both headquarters of the cotton manufacturing industry, and important places in their way. He believed the Boundary Commissioners, in naming the division, might have given it the name of Radcliffe from a remembrance of the fact that Radcliffe was mentioned in the Domesday Book; but perhaps they had not been informed that the Manor of Farnworth was created by Charter in the Reign of King John, so that it had a long antiquity as well as Radcliffe. The two centres were quite apart from each other; and Farnworth would be greatly gratified if the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill could see his way to join the name of Farnworth with that of Radcliffe. If he wanted a precedent for such a double name, he would find one in Ireland, where one of the county divisions had been called "Bandon and Kinsale."
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 63, line 9, after the word "The," to insert the words "Farnworth cum."—(Mr. A. F. Egerton.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the Committee were now dealing with a part
    1726
    of the Bill which related to England; and he thought there was only one exception in the Bill—an exception in the case of Ireland—where a double name had been given to a division. Under those circumstances, he would like the Committee to consider whether the proposed change should be made. If any change should be made at all in the direction proposed, no doubt this would be a good case, because here were two places which were very fairly equal. The actual town of Farnworth was rather larger than the town of Radcliffe; but the district which was known as Farnworth district was not quite so large as the Radcliffe district. Still the two places were very fairly equal; and if the Committee wished to insert double names, this was a very fair case for it. But it was a very doubtful matter in his mind whether it would be wise to make the alteration. There were, practically, no double names at present, and if they once began giving them a good many local jealousies in other places which had now died away might at once be revived.
    MR. AGNEWsaid, he had placed an Amendment on the Paper to change the name to "Radcliffe cum Farnworth;" but he was quite prepared to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. A. F. Egerton) if the Committee should think fit. There could be no doubt whatever that in South-East Lancashire Farnworth occupied a very prominent position as a manufacturing centre; and the Committee might learn, not without interest perhaps, that when the Commissioners sat in the Assize Court in Manchester, and the naming of these districts was under consideration, there was a general feeling that this particular division should be called either "Radcliffe cum Farnworth" or "Farnworth cum Radcliffe." If the Committee should accept the Amendment of his hon. Friend, he (Mr. Agnew) would, of course, be very glad to withdraw his own; but if the Committee declined to accept that Amendment, he should be bound to press his own. He thought the people interested would be perfectly satisfied if the two names were incorporated in the designation of the division.
    MR. THOROLD ROGERSwould rather like to know how long the Committee were to be delayed by these ridi-

    1727
    culous questions? It seemed to him that every sensible man in the Committee would come to the conclusion which Gallio came to—"If it be a question of names or of your law, I will have none of it." It really was a pity that their time should be wasted in discussions upon pseudo-antiquities which were ludicrously irrelative and absolutely pitiable. He hoped the Committee would, in an emphatic way, negative all this heap of rubbish.
    COLONEL NOLANsaid, he would not detain the Committee by remarks upon the two particular places concerned in this Amendment, or upon the advisability of adopting two names for a division as a general rule. But in his own constituency (Galway) there had been a great jealousy between two towns as to which of them it should be named after; and he would suggest, if the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Thorold Rogers) was right about these discussions being a great waste of time, that there was a very simple way of getting rid of all this bother about naming the districts—they should allow the Members for the constituencies to give the names. He would not, of course, allow them to interfere with the boundaries—that was a national question—but he thought they might fairly be trusted to give the names.
    MR. LEAKEsaid, this was not so insignificant a question as the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Thorold Rogers) seemed to imagine. When they put into one Parliamentary division two such equal political entities as these two, it might easily be imagined what would be the feelings of Farnworth or Radcliffe if the name of the one place was given and the name of the other was not. He admitted, with his right hon. Friend who had charge of the Bill (Sir Charles W. Dilke), that it was not desirable to multiply these cases of double naming; but he maintained that each particular case should be judged on its own merits. It was in consequence of the necessity for subdividing South-East Lancashire into so many constituencies that these two very important and equal towns were united as they had never been united before; and, inasmuch as each of them had a fair claim to name the division, it was felt to be a matter of considerable consequence to both—and who should judge
    1728
    between them? Who were the best judges? The Boundary Commissioners, or the House, or those who lived on the spot? He claimed from the Committee a lenient consideration for a union of the two names in designating this division, which was advocated by both Parties, and which was necessary for its identification. If it should be conceded, he could not imagine that it would lead to conferring a similar distinction in other cases unless equally worthy of such treatment.
    MR. WHITWORTHsaid, he knew both places very well, and he could say with confidence that the name of Farnworth ought to be given to the division. He hoped the Committee would agree to the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. LYULPH STANLEYmoved, in page 63, line 29, after "the," to leave out "Prestwich." and insert "Fails-worth." He thought that Failsworth was a far more proper place to give its name to the division than was Prestwich; and Failsworth was, in the first instance, selected by the Commissioners to give the name, only when they came back to London they received private communications from the Local Board of Prestwich which induced them to alter their minds. Failsworth was the larger place, and the more central. It was the better fitted for railway communication. On the other hand, Prestwich was the seat of the County Lunatic Asylum, and no less than 2,000 of the people of the district were, unfortunately, inmates of that Institution. If Prestwich returned a Member to that House there would be very serious doubts as to his sanity. He hoped the Government would give a favourable consideration to this Amendment, and thus endeavour to meet the wishes of the saner portion of the constituency; but if not he would not trouble the Committee to divide.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 63, line 29, after the word "the," to leave out "Prestwich," and insert the word "Failsworth."—(Mr. Lyulph Stanley.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'Prestwich' stand part of the Schedule."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he thought he must concede the Amendment—["No, no!"]—as there was no

    1729
    very strong reason for preferring Prestwich, and population was the only argument he had to go upon. Prestwich was the old name, no doubt, but Fails-worth was, perhaps, a better name for the future.
    MR. AGNEWsaid, he thought this was a case on all fours with the one just decided—the case of Farnworth and Radcliffe. It would be very unfair to the people of Prestwich, who had been living of late under the expectation that they would give their name to the division, if they were to have this cold douche thrown on them now. If the President of the Local Government Board meant the district to have the name of Failsworth, he should at least extend his grace so as to permit the division to be called Failsworth-cum-Prestwich or Prestwich-cum-Fails-worth.
    SIR E. ASSHETON CROSShoped the old name of Prestwich would be retained.
    MR. LYULPH STANLEYsaid, he would not press the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. RAIKESmoved, in page 64, line 39, after "The," to insert "Northern or," in describing the Melton Division of the county of Leicester.
    Amendment agreed to.
    LORD JOHN MANNERSmoved, in page 64, line 41, to leave out East Norton." t had been arranged that Belgrave should be taken out of the borough of Leicester and added to the Melton Division, where it would increase the population which was already rather large for a division by some 7,000. In order to compensate for the increase of population in one direction there ought to be a corresponding diminution in another, and he therefore proposed that the district taken out of the old Southern Division of the county and running right down to the borders of Northamptonshire should be placed in the new division, to which it would seem naturally to belong, and in that way the population of the two divisions would be equalized to a very large extent. If this suggestion wore adopted, the population of the new Eastern or Melton Division would be 51,780, and the Market Harborough Division would have 51,000, which would put them as nearly upon
    1730
    an equality as conveniently could be done.
    Amendment proposed, in page 64, line 41, to leave out the words "East Norton."—(Lord John Manners)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the change with regard to Belgrave was made by general consent. It perhaps involved the necessity of making another change, for an extreme disproportion of population between 45,000 and 54,000 was very considerable. But the change now proposed did not appear to be the subject of any local agreement, and there was a good deal of difference of opinion on the subject in the locality. A local suggestion had been made which no Member of the House had as yet consented to father, but which was strongly pressed locally, and that was, instead of dividing the Petty Sessional divisions to keep them intact. That did not do much to equalize the population, which was no doubt a drawback. It still left a certain disparity between the largest and the smallest divisions; but he had consulted the Boundary Commissioners as to which scheme they thought best, and they were rather in favour of the local scheme. That being so, he would rather leave the matter open for further consideration during the next two or three days to see whether any local agreement could be arrived at.
    MR. PELLsaid, he did not quite understand what was meant by the Petty Sessional divisions—he did not know in which of the divisions of the county the right hon. Gentleman would place them.
    LORD JOHN MANNERSpointed out that his proposal would leave the Petty Sessional division of East Norton exactly as it was now.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he he had no present opinion against the proposal of the noble Lord; but he would endeavour to ascertain the local feeling, if the noble Lord would refrain from pressing the Amendment until the Report.
    MR. PELLsaid, there was a very strong feeling in favour of the Amendment. His experience in the House did not lead him to place much confidence in putting matters of this kind off until Report. He hoped the Committee

    1731
    would be able to come to some immediate decision, especially as he saw a disposition on the part of the right hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill to concur in the view of the noble Lord (Lord John Manners).
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he was afraid he could not make any suggestion now, as he would be going against the decision of the Boundary Commissioners. He had no personal objection to the proposal of the noble Lord, and would do what he could with the Commissioners in the matter.
    LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he should not press the Amendment. Probably the Commissioners would see that the Amendment would suit the whole of the division better than the proposal of the Bill.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, it was true that the proposal in the Bill was not arrived at by local agreement. It had been made by the Boundary Commissioners.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    On the Motion of Mr. RAIKES, the following Amendments made:—Page 65, line 1, after "The," insert "Mid or;" line 12, after "The," insert "Western or;" line 17, after "The," insert "Southern or."
    MR. RAIKESsaid, they now came to the county of Lincoln, and he wished to place himself very much in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill. He had given Notice of four Amendments relating to the Northern portion of the county, reviving the old name of Lindsey. He could himself remember that in former days, before the Reform Act of 1867, Writs used to issue in the names of Lindsey and Kesteven. Therefore, these places had some Parliamentary significance. He was informed by those qualified to form an opinion upon the subject that the four Northern Divisions of the county should be West, North, East, and South Lindsey. The division of West Lindsey would be the division styled Gainsborough, and if the Amendment were adopted, the name would be "West Lindsey or Gainsborough." His proposal was, he thought, better than the proposal in the Bill, and had the advantage of being approved of by the Lincolnshire Members—or, at any rate, by some of them. If the right hon. Baronet desired it, he would pro-
    1732
    pose to give the points of the compass names to the county divisions, without reference to Lindsey and Kesteven. He imagined, however, that it would be more acceptable to Lincolnshire itself if they were to divide the county as proposed. Certainly, the balance of convenience and propriety leaned towards the Amendments on the Paper. He would now move to insert "West Lindsey or," in line 26, and would leave what he had to say with regard to Kesteven and Holland until they came to South Lincolnshire.
    Amendment proposed, in page 65, line 26, after the word "The," to insert the words "West Lindsey or."—(Mr. Raikes.)
    Question proposed, "That the words 'West Lindsey or' be there inserted."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he had no objection to the proposed changes of name, or to those changes which affected the Northern and Western parts of the county; but he must not mislead the Committee. He should have to object to changes which would be proposed subsequently—for instance, to Amendments to substitute Spalding for Holland. He should have to use arguments similar to those he had used yesterday with reference to the Isle of Ely.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    On the Motion of Mr. RAIKES, the following Amendments made:—Pages 65 and 66, line 31, after "The," insert "North Lindsey or;" line 1, after "The," insert "East Lindsey or;" and line 18, after "The," insert "South Lindsey or."
    Amendment proposed, in page 66, line 24, leave out from "Spilsby" to end of line 25.—(Sir Charles W. Dilke.)
    Question proposed, "That 'Spilsby' stand part of the Schedule."
    MR. WARTON: Will the right hon. Baronet explain how this crops up?
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: It is a small change made in the borough of Boston.
    MR. WATONsaid, he must protest against the loose manner in which the Bill had been drawn. This was another and a good example of that which had occurred again and again in this Bill.
    MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, that if the hon. and learned Member would glance

    1733
    over the various parishes, he would see that this would be the most convenient way of dealing with the matter.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    MR. RAIKESsaid, he now proposed, in line 26, after "The," to insert "North Kesteven or." The district of Kesteven was not, he knew, absolutely identical with the divisions of Sleaford and Stamford, but it was much more so than was North Lonsdale with the Northern Division of Lancaster; therefore, he thought it was entitled to rank as a better name. No doubt there was a small fragment of Holland in the Sleaford Division; but it did not amount to more than a 10th or 12th part of the division, and a still smaller portion was proposed to be annexed to the Stamford Division. Practically, the Sleaford and Stamford Divisions, taken together, constituted the whole district of Kesteven with an extremely small part of Holland. He thought the district was entitled to have the name he proposed. It would be very acceptable to the county, and one familiar to students of Parliamentary records. Stamford was a town of great importance, and it might claim to give its name to the division; but he did not think the same applied to Sleaford, which, though a rising town, had never had a Parliamentary history. There could be no doubt that in Lincolnshire "North Kesteven" would be as well known, if not much better known, than "Sleaford" could be. He, therefore, begged to move the Amendment of which he had given Notice.
    Amendment proposed, in page 66, line 26, after the word "The," to insert the words "North Kesteven or."—(Mr. Raikes.)
    Question proposed, "That 'North Kesteven or' be there inserted."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he was in the hands of the Lincolnshire Members with regard to this Amendment. If those hon. Gentlemen wished now to effect a change of name, even if they did not intend to be bound by it in the future, he should be willing to agree to what they asked. He could not admit that the present case was on a par with that of North Lonsdale.
    MR. FINCH-HATTONsaid, that as one of the Members referred to, and living as he did in the neighbourhood
    1734
    of North Kesteven, he wished to say that, for his own part, he accepted the offer of the right hon. Baronet, and was not unsanguine that he and his hon. and learned Colleague (Mr. Compton Lawrance) might be able to give such reasons to the Commissioners as would enable them to accept a somewhat slight modification of the boundary. The change he would propose would be a very small one.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Provided the present Amendment is not made an argument for the acceptance of the proposal the hon. Member now alludes to, I shall be glad to accept it.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    MR. COMPTON LAWRANCEsaid, he wished to move the Amendment standing in his name, in page 66, to leave out lines 30, 31, and 32. The object of this Amendment, and of one that stood on the Paper in his name a little lower down, was to restore to the division of Holland certain places which had been taken away to be added to North and South Kesteven for the purpose of making the population more equal. The population, as it now stood in the proposed divisions, was about 48,000 odd in Sleaford, 49,000 odd in Stamford, and 53,000 in Spalding. He brought forward this Amendment he cause Holland was really a division in itself. It had a separate Commission of the Peace, and was a Petty Sessional division, and beyond that it had a Court of Suer of its own. The boundaries of the Poor Law Unions were contained in Holland, with one exception—namely, that of the parish of Crow-land, which did not come at all into it, but was a part of Kesteven, and he believed went into the Poor Law Union of Peterborough. Then, again, Holland had, under different Acts of Parliament, control of the drainage. The interests of Holland were entirely distinct, especially as to drainage, from those of Kesteven. He had had very good reason to find that out, having the honour to represent a large part of Kesteven and Holland at this moment. When the drainage legislation of a few years ago was before the House, it had become plain to him that the interests of this place were entirely distinct. He had found that nearly the whole of Kesteven consisted of uplands, and

    1735
    nearly the whole of Holland of fen lands. These were the main reasons why it seemed to him that it would be of great advantage to have Holland kept by itself. There were other reasons for his proposal with regard to Crowland. That place contained some 3,000 or 4,000 inhabitants; but in order to get into it from parts of. Kesteven, it was necessary to go by rail through the Spalding Division, a distance of some 15 or 16 miles. They were in the division four miles from the railway at the present time. There was a desire on the part of the people of Holland to be kept to themselves, and the only objection which could be taken, so far as he could gather, was to the change which would be made in the population. But the population here would never be as great as in some county divisions, or as small as in many others. His proposal would raise the Spalding Division to something like 62,000, and leave the Sleaford Division at something like 44,000 or 45,000, and the Stamford Division at about 45,000. That was the only objection, as he had said, which could be taken to his proposal. The Boundary Commissioners did their duty when the matter was brought before them, but the point he was raising had not been very strongly submitted to them. Those gentlemen had done all that seemed to them necessary when they equalized the districts. He hoped the Committee would see its way to accept this and the following Amendment.
    Amendment proposed, in page 66, leave out lines 30, 31, and 32.—(Mr. Compton Lawrance.)
    Question proposed, "That lines 30, 31, and 32 stand part of the Schedule."
    SIR CHARLES W, DILKEsaid, he had argued against an Amendment of this kind last night from the Boundary Commissioners' rather than from his own opinion. His own view would be rather in favour of giving the hon. and learned Member his own division; but that was not the view of the Commissioners. The Boundary Commissioners did not like to be parties to the creation of such a disparity between county divisions as would happen in the ease of the construction of a division of 62,000, and another of 43,000. But the case had been so thoroughly stated by the
    1736
    hon. and learned Member that he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) need not add anything to what he had said. The matter was one purely for the consideration of the Committee, and they now, having this question of the disparity of population before them, could themselves decide as to what they should do. He would ask the Commissioners to prepare a fresh Report to the House on the matter. He would ask them whether they had any stronger reason than that they had given for the proposal they had made, and their reply could be considered at a later stage of the Bill.
    MR. FINCH-HATTONasked whether he might use one argument which he thought would have great weight with the right hon. Baronet? It was an argument which the right hon. Gentleman had used himself in a somewhat similare ase—namely, the case of Rossendale in North-East Lancashire. Rossendale, though it had a population of something like 70,000 persons, was still kept in one division, and the right hon. Gentleman had used his argument in that case three times over, in order to impress it on hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House. He spoke against the division proposed, because he had said it was a compact Petty Sessional division, and because the people had interests in common, and did not wish the district to be divided. Now, if that was an argument which weighed—and he considered that it had weighed very materially with the Committee in the case in which the right hon. Baronet brought it forward—the case for the present proposal was even a stronger one. The population were strongly opposed to an arbitrary division of the district, and were unanimously in favour of retaining the ancient county boundaries of Holland, and that without distinction of Party, or anything of that kind, otherwise he would not have identified himself with the matter at all. If he had been rightly informed, the right hon. Baronet had received a communication from the Quarter Sessions upon this matter; and as the right hon. Gentleman had used in another case arguments similar to those which were to be advanced in this case, he thought that if some concession were now made the Commisioners would take it as an intimation to assist in ar-

    1737
    riving at some satisfactory amendment of their proposal.
    MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, he had listened with great satisfaction to what had fallen from the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke), and, to his mind, the case had been met by him very fairly. The right hon. Gentleman fully admitted that there was a strong case to be made out for the Amendment, and that, so far as regarded the feeling in the county itself, both on the one side and the other, it was absolutely unanimous. He (Mr. Stanhope) trusted that the right hon. Baronet would do that which he had so courteously suggested—namely, let the matter now stand over, and remit it to the Commissioners with an intimation that there was a very strong feeling in the House upon the point.
    MR. HENEAGEsaid, he hoped that the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) would take a favourable view of the proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Compton Lawrance). He believed there was an unanimous wish on the part of people of all shades of politics that the three districts, Kesteven, Holland, and Lindsey should be kept intact. He would remind the right hon. Baronet that if there was a certain disproportion with regard to the population of the three divisions, as proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Compton Lawrance), there was not half the disproportion there was between their population and that of the adjoining county of Rutland, and that for all legal purposes Lincolnshire was practically divided into three counties.
    MR. LYULPH STANLEYsaid, he did not wish to meddle in Lincolnshire matters; but it was proper to point out that if this point be conceded to Lincolnshire, the same question would be raised with regard to Sussex.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, there were several instances in which the same point could be raised. He was bound to say that Lincolnshire had as a general rule, for Parliamentary purposes, been treated as a separate county.
    MR. COMPTON LAWRANCEasked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. RAIKESmoved, in page 66, line 33, after "The," to insert "South Kesteven or," so that the Stamford
    1738
    Division would read the South Kesteven or the Stamford Division.
    Amendment proposed, in page 66, line 33, after the word "The," to insert the words, "South Kesteven or."—(Mr. Raikes.)
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. FINCH-HATTONmoved, in page 66, line 39, to leave out "Spalding," and insert "Holland." He said, the same arguments might be used with regard to this change that had been used with regard to the boundaries. There was an unanimous desire on the part of the people of the division that the name of the division should be Holland, and not Spalding. He did not see any advantage in their being an alternative name. Spalding was acknowledged to be the capital of Holland, and the Spalding people were willing to believe that the less was included in the greater. He ventured to hope that, after what had fallen from the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) with regard to the other Amendments proposed in regard to Lincolnshire, that this Amendment would meet with no opposition.
    Amendment proposed, in page 66, line 39, to leave out the word "Spalding," and insert the word "Holland."—(Mr. Finch-Hatton.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'Spalding' stand part of the Schedule."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he had no personal feeling in the matter; and on the understanding that the people of Spalding were in favour of the change, he would not oppose the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEproposed to omit from the Spalding Division the following words:—
    "And so much of the Sessional Division of Spilsby as is included in the Parliamentary Borough of Boston."
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. WARTONsaid, that as they were about to enter upon the consideration of the division of the county of Middlesex, he wished to propose pro formâ the omission of certain words. The right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) would remember that when they were going through the last Schedule they struck out "Mile End." He believed he was right in saying that that

    1739
    was in consequence of some new arrangement which was made in order that justice might be done to Westminster—in order that Westminster should have four Members instead of three. He believed he understood rightly that Westminster would in some way be affected by Mile End Old Town, and that in the last Schedule those words were struck out. He saw no Notice, however, of a similar alteration in this page. Of course, he could not tell what was in the mind of the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke), and, therefore, he begged to move pro formâ that the words "Mile End Old Town" be struck out of this page.
    Amendment proposed, in page 67, line 10, to leave out the words "Mile End Old Town."—(Mr. Warton.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman was quite right in saying that a change would have to be made here; but the mere striking out of these words would not be a sufficient change. They must express their meaning in another way; and until they knew what to put in, they had better not strike anything out. The matter had better be left over until Report.
    MR. WARTONreminded the right hon. Baronet that the words were struck out of the last Schedule.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that in the last Schedule it was easy and simple; but here it was a complicated matter.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. RAIKESsaid, that the next Amendment was on page 68, and dealt with the county of Monmouthshire. The county of Monmouth was divided into three divisions under this Bill, which grouped them very naturally as Northern, Western, and Southern. He now proposed, in page 68, line 4, after "The," to insert "Northern or," so that the Abergavenny Division would read "the Northern or the Abergavenny Division."
    Amendment proposed, in page 68, line 4, after the word "The," to insert the words "Northern or."—(Mr. Raikes.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEasked if the right hon. Gentleman preferred to give alternative titles in the case of Monmouthshire?
    MR. RAIKESsaid, he thought he was rather bound, generally speaking, to follow the alternative system right through. Of course, upon this subject he would be bound by the opinions of the hon. Gentlemen the Members for Monmouthshire.
    MR. ROLLSsaid, he was in a position to say that the people of Monmouthshire would be quite satisfied with the adoption of the points of the compass in regard to their county.
    MR. RAIKESobserved that, in that case, he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment, and afterwards to propose to leave out Abergavenny, "and insert "Northern."
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed, in page 68, line 4, to leave out the word "Abergavenny," and insert the word"Northern."—(Mr. Raikes.)
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. RAIKESsaid, that, in the same way, he begged now to propose that the word "Bedwellty" Division be called the Western Division.
    Amendment proposed, in page 68, line 7, to leave out the word "Bedwellty," and insert the word"Western."—(Mr. Raikes.)
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. RAIKESproposed to leave out "Chepstow," in page 68, line 7, and insert "Southern."
    Amendment proposed, in page 68, line 7, to leave out the word "Chepstow," and insert the word "Southern."—(Mr. Raikes.)
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. BIRKBECKsaid, that he had a series of Amendments upon the Paper to give alternative titles to the divisions of Norfolk; but he did not propose to move his Amendments in the exact form in which they appeared. Originally he intended to propose naming the divisions of Norfolk after the points of the compass, and it was only yesterday evening that he altered them to the alternative form, believing that this form was in accordance with the wishes of the right

    1741
    hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke). He now, however, wished to move that the "Freebridge" Division of Norfolk be called the "North-Western" Division, because he understood that that would be in accordance with the present wishes of the right hon. Baronet. His Amendments had been down on the Paper three or four weeks, and their purport was thoroughly well known to the people of the county, and no objection had been raised to them.
    Amendment proposed, in page 68, line 20, to leave out the word "Free-bridge," and insert "North-Western."—(Mr. Birkbeck.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'Freebridge' stand part of the Schedule."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he should offer no opposition to the adoption of the points of the compass in Norfolk. The merged boroughs had no strong claim to give their names to the new divisions, and therefore he should offer no objection to the Amendments of the hon. Gentleman.
    Amendment agreed to.
    On the Motion of Mr. BIRKBECK, the following Amendments made: —Page 68, line 25, after "The," insert "South-Western or;" line 31, after "The," insert "Northern or;" page 69, line 1, after "The," insert "Eastern or;" line 10, after "The," insert "Mid or;" line 14, after "The," insert "Southern or."
    MR. RAIKESsaid, that the next Amendment stood in his name, and had reference to the county of Northamptonshire, which was in four divisions, and which was not difficult to divide. He begged to propose that the Oundle Division be known by the alternative name of the Northern or Oundle Division.
    Amendment proposed, in page 69, line 21, after the word "The," to insert the words "Northern or."—(Mr. Raikes.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, that none of the places whose names had been given to the divisions of Northampton were of importance,
    1742
    and therefore he begged to move that the word "or" be omitted from the proposed Amendment.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEassented to the suggested Amendment.
    MR. RAIKESasked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. RAIKESproposed to omit the word "Oundle," and insert the word "Northern."
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. RAIKESproposed that the 2nd division of Northampton be called the Eastern Division, instead of the Wellingboro, Division.
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. RAIKESproposed that the 3rd division of the county be called the Western Division, instead of the Brixworth Division.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsuggested that it would be better to call the division the "Mid" Division.
    MR. RAIKESassented.
    Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
    MR. RAIKESproposed that the Towcester Division be called the Southern Division.
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. RAIKESsaid, his next Amendments had reference to the county of Northumberland, and the first of them related to the division which was described in the Bill as the Wansbeck Division. By his Amendment, as it appeared on the Paper, he proposed to call the division the Mid or Wansbeck Division; but if there was any feeling in favour of omitting the local name altogether, he should be quite content to move his Amendment in that form. He thought the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had a preference for single names.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he was certainly in favour of single names where there were no local names chosen. He was told that in Northumberland there was some preference for local names.
    MR. RAIKESobserved that, under the circumstances, he would move the Amendments as they appeared on the Paper.
    Amendment proposed, in page 70, line 9, after the word "The," to insert the words "Mid or."—(Mr. Raikes.)
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. RAIKESproposed, in page 70, line 24, after "The," insert "Southern or," so that No. 2 Division would read the "Southern or Tyneside Division."
    Amendment proposed, in page 70, line 24, after the word "The," to insert the words "Southern or."—(Mr. Raikes.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, there was a great deal of objection to this Amendment. Tyneside was so well known as a local designation that he should have thought that it was desirable to leave the name by itself. Perhaps it would be well if the right hon. Gentleman were to leave over this question until Report, in order that inquiries might be made in the locality.
    MR. RAIKESsaid, he was quite content to withdraw the Amendment for the present, reserving to himself the right, of course, to re-introduce it.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. RAIKESproposed, in page 70, line 29, after "The," to insert "Western or," so that the Hexham Division would read the "Western or Hexham Division."
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. RAIKESproposed, in page 70, line 33, to leave out "Berwick-upon-Tweed," and insert "Northern or Tweedside." He was not particular which words—Northern or Tweedside—were chosen; but he thought that as the Southern Division of the county had been called Tyneside, there was some appropriateness, as this division was bounded to some extent by the Tweed, that it should be called Tweedside. If, however, a better name could be suggested, he would be quite willing to adopt it. In some quarters it had been suggested that the division be called the Cheviot Division, because the Cheviot Hills formed a boundary for some distance. He should have no objection to that name. All he was anxious to do was to induce the Committee to abandon the name of Berwick-upon-Tweed as the name of a division in the county of Northumberland, because on the other
    1744
    side of the river there was the county of Berwick. Hon. Gentlemen, of course, knew that until a very recent Act the town of Berwick was neither, strictly speaking, in England or Scotland. He thought it was by an Act passed in 1868 or 1869 that the town had been statutorily added to the Kingdom of England. At all events, he thought it very undesirable that Berwick should be made the name of a division of the county of Northumberland, because Berwick was the name of another county. He was desirous of leaving out "Berwick-upon-Tweed," and substituting "Northern or Tweedside," or Cheviot, or whatever other appropriate name might be chosen.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 70, line 33, to leave out the words "Berwick-upon-Tweed," and insert the words "Northern or Tweedside."—(Mr. Raikes.)
    Question proposed, "That the words 'Berwick-upon-Tweed' stand part of the Schedule."
    MR. T. RUSSELLsaid, he thought it would be very undesirable that the name "Tweedside" should be given to the division, however desirable it might be to substitute another name for Berwick-upon-Tweed. Tweedside was a well-known and historical name for the Valley of the Tweed in Selkirkshire, and confusion would undoubtedly arise if it were applied to this more Southern part of the county.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he would like time to consider the Amendment. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would, for the present, withdraw his proposition.
    MR. RAIKESsaid, he had found that there was a very strong feeling in Berwick-on-Tweed against his proposal to omit the name of that town and insert the words "The Northern or Tweed-side;" and if the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board objected to the Amendment, he (Mr. Raikes) would not persevere with it.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEintimated that he did object.
    MR. RAIKESsaid, in that case he would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment made, by inserting the words "Northern or" before the words "Berwick-upon-Tweed."
    MR. RAIKESsaid, the next Amendment he had upon the Paper related to the county of Nottingham, and the proposal was, in page 71, line 4, after "The," insert "Northern or." This was based on the same principle as had been adopted in so many other cases. The county of Nottingham had been partitioned by the Commissioners into four divisions, and those divisions fell quite naturally into those of North, East, South, and West. The Amendment had relation to the proposed division of Bassetlaw, which he was glad to see had been adopted by the Commissioners. As he should be very sorry to lose that name, he merely proposed to add to it the point of the compass by which it ought to be distinguished, as Bassetlaw was distinctly within the division of North Nottinghamshire. He, therefore, begged to submit his Amendment.
    Amendment proposed, in page 71, line 4, after the word "The," to insert the words "Northern or."—(Mr. Raikes.)
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. MAPPINsaid, he now wished to move the Amendment which stood on the Paper in his name. It was, that in page 71, line 4, the word "Bassetlaw" should be omitted, and the words "East Retford" inserted in its stead. It was hardly necessary to point out to the Committee that East Retford was a very ancient borough, which had returned Members to Parliament for the last 300 or 400 years. With regard to the action taken by the Commissioners in giving the name of Bassetlaw to the division, he ought to state that when those gentlemen went down to that district they were not aware that there would be any objection to the course they proposed. No deputation had been sent to make any representation to them on the subject, as no notice was given of the intention to use the name of Bassetlaw instead of that of East Retford, and he trusted that under those circumstances the right hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill would see his way to the substitution of East Retford for the name of the division recommended by the Commissioners. He found that Members of Parliament had been returned to represent that borough ever since the year 1572; and now, as the division in which it stood was only to return one Member, instead of two as formerly, he trusted
    1746
    the Committee would take these things into account, and would agree to the Amendment he proposed.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 71, line 4 after the word "The," to leave out the word "Bassetlaw," and insert the words "East Retford."—(Mr. Mappin.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'Bassetlaw' stand part of the Schedule."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he could understand the feeling of the hon. Gentleman who had moved the Amendment; but he felt bound to point out that the borough of East Retford was part of the Hundred of Bassetlaw, and that this was one of the ancient names of the borough. Under those circumstances, he was inclined to adopt the view expressed by the Mayor of East Retford, who had attended the inquiry held by the Commissioners, and who had himself proposed that the name of Bassetlaw should be given to the division. He would, therefore, suggest that the Committee should adhere to the name of Bassetlaw.
    MR. MAPPINsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had implied that the name of East Retford had been added to that of Bassetlaw, whereas Bassetlaw had been added to East Retford in 1832. East Retford was, as he had stated, the ancient name of the Parliamentary borough, and he trusted the Committee would not assent to its being obliterated by the substitution of Bassetlaw.
    MR. SERJEANT SIMONsaid, it appeared to him that if they were to employ the names of different localities in designating the divisions into which the counties were to be apportioned, the course the Committee ought to pursue should be to bestow such names as were well known throughout the country. Who, he asked, outside the locality itself, had ever heard of Bassetlaw? ["Oh!"] Hon. Members seemed to express surprise that he should have put this question, and it might be that he was one of the ignorant individuals; but he must confess that he had never heard of Bassetlaw; while, on the other hand, East Retford had been a Parliamentary designation well known to the country for hundreds of years, and he did not see why they should now be called upon to alter it.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he thought that if any further reason were

    1747
    needed than those already advanced for calling the division now under the consideration of the Committee by the name of Bassetlaw, as proposed by the Commissioners, it would be found in the fact that the circumstances under which Bassetlaw had been added to East Retford were more creditable to Bassetlaw than to the borough of East Retford.
    MR. MAPPINsaid, under all the circumstances, and seeing that the Amendment he had proposed did not receive the assent of the right hon. Gentleman, he would ask leave to withdraw it.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. RAIKESsaid, he had now to move the insertion, in regard to the proposed Newark Division, in page 71, line 11, after "The," of the words "Eastern or."
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. RAIKESsaid, he had next to move the introduction of the words "Southern or," as the geographical description of the Rushcliffe Division of Nottinghamshire, these words to be inserted after the word "The," in page 71, line 18.
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR.RAIKESsaid, in order to complete the geographical designation of the Nottinghamshire Divisions, he begged to move, in relation to the Mansfied Division, the insertion, in page 71, line 21, after the word "The," of the words "Western or."
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. RAIKESsaid, the next Amendment had reference to the county of Oxford, with regard to the 1st, or Banbury, Division of which he begged to move, in page 71, line 29, after the word "The," the insertion of the words "Northern or." The county of Oxford fell naturally into three divisions, and there could be no doubt about the Banbury portion being the Northern Division.
    Amendment agreed to.
    SIR BERNHARD SAMUELSONsaid, he had an Amendment to propose to the Schedule that would enable the Parliamentary borough of Banbury to be retained. If that borough were treated as was proposed by the Bill, it would undergo a process of vivisection, and it
    1748
    was a fact that there was no natural boundary between the two portions into which it was proposed to divide the borough. He knew it might be said that, in order to carry out his Amendment, all portions of the county of Northampton that were in the borough of Banbury would for Parliamentary purposes have to be made a portion of the county of Oxford; but he did not regard that as any real objection to his proposal, because the shape of the county at that particular point was such that he had not the least doubt that, by any readjustment of county boundaries in a County Government Bill the county boundary would be so drawn as to include that portion of Northamptonshire in the county of Oxford. He would not, however, detain the Committee by discussing the question at greater length, and would simply content himself with moving his Amendment.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 71, line 30, after the word "The," to insert the words "Parliamentary borough of Banbury and the."—(Sir Bernhard Samuelson.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    COLONEL NORTHsaid, the hon. Member who had moved the Amendment could hardly be award that he was proposing to deal with a portion of the borough of Banbury that had already been included in one of the divisions of Northamptonshire.
    SIR BERNHARD SAMUELSONsaid, he should, if his Amendment were carried, propose to amend what had been referred to by the hon. and gallant Member on the Report.
    MR. RAIKESventured to put it to the Chairman of the Committee whether it was competent to the Committee to entertain an Amendment which was contrary to a part of the Schedule already agreed to? The Committee had already passed that part of the Schedule which dealt with the county of Northampton, and had attached a portion of the borough of Banbury now proposed to be dealt with to one of the divisions of that county; so that if the Amendment should happen to be agreed to, that part of the borough which had been so apportioned would also be attached to the county of Oxford.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, he was not aware that what was stated by the right

    1749
    hon. Gentleman (Mr. Raikes) was the case. Did the right hon. Gentleman assert that the question had been already disposed of?
    MR. RAIKESsaid, it was the fact that the Committee had already defined the Towcester Division as consisting of Brackley, Daventry, and Towcester.
    COLONEL NORTHsaid, Grimsbury was in the county of Northampton; but the hon Baronet (Sir Bernhard Samuel-son) wished to bring it into the county of Oxford.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, he had before him the Bill and the Paper of Amendments; but neither in the Bill nor the Amendments did he see any mention of Grimsbury.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the Chairman could not understand from the sources of information before him the point which had just been submitted by hon. Gentlemen opposite, because all the names mentioned were not included in the Schedule; but the fact was as it had been stated. The question was one which had to be dealt with on its merits, and as the principle which his hon. Friend (Sir Bernhard Samuelson) proposed to apply in the present instance differed from that which had been applied to other Amendments which had been previously agreed to, he did not think the Committee ought to agree to this proposal.
    SIR BERN HARD SAMUELSONsaid, after what had been said by his right Friend (Sir Charles W. Dilke), he would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    On the Motion of Mr. RAIKES, the following Amendments made:—Page 72, line 1, after "The," insert "Mid or;" line 15, after "The," insert "Southern or."
    MR. RAIKESsaid, his next Amendment had relation to Shropshire, which was not a county that could be very easily divided. He thought, however, the convenience of the county would be best studied by giving the designation of "Western" to the proposed Oswestry Division, and calling the Newport Division the Northern Division, in addition to the names in the Schedule.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 72, line 28, after the word "The," to insert the words "Western or."—(Mr. Raikes.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS- BEACHasked whether the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had any objection to the Amendment?
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he did not object to the Oswestry Division being called the Western or Oswestry Division, but he did not thereby admit that this was necessarily to govern the other cases.
    MR. RAIKESsaid, he did not know whether the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Stanley Leighton) was present; but if he were, he would probably confirm the statement that the designation proposed by the Amendment was that which was preferred in the district.
    Amendment agreed to.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the hon. Member (Mr. Forester) who had put down the next Amendment was not present; but if the hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. Elton), who had a proposal to make upon the same question, would move it, he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) would move that the Chairman report Progress, and the matter could be discussed to-morrow.
    MR. ELTONsaid, his Amendment was an Amendment to that of the hon. Member (Mr. Forester); and, if that course were desired, he had no objection to move his own at once as a substantive Amendment.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, as the Amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. Forester) had not been moved, he had thought the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite might have moved it as a substantive Amendment, upon which Progress could be reported.
    MR. ELTONsaid, he would ask leave to put his Amendment as a substantive Amendment.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 73, line 14, to leave out the word "Wellington," in order to insert the word "Broseley,"—(Mr. Elton.)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the word 'Wellington' stand part of the Schedule."
    Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

MOTIONS.
  EDUCATION (MUIR'S SCHOOL, &c. SCHEME).

    MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
    DR. CAMERON,in rising to move—
    "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to withhold Her consent from section 3 of the Scheme, now lying upon the Table of the House, for the management of the Endowments known as Muir's School Fund, Millar's and Peadie's School, Wilson's Charity School, M'Lachlan's Free School, and Graham's Free School, all in the county of Lanark and burgh of Glasgow,"
    said, he had two Amendments on the Paper, and the first of these, which he now brought under the consideration of the House, related to a scheme involving the application for educational purposes of a sum of money amounting to between £50,000 and £60,000. It was proposed that the Governing Body under that scheme should consist of 17 members, and those 17 Governors were to be elected partly by the magistrates, partly by the School Board, and partly by the Trades' and Merchants' Houses. Those Bodies represented all classes of the community and all the religious sections of the population of the district; but in addition to the Governing Body to be elected in this way, the proposed scheme provided that five out of the 17 should be elected by the city ministers, and Kirk Sessions, and managers of the Established Church; so that five out of the 17 composing the entire Governing Body were to be elected by the Church. It was originally proposed by the scheme that no fewer than seven of the total number of Governors should be elected in this way; but, out of deference to the very strong remonstrances made to the Commissioners, that number was eventually cut down to the five now embodied in the scheme. The Commissioners asserted that they had no option but to do what they had done in placing upon the list of the Governing Body the number of Church representatives they had recommended, and that in doing so they were only obeying the Act of Parliament. In support of this allegation, they quoted Section 15 of the Act, which set forth that—
    "In framing schemes, it shall be the duty of the Commissioners, with respect alike to the
    1752
    constitution of the Governing Body and the educational provisions, to have regard to the spirit of the founder's intentions."
    He (Dr. Cameron) did not at all dispute the dictum thus cited from the Act of Parliament; but he wished to point out to the House that the Commissioners were to have, under that Act, only the same respect to the intentions of the founders in the constitution of the Governing Body as they were to have to the educational provisions the Act contained; and it would be seen that, in drawing up these schemes, the Commissioners had adopted a very different latitude when dealing with the educational provisions to that which they had laid down for themselves in dealing with the constitution of the Governing Body. The first Amendment he had placed upon the Paper, and which he was now about to move, applied to the scheme relating to the educational endowments named therein, all of them being of comparatively modern date; but at the same time, with but one exception, they all belonged to a period before the Disruption, and before the extension of the parochial system in Scotland and the institution of popular public education. At the time the sums of money to be dealt with under the scheme were left, nothing was more natural than that those who bequeathed their property for educational purposes should have so bequeathed it as to have loft it under the supervision of the Kirk Session of the Established Church; because in the days when the majority of these bequests were made the Kirk Session of the Established Church constituted the authority for administering the education of the country; but since that time the whole system had been entirely changed. In dealing with the educational provisions, the Commissioners had been apparently actuated by a motive which had led them to make such arrangements as would enable the district to which the endowments belonged to derive the greatest possible amount of benefit from the money thus bequeathed for educational purposes. Actuated by that motive, they had disregarded, in all cases, the letter and spirit of the founders' intentions. Dr. Bell's Bequest to Glasgow contained a scheme for the purpose of encouraging, amongst others, the Madras system of instruction; but they had

    1753
    abolished all obligations to keep the Madras system of education. There had also been a bequest for the benefit of poor Highlanders; but the Commissioners had dropped the poor Highlanders. In dealing with the other Churches, they had exercised the same latitude with regard to the members intrusted with the administration of the endowments. One of the endowments was Maxwell's, and he contended that they should apply the same measure to the ministers of one Church as they did to the ministers of another. If they got rid of the Episcopalians and burghers, they ought not to have retained the Established Church clergymen. He entirely controverted the statement in one of the schemes on this point, and he said that any reason for getting rid of the Episcopalians, burghers, and clergymen existed equally with respect to the Established Church. The Established Church was well represented in the various Institutions of Glasgow; in the School Board, the University, and in the Trades House and the Merchants' House; and he could not see why matters should not be allowed to adjust themselves, and why, if it was desired to have clergymen on these Governing Bodies, they should not be elected like other citizens. That was his point; he objected altogether to their being elected as clergymen. They were told that clergymen were not elected; but he said that clergymen would be ex officio members of the Governing Bodies. The Vice President of the Council said that he had not had a statement of reasons in the Petition placed before him. That might be technically correct; but he would point out that in 1883 a public meeting was held in Glasgow, at which a protest was made against the constitution of the Governing Body under this scheme, and a long and elaborate Memorial to that effect had been signed. Another meeting was also held, and a further protest made and embodied in a Resolution which he had read to the House a few days ago. That Resolution did not crave for a representation of other Religious Bodies on the Governing Boards of the Trusts; but it objected altogether to clergymen, as clergymen, being placed as members of the Governing Bodies under these schemes, or clerical bodies, as such, being intrusted with the right
    1754
    of electing members. Out of a Board of 17, it appeared that no fewer than five were representatives of the Established Church.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to withhold Her consent from section 3 of the Scheme, now lying upon the Table of the House, for the management of the Endowments known as Muir's School Fund, Millar's and Peadie's School, Wilson's Charity School, M'Lachlan's Free School, and Graham's Free School, all in the county of Lanark and burgh of Glasgow."—(Dr. Cameron.)
    MR. T. RUSSELLsaid, that, in making the new arrangements for these educational endowments, the people of Scotland had made up their minds that the education should be national and not denominational. It might be said that the founders' intentions were being respected; but he did not think it would be found that secondary or technical education was assigned a very prominent place in the original bequests. If the purposes of the founders were altered in order to suit modern ideas, he thought the Governing Bodies should also be rendered suitable to modern ideas and modern necessities. It was the intention of the Educational Endowments Act to secure that these endowments should be made available for the purpose of secondary or technical education. It might be true that when the endowments were established, there were only clergymen to take charge of them; but that was no longer the case. The endowments themselves and their object having become national, there were now plenty of philanthropic people other than clergymen well qualified to see that the funds were disposed to the best national advantage.
    MR. MUNDELLAsaid, he was obliged to his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow for the way in which he had spoken on this subject. He believed that no body connected with education had ever discharged their work so efficiently and with greater impartiality and fairness towards all parties concerned than this unpaid body of Commissioners. He believed it would be found that unpaid Commissioners could and would do excellent service in matters of this kind, and do it more ably perhaps than Commissioners who occupied a different position. But he was sorry that his hon. Friend had thought it necessary to

    1755
    challenge the two schemes now before the House, and in saying that he expressed his opinion that there never was a scheme challenged in that House on grounds of so little substance as in the present instance. There was hardly any substantial ground at all for challenging the schemes of the Commissioners. He did not say because the Commissioners had done their work well that therefore their schemes should not be inquired into or challenged; but he did think it necessary to point out that these two schemes had proceeded from a body entirely above suspicion, which had endeavoured to meet the wishes of those interested in Glasgow, and he thought that it was a little hard that their schemes should be challenged in that House upon such unsubstantial grounds as his hon. Friend had put forward. Under the Educational Endowments Act there was power to amalgamate a number of small schemes, making them into one considerable scheme, and forming them under one Governing Body. His hon. Friend had spoken of the antiquity of some of these endowments; but he had not told them that the principal endowment—Muir's—amounted to £800 a-year, and the total income from all the funds to £2,660 a-year. Mr. Muir, the donor in the case of the principal endowment, died in 1865; but his will did not come into operation until 1868, and under it £800 a-year was left to a Governing Body composed of 22 ministers and elders and three magistrates of the City of Glasgow. Then there were four other endowments amounting to £1,400, governed by ministers and laymen. Now, what was the scheme of the Commissioners? They had formed a new Governing Body of 17 members, of whom three were members of the Town Council, three of the School Board, two were magistrates, two were members of the University of Glasgow, two were members of the Merchants' and Trades' Houses, and one member was elected by the ministers of St. Columba Church. Now, that scheme had received the general approval of the citizens, although he knew that some objections had been raised to it by Nonconformists in Glasgow. It was thought that, having changed the Madras system of teaching to technical teaching, they might get rid altogether of the ministers. But the 15th section of the Act said that in framing schemes, it should be the duty
    1756
    of the Commissioners, with respect to the constitution of the Governing Bodies and to the educational requirements, to have regard to the spirit of the founders' intentions." It was one thing to change the method of teaching, and another thing entirely to ignore the persons into whose hands the founders committed the trusts. He did not think there could be any objection to the Governing Body as was now proposed, of which six members belonged to the Town Council and School Board, two to the Senatus of the University, and two to the Trades' and Merchants' Houses—in fact, 12 out of the 17 were laymen and persons deriving their qualifications from membership of public bodies. No representation whatever had been received from Glasgow in reference to this scheme, nor had any objection been lodged at the Educational Department with regard to it. He hoped his hon. Friend would not persevere with his Motion.
    MR. J. A. CAMPBELLsaid, that the hon. Member for Glasgow had brought a charge against the Commissioners of partiality towards the Established Church of Scotland; but if the composition of the Commission were taken into account, he thought that no one would ever suspect them of any partiality of that kind. As he had the honour of being a Member of the Commission, he wished to say that the Commissioners were not in the habit of inquiring into each other's ecclesiastical tendencies; but, so far as he knew, there were on the Commission only two members of the Established Church, and certainly the other five were quite capable of looking after the interests of other denominations. The work intrusted to the Commissioners was the re-organization of educational endowments in Scotland; and that had been described more fully as extending the usefulness of educational endowments in Scotland, and carrying out more fully than was done at present the spirit of the founders' intentions. As had been stated, the Commissioners were enjoined by the Act of Parliament to have respect to the spirit of the intentions of the founders, not only in the educational provisions which they should make, but also in the constitution of new Governing Bodies. Now, it had been said that they were not dealing with these endowments in the same way as education was

    1757
    dealt with under the Act of 1872, in which the religious element was neither prescribed nor proscribed. But they were not to be guided by the lines of the Education Act. Parliament had given them a special Act for their guidance, and in doing so it had in view the difference between rate-supported schools and endowments provided by the beneficence of individuals. In the construction of the Governing Bodies for these endowments, the Commissioners had been instructed by the Act that, except under special circumstances, a certain number of Governors should be appointed from Town Councils and other public bodies, and with regard to the remainder of the Governors they were left to consider who would most properly represent the founders' intentions. In that way they were thrown back on the object of the trusts as declared by the founders, and on the composition of the original body of trustees. That was their duty with regard to any new Governing Body which they had to devise. Then as to the schemes which were brought before the House in this Motion, it had been found expedient to amalgamate certain endowments and treat them as a single scheme. That, he was bound to say, was not an idea of the Commissioners only, but it had been recommended to them by those in Glasgow who were interested in these trusts. They had also received a large amount of assistance from the trustees of these different endowments in constructing the Governing Bodies. It might be asked why they had presented two schemes for the endowments enumerated in the two Motions of the hon. Member, and why they had not one scheme for the whole of these endowments? The reason was simply this—that there was not only a certain difference in the destination of the endowments as expressed by the founders, but also a marked difference in the original Governing Bodies named by the founders. In the first group of endowments mentioned by the hon. Member the City ministers had the principal share in the management, and in the second group the Town Council was principally represented. It was unnecessary to repeat what had been already stated by the right hon. Gentleman as to the composition of these Governing Bodies as proposed in the
    1758
    schemes; but he would point out that the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) had made a mistake in his reference to Muir's Trust. It was true that the money was given to the Lord Provost and other functionaries of Glasgow to hold; but who were to be managers of the trust? Those who were to have charge of it were to be City ministers and elders. It was thoroughly a Church trust, although, as he had said, the money was to be held by the Lord Provost and two magistrates. Muir's was the most important endowment of the group. The other endowments were all more or less connected with the Church, with the single exception of the last one named—namely, Graham's Free School—and with regard to this there was special representation given on the Governing Body. The hon. Member for Glasgow had passed from that group to a second, called the City group, and had brought objections against the scheme with respect to which he thought it necessary, notwithstanding the late hour, that he should offer a few words of explanation. It was said that the Commissioners had been blameable in not giving representation in the new Governing Body to two Episcopalian and two Burgher ministers who were members of the M'Lachlan Trust and the Maxwell Trust. It would be a serious charge against the Commissioners, he admitted, if they had done any injustice to those reverend gentlemen; but, as a matter of fact, these two trustees, in each case, represented one-seventh only of the original body of trustees. Again, the two trusts named represented only one-seventh part of the group of endowments in which they were now merged by the scheme, so that the complaint was that representation had not been given to one-seventh of one-seventh—or to one 49th part. But the entire Governing Body only numbered 21, and the Commissioners were obliged to assign 14 of the 21 members to the Town Council and School Board. Then, again, objection had been taken to Bell's Bequest being treated in the scheme. Now, in regard to Bell's Bequest, an arrangement was made by the Town Council in 1833, and confirmed in the following year by Parliament, by which the sum of £381 was paid every year among 10 schools—to a school in each of the 10 parishes of Glasgow—and

    1759
    all that the Commissioners proposed was, that so far as these schools were still in operation, and still under Government inspection, the small grant of £33 to each of them should be continued.
    MR. MUNDELLA: We do not object to that.
    MR. J. A. CAMPBELLunderstood that that was part of the objection of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron). On the whole, he (Mr. J. A. Campbell) hoped that the House would be satisfied that there was really nothing in the hon. Member's objection. It was founded on the idea that the Commissioners had not been dealing equal justice to all parties. That was an entire mistake.
    MR. RAMSAYsaid, he should not, at that time of the morning (1.35), occupy the House more than a few minutes. His hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron), who had submitted this Motion to the House, could not have reflected upon the precise terms of the Educational Endowments Act, or he would not have brought this Motion forward. He (Mr. Ramsay) had acted as a Member of the Commission from the first moment of its existence. Now, he was a Nonconformist; but he did not consider it his duty to endeavour to secure religious equality—as it was termed—in all the new Governing Bodies that had been formed. The object of the Act was very briefly stated in the Preamble. The Act was passed for the purpose of carrying out more fully than at present, the spirit of the founder's intention, and it was required that with respect to the constitution of the Governing Body the Commissioners should have regard to the spirit of the founder's intentions. He would like to ask any Member of the House how, when funds were left to be administered by clergymen of the Church of Scotland, it would be possible to carry out the spirit of the founder's intention with regard to the constitution of the Governing Body if they neglected to consider the claims of ministers of that Church to form part of the Governing Body? If, in consequence of their own personal feeling against the Church of Scotland, the Commissioners had prevented the clergy of that Church having any voice in the administration of such funds, he felt that they would have acted very improperly. It was essential when anyone was appointed
    1760
    to adminster an Act, that they should have regard to the provisions of the Act, and to that Act only. It was said that the Commissioners were bound to give heed to religious equality. The Commissioners, however, were appointed to administer the Educational Endowments Acts, and to that they were bound to confine themselves. He failed to see, therefore, any advantage that could accrue from the House throwing over this scheme. Although he was an advocate for religious equality, he certainly did not feel, when he accepted the position of a Member of the Commission, that he was to act upon his own religious or political opinions. He hoped the House would not assent to the Motion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron).
    SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEsaid, that he was Chairman of the preceding Commission to the one which had brought forward this scheme; and this subject underwent inquiry by himself and Colleagues, including the hon. Gentleman who had just addressed the House (Mr. Ramsay). The Commissioners were pleased to record their opinion, that in putting ministers upon these trusts, the founders had in view some security for the religious education according to the use and mode in Scotland. He thought that the present Commissioners had done nothing more than their bare duty in carrying out the Act of Parliament, in keeping a certain proportion of ministers upon the trust; and he thought it was particularly the case with regard to the foundations in Glasgow, where ministers had been put on foundations in a very large proportion. No doubt it was the case with regard to many of the local trusts, that ministers had been selected as public men, and not with any regard to a particular religion. This, however, was not the case with regard to a large number of the trusts, and especially with regard to the important trust with which the House was now concerned. In his opinion, the Commissioners would have failed in their duty if they had not kept the desire of the founders in view. He might have his opinion that there would be every security for religious education just as much if ministers were not on the trusts, as there would if they were. No doubt, to some extent, this might be the case; but it was not in the

    1761
    eyes of the public. He did not think that in the eyes of the public of Glasgow there was the same security for religious education when ministers were not upon the trust as when they were. He considered that the intentions of the founders had been very properly carried out; and therefore he trusted the House would reject the Motion of his hon. Friend (Dr. Cameron).
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, he was bound to point out to the House that the complaint made by his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) was not that any injustice had been done to any of the Churches who had not been included in the Governing Bodies under the new scheme. What the hon. Gentleman complained of was, that this Act should be made a means of continuing sectarian differences in Scotland, and maintaining the ascendancy of the Established Church. It was quite true that possibly ministers of the Episcopal Church would not be entitled, in every case, to have representatives on the Governing Bodies; but that was not the point. What the people of Scotland desired to have was religious equality, and they were disappointed that this Act should be made the means of continuing sectarian differences and sectarian privileges, especially when the objects of the founders could be equally obtained by a purely representative body. That was the apprehension which some Gentlemen entertained when the Bill was passing through the House, and they stated their views very distinctly on the question. What had taken place was that the clerical element had received a greater amount of consideration, in many cases, than the people of Scotland desired it should have. Now, he found that the two principal objects of Muir's Trusts were the education and clothing of boys, and the assistance of parents having boys in the school. That intention of the pious founder had been disregarded; and he maintained that the clerical element had received a much greater amount of consideration than the objects warranted. In his opinion, his hon. Friend was entitled to make this protest against the continuance of religious distinctions under a recent Act of Parliament. He trusted that his hon. Friend would go to a division.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 8; Noes 50: Majority 42.—(Div. List, No. 100.)

    GAS PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 1) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. HOLMS, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under "The Gas and Water Works Facilities Act, 1870," relating to Dovor Gas, Grays Gas, Middlewich Gas, Rickmansworth Gas, and Shelley and Shepley Gas, ordered to be brought in by Mr. HOLMS and Mr. CHAMBERLAIN.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 126.]
    House adjourned at a quarter before Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
Took the Oath for the First Time—The Lord Bishop of Llandaff.
PUBLIC BILLS—Committee— Tramways (Ireland) Provisional Order (No. 1)* (34).
Committee—Report—Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Labourers Act) (No. 1)* (35); Municipal Voters (Relief)* (39); Army (Annual)* (62).

CENTRAL ASIA—RUSSIA AND AFGHANISTAN—RUSSIAN ADVANCES ON THE MURGHAB.

  QUESTION.
  EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I desire to ask the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs a Question of which I have given private Notice—namely, Whether there is any confirmation of a telegram which appeared in The Standard of yesterday, dated from the Camp of the British Mission at Tirpul, the 7th of April, to the effect that the Russians are advancing along the line of the Murghab River?
  EARL GRANVILLE: In reply to the noble Earl, I have to state that we are making inquiries on the subject.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: What time does it take to communicate with Sir Peter Lumsden?
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: The last telegram, I observe, has come in four days.

ARMY AND MILITIA RESERVE FORCES.

  CONSIDERATION OF THE QUEEN'S MESSAGE.
  Order of the Day for the consideration of the Queen's Message of the 26th of March last, read.
  Message considered accordingly.
  EARL GRANVILLE: In rising to make the Motion which stands in my name, I feel that your Lordships will consider, after what took place in "another place" last night, it will not be desirable on this occasion for me to make a statement as to the policy of Her Majesty's Government. At the same time, I may say that steps have been taken which will necessitate some action on the part of the House of Commons, but until that step be taken it will not be right to make any statement in this House; but I will take care when the proper time arrives that a similar declaration shall be made to your Lordships. I believe I should be safe upon this occasion in asking your Lordships to express approval of the Proclamation of Her Majesty. But we think it better to follow the precedent of the late Government, and merely to ask your

  1601
  Lordships to thank Her Majesty for the information which has been given to us. It will be satisfactory to your Lordships to know that the measure taken under this Proclamation will entirely meet all the requirements which have been made by the Indian Government.
  Moved "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, thanking Her Majesty for informing this House that the present state of public affairs and the extent of the demands on the military forces of Her Majesty for the protection of the interests of the Empire having constituted, in the opinion of Her Majesty, a case of great emergency within the meaning of the Acts of Parliament in that behalf, Her Majesty deems it proper to provide additional means for Her Military service, and that, therefore, in pursuance of those Acts, Her Majesty has thought it right to communicate to the House of Lords that Her Majesty is about to cause Her Reserve Force and Her Militia Reserve Force, or such part thereof as Her Majesty shall from time to time think necessary, to be called out for permanent service."—(The Earl Granville.)
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, obviously I think there can be no doubt of your unanimous response to the proposal of the noble Earl; and, indeed, if he had asked us to assent to the issuing of the Proclamation our response would, I think, have been given with equal heartiness. As to the noble Earl's observations with which he prefaced his Motion, I will say that I believe that not only the two Houses of Parliament, but the public generally, look with the greatest anxiety for a clear statement of the policy which Her Majesty's Government will think it their duty to pursue. We do not desire to press for it in a manner which will interfere with the interests of the Public Service, or with the very grave decision which it is incumbent upon the Government at this moment to form. Subject to that observation, I will only add that I hope the information which the noble Earl foreshadows may come as early as possible.
  Motion agreed to, nemine dissentiente.
  Ordered, That the said Address be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

NAVY (ADMINISTRATION)—THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL OF THE NAVY.

  QUESTION.
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether there is any truth in the report
  1602
  that the present Accountant General of the Navy, who was only appointed three years ago, is to be compulsorily pensioned, and that a gentleman unconnected with the Admiralty is to be appointed in his place; and, if so, whether this arises from the incapacity of other officials in the Admiralty to fulfil the duties of Accountant General; and whether, unless this is not the case, the appointment of a stranger to that office will not be contrary to precedent, a wrong to the officials in the Admiralty, and a loss of public money?
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOKsaid, that the way in which the Question of the noble Lord had been put did not give a correct impression as to what had taken place. When Mr. Hamilton, now Sir Robert Hamilton, vacated the office of Accountant General, Mr. Willis, the Deputy Accountant General, was appointed. Mr. Willis was an excellent public servant; but being then above 60 years of age he was appointed on the distinct understanding that after filling the office for three years he should be retired at the option of the First Lord of the Admiralty. That time having arrived, he would now retire, and Mr. Fitzgerald had been appointed to succeed him. Mr. Fitzgerald was not in the Department of the Accountant General, and the noble Lord asked him whether it was not contrary to precedent to appoint a stranger to the Department to the office. It was not so, for the office had frequently been filled by gentlemen who had had no previous connection with the Department. A striking instance was that of Sir Robert Hamilton himself, who was appointed from the Audit Office. So far as the qualifications of Mr. Fitzgerald were concerned, he could speak from personal knowledge, as he had known him for many years in different Departments. When at the War Office in 1861, Mr. Fitzgerald was one of the clerks in charge of the Army Estimates. He was afterwards sent to India to assist in arranging the system of account, having been specially selected for the service; and for many years he filled a responsible office there with great credit to himself and advantage to the public. Subsequently he was chosen to fill a most important office connected with accounts and, finance in Egypt. From his own personal knowledge of Mr. Fitzgerald, as

  1603
  well as from the reports of his conduct both in India and Egypt, he believed that no man in the Public Service was better qualified by experience and general knowledge of accounts than Mr. Fitzgerald. Therefore, he was satisfied that the appointment was very much for the public interest. He was of opinion that where it was possible, consistently with the public interest, appointments such as that under discussion should be given to gentlemen in the Public Service and not to outsiders; but it would be detrimental to the Public Service if it was held that particular appointments were to be filled by gentlemen serving in those particular Departments. As long as an officer was in the Public Service generally his qualifications should be considered, and not merely the qualifications of those within the Department; and, however excellent the officers in the Accountant General's Department were at the present time, he believed that Mr. Fitzgerald, from his experience and general acquaintance with accounts, had claims for the appointment superior to any of them.
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEread a statement showing that the precedents as to appointments to the office of Accountant General of the Admiralty were not as stated by the noble Earl, as, with one exception, that office had been filled from officials of old standing in the Admiralty. He thought that Mr. Willis should not have been superseded, as he was quite able and willing to perform the duties of the Department. He would, however, be retired upon a pension of about £1,000 a-year, and, also, should Mr. Fitzgerald retire in a few years, there would again be a pension for him. The noble Earl's statement would go to show that he had made use of an opportunity for providing a snug place for an old friend.

POST OFFICE—TELEGRAPHIC COMMUNICATION WITH HONG KONG.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  VISCOUNT SIDMOUTHasked, Whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been directed to the fact that the sole method of telegraphic communication with Hong Kong and some other British settlements in the East is by wires passing through a territory in the possession of a foreign Power; and
  1604
  whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to adopt immediate measures to insure the safety of intercourse by electric telegraph with those parts? The noble Viscount said, he was not quite sure whether he was correct in his statement of the facts; but he thought the matter one of sufficient importance to justify him in giving the Government an opportunity of making a statement on the subject.
  THE EARL OF DERBY,in reply, said, the noble Viscount was probably aware that there were two alternative lines of telegraphic communication between this country and Hong Kong. One of those lines passed through Russian territory in Siberia and down the Chinese Coast to Hong Kong; the other—the route more generally used—was from England to Singapore, and then through the Straits Settlement to Saigon and thence to Hong Kong. Thus the noble Viscount would perceive that those lines, though they passed through foreign territory, yet did not pass through the territory of the same Power; and that if by any unfortunate event communication by one line was cut off there would still remain the other. He did not, of course, deny the disadvantage of not having a line of communication in their own hands; but he need not point out that there was a material difference between having only one line of communication passing through the territory of a Foreign Power and having two alternative routes passing through different States. There was at the present time under the consideration of the authorities a proposal to make a line direct from Singapore to Hong Kong. That proposal was being considered by the various Departments concerned; but he understood, and, indeed, was authorized by his noble Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty to say, that the Naval Authorities, while not denying that such a line would be useful, did not regard it as of primary urgency, and they considered that the expenditure which would be involved might be more usefully incurred elsewhere. At the same time, that was the opinion of only one of the Departments concerned, and no final decision had been come to by the Government as a whole. But there were two matters that must be considered. In the first place, the expense of maintaining the line between Singapore and Hong Kong would be very

  1605
  heavy—about £20,000 a-year; in the nest place, even if they made that line it would not serve the purpose in view—namely, that of having a line of telegraphic communication that did not pass through foreign territory. Unless they had also an independent line of communication to Gibraltar and Malta, the object of the proposal to create an entirely independent line to Hong Kong would not be obtained.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, that this question of submarine telegraphs ought not to be considered simply and solely on the ground as to whether the line would pay commercially. It must be remembered that these stations were valuable to this country, not only as great commercial emporia, but they were great military and naval coaling stations. He did not understand one remark of the noble Earl; he had spoken as if there were no direct submarine telegraph between England, Gibraltar, and Malta. So far as he (the Earl of Carnarvon) understood it, there was such communication, for he himself had seen it at work. He wished to call attention to an important point in connection with this matter; and that was the extreme importance at this particular moment of the Government taking every precaution in their power against these submarine telegraphs being exposed to greater risks than necessary. It should be remembered that most of their commercial transactions at the present time were begun in the first instance by telegraph, and also that nearly all these lines were worked and managed by English capital. Commercially and politically, therefore, they were English property, and deserved every consideration at the hands of the Government. But what he wished more particularly to point out was that these submarine lines were in times of war exposed to special and peculiar risks. While in the development of modern science they could be easily repaired, yet it was necessary that stores of material should be close at hand and available. He sincerely trusted that during a time of peace, when the Government had full opportunity of making preparations, they had taken the necessary steps to secure an available supply of stores. There was not a large stock of telegraphic cable in this country; but it could be manufactured
  1606
  very rapidly when a certain stage of the proceedings had been arrived at. The matter was a delicate one; but he thought it right to remind the House and the country that in 1878, when there were great alarms as to a Russian war, the Russian Government, who were, perhaps, more alive to the circumstances of the case than we generally were, had taken measures for cutting the submarine cables, and for equipping ships for that special purpose. It was said at the time and on good authority, and was generally believed, that there was a carefully elaborated scheme for taking measures against our submarine cables in the Eastern waters. It was quite right to mention these matters now, and he trusted that Her Majesty's Government had not been blind to the difficulty and danger of leaving them unprovided for; but that while they had had the opportunity and a full warning they had taken those steps and those measures which might be necessary to provide against this danger.
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOKsaid, that the question to which the noble Earl referred was of a somewhat delicate character, and that if he thought it necessary to bring the matter to the notice of the Government it would have been more advisable to do so by means of a private communication. If by making these remarks the noble Earl meant to imply that those who were responsible for such matters were not alive to their importance, he was quite mistaken. What his noble Friend behind him (the Earl of Derby) had said with regard to the telegraphic communication in question was perfectly correct. No doubt there was a line almost entirely in English hands to Gibraltar and Malta, and so on to Hong Kong and Shanghai. In regard to the route from Singapore to Hong Kong, there were two lines—one through Russia, and the other submarine touching at Saigon. Under the circumstances of the case, it appeared to the Admiralty—that was the advice which they thought it desirable to give to the Colonial Office—that if a subsidy was to be given for the construction of a new line of telegraph, there were other lines of communication of greater importance than this peculiar line. He could assure the noble Earl that he was quite mistaken in supposing that the

  1607
  Government were not alive to the general subject. He did not understand what had been said by his noble Friend (the Earl of Derby) was intended to dispute that these submarine communications had other importance than that of mere commercial lines, and the Government were by no means blind to that fact.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that the noble Earl (the Earl of North-brook) had applied a rather severe measure of interpretation to the language of his noble Friend. In the first place, the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) not only did not say that there was a submarine line to Gibraltar, but exactly the reverse.
  THE EARL OF DERBYwas understood to say that he stated, in reply to the noble Viscount (Viscount Sidmouth), that there was no independent line to Gibraltar and Malta.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that another point on which the noble Earl entirely misunderstood his noble Colleague was on the question whether commercial considerations were to be of predominant weight in these matters. The Secretary of State for the Colonies had distinctly stated, as a ground for not making this submarine line to Hong Kong, that it would cost £20,000 a-year. That was the very commercial consideration which the First Lord of the Admiralty had repudiated. There was a peculiar point with respect to this question of submarine lines; and he did not know whether it had attracted the attention of the noble Earl (Earl Granville)—namely, whether it had been decided that a neutral's duty was fulfilled if he conveyed warlike messages of a belligerent by telegraph through his territories? If there was any doubt on that point, of course the question of submarine lines would become very important. He had heard it raised, and he was not aware whether it had been decided or not. He could easily imagine that if the neutrality of any Power towards us was not very benevolent the difficulty might arise.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Five o'clock, to Thursday next, a quarter past Ten o'clock.