Sitting of 21 April 1885

MINUTES.
PRIVATE BILL (by Order)—Second Reading—Channel Tunnel (Experimental Works), postponed.
PUBLIC BILL—Committee—Report—Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) (recomm.) [49–134] [Seventeenth Night]

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  CHANNEL TUNNEL (EXPERIMENTAL WORKS) BILL (by Order.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    SIR EDWARD WATKINsaid, that in consequence of an intimation he had received from the Secretary of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain), who had a Motion on the Paper for the rejection of the Bill, he would move that the Bill be read a second time upon that day week.
    MR. HICKS: No; this day fortnight.
    SIR EDWARD WATKINsaid, that if the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Hicks) chose to amend his proposal to that day fortnight, he had nothing to say against it; but his own proposal was to postpone the second reading for a week, with a view, upon that day, of fixing such a day for the discussion as would be most convenient for the right hon. Gentleman and the House in connection with the despatch of important Public Business. He desired to say that last week a similar adjournment had been made, as the night originally fixed was not considered a convenient night for discussing the Bill. He wished now to suggest that a question had since been raised which might very much shorten the discussion whenever it did take place. He understood from the newspapers that the noble Lord the Member for Flintshire (Lord Richard Grosvenor) had stated publicly that the Prime Minister was still in favour—he thought these were the words of the noble Lord—of the construction of a tunnel under the Channel to connect England with the Continent. He (Sir Edward Watkin) would, therefore, suggest that the Prime Minister should say whether he corroborated the statement of the noble Lord, because, in that case, he would be quite prepared, as the issue would be a very short one, and seeing that a General Election was coming on, to move the discharge of the Order for the Second Reading, after that expression of opinion. He thought, however, that from his (Sir Edward

    303
    Watkin's) point of view an expression of favourable opinion at this moment would be exceedingly useful in calming certain asperities which were manifesting themselves on the other side of the Channel. If, on the other hand, the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister were now to say that his opinion having been in favour of the construction of a Channel Tunnel, he had altered that opinion, and at no time or under any circumstances would he support the establishment of direct communication between the Continent and this country, he should be equally prepared to move the discharge of the Order for the Second Reading, hoping that he might be more fortunate after the General Election, which might possibly, among other changes, bring about a change of Government. He begged to move that the second reading of the Bill be postponed until that day week.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be read a second time upon Tuesday next."—(Sir Edward Watkin.)
    MR. HICKSsaid, that having been the humble instrument in a previous Session—no Member of Her Majesty's Government having risen to oppose it—of causing the Bill to be thrown out, he desired to say a few words upon the proposal of the hon. Baronet. He believed that the large attendance in the House at that moment was in consequence of the feeling entertained by hon. Members as to the importance of the questions at issue in connection with this Bill; and he did not think the general feeling would be in favour of postponing the consideration of the measure for so short a time as a week. If it was to be postponed at all, hon. Members ought to have full Notice, so that they might be able to make arrangements to be in their places to oppose the measure. He felt fortified in expressing that opinion by the fact that on entering the House he heard from the Officers of the House that an understanding had been come to between Her Majesty's Government and the promoters of the Bill for the postponement of the second reading for a fortnight. He, therefore, begged to move, as an Amendment to the proposal of the hon. Baronet, that the second reading be postponed until that day fortnight.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "next," in order to insert the words "5th May,"—(Mr. Hicks,)—instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the word 'next' stand part of the Question."
    SIR EDWARD WATKINsaid, he did not object to the proposal of the hon. Gentleman. All he wished was to fix a convenient day consistent with the discharge of the important Public Business now before the House, and also with reference to the convenience of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade.
    Question, "That the word 'next' stand part of the Question," put, and negatived.
    "5th May" inserted.
    Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
    Bill to be read a second time upon Tuesday 5th May.

QUESTIONS.

  LUNACY LAWS—DETENTION OF PAUPER LUNATICS.
  MR. J. G. TALBOTasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether his attention has been called to recent decisions of magistrates as to the detention of pauper lunatics in workhouses pending their admission to lunatic asylums; and, whether he intends to promote such legislation as will make it clear that such detention is legal, in order to prevent the scandal of lunatics being confined in prisons?
  MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: The question is now under consideration in connection with the Lunacy Bill which has been brought in by the Lord Chancellor.
  MR. J. G. TALBOTasked if the hon. Gentleman had seen the decision of the magistrate at the Lambeth Police Court, reported in The Times of that morning, illustrating the point in question?
  MR. GEORGE RUSSELLsaid, he had seen it.

  ARMY (CONTRACTS)—BEESWAX.
  MR. MARRIOTTasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether notices for tenders for not less than three tons of beeswax for lubricating purposes have

  305
  been issued by the authorities at Woolwich; whether the quality specified was the best African beeswax according to a sample; whether in fact the sample was "manufactured wax" prepared from mineral and other substances; whether the authorities made a contract on the basis of this sample; and, whether the jamming of cartridges, of which there have been so many complaints in the Soudan, is due to the combination of this "manufactured wax" with other substances?
  SIR ARTHUR HAYTER: Tenders have been issued for beeswax, the supply to be genuine beeswax, not necessarily African, with a minimum melting point. To secure this minimum supplies may be mixed—that is, may consist of various sorts of beeswax in combination; but all must be genuine beeswax, and none manufactured from mineral and other snbstances. The samples were submitted to and approved by the War Department chemist. The beeswax used has not had anything to do with the jamming of cartridges.

  FISHERY PIERS AND HARBOURS (IRELAND).
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the delays complained of in connection with projects for the construction of Fishery Piers and Harbours in Ireland is due to any action on his part in stopping communication between the Fishery Piers and Harbours Commissioners and the Treasury?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The Irish Government have been the medium through which certain correspondence has been carried on between the Treasury and the Fishery Piers and Harbours Commissioners with respect to the allocation of the remaining balance of the fund, but they have stopped no communication whatever. The last letter on the subject, dated the 11th of last month, was addressed to the Fishery Piers and Harbours Commission, and has not yet been replied to.

  PIERS AND HARBOURS (IRELAND)— MALIN HEAD PIER.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, How soon the construction of Malin Head Pier (Donegal) is to be commenced, according to
  306
  the terms of the contract concluded with Messrs. Colhoun, of Derry; whether the estimate of the Irish Board of Works for this pier was £10,000, and whether this estimate was met as follows:—£300 by subscription from the locality; £1,000 loan by the Board of Works, to be repaid in twelve years by the county at large; £1,000 further loan from the Board of Works, to be repaid by a tax on the ratepayers of the district of one shilling in the pound for twelve years; and £7,700 free grant; whether the contract for the pier has been taken at £7,765, and whether a proportionate part of the saving will be returned to subscribers, and a proportionate part deducted from the charge upon the county and district, or whether the saving will be used in further improvement of the harbour, or how it will be applied; whether the Board of Works have declined to furnish to any ratepayer interested a copy of the detailed plan and specification; and, whether, in view of the local interests concerned in the work, the money subscribed in the district, and the taxation to fall upon it in consequence of the construction of the pier, the Government will arrange that a copy of the detailed plan and specification shall be available for examination by the interested ratepayers?
  MR. HIBBERT: The contractors for this pier have been making preparations on the spot, and hope to be vigorously at work early in May. The figures are correctly given by the hon. Member; but it is impossible to say what actual saving will be realized until the works are complete, as there are expenses, such as the pay of the clerk of the works, not included in the contract. A copy of the detailed plans and specifications will be given to the secretary of the Grand Jury if he applies; and full information will be given to any interested person who may apply. A plan showing the position and nature of the work has already been sent to the Rev. Mr. Doherty.
  MR. SEXTON: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Irish Government would consider the propriety of allowing the savings made upon the estimates of the contract to be allocated for the commencement of further works?
  MR. HIBBERT: The case stands thus. The Treasury have estimated that

  307
  after the probable working expenses, there now remains a balance of £45,000 to be allocated, and they have suggested that the Commissioners should look into the various cases and select those which have strong claims, so that the amount of preliminary future grants should be decided.

  REGISTRATION OF VOTERS (IRELAND) BILL.
  MR. LEWISasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Government is prepared to limit the provisions of the Irish Registration of Voters Bill to the necessary provisions relating to Registration of Voters only, in regard to the new Franchise Act, and so promote the withdrawal of all opposition?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I can only say that the Bill, which is down for second reading to-night, contains the provisions which the Government consider necessary to secure the due registration of voters and other objects of a similar character in connection with the new franchise.

  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (CORRUPT AND ILLEGAL PRACTICES) ACT —PARLIAMENTARY CANDIDATES AND FREE BREAKFASTS IN THE EAST END.
  MR. LEWISasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether his attention has been called to a recent announcement in the newspapers that Mr. George Russell, M.P. the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board, and Liberal candidate for one of the Metropolitan boroughs, was present and spoke at a free breakfast, given on March 24th in Bermondsey by Baron Ferdinand do Rothschild, the Liberal candidate for St. George's-in-the-East, to labourers from the docks situated in that borough, and to a subsequent announcement that Mr. George Russell, M.P. is now about to give a free breakfast in St. George's-in-the-East itself also to labourers from the docks; and, whether it is an infraction of the Corrupt Practices Act for a gentleman to first identify himself with a candidate at a free entertainment in the way Mr. Russell did with Baron Ferdinand de Rothschild, and afterwards to give a similar free entertainment to
  308
  the same class of people in the borough for which his friend is a candidate?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): I have no personal knowledge of the matters connected with these breakfasts, and therefore I have had to seek information from my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board. I trust that the House, considering the nature of the question, will bear with me while I read a letter which I have received from my hon. Friend on the subject—
  "18, Wilton Street, S. W., April 18, 1885.—
  "My dear Attorney General,—I am sorry that you should be troubled with inquiries about my personal actions. But as Mr. Lewis has thought right to question you about them, it seems desirable that I should put you in possession of the facts. These dock breakfasts originated with the 'Bitter Cry,' published in i883. I was invited by Mr. Arnold White to attend one of them in February last. Mr. White is most zealously endeavouring to deal with the great problem of finding employment for the unemployed. His plan is to attend at the docks at an early hour of the morning, when the gates are shut upon the hundreds whose services are not required. When he has means at his disposal, Mr. White invites these men, without any previous notice, to come to a breakfast. They are then addressed, solely in relation to their own position. Each man is asked to give his name and state his case; and after full inquiry endeavours are made to afford them the means of emigration, or to find them employment at home. By means of these breakfasts, which have been given by different donors, upwards of 300 men have since January last been helped to emigrate or provided with work at home. From first to last the movement is entirely unconnected with politics, and at the breakfasts no reference is made to any political subject. From the proceedings at the breakfast on the 24th of March, I understood that these exertions of Mr. White met with the approval of men of all parties. Sir Stafford Northcote, whose original letter I enclose, wrote most kindly and heartily, regretting that he could not be present at the breakfast; but entirely approving the movement and wishing it all success. The right hon. Baronet in his letter says—'I had hoped to be able to attend and say a few words at your breakfast, but I have so much work to get through this morning I find it is impossible to do so.' Among many others, Sir Baldwyn Leighton and Mr. J. W. Lowther were present on this occasion, and many, whose names I need not mention—some were ladies—promised to contribute to the expense of a breakfast, and I gave in my name with others. I had no communication with Baron F. de Rothschild, and acted without his knowledge; I had no voice in the selection of the place; and I had not the slightest notion that any political benefits could accrue to myself or to anyone else from this act of mine. I may mention that I should suppose that not one of the men who have received these break-

  309
  fasts is an elector. I fear they would be able to give no better residential qualification than the casual ward in winter, or an arch of London Bridge in summer. I have only to add that my motive has been simply to help some of the poorest of the industrious poor to help themselves. But I should be sorry, even with this object in view, to run the slightest risk of appearing to use treating as a political weapon. Therefore, if you will let me, I will place myself in your hands, and, if you think that, even by misconstruction, this breakfast can by anyone be regarded as illegal, however sorry I may be to send the hungry away empty on Tuesday morning, I will intimate to Mr. White that my contribution must be withdrawn. Forgive me for troubling you, and believe me, sincerely yours, G. W. E. RUSSELL."
  Upon that statement every Member of the House is as capable as I am of forming a judgment of the course which my hon. Friend has taken. But as my hon. Friend thought it necessary to throw some responsibility upon me, I, forming the best judgment I could, wrote my hon. Friend a simple reply that he could give the breakfast.

  HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES—REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTasked the President of the Local Government Board, If he can now state when he expects that any Report of the Royal Commission on the Housing of the Working Classes will be presented?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The Report as to the Housing of the Working Classes in England and Wales will be presented to Her Majesty in the course of next week. The Scotch Report will probably follow before Whitsuntide, and the Report with regard to Ireland soon afterwards.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—THE CLERK OF THE CROWN IN DUBLIN.
  MR. WARTONasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, What was the annual amount of salary, fees, and emoluments received by Edward Geale as Clerk of the Crown in Dublin; what annual amount, in salary and fees, is it contemplated will be received by George Fottrell who has been appointed temporary holder of that office; What amount of pension is to be paid to Mr. Geale; if the offices of Clerk of the Crown and Clerk of the Peace had been amalgamated on Mr. Geale's retire-
  310
  ment, what would have been the saving effected; and, if Mr. Geale had appointed a deputy, approved by the Government, what would have been the saving effected?
  MR. HIBBERT: Mr. Geale's average receipts in the last five years were about £1,500 yearly, and his statutory pension is about £1,000 per annum. His successor will receive salary and fees from the same sources; but as the latter fluctuate it is impossible to predict how much his emoluments will be. There are separate Clerks of the Peace for the County and City of Dublin; and it is not possible to say what might have been the financial effect of the amalgamation, though there would probably have been a saving on the present temporary arrangement. The Government have no power to compel Mr. Geale to appoint a deputy, even had this been otherwise desirable; and it is, therefore, unnecessary to consider what would have been the financial effect of such a course.

  DECLARATION OF PARIS, 1856.
  MR. M'COANasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the two Despatches of the 13th and 18th of April 1856, which conveyed to Lord Clarendon the approval of Her Majesty's Government of his previously unauthorised signature of the Declaration of Paris?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: In Lord Granville's opinion there would be no public advantage in laying these despatches on the Table, which previous Foreign Secretaries have always declined to produce.

  CENTRAL ASIA—RUSSIA AND AFGHANISTAN—RAILWAY TO SARAKHS.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMSasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is the fact, as stated by the special correspondent of The Daily News at Krasnovodsk, that the Military Attaché of the British Embassy at St. Petersburg has been refused permission to visit the railway which is now being made from Krasnovodsk to Sarakhs; and, whether any confirmation has been received from Her Majesty's Minister at Teheran of the following statement, made by the same

  311
  correspondent, as to the Russo-Persian frontier:—
  "The Russian advance into Turkestan necessitated a more exact delimitation of the Persian frontier from the Caspian to Sarakhs. This work was gone over a year or two ago, and was supposed to have been definitely settled. The boundary was laid down, but now the Russians are taking it upon themselves to determine what had been determined, and to settle where the boundary had been fixed. I understand that one subject of dispute is connected with the Attrek River, near its junction with the Caspian. About forty miles from its mouth this stream splits in two, and these branches flow separately into the bay of Hassan Kuli. The Attrek was settled to be the boundary between Persian and Russian soil; but whether the Commissioners forgot to define which branch of that river was to be the frontier or not I cannot say. Russia now claims the southern fork, and Persia claims the northern. The Russians, I am informed, have taken a very effective means of settling the question; they have constructed, or are constructing, a dam where the northern branch separates, and thus it will cease to exist. The southern branch will thus become the River Attrek, and that as been defined as the frontier?"
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Her Majesty's Government are not aware that the Military Attaché at St. Petersburg has been refused permission to visit the railway in question. The Russo-Persian Frontier as far as Lutfabad is defined in the Treaty of December 9–21, 1881. ("Asia," No. 1, 1882, p. 8.) The appointment of Commissioners to mark out the Frontier was delayed for a long time, as the Russian Commissioner did not reach Teheran until July, 1883. The position of Hassan Kuli was one of the first questions to be decided by the Commission. Details on this subject will be found in "Asia," No. 1, 1884, p. 89. It is the case that the Attrek enters the Caspian by two channels. No information has reached Her Majesty's Government as to the construction of the dam referred to, though rumours on the subject existed some years ago. The question of Hassan Kuli has not, as far as they are aware, been settled yet, as the Commission proceeded to the Eastern instead of the Western end of the Frontier.

  CYPRUS (FINANCE, &C.)—REPORTED REVENUE FRAUDS.
  MR. GORSTasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the loss of revenue in Cyprus from systematic frauds in assessment has, dur-
  312
  ing the last few years, amounted to from £15,000 to £30,000 per annum; whether a collector who, in 1884, reported to the Chief Inspector of Revenue the irregularities, the embezzlement of arrears, and the fraudulent assessments, was dismissed for so doing; whether, on the recent trial of Pappa, the Deputy Inspector, it was proved that the Chief Inspector knew of the frauds in the Famagusta District; whether, on the same trial, the Chief Justice commented on the suppression of evidence on the part of the Government counsel who conducted the prosecution; what charge was brought against the Chief Inspector by the Government of Cyprus; whether he was acquitted after trial, or whether the charge was dismissed by the magistrate in consequence of the non-production of evidence in the possession of the Government of Cyprus; and, whether Her Majesty's Government will cause some impartial and independent inquiry to be made into the history of the revenue frauds in Cyprus?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: No information that we have yet received supports the estimate of loss suggested in the hon. Member's Question. We know nothing of a collector having been dismissed in 1884. As to the third and fourth Questions, if the hon. Member will communicate the grounds on which the suggestion is based, due inquiry shall be made. As to the fifth and sixth Questions, the charge against Mr. Bistachi seems to have been the taking of "hush money." It was dismissed by the magistrate on the ground of the evidence being untrustworthy. We have no reason to believe that evidence was withheld; on the contrary, that much doubtful evidence was admitted for what it was worth. As to the last Question, I can only repeat what I said the other day, that the Secretary of State, before deciding, must await further Reports from the Governor and the Receiver-General.

  PARLIAMENTARY FRANCHISE—ELECTORAL DISTRICTS.
  SIR EARDLEY WILMOTasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether an elector having a qualification at the present time for the Division of a County, say South Warwickshire, and voting at an election for two candidates, will, when the Division

  313
  is divided into single member districts, have a vote in each district, or only in the district in which his qualification is situate?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: No proposal has ever been made, as far as I know, that an elector connected with one division should vote in another.

  EGYPT (THE MILITARY EXPEDITION) —THE TROOPS IN THE SOUDAN.
  SIR FREDERICK MILNERasked the Secretary of State for War, If it is the case that already more than four per cent. of the Troops now employed in the Soudan are sick; whether the Government are determined to leave the Troops in the Soudan all through the summer months; and, if it is the intention of the Government to complete the Railway from Suakin to Berber, as set out by the Secretary of State for War in his letter to General Graham of the 20th February?
  MR. MACFARLANEasked if the noble Lord could tell the average amount of sickness among troops at home and in the British States abroad?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I cannot state the average, as the Returns differ. In reply to the Question of the hon. Baronet, my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the War Office said on Friday that, from the circumstances in which the Force is now situated, it is scarcely possible to state the present percentage of sickness. On the whole, the health of the troops is good; but I think it is probable that the percentage of sick exceeds 4 per cent. The replies to the two latter Questions would be more conveniently given after the Prime Minister has made his statement with reference to the Vote of Credit.

  EGYPT (THE MILITARY EXPEDITION)— THE TROOPS ON THE NILE.
  SIR FREDERICK MILNERasked the Secretary of State for War, If his attention has been called to the following letter from an officer up the Nile, which has been published in the papers:—
  "They are supposed to be going to build straw huts for us, but its not begun yet. The sun is most frightfully hot, and the tents we have are really unbearable in the daytime. The thermometer was 112 yesterday in the tents, and this is only March. We have nothing to read and nothing to do all day, and they have
  314
  stopped the parcel and newspaper post, and we are only to get one newspaper a regiment, and we all want things so badly, and by the parcel post being stopped we can get nothing. The men have no clothes, except the rags of what they started in, and there are none for them;"
  if he has any reason to doubt the accuracy of this report; and, if not, whether he will at once take steps to improve the lot of our brave soldiers up the Nile; and, if he will cause inquiries to be made, and inform the House of the exact number of soldiers now sick from climatic causes?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON, in reply, said, that of course they were aware that the heat on the Nile, and also at Suakin, was great; but they had not received any Report showing that any extraordinary suffering now prevailed among the troops. Their arrangements for the troops were made locally. A large supply of clothing and other requisites for the troops had been sent out; but it was impossible to state how far the means of transport at the disposal of the authorities in Egypt enabled them rapidly to distribute them. The arrangements in regard to hutting and other accommodation for the troops were under the control of the General Officer commanding; but they had not at present a detailed Report on the subject.

  THE DARDANELLES AND THE BLACK SEA.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If he can state what protection would be given to British vessels in the Black Sea in case the Dardanelles were closed during hostilities between this Country and Turkey; also, whether there is any truth in the report that the Governments of Austria, France, and Germany have made representations to the Government of Turkey, on the subject of the closing of the Dardanelles, in case of hostilities between this Country and Russia; and, if he can give any information to the House on the substance of such communications? He would not press for an answer to the first Question if it were inconsistent with the public interests.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I accept the offer of the hon. Member, and will, therefore, not answer the first Question, which relates to a contingency that has not arrived, and which does not appear

  315
  to be probable on the face of it. I can assure the bon. Gentleman that at the present moment it is hardly possible for a person holding my Office to deal with the subjects that demand my immediate attention, and it is quite beyond my power to undertake to investigate matters of this kind, however interesting. The second Question, however, refers to a matter of fact. As to that, I am able to inform the hon. Gentleman that no information has been received at the Foreign Office, either from Turkey or from any of the Governments named in the Question to any such effect.

  CENTRAL ASIA—RUSSIA AND AFGHANISTAN—ATTACK BY THE RUSSIANS ON THE AFGHANS AT PENJDEH— SIR PETER LUMSDEN'S DESPATCH.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I may perhaps be allowed to refer to the question of the intelligence received from Sir Peter Lumsden. I was obliged to inform the House yesterday that it was in my power to communicate very little in addition to what I had previously stated; but I signified to the House that important instructions had been addressed to Sir Peter Lumsden on the 10th of April, to which we had not then received a reply, but to which we were in constant daily expectation of receiving one, so far as one can use those words with regard to a country with which communication is somewhat variable. That reply has been received to-day. It contained what I may call a full and detailed account of what Sir Peter Lumsden considers to be the main points of the case connected with the painful incident of the attack near Penjdeh. And it will serve to show how seriously Sir Peter Lumsden has been at issue with General Komaroff on important points connected with that attack. It would not be in my power—it is a long telegram, entering into details with particulars for which we had specifically asked—it would not be in my power to state its effect in a few words. But we will lay it on the Table, as it is a document which is, I think complete in itself, and gives important and valuable information to the House. In fact, it has been laid on the Table, and it will be circulated generally tomorrow morning, and copies of it will, I believe, be accessible to hon. Members in the Vote Office at an early hour this evening.
  LORD JOHN MANNERS: Is it proposed also to lay on the Table the telegram that was received on Friday night from Sir Peter Lumsden?
  MR. GLADSTONE: No, Sir. Any question with regard to that telegram would embrace also the previous series of telegrams, and with regard to these I am very doubtful whether they would add anything to the information contained in the telegram received to-day. I do not refuse to review it if it is desired for the purpose of examining exactly how that matter stands; but the series contain a good deal of hearsay, a good deal of here-and-there expressions of opinion, and do not present a narrative of what took place. I think that when hon. Gentlemen have seen and considered the telegram received to-day, they will be able to say whether it is desirable to press us to examine the old telegrams in order to see what portions should be laid on the Table.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Then none but this particular telegram will be presented; none of the other communications will be produced?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Not at present.

  EGYPT—RUMOURED NEGOTIATIONS FOR OCCUPATION BY A TURKISH FORCE.
  MR. M'COANasked the Prime Minister, Whether there was any truth in the generally reported statement that negotiations were either in progress, or had been already completed between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Turkey for the occupation of Egypt by a Turkish Force under English officers?
  MR. GLADSTONE: No, Sir; I have nothing to communicate on that subject. I am not aware that there have ever been any negotiations on a proposal corresponding with that to which the hon. Member refers.
  Afterwards,
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid: In the absence of any Notice, I did not know whether I could speak very confidently, and therefore I gave a limited answer to the Question of the hon. Member. But after conferring with my right hon. Friend near me for a moment I have to say that there is no foundation whatever for the Question which the hon. Member (Mr. M'Coan) has put.

  REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE—THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the House would have in its hands when the Budget was being introduced a statement of the Receipts and the Expenditure, as was the case last year?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): Before the Budget is brought in I will follow the rule observed last year.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY OPERATIONS, 1885–6 (VOTE OF CREDIT).

    RESOLUTION.
    MR. GLADSTONE: In laying this Vote of Credit on the Table, Her Majesty's Government have engaged that it should be accompanied by a brief explanation, which will contain nothing in the way of apology, argument, or controversy, but the whole object of which is to give to the House of Commons a clear idea of the course we are now taking and the meaning of the Vote proposed. The House of Commons was apprised soon after its meeting in February that it would be necessary to make provision for military charges in the Soudan, not only during the unexpired portion of the year 1884–5, but also during the financial year 1885–6. At that period we had in view the expenditure in the Soudan, and expenditure in the Soudan alone; but circumstances which have since occurred, with the greater portion of which the House is acquainted, have obliged us to widen our investigations and greatly to enlarge our demand for funds. We have found it necessary to review our military position, not with reference to the Soudan only, but with reference to the general condition of public affairs and to all the possible demands upon the military resources of the Empire. We feel that it is necessary at the present moment, in our judgment, to hold all these resources as far as possible, and including the Forces in the Soudan, available for service wherever they may be required. In these circumstances, the Vote for which we are now asking does not include any provision of money for further offensive operations in the Soudan, or for military preparations with a view to an early
    318
    advance upon Khartoum. It does, however, include items having reference—as will be readily understood—to such contracts or undertakings as, being already considerably advanced, could not be stopped with any appreciable advantage, and which, at the same time, do not involve any necessity for hostile action. For example, we provide for the river steamboats which have already been contracted for, and for the completion of what is known as the Wady Halfa Railway—the railway beginning at Wady Halfa—towards which extensive preparations have already been made, and which will have advantages altogether apart from military necessities. As to the ulterior steps beyond what I have stated, we reserve our entire liberty of action, subject to the discretion and control of Parliament. Perhaps I ought to add—though it is hardly necessary—that what I have now stated with respect to the Soudan does not imply any change of view or intention as to the defence of Egypt and its frontier. There are many considerations of importance—moral, military, political, and physical—which bear upon the question of the operations in the Soudan. I refer to them now merely to say that the whole of them are entirely beyond my present purpose, that purpose being merely to explain the basis of the Vote; and I may repeat for the convenience of the House the most important words I just now used—words in which I declared that we do not in the Vote now laid on the Table ask for any provision of funds for further offensive operations in the Soudan, or for any military preparations with view to an early advance on Khartoum; but that we solicit Parliament to hold the military resources of the Empire, including the Force in the Soudan, available for service wherever they may be required. I think it may be convenient that I should add an explanation of one or two details which fall within the scope of what I have already said. The Suakin Railway was projected and commenced as a military work in support of the Nile Army; but with the cessation of active operations on the Nile any considerable extension of the railway will be suspended. But until some other permanent arrangement can be made, it will be necessary to hold the Port of Suakin with British or Indian troops. The experience of last summer

    319
    has proved to us that in order to hold Suakin for any useful purpose—indeed, in order to hold it without undue exposure and risk to the garrison, particularly including their health—it may be necessary to occupy one or more positions in the neighbourhood of that place. The Military Authorities will be consulted as to the positions which it may be considered necessary to occupy with that view; and as to the point up to which it will be necessary, on the grounds I have already stated, that the construction of the railway should now be carried. It is proposed to complete the Suakin Railway up to the point which may be determined as best for the garrison; and while that is being done—for it must take some little time—we shall consider our future course as to any prosecution of this railway beyond that point. We consider, Sir, that if the Nile Railway be, as we think it is, an advantageous work for general purposes, the prosecution of it need not be discontinued, as it does not involve any question of hostility. The addition to our resources which will be effected by holding the Soudan Force available for service elsewhere is an addition quite independent of the demands which have been recently made upon Her Majesty's Government by the Government of India for large reinforcements. These demands will be entirely met by provision at home, leaving the Force released in Egypt and the Soudan as an additional reserve for employment in India or elsewhere. I may perhaps say—my noble Friend the Secretary of State for War has furnished me with the information—that in the total Vote it is proposed to provide, first, for the Government of India, as already stated; and, secondly, for the mobilization at home of a Force which, with that released in Egypt and the Soudan, will constitute a complete Army Corps; thirdly, for guns, submarine mines, and defences in addition to, and in aid of, naval preparations. I will now state in outline the particulars of the Vote. Perhaps I may first explain to the House the change which has taken place in our views as to the order of Business, which was suggested—although I will not say it was asked for—by the short statement or question of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote). When we first had to contemplate asking the House for a Vote
    320
    of Credit it had reference to the Soudan alone, and as it was to be asked for with reference to the Soudan alone, besides that the amount was not so large, it was one with regard to which the question of time was not in our view of very great importance; and, consequently, we intended to propose that Vote to the House after the Budget; but, considering the important change that has taken place—the change in the proposition which the Government now make to the House, and the great change of their having to introduce other and larger items of great consequence into the Vote—and with reference to what I shall term special preparations, we think now that the considerable addition to the military expenditure of the year which it is our duty to ask Parliament to make should be distinctly submitted to Parliament at a very early day, and before we determine finally upon the financial proposition which will be necessary in order to enable us to meet the charge. The general principle upon which our arrangements are made is that before the Budget is submitted to the House the general scheme of expenditure is sufficiently known and sanctioned, though all its details have not been fixed. This is so considerable an addition to the annual Expenditure, that we believe it will be better that we should pursue a course founded on that basis on the present occasion; and, therefore, our proposal is to submit this Vote of Credit to the House for its sanction, if it should meet with approval from the House, on Monday next—which will, I think, give the House sufficient time for its consideration—and to postpone the Financial Statement of my right hon. Friend from Thursday to Thursday next week. Now, Sir, the total sum for which we ask the House by this Vote is £11,000,000. The sum is put in one Vote upon administrative grounds, but it is divided in that Vote between what I have termed the remaining charges relating to the Soudan, and what I have termed special preparations other than the Soudan; and I think it is a fact that, in point of law, we should be enabled to effect a transfer from one portion of this Vote to the other without any previous explanation to the House. I wish to state distinctly that we shall not effect any transfer whatever from the head which

    321
    relates to special preparations to the head relating to the Soudan without full previous communication to Parliament. The House will, therefore, understand that the Government entirely gives up its discretion in that respect. Of the £11,000.000 I have mentioned, the remaining charge for the Soudan stands at £4,500,000. Of this £4,000,000 would be in the technical division military charges; out of that sum £750,000 would have relation to the Suakin Railway, for which very considerable cost has already been incurred, and £400,000 would have relation to the Nile or Wady Half a Mail way, making in all £l,150,000. Taking the military charge at £4,000,000, there would be also a naval charge of £500,000 in connection with operations in the Soudan. I may say, at once, it refers to the removal of the troops from one point to another. Under the head of special preparations we ask for the sum of £6,500,000. Of this sum, again, the House will please to understand that I am not able to speak with the rigid technicality of an Estimate; but the description I give is prepared in the Departments according to the best understanding they can form of the respective sums that will be required for each purpose. Upon that basis, the expenditure of these £6,500,000 would be approximately—for military charge, £4,000,000; for naval charge, £2,500,000. Under the head of special preparations there are£4,000,000for military charges, including £1,150,000 for railways, and £500,000 for the Navy in connection with the Soudan. Thus we have £6,500,000 and £4,500,000, making together the total I have mentioned, £11,000,000. In conclusion, I can only say that we are sensible of the gravity of the proposal which we now make under a deep sense of our responsibility to the Crown and to the Empire. While we count with confidence on the liberality and patriotism of Parliament for meeting every just demand, our course, it is perhaps hardly necessary for me to say, will continue to be, in all our relations with Foreign Powers, what, as far as our intentions went, it has been already—that is to say, our aim and desire are, if it be possible by pacific means, to obtain a just and honourable settlement of every controversy in which we are, or in which we may be, involved.
    322
    Estimate presented,—of the Sum required to be Voted, beyond the ordinary Grants of Parliament, towards defraying the Expenses which may be incurred during the year ending the 31st March 1886—(1.) For Remaining Charges in the Soudan and Upper Egypt; (2.) For Special Naval and Military Preparations—£11,000,000.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: The statement of the right hon. Gentleman, both in what it actually contains and what it implies, is so important that I do not propose to say much upon the subject at the first blush. I cannot, however, help noticing the change, the change in the arrangements which the Government propose in the order of Business. I regret that we should have the Budget delayed; at the same time, if it appears to the Government to be important that they should proceed rapidly with that portion of this Vote which refers to special preparations, I can quite understand that it may be necessary and desirable to lay aside or postpone other Business for a time in order to arrive at the consideration of that very important proposal. It is one the magnitude of which, and the circumstances under which it is brought forward, must at once strike the House with a sense of its gravity, and impose caution upon us in dealing with it. With regard to one part of the statement of the right hon. Gentleman—that relating to the expenses in connection with the Soudan—I am not entirely satisfied with the right hon. Gentleman's statement; and if it were not for the fact that this question is coupled with another which requires careful attention, and which I should be most sorry to damage by premature criticism, I should feel it necessary to make some observations upon the subject. I do not think the Government are dealing with the Soudan Question, if it can be regarded as a question by itself, in a manner that would be satisfactory to the House. We ought not to be asked to spend money, and especially to give Votes of Credit, for operations in the Soudan without a fuller and more complete statement of the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I have not even attempted to sketch the policy of the Government.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: When the right hon. Gentleman states that he is going to ask for the large sum of £4,500,000 for expenditure in the Soudan, I think it is only reasonable that Her Majesty's Government should give us full and complete explanation of their policy. I understand, however, that we may look for that statement when the time comes for the question to be raised. With regard to the matter as a whole, I am glad to hear that the Government intend to proceed rapidly; and if it is necessary for the purpose to postpone the Budget, of course I shall make no objection to that course being taken. If the Government find it more convenient that the Budget should follow the statement, that is a course to which, I think, the House will offer no objection.
    Estimate referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 155.]

ORDER OF THE DAY.

  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (REDISTRIBUTION) (re-committed) BILL.— [BILL 49.]
  (Mr. Gladstone, The Marqness of Hartington, Sir Charles W. Dilke, Mr. Attorney General, The Lord Advocate, Mr. Campbell-Bannerman.)
  COMMITTEE. [Progress 17th April.]
  [SEVENTEENTH NIGHT.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

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

    IRELAND.
    MR. HEALY, in moving an Amendment, in page 101, to leave out from line 21 to line 4 of page 102, and insert—
    "Barony of North-West Liberties of Londonderry.
    Barony of Tikeeran (except the parish of Learmount, and that part of the parish of Banagher which is in this barony).
    Barony of Kennaught (except the parish of Dungiven, and that part of the parish of Banagher which is in this barony, and except that part of the parish of Bovevagh which is bounded by the parishes of Dungiven and Errigal.
    324
    Barony of Coleraine.
    Barony of North-East Liberties of Coleraine.
    No. 2.—The South Londonderry Division.
    Barony of Tikeeran (parish of Learmount, and that part of the parish of Banagher which is in this barony).
    Barony of Kennaught (parish of Dungiven, and that part of the parish of Banagher which is bounded by the parishes of Dungiven and Errigal).
    Barony of Loughinshollin,"
    said, it was necessary to call the attention of the Committee to the manner in which the Boundary Commissioners had acted in regard to this division, and the changes which they had made in the division as originally laid down. In the first place, he was reminded that the hon. and learned Gentleman Her Majesty's Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Walker) was represented before the Commissioners by counsel. ["No, no!"] He understood that hon. and learned Gentleman denied the soft impeachment; but the counsel who appeared at the inquiry stated that he represented Mr. Walker, and that he was exceedingly dissatisfied with the boundaries which had been agreed upon. Now, he (Mr. Healy) must say, that for any counsel who appeared on behalf of a Law Officer of the Government, or of any Member of the Government, to attempt to intimidate the Commissioners by alleging that fact was extremely unsatisfactory, unprecedented, and he might almost say shocking, and especially so when viewed from a point of general policy. What must have been the effect produced on the minds of the Commissioners when they were told that the Irish Solicitor General, and a strong supporter of Her Majesty's Government—namely, the hon. Baronet the Member for the county of Londonderry (Sir Thomas M'Clure), were disappointed at the arrangement which had been made. He would say, at the outset, that the inquiry was prejudiced to a very large extent by that unfortunate statement. He was quite willing to admit that the proposal put forward by the hon. and learned Gentleman was not adopted; and that it would have been worse for the popular Party in Derry than the scheme finally adopted by the Commissioners. As he had said on a former occasion, the object of the Commissioners had been, not to jerrymander the divisions altogether, but just to jerrymander them enough; and the proposal

    325
    of the hon. and learned Gentleman to draw a line through the barony of Loughlinshollin, which was largely Catholic, was so indecent and outrageous that it was even too much for the strong stomachs of the Boundary Commissioners. The Irish Members had been attacked by the right hon. Baronet the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke) for having imported religious distinctions and some sectarian bitterness into this controversy. For his own part, he altogether repudiated any charge of the kind. The religious element had been introduced into the discussion by the Commissioners themselves, who, at the instigation of the Tory Party, had undertaken the inquiry with a theodolite in one hand and a Religious Census Table in the other In point of fact, the Religious Census Table, from first to last, had been the guide which had been followed in Ulster. And what had happened? The county of Derry had been divided into four baronies, one of them being the barony of Loughinshollin—a very large Catholic barony; and the question arose—what parishes of the Northern baronies were to be thrown into the division which comprised that barony? The original scheme of the Commissioners was to throw in bits of the barony of Tikeeran and the barony of Kennaught in order to obtain the requisite amount of population. That provision would have given the popular Party a Member for South Derry, the Catholics being 47 or 48 per cent of the entire county. Seeing how persons of other denominations were divided, it was not too much to say that the Catholic Party, under that arrangement, would have been entitled to one Member. It happened that in the lower division, as it was at first arranger], the Catholics, not to speak of the Nationalists, would have had a majority of over 2,000. When that fact came out the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland, who, of course, was extremely well informed with regard to the county of Londonderry, and was kept well supplied with information by his agents, immediately presented a counter-proposal to the Commissioners. Before he (Mr. Healy) touched upon that proposal he wished to draw the attention of the Committee to this extraordinary fact—that with the exception of the counties
    326
    of Dublin and Kildare, the scheme for the county of Londonderry was the last issued by the Commissioners. It was the third of the schemes published, and it was not kept back until the very last moment without a purpose, for the operations of the Commissioners had not been of such an unbiased character that it could be supposed they had been occupied in the interim with an entirely innocent investigation. However, in spite of the delay they were not able to hit the mark accurately enough for the Solicitor General; but, at all events, the fact remained that the county represented by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite supplied nearly the last scheme that was made public. However, when the Commissioners held their inquiry the hon. and learned Gentleman was represented at it by counsel, who protested, in the strongest terms, against the scheme of the Commissioners. He would leave the House to imagine what kind of impression was produced on the minds of the Commissioners, connected as they were with Dublin Castle, when they were informed that Her Majesty's Solicitor General was opposed to their scheme; and he would ask what guarantee of fair play the Nationalists had in the matter? The Government, or the Whig Party, were represented upon the Commission by Mr. Piers White; the Tories had two representatives—Major Macpherson and Captain Johnston; and the Irish Official Party were represented by a member of the Irish Local Government Board—Mr. Burke; while the popular Party, with whose constituents the Government were dealing in five out of six cases, were not afforded a single representative. They were not even consulted in regard to the names of any individual appointed upon the Commission. The Conservatives had two representatives, and the Whigs two; but the Nationalists had no representative at all, although 85 out of 103 seats to be dealt with were Nationalist constituencies. He thought that fact alone was sufficient to damn the Report made by the Commission in the opinion of every fair-minded man. In the next place, they had the operations of the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland. Perhaps it was indiscreet for the Liberal agent in Derry to have employed Dr. Todd, notwithstanding the fact that he was a distinguished bar-

    327
    rister; and it might have been indiscreet for Dr. Todd to have avowed to the Commissioners that he represented the Solicitor General for Ireland. He (Mr. Healy) had no doubt that by-and-bye the hon. and learned Gentleman would get up at the Table and tell the Committee that Dr. Todd was altogether unjustified in stating that he represented him (Mr. Walker); because the hon. and learned Gentleman could not but feel the extraordinary position in which the Commissioners were placed by having a distinct statement made to them that one of the chief Law Officers of the Crown in Ireland, possessing a seat in the House of Commons, disapproved of the Commissioners' scheme. He would ask the Tory Party in the House what interest they had in backing up this scheme, which was a scheme for returning two Whigs for the county of Derry, although the Tories had not a single Member in that county at present, except for the city of Derry; and the present scheme of division no more interested the Tory Party than it interested any political Party not connected at all with the county. It was purely a Whig scheme, from first to last; for the Tories would have no chance of returning a Member for Derry. He asked, then, was it right or fair, in the interests of decency, for a lawyer and advocate to get up in Court and tell the Boundary Commissioners that Her Majesty's Solicitor General disapproved of their scheme? He maintained that it was a monstrous attempt to interfere with the judgment and liberty of action of the Commissioners, and that it was an indecent attempt to wrest from them a scheme in favour of the views of the Government themselves, and what they considered to be best for their own purposes. No doubt the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland would say that this was not his scheme, or that of the Government. How dared the hon. and learned Gentleman have a scheme at all? He had no business whatever to put forward a scheme for any county, even although he happened to represent that county in the House of Commons. The hon. and learned Gentleman could not sink his position as one of Her Majesty's Advisers, and as one of the Gentlemen whose advice the Lord Lieutenant was bound to take when he appointed this Commission. He should
    328
    like to know what English Members would have said if the Attorney or Solicitor General had gone down to Taunton, or Durham, and said—"We disapprove of the scheme of the Commissioners?" What would have been said in England if such a declaration had been made—if the declaration received no disclaimer from Her Majesty's Government? It might suit the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland in that House to disclaim the action of Dr. Todd; but he did not disclaim it at the time, or before the Commissioners seat in their Report—which was the proper time to make it, if the disclaimer was to have any effect at all. It was only after the hon. and learned Gentleman found that the views of his representative bad been adopted, and when the statements of Dr. Todd had been reported, and made the subject of adverse comment in the Dublin newspapers, that the hon. and learned Gentleman came out with a disclaimer. He (Mr. Healy) contended that the present scheme was tainted by the action of the hon. and learned Gentleman; and on that ground, if upon no other, he would ask the Government to send it back to the Commissioners, and call upon them to make a fresh Report, seeing that it was a scheme which had been obtained, to a large extent, by undue influence, if not by actual intimidation. What were the merits, or rather the demerits, of the original scheme? What fault was to be found with the original scheme? As far as he knew, no fault whatever could be found with it. The Commissioners said—and this was a remarkable point, to which he would call the attention of the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke)—that Mr. James O'Doherty, the solicitor, and others who represented the Nationalists, had contented themselves with saying that they were satisfied with the proposition of the Commissioners, and that they objected to any alteration of it. What was that but a sneer, with the intention of implying that the Nationalists had put themselves in the wrong by not proposing any scheme of their own? The Commissioners then went on to make a very remarkable admission. They said that the alternative scheme was supported by maps and Schedules, put forward by Mr. Lane, the solicitor for the Conservative Party, and by Dr. Todd, the

    329
    counsel for the Liberal Party. "Both of these schemes," they added, "concurred to a certain point." No doubt, both of them concurred in cutting off people of the barony of Loughinshollin from their co-religionists. Both Whig and Tory concurred in that; and, therefore, the Commissioners said that it would be an improvement upon their original proposal, and they agreed to provide that the barony of Kennaught should not be divided, as had been proposed originally. Probably the defence of the Government would be that the present scheme of the Commissioners only divided one barony; whereas the original scheme divided two. The right hon. Baronet had pointed out that the area of the Derry boundaries was divided only in one instance now. That would have been an admirable argument if the Government had adopted it in the case of Armagh, Donegal, Tyrone, or Down, or in any other single instance in connection with an Irish county; and if the right hon. Baronet put forward that make-believe and absurd argument, he (Mr. Healy) would only say that, on the Report stage of the Bill, he would call upon the right hon. Gentleman to re-propose the old divisions of Armagh, Donegal, Tyrone, and Down, or otherwise the argument would put him entirely out of court; and, certainly, what was sauce for the goose was sauce for the gander. The Commissioners went on to say that these detached parishes contained a population of 9,000 persons, and that, by leaving them united to their own baronies, a more compact division was formed. But where was the compactness of the division? He defied any Member of the Government to show in what the compactness consisted. The Commissioners said that the two baronies under the old scheme were divided by a high and almost uninhabited range of mountains; but was not that the case in the county of Donegal? How was that argument allowed to hold good in the case of Donegal? Kilmacreenan was separated by mountains, and utterly uninhabited spaces of ocean—visited only by herrings and seagulls from Innishowen, yet both were shamelessly united in one division. If that argument had been used in the case of Donegal, it would have been entirely worthless, in the view of the Government; but as this was a case in which
    330
    the Government were anxious to suit their own purposes, they introduced the argument of separation by a range of mountains. It must be borne in mind that in no other case had such a ground been allowed to stand in the way of the connection of one district with another; and in this case, under the old scheme, the population was entirely homogeneous. It was a Catholic population, having intimate communications with each other—one in blood and in religion, and also in language; and also, from a geographical point of view, far more compact than the division which had been substituted for it. For the Commissioners, who scarcely spent an entire hour over the matter, to setup their opinion against that of the inhabitants of the district was simply hypocrisy and audacity. The Commissioners went on to state, in their Report, that the suggested improvement was one which recommended itself, and that it necessitated a corresponding reduction from Division No. 1, in order to make up and complete Division No. 2. Nevertheless, it was a remarkable fact that the parishes struck out were parishes containing a purely Catholic population, and that the two parishes put in from the barony of Coleraine contained a purely Protestant population. As a matter of fact, out of the barony of Coleraine, the Commissioners had taken the two most Protestant parishes of the entire division; and out of the original Northern Division they had struck out the two most Catholic parishes; and this course could only be defended by arguments which it was admitted had no force in regard to other counties—such as the counties of Armagh, Donegal, Tyrone, and Down. It was monstrous, then, that the Nationalist Party should be attempted to be stalled off by this miserable threadbare argument. First of all, he would state to the Committee the religious effect of the scheme. In the original scheme of the Commissioners the Southern Division had a majority of 3,000 Catholics. By the present scheme of the Commissioners, a majority of 3,000 Protestants had been secured. Wherever any change had been made in Ulster, time after time and in county after county, the effect of the change had been to put the Catholics in a minority; and therefore the action of the Commissioners and of the Government was capable of but one interpreta-

    331
    tion. These schemes bore the brand of infamy upon them, and so long as these boundaries were allowed to exist they would be a monument of the bigotry, the prejudice, and the partiality of the Commissioners appointed by Lord Spencer. In Deny, as in the case of Down, Donegal, Armagh, and Tyrone, every change which had been made told against the popular Party; and, bearing in mind that in no single instance had the Tory Party come forward and asked for an alteration which had not been adopted, it was impossible to draw any other conclusion than that the object was to keep the Nationalists down as far as possible. The two Whig Representatives and the two Tories upon the Commission had put their heads together to cheat and chouse the Nationalists out of the rights to which they were fairly entitled. How did the Government defend their scheme? They threw out the parishes of Learmount, Dungiven, and Moville, and put in their stead from the barony of Coleraine the Protestant parishes of Aghadowey and Desertoghill. He would ask the Government for some explanation upon another point—namely, why it was that they had taken so much of these parishes? Why was it that there were now 3,000 more persons in the South Derry Division than in the North Derry Division? Surely it was not necessary to take so large a portion of these parishes if they only wanted to equalize the population. In the original scheme the number in each division was nearly equal; but now, for the purpose of swamping the Catholics in the barony of Loughinshollin, they took out 3,000 Protestants from the barony of Coleraine. They had had mountains and lakes flung in their faces, compactness, the squareness of the barony, and everything except a frank admission, which, of course, the Government could not with decency make, that the design from first to last was to deprive the Nationalists of their rights by moans of fraud and chicane. He viewed the boundaries now proposed by the Bill with all the more apprehension, because he believed that the Government had made them, although that assertion would, doubtless, be denied, not merely for the purpose of Parliamentary areas, but for the purpose of Local Government arrangements hereafter, so that not merely were
    332
    the Nationalists to be swindled now, but later on they were to be equally swindled when the areas in connection with the Local Government Boards were formed. Lord Spencer appeared to have pointed out, in his secret instructions to the Commissioners, that these areas would be subsequently used for Local Government purposes; so that not only would the popular Party be swamped at the present moment in the constituencies in connection with the return of Representatives to Parliament, but later on, when the Local Government scheme was on the anvil, the areas now applotted would be rendered available for cheating the popular Party in the North in the matter of Local Government Boards. He believed that that was really one of the main reasons which had influenced the Government. He would only say, in conclusion, that turn where they might in the case of these counties—
    "The trail of the serpent is over it all."
    In all other cases in the South of Ireland, in over 90 constituencies, except Dublin, Kerry, and an island in Mayo, no change whatever had been made in the schemes of the Commissioners; but no less than 11 changes had been made in the nine counties of the North of Ireland. There were changes in Down, in Antrim, in Belfast, in Derry, in Tyrone, in Armagh, in Donegal—and only two practically throughout the rest of Ireland—namely, in Dublin and in the county of Kerry. What did it all mean? Could they ever succeed in eradicating from the minds of the popular Party the feeling that they had been choused and cheated, and defrauded of their rights? The boundaries of county after county in Ulster had been changed, and complaint after complaint had been made in that House by those who represented the popular feeling. The Tory Party and the Whig Party had no complaint whatever to make. It was the Nationalists alone, who were not represented on the Commission, who were compelled to stand up in the House of Commons and put forward their claims, and urge their grievances, although they knew beforehand that the compact which existed between the two Front Benches would prevent them from securing their rights or obtaining justice. He trusted that, at any rate, this debate would prove to the people of the North of Ire-

    333
    land that they had nothing to expect in the shape of justice from the Government of Dublin Castle, or from any Commission which Earl Spencer might appoint. They had been cheated once before by the Commission appointed under the Land Act. They were being cheated now by a Commission under the Redistribution Bill. Whatever Commission Lord Spencer appointed, it would be found that he was unable to give a fair and decent representation to the popular or Catholic Party. Every Commissioner was appointed in the Tory or Whig interest; and so long as these divisions lasted they would recall to the popular mind the unfairness, indecency, and fraud of the British Government in Ireland.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 101, to leave out from the words "The Baronies of," in line 21, to the word "Shanlongford," in line 35, and insert the words "Barony of North-West Liberties of Londonderry."—(Mr. Healy.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan had stated once again what he had said before—that some secret instructions had been given by Lord Spencer to the Boundary Commissioners with regard to the alterations they ought to effect in the original scheme. If so, such instructions were so secret that he himself (Sir Charles W. Dilke) did not know of them. But even beyond that extraordinary secrecy with regard to himself, he was bound to say that Lord Spencer had authorized him to state that nothing of the kind had taken place. The hon. and learned Gentleman had alluded before to the presence at the inquiry of a legal gentleman, who said that he appeared for the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Walker). That statement was also inaccurate.
    MR. HEALYsaid, that it had appeared in the public Press, where it had gone uncontradicted as having been made by Dr. Todd himself.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he had had some communication with the Members for the county of Derry, and they denied that they were in any way represented before the Commissioners. But however that might be, if his hon.
    334
    and learned Friend the Solicitor General for Ireland had felt inclined to attend before the Commissioners himself, he would have been altogether justified in doing so. For his own part, he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had been present at the inquiry which took place in regard to his own division; and, as a matter of fact, he had taken an active part in the proceedings.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, that occurred in England, and not in Ireland.
    MR. HEALYremarked that, while the Liberals were represented upon the Commission, the National Party were not.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he would only say what, so far as he was personally concerned, was the fact. He now came to the merits of this particular case. There had been a Paper laid upon the Table of the House, in which the reasons of the Commissioners for making this change in their scheme were submitted. The alterations which had been made in the original scheme had been made in consequence of its being found that the maps, which formed the basis of the original scheme, did not show the physical conformation of the country. There was a range of mountains which ran North and South, and the present scheme followed the geographical arrangements. He did not think it was desirable to carry a division across a mountainous range; and there had been several cases in England where hills much less considerable had been taken into view by the Boundary Commissioners. The hon. and learned Member (Mr. Healy) complained that the result of the change had been to make a difference of 3,000 between the population of the Northern and of the Southern Divisions; but the Northern Division would contain three large towns, and it was necessary to allow for an increase of the population in those towns.
    MR. HEALYremarked, that Londonderry had a Member already, and was not included in the county divisions.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he only wished to point out that the tendency of the population in the neighbourhood of large towns was to increase; whereas in the rural districts of Ireland the tendency was the other way. Certainly the decrease of population had been much less rapid in the Northern

    335
    than in the Southern parts of the county. It was said by the hon. and learned Member that the changes had been suggested by the Tory and Liberal agents.
    MR. HEALYsaid, it was the Commissioners themselves who said that.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, it must be borne in mind that additional changes were suggested that were not accepted by the Commissioners. So far as the religious point was concerned, the Protestant population in the county was about 78,500; while the Catholic population was only 57,000, so that it did happen that the Protestant section had a majority in each division.
    MR. HEALYsaid, that that would not have been the case if the first scheme of the Commissioners had been adhered to.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that the first scheme was exceptionally objectionable, and the moment it came to be inquired into it became evident that it must be changed.
    MR. HEALYsaid, that the Catholics were always cheated in that way.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEcontinued. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that no change had been made in other counties; but in three Conservative counties changes had been made, and the reason why changes had been made from the scheme as originally prepared was owing to the evidence given before the Commissioners at the local inquiry. Presumably the present scheme was the best that could be devised. He altogether denied that there had been any intention on the part of the Government or of the Boundary Commissioners to make such a division of the county as would be adverse to either the Catholic or the National Party of Ireland. He must, therefore, oppose the Amendment.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, that some reference had been made to the constitution of the Commission which had prepared the boundaries of the Irish counties. It was proposed, first of all, that these important functions should be entrusted entirely to military officers. He almost thought it might have been better if military officers had been allowed to do the work. Military officers were not, as was sometimes claimed for them, altogether free from political passion; but they usually gained their promotion for
    336
    military and professional reasons, and if military officers solely had been employed in framing the boundaries, it might have been hoped that there would have been nothing in the character of the work to induce them to plan unfair divisions for the sake of pleasing their employers, or in the hope of obtaining more rapid promotion. As a matter of fact, however, the work of the Boundary Commission in Ireland was confided to three gentlemen, one of whom was a military officer; another an official, who, of course, would like promotion; while the third was a Queen's Counsel, who was not a Government officer now, but who doubtless expected to be one soon. He thought it was a mistake to transfer the work from military officers to civilians, either officials now or officials expectant. When the scheme of the Commissioners was originally proposed the popular Party, unfortunately, went through the ancient and time-honoured, though not very sensible, practice of "holloaing before they were out of the wood." The right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) now stated that no secret instructions were issued by Lord Spencer. Well, there were more ways than one of doing things at Dublin Castle. Of course, it was not necessary for Lord Spencer to put down on paper secret instructions to the Commissioners; but when he (Mr. Sexton) found, as he did find, that the boundaries were drawn in this county, and in other counties in Ireland, not in obedience to the public instructions of the Commissioners, but in contravention of them; when he found that the boundaries were drawn in conformity with some other instruction not included in the public instructions in order to minimize the influence of the Catholic population as much as possible in the Province of Ulster, it was open for him to assume that if Lord Spencer did not convey that desire by secret instructions, at any rate somebody on the part of the Government did convey such an intimation to the Commissioners, or, if not, they were appointed and selected from a conviction in the mind of the Government that they were men of such a complexion as not to need instructions, but that their own power of initiation would be stimulated by a lively sense of favours to come. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Walker) appeared to disclaim

    337
    the position asserted for him of having been represented on the inquiry by counsel. He (Mr. Sexton) did not know whether it mattered very much whether the hon. and learned Gentleman was represented by counsel or not. Whether or not he was represented at the De cry inquiry, the hon. and learned Gentleman was in the House that day to represent himself; and he doubted whether the hon. and learned Gentleman, after hearing the statement which had been made, would have the hardihood to get up and say that he was dissatisfied with the division of the county which had been made by the Commissioners. The familiar argument of the maps not showing the configuration of the county had once more been trotted out. Did the right hon. Baronet the President of the Local Government Board really expect the Committee to believe, or hope to make them accept the statement, that these three gentlemen, sitting in Dublin, with all the resources of the Valuation Office at their disposal, with all the maps of every county in Ireland which had been taken officially during the last half-century deposited at their elbows—did the right hon. Gentleman mean to tell the Committee that these official gentlemen in Dublin went through the farce of dividing the county of Derry, without knowing from the Ordnance maps, from the geological maps, from the physical maps, and all the maps which had been produced from time to time, what every schoolboy knew, that this range of mountains cut the county from North-West to North-East? There was not an intelligent child of 10 in any National school of Ireland who was not acquainted with that fact, and there was hardly a map hanging on the wall in any school in Ireland which did not clearly show this range of mountains. When the right hon. Gentleman made use of a statement of that kind, he must credit the Irish Members with a degree of credulity which usually ceased in the human mind before a man arrived at the age which would enable him to enter that House. The first remark he (Mr. Sexton) had to make on the scheme of the Commissioners was that it afforded, perhaps, the most striking instance they had of the remarkable, and hitherto unexplained, fact that wherever the Nationalists had agreed to the first scheme of
    338
    the Commissioners, the Commissioners immediately proceeded to alter it. If the Commissioners had no object, except the ardent performance of their duty, their attitude, wherever the Nationalists were concerned, was certainly most singular. If the National Party objected to a scheme, as they did in many cases, and said they were not satisfied with it, the Commissioners declared at once—"We are not able to satisfy you, but we stand to our scheme, and we will make no attempt to alter it. "But if, on the other hand, the Nationalists said—"We think your scheme in a very good one, and we are quite satisfied with it," what did the Commissioners do then? They said at once—"If you are satisfied with our scheme, there must be something wrong in it;" and then they immediately proceeded to ascertain what the Whig and Tory agents had to say in regard to it, ultimately altering the scheme in accordance with the recommendations they received. It would be observed that this particular scheme had been unnecessarily kept back. The Commissioners were appointed in the month of December last year, but they did not produce this scheme until the month of February; and there was a shrewd suspicion in Ireland that the delay on the part of the Commissioners, who were alert enough in completing the other scheme for the Irish counties, was not altogether unconnected with the fact that the county had the honour to be represented in that House by Her Majesty's Solicitor General for Ireland. The Commissioners said the second scheme was more compact than the first. That was a matter that was capable of being judged by the human eye. The first division was marked by a blue line, which ran across the county. That blue line divided the county pretty equally from a point in the West to a point in the East. It left an equal area on both sides of the line. It gave an equal population to either side of the line; it almost left inviolable the well-known areas, and it only separated three or four parishes from a barony in one case. It was a division that was not open to any strong objection. In fact, Mr. O'Doherty, who appeared at the inquiry on behalf of the Nationalist Party, read a statement which had been drawn up at Dungannon on the previous day. That state-

    339
    ment was to the effect that the line fixed upon by the Commissioners, which divided the county East and West, met with their approval, and they gave their reasons for that approval. But the moment the Nationalists approved of the scheme, from that moment it was damned in the minds of its authors. The moment the Nationalists expressed their approval of any scheme, the Commissioners went a step further with respect to their scheme, and set about destroying it. In the original scheme of the Commissioners the creeds of the county were fairly divided; the non-Catholics had the Northern Division and the Catholics had the Southern Division; and by that arrangement the Commissioners had met the rough and general demands of justice. As the Committee was aware, the Whigs and Tories did not always agree in Ireland; but lately, in Ulster, they had been tending towards agreement, and the Whig and Tory agents, who appeared in Derry, agreed that the first scheme should be amended by taking four Catholic parishes out of the Southern Division, in order to swamp it with Protestants—both Parties agreed upon that. The next argument, so-called, he had to deal with was in the shape of a range of mountains, with respect to which he would observe that the mountain range was there, but no argument. The right hon. Baronet thought nothing of jumping over a range of mountains in Armagh—he thought nothing of jumping over a range of mountains in Donegal, between Boylagh and Kilmacrenan. But wherever there was an excrescence on the surface of the earth, were it but the size of an anthill, if it could be used as an argument to weaken the influence of the Catholic Body in Ulster, it immediately assumed the proportions of a range of mountains—but the Himalayas themselves, whenever the matter went the other way, would be diminished in the eyes of the Government. Having thrown the four Catholic parishes into the Northern Division, a number of Protestant parishes were thrown into the Southern Division. The first scheme of the Commissioners had respect to the barony boundaries; but in the second scheme the baronies were cut into pieces. Anyone who compared the two schemes would say that the first was intelligible and reasonable; and he would think
    340
    that Mr. P. White, in claiming for the second scheme compactness, was guilty of an audacity which had not been manifested in other cases. The Protestant majority in the Southern Division was between 1,000 and 2,000. Considering that the Protestants were better off in the North than the Catholics, it was clear that this county had been jerrymandered in such a way as not to lose one Protestant vote in the Southern Division, and so as to maintain Protestant ascendancy in the Northern Division. If the Commissioners had any desire to allow fair play as between the two creeds, why had they thrown 2,000 out of their own district? It was clear that the Instructions given to the Commissioners had been thrown aside. The Instructions which the Government had given them, from beginning to end, was the unconfessed but still operative and dominant one—to cut up the county of Londonderry in the manner they liked best; to have no regard to the sympathies of the people, or creeds, or local interests; to jump over mountains and to produce the result that the Catholics should be deprived of their fair proportion of representation, and that the Protestants should be allowed to predominate. It was a pretty scheme, but a contemptible one, and he ventured to doubt that it would be successful. He believed that there would be found a great number of Protestant voters whose sympathies were with the Nationalist Party, and whose interests lay on the side of those reforms which that Party advocated, and which both Whigs and Tories despised. He did not the Government could assure themselves that any success would result from these discreditable intrigues. He believed that intrigues more mean, more petty, and therefore more repugnant to a manly mind than this had never been engaged in by a Government; and he thought it would be found that as their various schemes for maintaining British Government and suppressing public opinion in Ireland had failed, so this device would prove the least successful of all.
    MR. SMALLsaid, it was strange that this arrangement with regard to the county of Londonderry should have been made. In the case of Armagh, the Southern Division, under any possible arrangement, would go with the Nationalist Party; and it was only with re-

    341
    gard to the Mid Division of the county that any doubt existed. The Commissioners, accordingly, took every Protestant district out of that division, and threw them into the Southern Division. But in the case of the county of Londonderry, the Northern Division could not be captured for the Nationalists—it was the Southern Division only with regard to which any doubt existed, and hence the different action of the Commissioners in the two cases. The Commissioners here took a course quite opposite to that which they had pursued in reference to Armagh; in the one case they took the Catholic districts from the South Division, and threw them into the North Division; and in the other they took the Protestant districts out of the North, and threw them into the Southern Division. As the Commissioners had transferred several parishes from the Southern to the Northern Division of the county, it might be interesting to the Committee to know the relative proportion of Protestants to Catholics in those parishes. They contained Catholics to a number which was in the proportion of 50 per cent and 75 per cent of all other denominations. Three of the parishes were possibly the most Catholic in the entire county. Then, with regard to the parishes which the Commissioners had transferred from the North to the South, the position was reversed, the various denominations being enormously in excess of the Catholics; in fact, out of 14,115 Denominationalists there were only 4, 773 Catholics. It did, indeed, seem strange that the Commissioners, who were said to be actuated by the best intentions, should have transferred from the Northern to the Southern Division parishes only where there were Protestants enormously in excess of the Catholics; and, on the other hand, that in all the parishes which they had transferred from the Southern to the Northern Division there should be a large majority of Catholics. It seemed to him that the Nationalists were fairly entitled to one seat at least for the county. By the Census of 1881 the Catholics formed 15 per cent of the entire population; and they knew that amongst the rest of the population there were as many Nationalists as amongst the Catholic Body. The Nationalists of to-day must, in his (Mr. Sexton's) opinion, form one-half of the entire population of the county; and
    342
    he said that if there were to be two seats for the county, and the two Parties were balanced, it would have been only fair for the Commissioners to have made such a division as would leave one Member to the Nationalist and one Member to the non-Nationalist Body, rather than to give two Members to the non-Nationalists and none at all to the Nationalist Body. The Bill said that the North-West Liberties of Londonderry, except so much as is comprised in the Parliamentary borough of Londonderry, was to be included in the North-West Division, and the barony of Tikeeran, also, except so much as is comprised in the Parliamentary borough of Londonderry. Now, it appeared from this that, the Parliamentary borough of Londonderry was not to be included for any purpose whatever in either of the divisions of the county of Londonderry; and that being so, he would ask the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland what he meant to do with the freeholders who voted in the City of Londonderry? Were they to be disfranchised? Because that would be the effect of the scheme as now framed by the Commissioners. Possibly the hon. and learned Gentleman would get up and say that the freeholders would vote in the City of Derry; but that was not the case, because if the freeholders were not enfranchised in the City of Derry, and if they were excluded from all the divisions of the county, they would not be allowed to vote either in the county or the city. He did not know whether the freeholders in question would be friendly to the hon. and learned Gentleman; but he rather thought that at the next General Election it would be found that they were not so on account of the way they had been treated in this matter; at any rate, the effect of the Schedule would be to disfranchise them. The hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) had pointed out that the barony of Loughinshollin was entirely a Catholic barony. That was the case, and it was also true of the adjoining baronies of Tikeeran and Kennaught. Other matters being equal, would it not have been fairer for the Commissioners to have joined the Catholic parishes to the Catholic baronies rather than joining them to Coleraine, and thus uniting Catholics with men who were alien to them in interest and religious feeling. Many meet-

    343
    ings had been held, and the people of Loughinshollin had unanimously protested against the scheme which joined them to the uncongenial inhabitants of Coleraine, rather than to those with whom they had sympathy of feeling and community of interest in the baronies of Kennaught and Tikeeran. The right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had endeavoured to prove that the revised scheme was better than the first scheme, as there was a chain of mountains between the two baronies; but was the right hon. Baronet aware that there was also a considerable chain of mountains between the barony of Loughinshollin and the places in Coleraine which it was, by the present Amendment, proposed to join to the other division? He could assure the right hon. Baronet that the mountains in the one case were as considerable as those in the other. But supposing that the obstacles between the two baronies were not so great, he would point out that there were other barriers of a far more serious character between the barony of Coleraine and the barony of Loughinshollin. He thought the Commissioners might have taken into consideration, as between the two baronies, the entire absence of intercourse, community of interest, and religious feeling. He trusted, therefore, that this scheme would not be agreed to by the Committee; but if it were, and notwithstanding that the Catholics in the county had been placed in a considerable minority, they would still be able to give a very good account of themselves; and when the next General Election took place it would, he thought, be seen by the Commissioners and the Treasury Bench that they might as well have left the people of the district in question where they wished to remain, and not have joined them with people they did not want to be associated with for the purpose of this Bill. Having proposed reasonable Amendments to the Government scheme in the case of Armagh, Donegal, and Londonderry without success, he and his hon. Friends would look with concern to the course the Government would take in respect of Ulster, in order to see whether any concession would be made to them when the name of that county was reached in the Schedule.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, he did
    344
    not know why he should speak on this question at all, and he should not have done so were it not for the manner in which the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) had used his name—that was to say, as if he (the Solicitor General for Ireland) were to blame for the arrangement made by the Commissioners in respect of the county of Londonderry. The hon. and learned Member said he (the Solicitor General for Ireland) appeared by counsel before the Commissioners. But no counsel appeared before the Commissioners at all, and that statement of the hon. and learned Member had been met when the general question was before the Committee. He decided to take no part in the inquiry at the time, and had not appeared there directly or indirectly. But the agent of the Liberal Party in Londonderry bad written to him on the subject, and his Colleague in the representation and himself had instructed him that they "did not think that we should interfere or take any part in the inquiry." That contradicted the statement that he had, either one way or the other, taken part in this matter. He did not know what scheme was proposed; be had not appeared, and he had instructed no counsel or solicitor to appear for him; and this arrangement with regard to Londonderry was not made at his suggestion. Of course, what he was saying did not touch the merits of the scheme which hon. Gentlemen opposite had discussed; but as regarded that scheme he would say that he thought it better it should have been made, because, in his opinion, the original scheme was wholly unsupportable from a geographical point of view, inasmuch as it did detach baronies and interfere with the compactness of the divisions, and put a range of mountains between the two baronies, as his right hon. Friend (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had stated. He believed that a proper division of the county had been made, and be should be going out of his way if he were to appear in that House to join with hon. Members opposite in condemning it. With regard to Mr. Piers White, everyone knew that be was a man of honour and integrity; and he would say, in conclusion, with respect to the scheme of the Boundary Commissioners, that he believed it was properly made; at any rate, he was prepared to acquiesce in it.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Walker) was well known as a dexterous counsel, and he had proved his title to that reputation on this occasion by the defence he had just made. The hon. and learned Gentleman had said that Dr. Todd did not appear for the Liberal Party for Derry; but he had not sat down without saying that Dr. Todd represented the Liberal Party, for he had said that he had represented him, the Solicitor General for Ireland. As Louis XIV. said—"L'etat c'est moi," so the hon. and learned Gentleman might say under these circumstances—"I am the Liberal Party." The distinction the hon. and learned Gentleman sought to draw between Dr. Todd representing him and representing the Liberal Party was about as remarkable as the statement that counsel had not appeared, but only a solicitor. When the hon. and learned Gentleman had thought it necessary and proper to correct the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) upon the small fact that it was a solicitor and not a barrister that had appeared, he must have been very hard up indeed for an argument with which to defend his position. He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) did not, generally speaking, deny the right of a Member of the Government to take part in the settlement of these matters. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had told them how, in his constituency, he had appeared and had justified, as he was entitled to justify, his action in the matter; but he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) had ventured to interject that the right hon. Gentleman was speaking of England, while they were speaking of Ireland, and that the action of officials in England differed entirely from the action of officials in Ireland. The two things might be called by the same name; but they were, as a matter of fact, very different things indeed. Everyone knew that the official hierarchy in Ireland were able to exercise the pressure upon all proceedings in their country, judicial and otherwise, which officials could not exercise in England; and if he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) had not been called to Order by a recent decree in the House for stating that such a thing was possible as a
    346
    partizan Judge, he should say that even the Judges in Ireland were at the beck and call of the Executive Government. What did the hon. and learned Gentleman say in defence of this proposal? He professed to be shocked at the Irish Members bringing the question of religious creed into this matter. But, unfortunately, religion marked political differences in the North and in other parts of that country. He was sorry to say it, but such was the case. He hoped that the fact that religion did mark political differences would gradually disappear, and that there would be other divisions of opinion in Ireland in future than those marked out by Catholicism and Protestantism. But they must take things as they were, and unquestionably they could only tell a man's politics in Ireland from the religious creed he professed. It was not the members of the National Party in that House who had introduced this question of religious difference at all. Their whole effort and aim, in the course of the struggle they had been engaged in during the last four or five years in Ireland, had been to drive sectarian differences from the platforms, and nowhere had they made more strained and consistent efforts than in the sacred conclaves of the Churches. He thought that by this time they would have succeeded in welding men of different religious creeds into one political society, if it had not been for the malignant, and he was afraid he must say shameful, effort on the part of the Conservative Party in the North of Ireland to revive the dying and almost dead sectarian spirit in that part of the country. Therefore, no one would misunderstand him when he spoke of the difference of religious creeds being one of the elements at work in this matter. He hoped that, in spite of the fact that the Boundary Commissioners had thrown Catholics into Protestant divisions, and Protestants into Catholic divisions, for the benefit of Whigs and Tories, the only effect would be to draw to the Nationalists a considerable section of those who professed the Protestant religion. Several matters had been alluded to in the course of a discussion with regard to which he would like to say a word. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had said that the hon. and learned Member for Mona-

    347
    ghan (Mr. Healy) had stated that there were secret instructions issued by Lord Spencer to the Boundary Commissioners, and that the Lord Lieutenant had sedulously denied that statement. Well, his (Mr. T. P. O'Connor's) reply was that there was no necessity for issuing any instructions, either open or secret, to such Boundary Commissioners as had been appointed by Dublin Castle. Lord Spencer knew very well, when he selected the four gentlemen he did select, that there was no necessity on his part for preparing any instructions. He was perfectly sure that they would do the work of Dublin Castle without even a nod or a wink from him, or from anyone else in the Government. What was the character of these four gentlemen? He was not going to say anything about them personally, for he had no doubt that they were gentlemen of very high character indeed. But what he wished someone on the Treasury Bench to answer was this—Was it proper that in the appointments made representatives of the vast majority of the Irish people should be carefully excluded? Supposing they had been dealing with the case of England, and that the Commissioners had all been selected from the Conservative Party, would they not have had a howl from the Liberal Members of the House? Or, supposing all the Commissioners had been selected from the Liberal Party, would there not have been a howl from the Conservatives? Well, in Ireland the Nationalists outnumbered all other Parties in a way in which the Liberals could not claim to outnumber the Conservatives in England, or the Conservatives claim to outnumber the Liberals. The appointment of Boundary Commissioners in Ireland, as a matter of fact, seemed to have been regulated on the extraordinary principle that the only political Party which should not be represented should be the political Party representing three-fourths of the people of the country. When they heard the melancholy lay of the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) on this question, he supposed they would be told that the Boundary Commissioners in Ireland were not selected for a political purpose. The right hon. Gentleman might say that; but the Irish Members would reserve to themselves perfect liberty of action as to the amount
    348
    of credence they might think it necessary to give to the statement. These gentlemen were selected because they did not profess certain political principles. They might not have been selected because they were Whigs, or they might not have been selected because they were Tories; but they certainly were selected because they were not Nationalists. Who were these gentlemen? Well, two of them were Engineer officers, he believed, and he would grant for the sake of argument that they had no pronounced political opinions. But what did an Irish Nationalist mean to an Engineer officer? Why, every Parnellite meant to such an individual a rebel. Every Nationalist in Ireland was a rebel—everyone who dared to follow the lead of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) was to an Engineer officer that which he was to the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton)—that was to say, a person who had more or less trampled on the Oath of Allegiance. As a matter of fact, Engineer officers did not require any instructions from the Lord Lieutenant at all; their duty, as they would interpret it, to the Queen and the State, was to do everything they could to put down what they would call the Party of Disloyalty and Disorder in Ireland. Who were the other two Commissioners? Why, there was Mr. Bourke, an Inspector of the Local Government Board, and to Government officials, as well as to Engineer officers, of course a Parnellite was a rebel. Mr. Bourke could, of course, be depended upon for doing what he could to weaken the Party of Disorder without instructions from the Lord Lieutenant. Then there was Mr. Piers White, who might be called the pièce de resistance in this matter. The moment the Irish Members raised any objection to the Boundary Commissioners, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke), and the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General, both got up in the most solemn and serious manner and declared that Mr. Piers White was a Roman Catholic gentleman, as if the Irish Members did not know that some of the bitterest and worst enemies of Ireland and her national rights were respectable Roman Catholic gentlemen. Why, if there were no respectable Roman Catholic gentlemen in Ireland—

    349
    if there were no bad Irishmen, they would have settled the Irish Question to their satisfaction long ago. What was Mr. Piers White? An eminent lawyer, no doubt; a Queen's Counsel, a man who had, he believed, a very large practice at the Bar. In fact, one of the last occasions on which he had seen the learned gentleman was as leader—he might say as bare leader—to his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) in a case in which he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) himself had some interest, and nothing could exceed the discretion and ability with which Mr. Piers White conducted his case. So eminent was Mr. Piers Whyte that he performed the same function to the Government in Ireland as the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Trevelyan) was once reported to perform to the Government in general—that was to say, he acted as maid of all work. He got all the jobs which were going which could not be attended to by the Law Officers of the Crown. Mr. Piers White, amongst other things given him to do, had been sent down to Derry on a previous occasion, and his action there was such as ought to have incapacitated him in the eyes of every impartial man from ever going within 50 miles of any disputed matter in Derry again. What did he do on that occasion? There had been a riot in Derry—a most unprovoked and shameful riot. Because the then Lord Mayor of Dublin (Mr. Dawson) had ventured to lecture to his co-religionists and brother politicians, he was sat upon by the Protestant Orangemen. This respectable Irish gentleman was sent down to inquire into the matter, and he had given all the merit to the Orange Tory mob, and had thrown all the blame upon his co-religionists. In his Report the learned gentleman said—"Mr. O'Donnell, solicitor, and others represented the Nationalists;" and he put the word Nationalists in inverted commas, after the style affected by The Dublin Daily Express. He acted under the delusion that those who called themselves Nationalists could only be described with the shameful and sarcastic addition of inverted commas. Mr. Piers White was, in fact, as anti-National as anyone in the House could possibly be. The triumph of the National Party was just as obnoxious to Mr. Piers White as it was to the right hon. and learned Gen-
    350
    tlemen who represented the Irish Conservative Party on the Front Opposition Bench at the present moment (Mr. Gibson and Mr. Plunket)—in fact, Mr. Piers White belonged to the class of gentlemen who could never forget their Party, because they had been banished for ever from the political platforms of Ireland and from that House. In fact, he was sure Mr. Piers White would greatly prefer the time when an Irish constituency and seat in that House was the path of the dirt of corruption, and of treason to the dignity of the Judicial Bench. What had been the effect of the operations of the Boundary Commissioners on the city of Derry? Why, to disproportion, or very much diminish, the chances of the Catholics of the place finding a Representative in that House. He agreed Avith the remarks of the hon. Member for Wexford County (Mr. Small) in the able speech he had made on this question. The hon. Member was an Ulster Catholic himself, and could speak with feeling upon this question. He had spoken of the cruelty of separating the Catholics of three parishes from their co-religionists in the barony. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Walker) had talked of the barrier of a mountain; but the hon. Member for Wexford County (Mr. Small) had very properly said there were barriers far more impassable and far more insurmountable in Derry and other parts of the North of Ireland than barriers of that kind. Did the inhabitants of these three parishes, whose convenience, forsooth, had been so consulted, object to be thrown in with their coreligionists on the other side of this mountain? Did they make any representation of the inconvenience that the mountain would cause them in going to the polling booth? Were they not, on the contrary, all protesting as one voice against being thrown in with men of a different creed to themselves? The hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) had reminded him (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) that these people could have a temporary polling booth constructed for them on one side of the mountain, and that was perfectly true. But the barrier was not the mountain in that part of Ireland. The barrier was one of religious dissension and consequent political differences. He thought that in this matter the action

    351
    of the Boundary Commissioners had been something horribly cruel. He did not envy those hon. Members who would have to fight the Ulster constituencies. He certainly should not go through a contest in any of these places if he could possibly avoid it. Those who had the small, but disagreeable, experience that he had had on one occasion, marching, as he did, between two companies of soldiers and a large body of police drawn up at the railway station amidst a shower bath of bricks, would know that an election in the North of Ireland was about as ugly a business as any political man could be called upon to face. But in the future what would be the state of things when the Catholics, instead of being left alone, would be mixed up in this way with Protestants? If the Catholics had been congregated into one district, elections would have taken place in peace and quietness; but now there would be every incentive and stimulus to horrible political excitement, and a terrible disproportion would be established between the Catholics and the Protestants in the North of Derry. He did not exaggerate when he said that the lives of the Catholics would scarcely be safe. He did not know how the Government would be able to cope with the difficulty, although, of course, it would be their duty to protect those who were likely to suffer. An hon. Friend of his suggested that they would have to add an additional sum to the Vote in order to meet the expenses of the police. On the present occasion, he thought the Irish Members had made as reasonable a demand as had been made during the whole discussion of this question of the Seats Bill. The proceedings of the Boundary Commissioners had been most unjust and unfair; they had acted in the interests of the so-called Loyal Party in Ireland. One would have thought that by this time the Government of this country and all English Parties would have become alive to the fact that injustice was the best way to compel and extend a spirit of disloyalty amongst the Irish people. The only hope of the Irish Members was that their protest, even if it were futile so far as that Assembly was concerned, would be heard and attended to outside, and that it would give every true Nationalist in Derry, and in other parts of Ireland, another argument in favour of putting an end to the revolting system by which
    352
    Irish rights were at the mercy of English jerrymandering and trickery.
    MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, it was, perhaps, useless to prolong the discussion—no good result seemed likely to be derived from it. They were appealing here to no tribunal. They had no verdict to expect from the Assembly on this question; because, as he had said on a previous occasion, the matter was one which had been already squared and settled between the two chief Parties in that House. The question they were now debating was a foregone conclusion, and nothing that hon. Members on those (the Irish) Benches could say would tend to alter it in the slightest degree. Nevertheless, they felt it their duty to make their protest against the arrangements which had been made in Ireland by the Boundary Commissioners, which the Irish Members, and he trusted the Committee, now knew were exceedingly unfair and dishonest to the National Party in that country. It was impossible for any impartial man, English or Irish, who had paid the slightest attention to the course of this discussion, not to see that in the North of Ireland, when the Commissioners reached debateable ground, they accepted the proposals of, and gave heed to, the arguments and representations put before them by the anti-National Party, and entirely disregarded there presentations and claims of the National Party. The evidence upon that point was conclusive. How was it possible that the anti-National Party could be right in every one of their proposals?—and yet in every case their views had been acceded to. One could understand it if, in laying their cases before a fair tribunal, two or three or four decisions were given in their favour, and here and there others were given against them; but in these cases hon. Members were face to face with the remarkable fact that in every instance, with scarcely an exception, the claims of the anti-National Party had been accepted by the Commissioners, while the claims and pleadings of the National Party had been given to the winds. Not only was that the case, but, as had been already stated in the Committee, whenever the Nationalists objected to the schemes of the Commissioners, or to the schemes of the Tory Party, their objections went for nothing. Whenever the Nationalists had agreed with the Com-

    353
    missioners' schemes, and had said they would take no action in the matter—whenever the representatives of the National Party, in reply to the question—"Do you think this is a fair arrangement?" said—"We could wish for something a little better, but we do not expect to have everything exactly as we wish it, and therefore we do not object"—did they think the Commissioners had acted upon their own suggestion? Not they. Directly the Nationalists took up that course of action and seemed to be satisfied with the arrangement, the Commissioners appeared to lose confidence in their original scheme, and at once proceeded to alter it. These were plain and patent facts, and the conclusion to which they pointed must be obvious to every Member of the Committee. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland was an able lawyer and knew the value of evidence. Eight well he knew the value of the evidence produced in this debate by the Nationalist Members. He knew that it was irresistible. He knew that if he had such strong evidence in every case in which he was engaged in Ireland for the Crown he would be able invariably to secure a conviction. Aye, on evidence less cogent and conclusive than that produced by the Nationalists in these cases, men had been hung in Ireland. But they had further proof of the fact that the Orange or anti-National Party in the North of Ireland had been unfairly benefited by the revised schemes of the Commissioners. Her Majesty's Government had been charged with a desire to make peace with their enemies and opponents in various parts of the world. They had made peace with the Boers, and they were now going to scuttle out of the Soudan. But they had done more than that; they had made Peace with the Orangemen of the North of Ireland. There was not a word or a whisper against the scheme of the Boundary Commissioners in the North of Ireland, for the reason that the anti-Nationalists had got all they claimed. The Government, through their Commissioners, had made a complete surrender to this Party, and in this way peace had been purchased from the anti-National Party and the Orange and Emergency men of the North; but they had yet to learn whether the peace of Ireland would be pro-
    354
    moted by the surrender to this Party. For himself, he did not think it would. He was of opinion that, by these unfair arrangements, a fund of trouble had been stored up both for Ireland and for England too. The arrangements, he felt convinced, would lead to the continuation of strife and heartburnings, because the consciousness was in the minds of the National Party that they had been unjustly treated, and that the divisions had been made without right and justice in consequence of the partizanship and political bigotry of the Commissioners appointed to deal with the matter. A good deal had been said about Catholics and Protestants; but he wished to say, and he believed the Committee recognized the fact, that the Irish Members had really no sectarian feeling in the matter at all. This was not a question of creed. The Irish Members merely asked for political justice and fair play in these arrangements, and they had not got it. Still they meant to fight a good battle for their rights in the North of Ireland, and it appeared to him that by-and-bye they would prove triumphant. However that might be, he was sure that the interests of justice and public peace and content would have been greatly advanced if the Commissioners had acted in an upright, honest, and impartial manner, instead of making a surrender to the advantage of one Party and to the disadvantage of the other.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, there was a Dr. Todd, a member of the Irish Bar, and a Mr. Todd, a solicitor, and therefore it was very easy for the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) to have confused one with the other. Now, the letter which was referred to by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Walker) did not faithfully represent the facts of the case as far as Mr. Todd was concerned. He (Mr. Biggar) knew very little of Mr. Todd; but this he did know—that Mr. Todd had not obtained in Derry a reputation for truthfulness. It was generally accepted that Mr. Todd's word was not to be believed. Certainly, the letter which he had written, and which the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland had referred to, did not coincide with what Mr. Todd stated at the inquiry in Derry before Mr. White. Mr.

    355
    Todd stated at the inquiry that he appeared for the Liberal Party, and that he had a letter from Sir Thomas M'Clure and one from the Solicitor General for Ireland, and both those Gentlemen expressed themselves dissatisfied with the scheme propounded by the Commissioners, but they approved of the scheme which he (Mr. Todd) proposed on behalf of the Liberal Party. The proposition made by Mr. Todd was that the county, instead of being divided into North and South Derry, as proposed by the Boundary Commissioners, should be divided into East and West Derry. One of the points which Mr. Todd pressed upon the Commissioner, Mr. White, was that there was great community of interest between those who lived on the Eastern side of the county of Derry. Mr. Hunter, a wholesale grocer from Coleraine, was called to show that he was selling goods so far South as the town of Maghera, which was in the Southern part of the county. If Mr. Hunter's evidence was of any value at all, it had a closer connection with the towns of Kilrea and Garvagh, which were now placed in the Southern Division of the county. The tendency of Mr. Hunter's trade must be towards Coleraine. He (Mr. Biggar) knew quite well that the produce of Kilrea and Garvagh—two places which had been changed from the Northern to the Southern Division of the county—was taken to Coleraine and not to Belfast. There was no community of interest with these places and the Southern part of the county such as there should be if community of interest was the ground upon which the scheme was propounded. Evidence was given by parties who lived on each side of the mountain range near to the town of Dungivan to show that the connection was very strong between the inhabitants of the two sides of the range. He was not disposed, however, to press that point too strongly on the Committee; but what he did maintain was that the proposition to take from the barony of Coleraine the part which laid North of the town of Kilrea was a most reasonable one. The argument of the Government that the Southern Division of Derry should have a larger population than the Northern part, because of the possible or probable increase of the population of the town of Coleraine and the city of Derry, was quite untenable.
    356
    The increase in the population of the city of Derry could never have any influence on the voting power of the county proper, for the very reason that the liberties of Derry extended far beyond the city walls. That part of the argument, therefore, had no weight whatever, and was not entitled to any consideration. Then, with regard to the expected increase in the population of the town of Coleraine. One of the arguments adduced by the hon. Baronet the Member for Coleraine (Sir Hervey Bruce) in favour of Coleraine being allowed to retain its Member, was that Coleraine was an ancient town. It was said that this ancient town was likely to increase its population by 3,000 within a very limited time. Now, the present population was only 7,000; so that at the rate of progress in times past they would have to wait for very many generations before the population reached 10,000. Reference had been made by some of his hon. Friends to the fact that Mr. White, the Commissioner who held the inquiry in Derry, was a Catholic in religion. He (Mr. Biggar) did not like to mention questions of religion, because he believed that, in time to come, a large proportion of the non-Catholics would vote with the Catholic Nationalists. But he was informed on very good authority that this Mr. White, who was sent down by the Government to act as their agent in Derry, went over to the Conservative agent at Kingstown in 1883, and made a perfectly bogus claim to a vote—a claim which was refused by the Revising Barrister. He (Mr. Biggar) thought that the Government, when they were making selections of gentlemen to represent them, should select gentlemen of a higher character for integrity than Mr. White seemed to possess. Taking all the circumstances into account, the Government ought to amend the scheme to such an extent as would bring the populations of the Northern and Southern Divisions more alike. By the original scheme of the Boundary Commissioners there was a very fair equalization of population between the Northern and Southern parts of the county; indeed, he was disposed to regard the original divisions as impartial and honest. The divisions as finally arranged were partial and dishonest, and could not be defended in reason by anyone. Even if the divisions

    357
    were altered as suggested, he believed that in both divisions there would be, according to present expectations, a majority against the popular Party; but then the divisions would be honest and reasonable, and capable of being defended. As far as compactness or any argument of that sort was concerned, the present scheme was perfectly outrageous. The Government ought to agree to a more compact and reasonable scheme, and one more in conformity with the Instructions to the Commissioners.
    MR. KENNYsaid, he thought that the attitude of the Government in the case of Derry was extremely unreasonable. The divisions of Derry were entirely at variance with local opinion. It was contended, in support of the scheme, that the Commissioners had been forced to follow the natural boundaries of the county. It was perfectly true, as stated by the Boundary Commissioners, that they had had regard to the fact that a range of mountains naturally divided the two divisions. But there was this to be said in reply to such a contention, that, no matter in what direction they adopted boundaries in Derry, they would have to follow more or less some range of mountains, because mountains were so numerous; no matter what course was pursued, a range of mountains might be used for the purpose of making what would be called a natural division. If the contention of the Boundary Commissioners was worth anything at all, they should, instead of running the line of demarcation Eastwards, have pursued a line further Northwards. They would then have obtained two perfectly compact divisions. Furthermore, although the Commissioners were instructed to observe as far as possible the ancient divisions of counties, they had, in the case of the county of Londonderry, set those divisions entirely aside. He could not understand how the Boundary Commissioners believed that the scheme they had proposed would command anything like general consent, for they had adopted lines which were utterly at variance with anything which would make it possible for the divisions to be considered compact. As to the names of the divisions, they were forced, owing to the lines of division pursued by the Boundary Commissioners in Ulster, to use the terms North-West Londonderry and North-East Londonderry. If, how-
    358
    ever, the divisions had been made properly in accordance with the points of the compass, the names North or South or East or West Londonderry might have been used. It was perfectly clear that, owing to the peculiar position of Parties in the county, the lines pursued by the Commissioners were dictated more by political expediency than by any real regard to the Instructions issued to them by the Lord Lieutenant. Under the original scheme, it was very probable that for the Southern part of the county a Nationalist would have been returned. As soon as this was observed by the Whigs and Tories, the boundaries were altered so that the Nationalist element in the South should be split up. So strong were the Nationalists in Londonderry, that they were fully entitled to return one of the Members. The Government would do well to accept the Amendment, which he would support if his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Healy) carried it to a division.
    MR. SMALLasked if it was not the fact that, owing to the new arrangements, the freeholders would be disfranchised for the city of Derry?
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he thought the freeholders would vote in the city as borough voters.
    MR. SMALLsaid, that if the right hon. Baronet would refer to the Return presented in 1883, he would find he was quite in error. The city of Derry was not a county in itself, as the right hon. Baronet seemed to imagine.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he was much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for mentioning the matter. He would make inquiries on the subject, and promise the hon. Member that the matter should be set right if a mistake had been made.
    MR. HEALYsaid, that this was a very important point; because, if the freeholders were to be thrown into the county from the borough, a re-arrangement of the scheme of the Commissioners would be necessitated. It was impossible to let the matter stand as it was, for 300 or 400 people would be thrown into the county. They had, in this fact, a good reason for referring the entire scheme to the Commissioners, and he thought he and his hon. Friends must press the right hon. Baronet to promise them that the whole question should be referred back to the Commis-

    359
    sioners. This was not a trifling matter. A mistake had been made, and strange to say in the county for which the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Walker) was Member. It was proper to assume that the voters thrown into the county would be Tories, and it would be very interesting to discover why the Commissioners had made the mistake. The right hon. Baronet had got a precedent in the case of Southwark, for referring the scheme back to the Commissioners.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he would undertake to make immediate inquiries into the matter.
    MR. HEALYsaid, that the chief point involved was that the voters thrown into the county would unquestionably be Tories.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEasked if the allegation of the hon. and learned Gentleman was that the Boundary Commissioners had purposely made a mistake?
    MR. HEALYsaid, he did not make such an allegation; but what he did maintain was that these voters, who were all Tories, would be disfranchised for the city of Derry. That was, no doubt, a very convenient thing for the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Walker), who was the Member for the county. When the Nationalists had been cheated by dodges, as they had been in Donegal, Tyrone, Armagh, Derry, Belfast, and Antrim, there was no reason why they should be chary in giving their opinion. The right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had hardly met the matter fairly; he stated he would look into the matter. That was not the way he met the case of the borough of Southwark. In that case he ordered a fresh inquiry. Surely, the people of Derry were quite as much entitled to a fresh inquiry as the people of Southwark.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that if the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Healy) preferred it, he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) would ask Sir John Lambert and Sir Francis Sandford to reconsider the matter and report upon it.
    MR. HEALYsaid, there was an excess population in the division of 3,000, and there was no reason in the world why the figures should not be correct. The borough of Londonderry had in-
    360
    creased; but as far as he could see the borough of Coleraine had not; if the population of Coleraine had increased, it had not done so by more than a score in the course of 10 years. Why should this fictitious reverence of the borough of Londonderry influence the Government? The overplus of 3,000 made a vast difference, and he appealed to the Government to bring about a balance of population.
    MR. SMALLsaid, the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had expressed his readiness to reconsider the matter. That he should have time to do so, be (Mr. Small) begged to move that the Chairman should now report Progress.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Small.)
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I will make every possible inquiry, and if I can remedy the mistake, supposing one to have been made, I will be happy to do so.
    Question put.
    The Committee proceeded to a Division, and the Chairman stated that he thought the Noes had it, and, his decision being challenged, he directed the Ayes to stand up in their places; and 17 Members only having stood up, he declared the Noes had it.
    Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
    MR. HEALYsaid, the incident which had just occurred formed an admirable example of the way in which the Bill had been got up. The Commissioner when he went down to Derry alleged, as a reason for putting 3,000 more people into one division than into another, that the city of Londonderry would act as a counterpoise; and yet it had been shown that it was not included in the division, and that the freeholders of the city of Londonderry were excluded from the Bill altogether and deprived of their votes. The Irish Members, in calling attention to the shortcomings of the measure, were met in Committee by no single shred or scrap of reason for anything that had been done. And it had further been pointed out that the scheme for the two divisions of the county of

    361
    Londonderry was among the last issued by the Commissioners, and that it carried out, upon the face of it, the same principle of chicanery which had guided the House of Commons all through. Of course, the Irish Members were powerless in that House; and when they moved to report Progress in order to afford time for further consideration, the New Rules, for the first time since they had been passed, were put in force against them in Committee, and they were called upon to stand up in their places. That was an example of the way in which important Irish questions were always treated. The Irish Members were blocked and stopped by the Government and their majority in all their endeavours to obtain justice; but, at all events, they had convicted the Government and the gentleman deputed to conduct the Boundary Inquiry at Derry, not only of malignity, but of a conspiracy to deprive the Nationalist Party of their rights. They had also shown that so far as the Commissioner himself was concerned, he was in absolute ignorance of everything he professed to know so much about.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 59; Noes 17: Majority 42.—(Div. List, No. 116.)
    On the Motion of Mr. SEXTON, the following Amendment made:—In page 102, line 1, leave out "North."
    On the Motion of Sir CHARLES W. DILKE, the following Amendment made:—In page 102, at end of line 13, leave out "and."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE, in moving, in line 14, after "Street," to insert—
    "And in the parish of Clonhroney the townlands of Rinvanny and Cartronreagh, and in the parish of Grannard the townland of Castlenugent,"
    explained that the object of the Amendment was to place in the Schedule three small townlands which had been omitted in the North Longford Division.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 102, line 14, after "Street," insert "and in the parish of Clonbroney the townlands of Rinvanny and Cartronreagh, and in the parish of Grannard the townland of Castlenugent."—(Sir Charles W. Dilke.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. SEXTONasked if the Amendment would alter the scheme?
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEreplied in the negative. At present, these townlands were entirely omitted.
    Question put, and agreed to; words inserted accordingly.
    On the Motion of Mr. CALLAN, the following Amendment made:—In page 102, leave out, in line 21, the words "The Dundalk Division," and insert the words "North Louth."
    MR. CALLANproposed an Amendment, in the North Louth Division, to insert, after "Lower Dundalk," "and the parish of Killaney, and that part of the parish of Louth included in the barony of Ardee." He said he did not anticipate any opposition on the part of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill. It was not a matter which affected Party politics in the slightest degree. He saw that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket) had been speaking to the President of the Local Government Board, and he presumed that it was in reference to this Amendment. He could, however, assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that his proposal would make no difference as to the state of Parties in the county, and that, however they might jerrymander and twist and turn the county of Louth, the result would be just the same.
    MR. PLUNKETsaid, the hon. Member (Mr. Callan) was under a misapprehension. He had not been speaking to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board in reference to this question at all.
    MR. CALLANsaid, he was glad to find that his suspicion was unfounded; but he might add that no amount of jerrymandering to which the division could be subjected would prevent the return of Nationalist Members for the county of Louth, and his proposal only affected a matter which was deemed to be for the convenience of the inhabitants of the district. If hon. Members would look at the map, they would see that the parish of Killaney was 27 miles from the town of Drogheda, and only eight from the town of Dundalk, and he might almost offer a reward of £5 for every Killaney man who had

    363
    ever been found in the town of Drogheda, without ever being called upon to pay the money. No Killaney man was ever found there, except, perhaps, on a fair day. He made this proposal simply on the ground of convenience to the people of Killaney, who were separated from Drogheda by a river, and if a man wished to go to Drogheda from Killaney, he would in the first place have to travel for some miles through the county of Monaghan. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would accept the proposition, and would refer this point back to the Boundary Commissioners, in order that they might make report to him simply how the question stood as a matter of convenience to the people of the locality. He had no intention of pressing the Amendment now; but he would be prepared to accept the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman that the matter would be referred to the Commissioners. In return, he would assure the right hon. Gentleman that the proposal had nothing of a jerrymandering nature about it, but simply related to a matter of convenience.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 102, after line 27, to insert "And the parish of Killaney, and that part of the parish of Louth included in the barony of Ardee."—(Mr. Callan.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he accepted the representation of the hon. Member (Mr. Callan). So far as he could find out there was no objection whatever to the change. The district proposed to be added to the North Division was in the Northern part of the county, in the barony of Ardee; and, no doubt, the Amendment would give a clearer and a more compact boundary. The figures also would be left pretty nearly as they now were. That being so, he would be very glad to refer the matter to the Boundary Commissioners, and if the hon. Member would move his Amendment on the Report, he would have no objection to it.
    MR. CALLANintimated that he would withdraw the Amendment on the assurance just given that it would be referred to the Boundary Commissioners, and would be accepted if it were not
    364
    considered by them to be objectionable.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    On the Motion of Mr. CALLAN, the following Amendment made:—In page 103, line 1, leave out the words "The Drogheda Division," and insert "South Louth."
    On the Motion of Mr. KENNY, the following Amendments made:—In page 103 line 8, leave out "The," and after the word "Mayo," "Division;" in line 13, leave out "The," and after the word "Mayo," "Division;" in line 18, leave out "The," and after the word "Mayo," "Division;" and in line 23, leave out "The," and after the word "Mayo," "Division."
    On the Motion of Mr. SMALL, the following Amendments made:—In page 104, line 4, leave out "The," and after the word "Meath," leave out "Division;" in line 12, leave out "The," and after the word "Meath," leave out "Division;" and in line 25, leave out "The," and after the word "Monaghan," leave out "Division."
    Amendment proposed,
    "In page 104, line 28, to leave out the words "The South Monaghan Division," in order to insert the words "South Monaghan,"—(Mr. Small,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question, "That the words 'The South Monaghan Division' stand part of the Schedule," put, and negatived.
    Question proposed, "That the words South Monaghan' be there inserted."
    MR. WARTONsaid, that before the Amendment was agreed to, he wished to ask the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke) what the effect of the Amendment would be? Would it not still be necessary to describe the division, when a new Writ was issued, as "The Southern Division of the county of Monaghan," so that it could not be strictly called "East" or "South?"
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that it was intended to insert a clause on the Report to explain this and other matters. For instance, in the case of Tullamore, it would be necessary, upon the Report, to show that that was one of the divisions of King's County.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, there was no barony of Tullamore, and it would be

    365
    impossible to call a Member by that name; but it might be convenient to call him the Member for the Tullamore Division of King's County. In regard to the objection which had been taken by the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton), he saw no force in it. In this county there would be two divisions, "North" and "South," and two Members.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he spoke of the full title which it would be necessary to give in moving a new Writ. He was not speaking of the name which would have to be given to a Member from the Speaker's Chair.
    Question put, and agreed to; words inserted accordingly.
    MR. LALOR MR. LALOR moved, in Queen's County, to describe "the Upper Ossory Division" as "Ossory" only.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 105, line 4, leave out the words "The Upper Ossory Division," in order to insert the word"Ossory,"—(Mr. Lalor,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words 'The Upper Ossory Division' stand part of the Schedule."
    MR. WARTONasked what was the ground for this Amendment? He did not profess to have a very intimate acquaintance with Ireland; but he always understood that Upper Ossory was a well-known place, and that it was known by that name in order to distinguish it from Lower Ossory. By the Amendment moved by the hon. Member there would be no distinction between the two.
    MR. LALORexplained that there were both an Upper and a Lower Ossory at one time, but there was no distinction between the two now.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he wished to point out to the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Warton) that those names had been recommended to the Commissioner by two eminent Members of the Tory Party, of whom Lord Castletown was one.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Question, "That the word 'Ossory' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    On the Motion of Mr. KENNY, the following Amendment made:—In pages 105, line 10, leave out "The," and
    366
    after the word "Leix," leave out "Division."
    On the Motion of Mr. SEXTON, the following Amendments made:—
    In page 105, line 20, leave out "The," and after the word "Roscommon," leave out "Division;" in line 25, leave out "The," and after the word "Roscommon," leave out "Division;" in page 106, line 4, leave out "The," and after the word "Sligo," leave out "Division;" in line 9, leave out "The," and after the word "Sligo," leave out "Division;" in line 17, leave out "The," and after the word "Tipperary," leave out "Division;" in line 22, leave out "The," and after the word "Tipperary," leave out "Division;" in line 29, leave out "The West Tipperary Division," and insert "South Tipperary;" and in line 32, leave out "The," and after the word "Tipperary," leave out "Division."
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 107, line 4, leave out "The," and after the word "Tyrone," leave out"Division."—(Mr. Small.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
    MR. CALLANsaid, he desired, before the Chairman put the Amendment, to say a word in regard to the divisions of the county of Tyrone. He had understood the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke) to suggest, at an earlier part of the debate upon the Schedules of the Bill, that if it was considered desirable to give a Member to the city of Drogheda, it would be necessary to withdraw one of the Members from the county of Tyrone, and therefore the divisions of Tyrone, instead of consisting of four, would only be three. He intended to make no Motion on the subject; but he took that opportunity of intimating that on the Report it was his intention to move that one Member should be taken from the county of Tyrone and given to Drogheda. Instead of Drogheda being constituted one of the divisions of Louth, Drogheda was the only borough in Ireland which was extinguished by the Bill in regard to which a strong desire had been expressed to preserve its representation. That representation, however, could only be preserved on the Report; and he wished the right hon. Baronet the President of the Local Government Board to be in a position to give Instructions to the Boundary Commissioners, so that if the House, upon the Report, should be of opinion that the

    367
    borough representation of Drogheda should be preserved, and a Member taken from the county of Tyrone, there would be the alternative of dividing Tyrone into three divisions instead of four. He did not wish to be met with the argument on the Report, presuming that the Committee was in favour of his proposition, that there was no time to do it.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that it was out of Order to discuss, in connection with this division, what they were to do with the borough of Drogheda. He would, however, promise the hon. Member (Mr. Callan), that when the question was raised on the Report, he would not raise against the proposal the argument the hon. Member hinted at in regard to time. At the same time, he could not hold out any hope that he would be prepared to accept the proposal. All that he had said was that the town of Drogheda had a better case for having its representation continued to it than some other boroughs. But that representation could only have been continued in the event of some general agreement being arrived at; and he had no reason to suppose that there was anything like a general agreement, even among the Irish Members themselves. However, as the Committee were not upon that point now, it was not necessary to discuss it further.
    MR. CALLANsaid, he did not wish to prejudice the merits of the case in any way; but all he desired was to take the first opportunity, now that they had reached the county of Tyrone, to intimate that it was his intention to make this proposal on the Report, and he certainly thought that he ought not to be met with the remark that the time was inappropriate for making the proposal. He quite accepted the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, which fully met his object in calling attention to the matter now.
    Question put, and negatived; words left out accordingly.
    MR. KENNY MR. KENNY moved an Amendment for the purpose of fixing the boundaries of North Tyrone according to the original scheme of the Commissioners, instead of in the manner proposed by the Bill. He would, therefore, move, in page 107, to leave out—
    368
    "Strabane, Lower, and West Omagh, and so much of the barony of Strabane, Upper, as comprises the following Townlands in the Parish of Upper Bodoney, namely,—Aghalane, Ballynasollus, Bradkeel, Carnargan, Corickmore, Craigatuke, Cruckaelady, Dergbrough, Eden Back, Eden Fore, Eden Mill, Glencoppogagh, Glenga, Glashygolgan, Landa-hussy Lower, Landahussy Upper, Learden Lower, Learden Upper, Letterbrat, Lislea North, Lislea South, Lisnaereaght, Meenagarragh, Mecnagorp, Tullagherin, and Tullynadall."
    The effect of the Amendment would be to prevent the division of certain parishes and townlands in an objectionable manner. By the original scheme, the baronies of Stranorlar and West Omagh, which were united both commercially and physically with Lower Strabane, were connected, and the adoption of the Amendment would only have the effect of reverting to the original scheme of the Commissioners. He hoped his hon. Friend the Member for Tyrone (Mr. T. A. Dickson) would see his way to support the Amendment, and that it would also commend itself to the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill (Sir Charles W. Dilke). Certainly the simplicity of the arrangement was much more complete than that of the plan now proposed, and the original scheme had also the advantage of having received general approval from the people of the county of Tyrone.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 107, to leave out from the word "Strabane," to the word "Tullynadall," in line 13, inclusive, and insert the words "Strabane Upper and Strabane Lower."—(Mr. Kenny.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he had always understood that the original scheme for the division of the county of Tyrone was not very warmly advocated by Irish Members below the Gangway opposite, and he was not informed that there was any general agreement in its favour in the locality, but, on the contrary, that the people were rather favourable to the scheme as it now stood in the Bill. The hon. Member for Ennis (Mr. Kenny), who moved the Amendment for the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy), intimated that there was a general agreement in the county in the direction of the proposal now made.

    369
    But that view was not borne out by the Report of the Commissioners, and before consenting to a change, it would be necessary to have complete information as to such general agreement. In this case also the districts were principally of the same character—namely, agricultural, but they were separated by a range of mountains. The population in all the four divisions would be about the same.
    MR. PLUNKETsaid, that he had been consulted by his noble Friend the Member for Fermanagh (Viscount Crichton) upon this subject, and he had been asked to say a few words, as his noble Friend was not able to be present himself. Therefore, on behalf of his noble Friend and those who were interested in the county, he might say that they entertained a great objection to any alteration in the scheme after the very full and complete inquiry which had been made by the Commissioners, on the spot. The fact was that the principal towns in the baronies of West Omagh and Strabane would be separated from their natural surroundings and the district to which they were naturally attached, if the original proposal of the Commissioners had been adopted, and it was mainly on that ground that the original scheme was dropped, and this alternative scheme proposed. If any hon. Member would study the map, and the Report of the Commissioners, he would see that the original proposal would have been most inconvenient, seeing that, in point of fact, there was a mountain between two parts of one of these divisions, and the scheme, as finally adopted, would be in every way more convenient for the population. He put it entirely on the ground of the convenience of the people concerned; and, therefore, he must ask the Government to support the scheme of the Commissioners as it now stood.
    MR. T. A. DICKSONsaid, that he possessed an intimate knowledge of this part of the county of Tyrone, and he only wished to say that the natural division would be to put West Omagh and Lower Strabane in the same division. They were connected in everyway, both in pursuits and in religious views, and neither politically nor otherwise would it make the slightest difference. From his own knowledge, he was able to say that one division of the county of
    370
    Tyrone ought to include both West Omagh and Strabane.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, it was quite reasonable to expect that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket) would support the scheme as it appeared on the map, because the person who appeared before the Commissioners on the inquiry, and suggested the alteration of the scheme, was the representative of the Tory Party in Tyrone, which Party were represented in that House by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had spoken of the existence of a range of mountains; but that was becoming a threadbare argument. Anyone who had attended to the progress of the discussions upon the Bill would find that the Commissioners made use of the argument respecting the existence of a range of mountains in one way upon one occasion, and in an entirely different way upon another, and with equal facility. In Donegal, a range of mountains was no reason for bringing persons together; but in that case it was desirable not to interfere with the baronies of Raphoe and the selected preserves of the house of Hamilton. Therefore, the Commissioners attached no importance, in that instance, to the range of mountains argument. But it was altogether different here, although it might be said that the county of Tyrone consisted of mountains altogether. In one case, the Commissioners appeared to think that a range of mountains was no drawback, so they threw in a river. In another instance, one of the arguments raised was the existence of a tramway. It was pleaded that as between the boundary of West Omagh and Castlederg there was a tramway, it was therefore urged that the whole of that district should be added. In regard to compactness, there was nothing to choose between the two divisions. Anyone who would compare the red with the blue lines would see that the divisions they comprised were of equal compactness. Both were straggling, and there was not one iota of argument in favour of one more than the other on that ground. He did not expect that the right hon. Baronet the President of the Local Government Board would favour any Amendment which had been placed on the Paper by the hon. and learned Mem-

    371
    ber for Monaghan (Mr. Healy), because the professional gentleman who appeared before the Commissioner at Omagh said he appeared for one of the Members for Tyrone; and he (Mr. Sexton) presumed that he meant the hon. Member opposite. Of course, that learned gentleman said he thought the scheme proposed by the Commissioners was the best that could be suggested; both as to equalization of population, and in following the lines of the baronies most closely. He said, further, that it had its defects, because West Omagh and Lower Strabane would be together. Under these circumstances, he (Mr. Sexton) was not surprised to find the hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. T. A. Dickson) now supporting his scheme. The right hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill said that it had not been shown that the feeling of the inhabitants of the county was favourable to the Amendment. That was not so, and it proved more conclusively than any other case which had yet come before the Committee that when the Nationalists, with extreme frankness, ventured to express an approval of any scheme, from that moment there was no chance whatever of its being adopted. It was condemned from the moment they gave it their fatal approval. Mr. Reynolds appeared for the National Party before the Commissioner, and he certainly did not speak in complimentary terms of the alteration proposed by Mr. Symonds, and he said he did not think the Commissioners would pay much attention to it, because it was proposed only in the interest of an expiring Party. Dean Byrne, a well-known clergyman, appeared before the Commissioner, and also expressed his unqualified approval of the Commissioners' original scheme; and the parish priest of Donoghmore (the Rev. Mr. Macarthy) said that he was chairman of a meeting of delegates from the entire county, which was held at Omagh, and at which the plan of the Commissioners, and the alternative plan, was discussed, when an unanimous opinion was arrived at to abide by that of the Commissioners. What did the right hon. Baronet say to that as an expression of the opinion of the locality? All these three gentlemen—Mr. Reynolds, Dean Byrne, and Father Macarthy—were in favour of the scheme originally put forward by the Commissioners, and the last gentleman was able
    372
    to say that the unanimous voice of the assembled delegates, representing the various parishes of the county, was in favour of it. There certainly could be no political object in resisting the Amendment. Take the test of creed, which was no test at all in this case, because whatever Protestants might vote with the Nationalist Party no Catholic would vote against them; but even upon that test, there were in these baronies 27,000 Catholics and 21,000 Protestants.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the figures given by the hon. Member for Sligo were not accurate.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he took the calculation from The Belfast Morning News, and he believed it to be approximately correct.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the numbers were 31,000 and 19,000.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, that made the case still more favourable from his point of view; but taking the most favourable view for the other side, let them divide, sub-divide, and cut up these four baronies how they liked in order to form two divisions, it was perfectly obvious that two Nationalist candidates would be returned, unless the Whig and Tory Party had a great deal of money to spare, and did not care how they spent it. There was only one division, in which the Protestants numbered 24,000, and the Catholics and non-Protestants 23,000, in which there could possibly be the semblance of a decent fight. He, therefore, did not see why the opinions of the people of the locality should not receive attention at the hands of the Committee, especially as the interests of no political Party would be advanced by adhering to the proposal put down in the Bill.
    MR. HEALYsaid, it must have been a great satisfaction to the right hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill (Sir Charles W. Dilke) to hear that for the Northern Division of Tyrone there would be a Catholic Member. But, unfortunately, there were 80 per cent of Catholics in the county, and by no possible means could the division be jerrymandered. The Commissioners had found it necessary to bring two or three baronies together, and accordingly they had used up the parishes in a very remarkable way. He called attention to the fact that they had taken 22 Protestant townlands out of the barony of

    373
    Strabane Upper, and put thorn into the North Tyrone Division. Of course, that was pure accident; but all the other townlands were left in the Mid Tyrone Division, where they were not wanted. In whatever direction one looked there was shown the same disposition to cheat the Catholics. He was not suspicious or afraid of the politics of his fellow-countrymen; on the contrary, he looked for their votes in favour of the Nationalist Party at the next General Election; he merely pointed to facts, and left the public to draw their own conclusions from them. It appeared that three Liberal gentlemen had put up as candidates for Tyrone County; and he would be glad to know if the right hon. Baronet could explain how it was that Andrew Dunn, of London, expected to be returned, as well as Mr. Herdman and the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. T. A. Dickson)? Seeing that there were 80 per cent of Catholics in the county, the hopes of the hon. Gentleman seemed to surpass all notions of probability. The scheme of the Government presented the fact that at the inquiry the Liberals and Tories were once more in coalition, and the Nationalists on the other side. They adopted the proposition of Messrs. Moore and Wilson; Mr. Wilson supported Mr. Moore's scheme, and Mr. Simmonds supported the other. He observed that the hon. Member for Tyrone was not as hopeful over this coalition as were some of his friends; but he (Mr. Healy) would inform him, as he had taken the trouble to inform the other Member for the county, that not a single Whig would get in over the whole of Ireland, unless by the goodwill and pleasure of the Party to which he (Mr. Healy) belonged. Under the new electoral scheme, the Liberals and Conservatives would not be able to secure more than 20 seats in Ireland, of which the Conservatives would obtain nine; but, independently of the Party represented on those Benches, Liberals would not be returned for the remaining 11 seats. It would not be forgotten that the hon. Member for Tyrone had used his influence with the Government to support the scheme of the Commissioners. The hon. Member had already received some proofs that in his county the Nationalists had been able, to some extent, to make a good fight even before the franchise was extended; and yet he ventured to come
    374
    forward at that time and support this scheme, knowing, as he did, that the people who put him in for Tyrone were in the bitterest manner opposed to it. The hon. Gentleman would not deny that it was by Catholic votes he held a seat in that House—he would not deny it, because he (Mr. Healy) regretted to say that, at the time of his election, the Catholic Party supported him instead of the Nationalist candidate; and, therefore, it appeared to him that the hon. Gentleman showed considerable indiscretion in getting up in that House to support the Government in their scheme, seeing that at the next election he would have to ask for the support of the very men whose Representatives were antagonistic to the scheme proposed. He, no doubt, expected to get the whole of the popular Party with him in South Tyrone; but he might be assured that his support of the Government scheme would not be forgotten at the next election, because in the minds of the popular Party that scheme was based on fraud. They had a right to expect that hon. Gentlemen who represented the Nonconformists of the North of Ireland would have made some return for the support they received in the past; but they had shown themselves ungrateful, they had trampled under foot the favours received at their election, and they had said—"As long as we were able we used you; and now that we have you in our power we shall back up the Government in putting you down—we have done with you, and we expect in future to do without you." But, as he had said, no single Whig would get into Parliament for the North of Ireland. He and his hon. Friends would not forget the treatment they had received in connection with this Bill.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he had been astonished, in taking up this scheme, to find that even in a county with 80 per cent of Catholics, the Boundary Commissioners had not scrupled so to jerrymander the constituency as to takeaway nearly half the Catholics from it. His hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Healy) had been severe upon the hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. T. A. Dickson); but he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) would call attention to the fact that he was under the impression that a sort of coalition had been formed between the Tories and the Whigs in the North of Ireland. He did

    375
    not know whether that was true or not; but he remained satisfied that the Liberal Member for Tyrone would be no party to such coalition. If he understood the hon. Gentleman rightly, he repudiated such connection, and denied it entirely, and he was glad that he had disclaimed an alliance of the kind. When some hon. Members on those Benches pointed out that the Catholics in Derry had a right to one of the seats for the county, the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) got up and said that the Protestants were in a considerable majority, and that it was by no means unnatural that they should have two seats; but now, when they came to Tyrone, where the Catholics were in a majority of 80 per cent, the right hon. Baronet considered it not at all extravagant that the right of the Catholics to two seats should be considerably endangered. This was, he believed, the last question that would be seriously debated on this Bill in Committee, and he regretted that they must wind up the discussion by saying that wherever an opportunity had' presented itself, the Catholics had been filched of a great portion of what belonged to them.
    MR. CALLANsaid, as a Railway Director of many years' experience, he had heard with astonishment the statement that one reason for placing part of the barony of Strabane in the position which it occupied was that a range of mountains separated it from the barony with which it ought to have been united. What justification Mr. Macpherson had for putting the barony into North Tyrone altogether passed his comprehension. Probably he was a Scotchman, and wanted to give his Scotch friends a chance for Tyrone. At any rate, he would challenge the hon. Member opposite (Mr. T. A. Dickson) to got up and justify the arrangement on any but political and religious grounds. If on his honour he considered it a fair division, he would accept his declaration to that effect; but, until he so declared, he (Mr. Callan) should regard it as one of the most disgraceful divisions that had been made in the country.
    MR. T. A. DICKSONsaid, the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) had not the serious cause of complaint with regard to the scheme which he would have had if the baronies of Dungannon had been separated.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes SO; Noes 18: Majority 32.—(Div. List, No. 117.)
    Amendment negatived.
    On the Motion of Mr. SMALL, the following Amendments made:—In page 107, line 14, leave out "The," and after the word "Tyrone," leave out "Division;" in line 17, leave out "The," and after the word "Tyrone," leave out "Division;" and in line 22, leave out "The," and after the word "Tyrone," leave out "Division."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that two townlands were in a detached portion of West Waterford, whilst the rest of the division was in East Waterford. These two divisions in West Waterford contained only 25 people in all, so that it was not a very important matter.
    Amendment proposed, in page 108, line 6, after "Clonea," insert "(except the townlands of Ballyrandle and Kilgrovan)."—(Sir Charles W. Dilke.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. HEALYsaid, that with regard to this Amendment, he wished once more to ask the Committee exactly how they stood? It was monstrous that they should have in a Bill such words as these—
    "And the barony of Decies without Drum (except so much as is comprised in Division No. 2, as herein described;."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, these places would not be shown on the maps, as they were detached portions; and they would not be shown in the clause.
    MR. HEALYasked whether a map of the entire country would be prepared by the Government, showing the divisions on a large scale in the manner in which the districts could be divided in the Ordnance map?
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the question was one of cost. He had done all he could to meet the hon. and learned Gentleman's complaint that the public would not be able to procure the necessary map by purchasing the Returns containing all the information. He was afraid the hon. and learned Member would not be able to get what he wanted without a very strong impression on the part of the House in favour

    377
    of it. The expense would be very great.
    MR. CALLANsaid, that there seemed to be a difficulty in the way of spending a little money in order to convenience hon. Members. The Government, however, did not hesitate to spend any amount for the acquisition of American steamers in the case of a threatened war.
    MR. HEALYsaid, that if they could not get these maps published for general use, at any rate the Government might see that one was prepared for use in the Library, with all divisions marked out on it. It would not be necessary to prepare a new map, but some Engineer officer could very well mark out on the old Ordnance Survey map the divisions as they had been laid down in the Bill.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I think that can be done. I will consult with those officials who would have to perform the duty on the matter.
    MR. HEALY: Will the right hon. Gentleman let us have a map showing the English divisions marked in the same way?
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Yes, it could be done; but, probably, when the map was prepared, it would not show such small details as those which we are now discussing.
    MR. CALLANsaid, the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Charles W. Dilke) might put himself into communication with the publishers of United Ireland, who had prepared a map showing the manner in which seats would be distributed in Ireland. He did not suppose that the hon. Members for Longford (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) and the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), who were part owners of that paper, would have any objection to give the right hon. Baronet the used-up wood-cuts of these maps so as to enable him to supply hon. Members with what they required. He thought it did not look seemly on the part of the Representatives of a large Department of the Government to talk about expenses in matters of this kind, seeing that a spirited newspaper had set them the example of publishing these maps as a supplement, and supplying them gratis. If the right hon. Gentleman could not get a copy of this newspaper, and of the maps, in order to form an opinion upon them, he (Mr. Callan) should be happy to supply him with one. It
    378
    would only cost him 1d. He could supply the right hon. Baronet with one of these maps, showing the divisions of a county. It was a farce to talk here of expense——
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
    MR. HEALY: Rule!
    MR. ACKERS: I do not rise to a point of Order——
    MR. CALLAN: If the hon. Member does not rise to a point of Order, he has no right to rise at all, for I am in possession of the Committee. I was suggesting that it would be desirable, and that there would be no objection in regard to expense, if we were supplied with these United Ireland maps. If we were supplied with proper maps, it would tend to shorten the discussion on Report. I do not suppose the Treasury would object to the plan proposed.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The Question is, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. ACKERSagain rose, and
    MR. CALLANalso rose.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The speech of the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan) is irrelevant, and I must ask him to resume his seat.
    MR. HEALY: You have not declared it.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I declare it now, and I ask the hon. Member to resume his seat.
    MR. ACKERSsaid, he wanted to make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill to reconsider the question of maps. In reply to the request of the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy), the right hon. Gentleman had said that everything the Committee desired had been done, and that a full statement had been published; but he (Mr. Ackers) was happy to find that the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan was not satisfied with that, and had again raised the point. The hon. and learned Member was very anxious to get that which, no doubt, the Committee was also desirous of obtaining—namely, maps showing all the alterations made in the divisions, so that at the end of this great Bill, which would be one of the greatest Acts passed for many years, they might have an exact record of the divisions.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he should be very glad to give further consideration to the matter; and he had already told the hon. and learned Mem-

    379
    ber opposite (Mr. Healy) that he should give the subject further attention. If they were to have county maps, he thought the alterations which would have to be made would not be very numerous. By far the larger number of alterations had been made in the boroughs. Of course, the Committee would bear in mind that the set of maps now in the hands of hon. Members did not show exactly all the divisions in the county. They only showed the divisions that the Commissioners had had to divide. Therefore, a set of maps prepared on the lines of the set already in the hands of hon. Members, showing the alterations effected in Committee, would not give a complete view of the whole case. Sixty-eight maps had been circulated in a large book, showing the proposals of the Commissioners; but many of those had not been adopted.
    MR. HEALYsaid, that the Ordnance map relating to Ireland was so minute that even the fences in different fields were shown upon it. If a tenant altered a fence, the alteration was shown on the next Ordnance map prepared.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that would apply to the Ordnance Survey map, which he had said might be put up in the Library. He was not sure that the suggestion could be complied with; but it would be done if practicable.
    Question put, and agreed to; words inserted accordingly.
    MR. P. J. POWERsaid, that, no doubt, the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan would be content with the undertaking just given by the right hon. Baronet. They now came to an Amendment relating to the county of Waterford, which, he was happy to think, would not meet with opposition from any quarter. He did not think it would offend either the Nationalists, or the Whigs, or the Tories, and he proposed it merely with the view of the convenience of the inhabitants of the parish of Seskinan. The Boundary Commissioners, in following their Instructions, had divided the county of Waterford into two divisions, and in making those divisions they had had regard to population. They had endeavoured to make the population of the two divisions as nearly as possible alike; and to carry out that object they had had to cut up this parish of Seskinan. By this pro-
    380
    cess they had made the population of West Waterford to exceed that of East Waterford by 635; and the Amendment which he proposed had for its object the placing of a part of Seskinan, which the Commissioners had put into East Waterford, into West Waterford, increasing the difference that already existed to about 1,435. The Committee would naturally ask, why not place the portion of Seskinan, which was in the West Waterford District, in the East Waterford District, thereby equalizing the population in the respective divisions? But he wished to point out to the Committee that all the interests of the parishioners of Seskinan lay in the West Waterford District—all their market interests, their fair interests, their dispensary interests, and their Poor Law Unions. As he had said before, the Amendment he proposed to give effect to would be of the greatest possible convenience to the inhabitants of the parish, and would not make the least difference to any particular Party. In moving this proposal, he felt that it was quite unnecessary to point out to the right hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill what the effect of it would be. The matter was one of detail, and the right hon. Baronet had made himself such a perfect master of every detail of the most complicated matter contained in the measure that it was quite unnecessary for any Member in any part of the House to point out what the effect of any Amendment would be. He trusted hon. Members on both sides of the House would see the reasonableness of the Amendment he proposed, and that the Government, as represented by the right hon. Baronet, would have no difficulty in agreeing to it.
    Amendment proposed, in page 108, line 7, leave out "Seskinan."—(Mr. P. J. Power.)
    Question proposed, "That the word proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that in the case of an Amendment relating to Louth, moved by the hon. Member for that place (Mr. Callan), there was no objection raised to the proposal, and he had not heard any objection raised to the proposal the hon. Member had now made. He should be very glad to accept it, provided that before the Be-

    381
    port the Boundary Commissioners did not offer any strong objection to it. So far as he knew, there was no objection to it. It would possess the advantages the hon. Member had pointed out; but it would have the drawback of making the population rather less equal than it was at present. As the hon. Member had stated, the population of the Western Division would be 44,000, while that of the Eastern Division would be only 39,500 odd. He had no other objection to the proposal; and if, before Report, no one raised a protest against it, he should propose to take the same course with regard to it as he had taken in the case of Louth.
    MR. CALLANsaid, that supposing the Amendment was agreed to by the Boundary Commissioners as to East Waterford, what would be the result? The Amendment was, in page 108, line 7, to leave out "Seskinan;" and if Seskinan was left out, it would not be included anywhere. Unless it were included here, the inhabitants of Seskinan would be disfranchised.
    MR. P. J. POWERsaid, the hon. Member was quite wrong.
    MR. CALLAN: No; unless it was included here in West Waterford, the people in Seskinan would not be able to vote at all.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he should like to make an observation here, because the mistake which the hon. Member who brought forward the Amendment had fallen into was the result of the eccentric drafting of the Bill, to which he had had occasion to call attention before, and to which the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill so persistently adhered. The hon. Member below the Gangway (Mr. Callan) seemed to be under the impression that if Seskinan disappeared from East Waterford, it would go nowhere. If they took the trouble to look at another part of the Bill they would find that Seskinan would go into West Waterford, because the barony in which it was situated formed part of that division. This was one of the results of neglecting to show the divisions in the Bill. The Bill had been drawn in a most slovenly manner. ["Order, order!"] It was not out of Order to say that. He was entitled to say that the Bill had been drafted in a slovenly manner. He had said it before, and he would probably have to say it
    382
    again; and he should certainly not be put down by any amount of roaring. The draft of the Bill had given great dissatisfaction to other hon. Members besides himself. He thanked the right hon. Baronet for intimating that, in all probability, the House would be supplied with a Return of all the integral parts of parishes and divisions as finally laid down in the Bill; he thanked the right hon. Baronet for the promise, and also for the performance when he made it. He wished to point out that when they were put in this position, that certain parishes forming part, say, of a barony or Petty Sessional Division, were put into one division of a county, and they found that that division was expressed in another division of the county in very general words, such as "except so much as is comprised in Division No. 2," it would be convenient to have that division in which the parishes were named first, stated first without regard to No. 1 or No. 2. References of this kind had no meaning or sense, and only served to disfigure the Bill. It seemed to him that it would have been far better to have taken the East Waterford Division first, for then they would have the places relating to the barony of Decies set out; and they would then have had, secondly, the remaining part of the parishes mentioned in a less general manner put in. If they were to have this style of drafting it was as well to mitigate, as far as possible, its evil effects when they had the chance. They should do this in dealing fully, in the first instance, with the divisions in which the parishes were enumerated; and, secondly, in dealing with the divisions in which only, so to speak, the surplus part of the parishes were inserted. He mentioned this because it was possible that before Report the right hon. Baronet might desire to change the order of these places in the Waterford Divisions.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he should be happy to consider the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member.
    MR. P. J. POWERsaid, that as to the number he had stated, he should like to inform the right hon. Baronet that he was not positive in saying that 800 were the exact figures. He had not been able to ascertain the number precisely before leaving Waterford; but he

    383
    had been told that that was the number, or about it. As to the question raised by the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan) with regard to disfranchising a portion of the parish, if the Amendment were carried——
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Oh, that is all right; we understand that point.
    MR. P. J. POWER: Yes; I think that question need not be gone into.
    Amendment, by leave, Withdrawn.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for the City of Dublin (Dr. Lyons) has the following Amendment on the Paper:—Part 3, page 109, line 26, insert,—"Royal University of Ireland Two Members." I have considered the Amendment, and I must say that as this is a Schedule relating to counties, a proposal to insert in it a provision constituting a new University constituency is not in Order.
    DR. LYONSsaid, that the Amendment in question appeared in the Paper through an inadvertence for which he was not at all responsible. He merely wished to give Notice that he would put the Amendment on the Paper for consideration on Report.
    Further Amendments made.
    Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

  EIGHTH SCHEDULE.

    FIRST PART.
    Mr. SEXTONrose for the purpose of moving an Amendment, in page 110, line 5, to leave out "33 & 34 Vic. c. 38 An Act to disfranchise the boroughs of Sligo and Cashel," when——
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he would ask the permission of the Committee in order to make a statement in regard to the Schedule, which, he thought, would relieve the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) from the necessity of moving his Amendment. This question had been raised on Clauses 26 and 27. On Clause 27 the question as to what disfranchisement should be given to the electors reported on by the Commissioners in 1880 arose, and the Government accepted a proposition which came from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Raikes), to the effect that the penalty imposed on these voters
    384
    should be seven years' disfranchisement from the date of the Report—for an offence at one election, and one election only. That was the view of the House—it might have been right or it might have been wrong, but they proceeded upon that principle; and, so far as he could gather, rather hoped that by dealing mercifully with those voters the House would not be encouraging corrupt practices for the future. In the same Bill, by Clause 26, they had to deal with electors who had been made the subject of legislation in times past. They had been of two classes—namely, those who had been scheduled for disfranchisement for a certain period, and those scheduled for disfranchisement for life—so as not to vote in a certain constituency for life. There were many of these people scheduled; and considering that they proposed to impose a penalty of only seven years upon those reported on in 1880, they could not maintain the heavier penalty on those who had been disfranchised now for 14 years. The result would be that in the new constituencies the disfranchised voters would be restored to their voting power, and those of the boroughs of Sligo and Cashel would be included. There were about 9,000 names on the Election Commission Reports; but that number, it was computed, must have been so reduced by death and change of dwelling-place, that no more than one-third of the original number now remained. Therefore, he did not think the Committee would be running any risk in acceding to what he thought was a consistent way of dealing with old offenders. On the Report, therefore, he would move an Amendment to Clause 26, to strike out the first part of the Schedule altogether. He made this announcement now in order to save discussion; but the matter would have to be practically dealt with on Report.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, that of course the undertaking given by the hon. and learned Member opposite was satisfactory to him to the full extent of his Amendment. In that Amendment he had not dealt with cases other than those of Sligo and Cashel. As an Irish Member, he had not felt competent to deal with English cases. He would make no comment upon the fact that in moving this proposed alteration the hon. and learned Gentleman would be granting

    385
    an amnesty to greater offenders than he (Mr. Sexton) was interested in. When he had put his Amendment down, he had felt that it could not be seriously contended for a moment that the remnant of the few people reported on in 1869, and disfranchised in 1870, should be still excluded from the franchise. The number of persons scheduled in Sligo was 27, and the number scheduled in Cashel, 100. These people had been scheduled 16 years ago, and disfranchised 14 years ago; and, seeing that that was the case, he considered that there could not be any very great impropriety in giving them the privilege of voting. He thanked the hon. and learned Gentleman for his statement.
    MR. WARTONsaid, that before the Schedule was put, he had an Amendment to propose which had not been removed by what the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General (Sir Henry James) had stated. He begged to propose the omission of the word "Knaresborough" from the Schedule. He did so on the ground that Knaresborough stood in a perfectly different position to every one of the other boroughs mentioned in the Schedule. It would be in the recollection of hon. Members that at the last General Election there was a close contest in the borough of Knaresborough—that a Liberal, whose name it was not necessary to mention, was returned by the narrow majority of 26 over the Conservative candidate, that an Election Petition was presented, and that the Judges reported that the borough had been a guilty borough. The result was that Commissioners were sent down; but, contrary to what was done by the Commissioners in the cases of Boston, Canterbury, Chester, Gloucester, Macclesfield, Oxford, and Sandwich, the other places mentioned in the Schedule, they found that a hasty conclusion had been come to by the Judges, and their Report was eminently favourable to the character of Knaresborough. Two of the Commissioners were Liberals and the third a Conservative; so it could not be said that their Report was prompted by political considerations. The Commissioners agreed in their Report, and they distinctly stated, referring to the way in which the Election Petition was tried, that the counsel for the respondent asked permission to refute some of the
    386
    charges made; but the Judges declined to hear them, on the ground that the inquiry was finished. Hon. Gentlemen knew perfectly well how Election Petitions were conducted. Owing to the extraordinary way in which things were conducted in election cases, if a single case of bribery was proved, the sitting Member lost his seat, though he might not himself be morally guilty. The most trumpery case of bribery was quite enough to unseat a man; the question between the political Parties was settled if one clear case of bribery was made out. But it was a very different thing when the honour of the borough was at stake. The Judges reported somewhat hastily that Knaresborough was corrupt; but the Commissioners, after a cool and quiet investigation, found—
    "That corrupt practices did not extensively prevail at the Election in 1880. Corrupt practices," the Report went on, "did exist to some extent, but they were not carried out upon any system or premeditated plan on either side. The cases of direct bribery were few and slight, and the treating was not of the serious nature as would appear from the ex, parte evidence given before the learned Judges."
    Not only, therefore, did the Commissioners say, in one page of their Report, that the Judges refused to hear the contrary evidence, but they said the same thing again in other words upon another page; they complained of the complexion given to the case from the ex parte evidence laid before the learned Judges. Why, the total amount proved to have been spent during the Election, including the sums paid by persons who were mere volunteers, did not exceed £120, a perfectly trivial sum as compared with the money spent in some boroughs with which even the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General (Sir Henry James) was acquainted. Knaresborough came out of the investigation with a reputation of almost perfect purity. At the following election their late much-respected Friend, Mr. Tom Collins, was returned, also by a narrow majority—374 to 335 Indeed, the Commissioners, who went somewhat at length into the history of the borough, found that Parties were so evenly balanced that it was with them pretty much turn and turn about. He (Mr. Warton) knew very well what the answer would in all probability be. The right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke; might say that all they were

    387
    trying to do was to provide certain punishment to certain individuals who were scheduled by the Commissioners. That, however, was unjust to the borough of Knaresborough. Under this ruthless Bill, Knaresborough was one of the ancient boroughs which was to lose its separate representation. If boroughs having a history of many centuries were to be deprived of their political rights, they ought, to say the least, to be allowed to preserve their good name. He must say that in comparison with the other scheduled boroughs Knaresborough stood out distinguished for its purity—in fact, it might be said that Knaresborough stood in a very enviable position. It had, it was true, been found guilty; but it had been found that the acts of bribery committed within it were exceedingly small. To put Knaresborough amongst the corrupt boroughs was exceedingly cruel; and therefore he thought it his duty, in justice to the borough, to move its omission from the Schedule.
    Amendment proposed, in page 110, to leave out the word "Knaresborough."—(Mr. Warton.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'Knaresborough' stand part of the Schedule."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that, as far as he could judge, a great deal of what the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Warton) had said was perfectly irrelevant. The fact of the matter was, that certain persons in Knaresborough were guilty of corrupt practices. No doubt, if they had let the borough alone, the mass of voters would have been pure. Why should the guilty persons at Knaresborough be pardoned any more than the guilty ones in any other of the scheduled boroughs? If the place was as pure as the hon. and learned Member had said, those who did bribe could not have been led away by the impurity of their surroundings. Their offence must have been all the more deliberate and intentional; and, therefore, there could be no special reason why they should be pardoned.
    MR. BULWERsaid, he agreed with much the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) had said. He would not mention any borough in particular, but boroughs with which hon. Members, not even
    388
    excepting his hon. and learned Friend (the Attorney General), were all familiar were far more corrupt than Knaresborough. It was mere prudery to talk of corruption in Knaresborough, when there was not more than £120 spent during the election. He should be very much surprised if any Representative of a borough, after inquiry into the matter, would be able to say that in his borough a much larger sum was not spent corruptly at the last Election. [HOME RULERS: English boroughs.] He did not wish to wound the susceptibilities of the Irish Members; he understood that they did not resort to bribery, but to intimidation. He would confine his remarks to this side of the Irish Channel, and would challenge the Representative of any English, Scotch, or Welsh borough to rise in his place and say, of his own knowledge, that in his borough £120, or a good deal more, was not spent corruptly on one side or the other at the last Election? Everybody knew that there was more or less corruption, though, of course, nobody could prove it. He agreed with his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bridport that no sufficient case had been made out for the inclusion of Knaresborough in the Schedule.
    COLONEL STEBLEsupported the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Warton). He did not rise to make a speech, but simply to repudiate the statement of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Bulwer) that bribery prevailed in every constituency. He could assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that Scarborough was perfectly pure at the last Election.
    MR. MORGAN LLOYDsaid, he also protested against the remark of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Bulwer) that at the last General Election corruption universally prevailed. So far as Wales was concerned, he could say with confidence that at the last Election there was no corruption whatever, nor had such a thing been known in the Principality in modern times, except in one borough which would now cease to return a Member.
    MR. WARTONsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General (Sir Henry James), with that acuteness which distinguished him on all occasions, had given the go-bye to his (Mr. Warton's) principal argument, which

    389
    was that it was perfectly unfair to put in this disgraceful Schedule Knaresborough, pure and innocent, as compared with any one of the other seven boroughs mentioned in the Schedule. To that argument the hon. and learned Attorney General did not condescend to reply. Perhaps it was as well he should remind the hon. and learned Gentleman and the Committee how the bribery began. It began in a Liberal club. About 70 or 80 gallons of beer was distributed amongst the people. What did 70 or 80 gallons of beer amongst the people of Knaresborough amount to? And what mitigated the crime was, that a good deal of the money with which the drink was paid for was subscribed by persons who were at the time sharing in the drink, so that these corrupt voters were treating themselves after all. He could only say that if the hon. and gallant Member for Scarborough (Colonel Steble), whom he was glad to find supporting him, would tell with him, he would certainly press the matter to a division.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 76; Noes 15: Majority 61.—(Div. List, No. 118.)
    Question, "That the Schedule stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
    Question proposed, "That the Bill, as amended, be reported to the House."
    THE CHAIRMAN: The Question is, "That I report the Bill, as amended, to the House."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: It is not unusual, at the close of a Committee on a Bill of this importance, to thank the Committee for the assistance they have given in regard to certain details of the Bill. I have to thank hon. Members in all quarters of the House for the manner in which they have worked on the Bill, and to express the hope that the result of our labours may not be unworthy of the attention which has been given to it.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman when he intends to take the Report stage of this Bill; and when the Bill will be in the hands of Members reprinted?
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I have expressed a strong desire that the Bill be circulated unstitched to-morrow; but, if not circulated to-morrow, it will be
    390
    on the following day. I propose to fix the Report stage on Monday, with a view of taking it on Tuesday or Wednesday.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 134.]

MOTIONS.
  POLICE AND SANITARY REGULATIONS SELECT COMMITTEE.
  Ordered, That Four be the quorum of the Select Committee on Police and Sanitary Regulations.—[Mr. John Talbot.)
  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (STANDING ORDER, PUTTING THE QUESTION).

    RESOLUTION.
    MR. BIGGAR, in rising to move—
    "That the Standing Order of the 27th November 1882, relating to Putting the Question, be amended by leaving out the following words, 'it shall appear to Mr. Speaker, or to the Chairman of Ways and Means in a Committee of the whole House, during any Debate, that the subject has been adequately discussed, and that it is the evident sense of the House, or of the Committee, that the Question be now put, he may so inform the House or the Committee, and, if a Motion be made 'That the Question be now put,'" and inserting the following words instead, "a Minister of the Crown shall declare to the House, or to a Committee of the whole House, during any Debate, that, in his opinion, the subject has been adequately discussed, and that it is the evident sense of the House, or of the Committee, that the Question be now put, and shall thereupon make a Motion, "That the Question be now put.'"
    said, the Amendment prevented the necessity of the Speaker or the Chairman of Ways and Means coming into conflict with any Member of the House or any section of the House. That was a very unfortunate position for the Speaker or the Chairman to be in, especially as it was the special function of those Officials to protect the minority in that House. The position of a Speaker and a Chairman should be purely judicial, and all such things as allegations of Party or partizanship should be avoided as far as possible by those functionaries.
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
    House adjourned at Eleven o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading— Friendly Societies Act (1875) Amendment* (77).
Second Reading—Local Government Provisional Orders* [66]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) * (67).
Committee— Infants (46–78).
Report—Solicitors (Ireland)* (53).

EGYPTIAN LOAN BILL.
  CENTRAL ASIA—RUSSIA AND AFGHANISTAN—ATTACK OF THE RUSSIANS ON THE AFGHANS AT AK TEPE—DESPATCHES OF SIR PETER LUMSDEN.

    QUESTIONS. OBSERVATIONS.
    THE EARL OF CARNARVON: My Lords, seeing the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in his place, I will ask him two Questions of which I have given him private Notice. The first relates to the Egyptian Loan Bill, which stands for second reading to-night. The noble Earl and the House must be aware that this Bill has not yet been printed, and, of course, has not been read. Under these circumstances, I cannot but doubt that the noble Earl

    283
    will consent to put it off to a future day. I think the noble Earl has suggested Thursday next for taking the second reading; but I would point out that Thursday next is not altogether a very convenient day, because on that day the Colonial Secretary proposes to move the second reading of a Bill dealing with the Australasian Confederation, which may possibly raise some discussion. I hope the noble Earl will consent to fix the second reading of the Bill a little later. Having said that, I wish to ask another Question, and it is this—Whether the noble Earl will consent to lay on the Table either the despatch of Sir Peter Lumsden or the substance of it? I ask the Question for two or three reasons—first of all, because the Russian account of this matter has now been before the world a great many days. It has been published and freely commented upon, not only in the English Press, but in that of Europe, and has, no doubt, having received no contradiction or qualification, exercised a certain influence. Secondly, there is this further reason—that Her Majesty's Government have as good as admitted that Sir Peter Lumsden does contradict, in fact, the statement made by the Russian General; and, thirdly, there appears in one of the morning papers today a very clear and detailed statement telegraphed from Tirpul, which not only contradicts the Russian account, but which purports substantially to confirm the account Sir Peter Lumsden is supposed to have sent. Under these circumstances, I feel quite sure that no one can be a gainer by the withholding of this despatch—neither Her Majesty's Government nor the country at large, nor even the Russian Government itself, when we are in this state of doubt. I would, therefore, very strongly urge on the noble Earl that he should comply with that which is undoubtedly the wish of the very large majority of this House.
    EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, in answer to the first Question put to me by the noble Earl, I have to state that I think it would be more desirable that the Egyptian Loan Bill should be taken without delay. I should very much regret that there should be any delay on our part. The noble Earl stated that the Bill has not been printed. It is in my hands now; but I have a very strong
    284
    notion, derived from the interest recently shown by the noble Earl in politics, that the noble Earl would have been able to proceed with the Bill at five minutes' notice. Still, I feel it more respectful to him and to your Lordships, the request having been made, to postpone the second reading till Thursday. In the meantime I will communicate with my noble Friend the Colonial Secretary, and ascertain from him whether there is any reason why the two Bills should not be proceeded with on the same night. At any rate, I will fix the Loan Bill for Thursday. The noble Earl also made another very reasonable request with respect to the unfortunate events that have taken place at Ak Tépé. I stated the other day that we had not received a despatch from Sir Peter Lumsden, though we expected one in answer to the categorical questions we put to him. I have now to say that a telegraphic message has been received this day, and I sent it to the Russian Ambassador soon after it arrived. I propose to lay it on the Table of your Lordships' House, and I hope it will be in your Lordships' hands immediately.
    THE EARL OF HARROWBY: Can the noble Earl state how long that message from Sir Peter Lumsden took in transmission? The matter of time is of great interest to us.
    EARL GRANVILLE: I regret that I am not able to state without Notice what time is required for the transmission of messages from Afghan territory to St. Petersburg or to England.
    LORD ELLENBOROUGH: Does the noble Earl know whether there is any truth in the announcement published in the newspapers, or will he inquire whether it is a fact, that the Russians are making a military road by means of forced labour from Sarakhs to Herat?
    [No reply.]

NAVAL AND MILITARY OPERATIONS, 1885–6 (VOTE OF CREDIT).

  MINISTERIAL STATEMENT.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I stated the other day that I proposed shortly to make a statement as to the basis of a Vote—a considerable Vote—of money which is either being asked for at this moment "elsewhere," or will be asked for in the course of the even-

  285
  ing. In accordance with the understanding that Her Majesty's Government have carefully considered our military position, not with reference alone to the Soudan, but to the general condition of public affairs, and to all the probable demands upon the military resources of the Empire, we have come to the conclusion that it is necessary to hold all these resources, including the Forces in the Soudan, as far as possible available for service wherever they may be required. Under these circumstances, the Vote does not include any provision of money for further offensive operations in the Soudan, or for military preparations with a view to an early advance on Khartoum. It does, however, include items having reference to such contracts or undertakings as, being already considerably advanced, could not be stopped with any appreciable advantage, and, at the same time, do not involve any necessity for hostile action. It provides for river steamboats which have already been contracted for, and for the completion of the Wady Halfa Railway, towards which extensive preparations have already been made, and which will have advantages altogether apart from military necessities. As to ulterior steps we reserve our entire liberty of action, subject to the approval of Parliament. I may here add that this does not imply any change of view or intention as to the defence of Egypt and of its Frontier. My purpose is simply to explain the basis of the Vote. With regard to the Suakin Railway, it was projected and commenced as a military work in support of the Nile Army. With the cessation of active operations on the Nile any considerable extension of this railway will be suspended; but until some other permanent arrangement can be made it will be necessary to hold the Port of Suakin with British or Indian troops. The experience of last summer, however, proves that in order to hold Suakin for any useful purpose, and, indeed, to hold it without undue exposure and risk to the garrison, it may be necessary also to occupy one or more positions in its neighbourhood. The Military Authorities will be consulted as to the positions which it may be considered necessary to occupy, and as to the points up to which, on the ground above stated, the railway should be advanced. It is proposed to complete the Suakin Railway up to the
  286
  point which may be determined to be best for the security of the garrison, and while this is being done to consider our future course as to any prosecution of this railway beyond that point. We consider that if the Nile Railway is an advantageous work for general purposes, the prosecution of it need not be discontinued, as it does not involve any question of hostilities. The addition to our resources which will be effected by holding the Soudan Forces available for service elsewhere is an addition quite independent of the demands which have recently been made upon us by the Government of India for large reinforcements. Those demands will be entirely met by provision at home, leaving the Force released in Egypt and the Soudan as an additional reserve for employment in India or elsewhere. In fact, we are providing for (1) what the Indian Government has already asked for; (2) for the mobilization at home of a Force which, with that released in Egypt and the Soudan, will constitute a complete Army Corps; (3) for guns and submarine mining defences, in addition to and in aid of the naval preparations. The Vote asked for amounts to £11,000,000. The amount wanted for the Soudan is £4,500,000, and for special preparations other than such as are connected with the Soudan we ask for £6,500,000. Our strong desire is to remain on friendly relations with all Foreign Powers, and this increase of our military and naval means will not affect our wish to settle any differences between us and other countries in a peaceful manner honourable to all parties concerned.
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOK: My Lords, the grave announcement just made by the noble Earl is one which has carried the knowledge of the House a great deal further than it has been carried heretofore; but we are still kept in ignorance of the state of affairs in India, and also with respect to the question which has been so lately paramount in this country—namely, what is being done in the Soudan. At present, as far as I understand the noble Earl, that question is left in abeyance. The noble Earl has made a very careful statement, and I presume that every word of it has been carefully weighed; and I understand from his statement that we may still look forward to an Expedition to Khartoum at a period not yet decided

  287
  upon. The noble Earl has left us, at all events, with the impression that the war operations in the Soudan may have to be resumed. That is a very serious question, and we have heard no new statement as to the objects or the intentions of the Government, because the noble Earl limited his observations as to the intentions of the Government to the statement that they adhered to the previous pledges given by them with reference to the defence of the Frontiers of Egypt. But the question of the Frontiers of Egypt is a very large and wide one, and one which I understand is not wholly decided upon by the Government themselves, and it certainly is not one as to which there can be any general agreement on the part of the Government. It seems to me, therefore, that the Government ask us to hold the sword over a great district in Egypt without telling us what use they are going to put their operations to, and we do not know when we are going to withdraw our troops from the Soudan. As I understand the noble Earl, it is not intended to withdraw those troops at once, and to bring them home; but they are to remain in Egypt as a reserve in case of necessity. It appears, therefore, that we are keeping a large Army in the Soudan without knowing what the intentions of the Government are with respect to that country. That is a matter, I think, upon which those who have not any confidence in the past or present policy of Her Majesty's Government may at least request further information. With respect to the other great question, the noble Earl has promised that we shall be placed in possession of the despatches of Sir Peter Lumsden, in order that we may know what the English officers say of the untoward event which has taken place in Afghanistan, for, according to all the maps, I believe the event did take place in Afghanistan, and not in territory belonging to Russia. But I can understand that the Government may wish at this moment to have their hands free, and not to be questioned too closely about the negotiations with the Russian Government. With respect to those matters, therefore, I shall be silent; but I cannot be silent about the Soudan. There has been a terrible slaughter in the Soudan of thousands of Arabs, and I want to know for what purpose that has been done, and
  288
  what are the intentions of the Government with regard to that country?
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: My Lords, it is quite impossible to have listened to the words—the calculated and carefully prepared words—of my noble Friend the Foreign Secretary, without feeling that we are in the presence of a very grave conjuncture of public affairs. I have hitherto taken no part in the discussions in this House on the Egyptian question; but I cannot help now expressing a very warm opinion that, except on the ground of public necessity and military necessity, with reference to the position of this country in other parts of the world, it would be a great and terrible mistake to go back from the policy announced by the Prime Minister in the other House of Parliament on February 19. That announcement was made after the fall of Khartoum; it was made after it was known that we could no longer hope to rescue that extraordinary and gallant man, whose memory will remain for ever in the history of this country. It was a deliberate announcement on the part of the Prime Minister that the Government, after full consideration of the circumstances in which they were then placed, knowing that General Gordon's life had been lost, knowing that the garrison of Khartoum had been sacrificed—it was an announcement to Parliament and the country that, nevertheless, they felt it necessary for the honour of England and the safety of Egypt that their original policy with respect to Khartoum should be pursued. My Lords, it has been an open secret that since that time a considerable portion of the supporters of Her Majesty's Government have wished that that announcement had never been made; and public meetings have been held expressing the opinion that it was wrong for England, now that Gordon had been sacrificed and no lives could be saved in the garrisons, to pursue the campaign in the Soudan. I had hoped that the Government would stand firm to the policy they had announced. I am so far relieved by the carefully worded announcement, read rather than spoken by the noble Earl, that it is still an open question with the Government; and I rejoice to hear that the ground upon which the suspension of those proceedings is founded is the ground of military necessity, of the necessity of holding a great Army of Reserve in the

  289
  case of further proceedings in Asia. I could not allow this discussion to pass without expressing my earnest and anxious hope that the Government will be able to pursue their original policy with respect to Khartoum. I hope that the preparations which they are making with regard to the Afghan Frontier will not be necessary; and I believe that if both Governments are really sincere in their desire for peace a solution of the difficulty may easily be found. But I hope that these preparations will not be made an excuse for divided councils at home. I hope they are not now made the excuse for backing out of the pledges which were given by Her Majesty's Government on the 19th of February. It is my firm conviction that unless the power of England to overcome the resistance of the Arab population of the Soudan and of Upper Egypt is proved by force of arms, we shall never have peace in Egypt, and we shall have exposed ourselves to the taunts and reproaches of the other nations of the world. I will add my conviction that the opening of those regions by the making of the Suakin-Berber Railway is a necessary condition for the further civilization of the great African Continent—an object in which all the nations of the world are now expressing their interest and taking their respective parts. I hold that—not by our own will, but by a series of events over which, as the Government have told us, we had no control—we have been led on step by step and by such steps as indicate our manifest duty to take our part in the civilization of that region; and my belief is that civilization will never be secured there, and the horrors of the Slave Trade will go on for ever, unless England does her duty with regard to the Soudan. I have nothing to say as to the military necessity for the moment of keeping the Army of Egypt as an Army of Reserve; but I will repeat my hope that the circumstances in which we are now placed with regard to the Afghan Frontier will not be made a mere excuse by the Government for a vacillating policy and for divided councils.
  THE EARL OF GALLOWAY: I understand that of the Vote of £11,000,000, £4,500,000 are to go to the Soudan. Are we to understand that the proposed railway from Suakin to Berber, which has made considerable progress already, is not to be continued? I ask the Ques-
  290
  tion because I understood the noble Earl to say that there was a doubt whether we should go on with that railway. I also understood the noble Earl to say in another part of his speech that the contract entered into still continued. My understanding was that the contract with Messrs. Lucas and Aird was for the construction of the railway and its continuance until within about 100 miles of Berber. Have the Government decided to alter their course as regards that railway?
  THE EARL OF LIMERICK: I wish to ask a Question which arises out of the statement made by the noble Earl. Your Lordships will remember that some weeks ago a Royal Proclamation was issued authorizing the calling out of the Army and Militia Reserve. No action has been taken on that Proclamation, and I cannot help thinking that some steps should be taken at an early date which would indicate the intention of Her Majesty's Government as to the calling out of the Reserves, because the uncertainty as to whether they are to be called out or not, and as to the number that may be called out, has a most injurious effect on the circumstances of these men, and also of their employers. A considerable time has now elapsed, and I trust it will be possible for the Government to say what their intention is with respect to the matter?
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWN: Could the noble Earl state whether it is still the intention of the Government to proceed to Khartoum? I took down his words, and they were—"We do not contemplate an early advance to Khartoum."
  EARL GRANVILLE: In answer to the Questions which have been put to me, I thought the House understood what I stated—namely, that we intended to continue the Wady Halfa Railway, which would be useful for military purposes. With regard to the Suakin-Berber Railway, it is the present intention of Her Majesty's Government to continue it as far as is advantageous for the defence of Suakin itself and the outposts, as the Military Authorities may think necessary. With respect to Khartoum, I stated that we reserved to ourselves entire liberty of action.
  LORD NAPIER OF MAGDALA: My Lords, I am not quite certain that I correctly understood the noble Earl

  291
  the Minister for Foreign Affairs to say that the Forces in Egypt were to be held as a Reserve to meet any emergency that may happen to the country. Is it the case, then, that if such emergency should arise the Forces would be suddenly withdrawn from Egypt, leaving the country to anarchy? No preparations have been made for any supplementary Force to replace the present troops when withdrawn from Egypt. I trust that Her Majesty's Government will reconsider their decision to abandon their declared intentions regarding the Soudan. Lord Wolseley received the instructions of Her Majesty's Government to take Khartoum. That was their declared intention. In pursuance of that intention the Expedition from Suakin was undertaken. It will be a great national disgrace if we retreat from the Soudan. It cannot be that the power of England, if vigorously exerted, is insufficient to carry out the intentions announced regarding Egypt and to meet any dangers that may arise. We have destroyed a certain amount of civilization in Egypt, which existed to a far greater extent than we were aware of, and I consider that it is our duty to replace the Soudan in that condition from which we threw it down. We have made no increase to our Military Forces notwithstanding the difficulties that surround us. The Militia have not been embodied; the Reserves not called out. It is said that the confidential officer of the Government, the Adjutant General, has demanded 10,000 men to work the present Army system. It is said that the Viceroy of India has demanded 10,000 men more to hold India. But it will be a great disgrace to this country if the Government abandon the Soudan, and I trust they will maintain their original purpose. If we withdraw from Suakin we shall disgrace ourselves in the eyes of the world, and I hope the Government will reconsider that matter.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: My Lords, I very earnestly hope myself that Her Majesty's Government will not follow the advice of the noble and gallant Lord who has just sat down, and engage in military operations in the Soudan for the purpose of spreading civilization in that country. I am one of those who form, it may be, but a small minority in this House, but who do not believe that civilization can be spread very easily by
  292
  warlike operation; and I must certainly strongly deprecate such an extension of the policy of the Government already announced as would be involved in any attempt of that description. It is perfectly true that the Government last February gave orders under the circumstances which then existed to Lord Wolseley to make an advance upon Khartoum if the military conditions of the country would allow of it. But when that announcement was made there still remained a certain amount of uncertainty as to the fate of General Gordon; and it was perfectly obvious that the first duty of the Government under such circumstances as those was to take whatever steps might be necessary to ascertain fully the fate of that gallant and deeply-lamented man. I certainly never understood the Government to declare the smallest intention of conquering or occupying the Soudan for the purpose of introducing and spreading civilization in that country. For my own part, I certainly heard even the declaration then made with regret, because, while I was as ready as any man in this House to support the Government in taking any measure that might be necessary for ascertaining the fate of General Gordon and fulfilling honourably our engagements and duties in Egypt, I failed to see that these obligations involved the necessity of an advance to Khartoum. I am glad, therefore, to learn now from my noble Friend below me that Her Majesty's Government, while they do not declare their intention of not taking that measure, hold themselves perfectly free with regard to it to follow whatever course under the circumstances of the time may appear to them to be most advisable. I cannot but think that, looking at the complications which have arisen since February last in various parts of the world, Her Majesty's Government are bound to keep for themselves the most perfect freedom of action in the position in which we are now placed. The noble and gallant Lord who has just sat down said—and said, as I think, very truly—that it would be impossible for us, and improper on the part of Her Majesty's Government, to abandon the defence of the frontier of Egypt. But I perfectly understood my noble Friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs to declare that it was the full intention of

  293
  Her Majesty's Government completely to adhere to their obligations with respect to the defence of the frontier so long as they occupy that country. We have duties in Egypt which we must fulfil, but I find it difficult to believe that in the fulfilment of these duties the Government need undertake an advance on Khartoum; and I am very glad to hear that it is their intention to keep themselves entirely free with regard to any such operation.
  LORD ELLENBOROUGH: I hope the noble Marquess who has just spoken does not express the sentiments of the Government, because I believe those sentiments are the cause of half, if not two-thirds, of the trouble we are now suffering in India, at the Cape, and in Egypt. Whether the Government were right or wrong in making their solemn pledges in regard to Egypt—and I am of opinion that they have been wrong throughout—it is evident that no confidence can be placed in them by our Allies if they are always prepared to yield finally under the influence of pressure.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVON: My Lords, I cannot congratulate Her Majesty's Government on the advocacy they have obtained from the noble Marquess, for they are in this position. If they accept that advocacy, they certainly bring themselves under the censure of the noble Duke who spoke just now. None of us, and indeed no sensible man, would object to the disposition of the troops by holding them in hand for any military emergency that might arise or that might affect affairs at large. What we take objection to is the opportunist policy, or no policy, which has distinguished the Government, and which has existed in South Africa and in other countries, and which we apprehend will also exist here. But I did not rise for the purpose of continuing this discussion, and if I did I should find it difficult to do so, because it is difficult to argue with persons who will not argue in reply. I rose for the purpose of asking a Question about another Military Expedition to which no allusion has been made. That Expedition has been fitted out on a very large scale, costing no less than£l50,000 per month; it has been in existence some time, and may be in existence for a long time to come. The objects of the Expedition and the conduct of it are very uncer-
  294
  tain. I allude to the Expedition under Sir Charles Warren in South Africa, and I want to know whether it is included in the Vote of Credit now asked for, or whether it is to be over and above the £11,000,000 which we are told is to be the amount of the Vote?
  THE EARL OF MORLEY: My Lords, one or two Questions have been asked to which I may be permitted to reply. My noble Friend opposite (the Earl of Limerick) has complained that delay has occurred in acting upon the Proclamation calling out the Reserves. I may say that an Army Circular has been issued today with regard to the mobilization of the First Class Army Reserve. The terms of the Circular are (1) that a sufficient number of Reservists belonging to regiments having in India battalions which are not up to their establishment will be recalled to the Colours with a view of completing the establishments of battalions in India. This will require about 2,000 men. (2) All the First Class Army Reserves are warned that they may be recalled to the Colours at short notice.
  THE EARL OF GALLOWAY: Army and Militia?
  THE EARL OF MORLEY: I am speaking only of the First Class Army Reserve. At once a certain number of Reserve men, those belonging to the 15 regiments of the battalions now in India, which are at present below their strength, will be recalled to the Colours; and the men belonging to the 14 other regiments will be warned that they may also be recalled to the Colours at very short notice, but they will not be actually recalled pending further instructions. There is no intention at present of calling the Militia Reserve to the Colours. The First Class Army Reserve consists at present of about 39,000 men, and of these about 2,300 will be at once recalled to the Colours for the purpose of making up the full establishment of the regiments in India which are at present below their establishment. In answer to the noble and gallant Lord opposite (Lord Napier of Magdala), I may say that, as regards the Army in Egypt, which has now 20½ battalions of Infantry, the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs did not intend to imply that the whole of that Force might be at once withdrawn and employed as an Army of Reserve elsewhere. What he intended was

  295
  that as long as no forward movement was made in the Soudan so large a Force is not required for the safety of Egypt. The battalions—say 10—would thus be relieved, and, supplemented by a like Force from home, would give us a Force equivalent to an Army Corps of Reserve for general service. The noble Earl opposite has referred to Sir Charles Warren's Expedition. That Expedition has been provided for out of the Estimates for the year.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBY: My Lords, in the present state of affairs I think we ought not to lose any opportunity of rallying round the Government. It is impossible to overlook the gravity of the announcement made this evening, for if it means anything, it means that the Government are in the greatest possible alarm as to the safety of the Empire at large, and that they think that the dark cloud which has so long threatened on the side of Russia is only too likely to burst. I can imagine nothing more grave than the announcement made to-night, and I think that in view of this great emergency we should all be on one side and support the Government through thick and thin. One reservation only I must make, and it is that if this extraordinary change of policy with regard to Egypt is carried out, the country should be plainly and fully informed what the policy of Her Majesty's Government with regard to Egypt is. If they call upon us to rally round them regardless of Party, we have the right to demand that there shall be a clean breast made with regard to the policy of Her Majesty's Government in Egypt. As a matter of fact, the country is in a position of wild alarm, and it is utterly in the dark as to what we have been doing and are doing in Egypt. If they do really wish that, in the grave emergency they foreshadow, the country as one man should rally round the national flag, we have the right to a clear statement of the views of the Government as to Egypt. We really know nothing as to them. One month we have one policy and another month another. At one moment one party in the Cabinet seems to gain the day, at another moment another party; at one moment it is the Peace party, and at another moment what people vulgarly call the Jingo party. At such a moment a good patriot is only doing his duty in saying that the
  296
  matter should be cleared up. Do not let it be said that retirement from our position in Egypt is a light matter, and one that may not involve serious cost hereafter. Remember what we found when we deserted Suakin last year after those brilliant victories over Osman Digna. We had to do the work over again and to spend British life and treasure more largely than before. For one, I should wish heartily to support Her Majesty's Government in an emergency like this; but I do feel confident that the people of the country will require some clear explanation of the policy of the Government as to Egypt, if they are to submit to the enormous sacrifices they are called upon to make.
  THE EARL OF RAVENSWORTHsaid, there could be no doubt that all would be ready to stand by the Government in this emergency. He desired to know what provision would be made for the wives and families of the Reserve men when they were called upon to rejoin the Colours?
  THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, the wives and families of Reserve men recalled to the Colours would be treated, as regarded separation allowances, on the same footing as those of soldiers married with leave.

INFANTS BILL.—(No. 46.)
(The Lord Fitzgerald.)
INFANTS BILL.—(No. 46.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
  LORD FITZGERALD, in moving "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee," said, that Notice had been given of an Amendment by the noble Earl opposite (Earl Beauchamp) which went to the root and principle of the Bill; and if the Amendment were carried, he should consider it his duty to abandon the Bill. The principle of the Amendment ought really to have been discussed on the second reading of the Bill. The object of the Bill, which had its origin in the other House, was to amend the Common Law which gave the father of a family absolute control over his children to the exclusion of the mother. Under the law great cruelties had been practised and great hardships suffered. The Bill declared that in certain circumstances the mother should be guardian or joint guardian. It had had been erroneously supposed that the

  297
  late Earl Cairns was an opponent of the Bill; but he was not. Earl Cairns said that it would interfere largely with social relations, and that the details could not be settled satisfactorily except by a Select Committee; and the Bill had been carefully considered and amended by a Select Committee. The Bill of last year was supported in the other House by the Law Officers of the Crown, the Lord Advocate, Mr. Horace Davey, Mr. Bryce, and 17 Members of the Government. It was opposed by Lord Randolph Churchill and Sir R. Assheton Cross. The present Bill differed in some particulars from that of last year; but its leading principle was to confer upon the mother the right to which she was morally and inherently entitled of appointing guardians for her children in case she survived her husband. Some objection had been taken to the proposal to give jurisdiction in these questions of guardianship to the County Courts. It was said that questions of great delicacy and difficulty might arise unfit for such a tribunal to adjudicate. But he thought it was impossible for any injustice or inconvenience to arise, inasmuch as either party was entitled, without assigning any reason, to require the transfer of the matter to the Chancery Division of the High Court. The Amendment swept away the whole principle of the measure, and if it were carried, he should abandon the Bill.
  Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee."—(The Lord Fitzgerald.)
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid, that the Bill entirely overlooked the interest of the children, which was sacrificed to the sentiment on behalf of the mother. Nothing could be more injurious to the welfare of the children than a divided guardianship, and the law of England had not been unwise in throwing upon the father the entire responsibility of bringing up the children. The mother had not equal rights in the matter with the father. There was no reference in the Bill to the case of the mother remarrying. It was important to remember that, as the father was the head of the family, the mother, on a second marriage, became part of her second husband's family. Then there was no provision for divorced persons, and a divorced woman, whose children had been placed by the Court under the
  298
  protection of the husband, would still, under the Bill, be entitled on the father's death to the guardianship of the children. If their Lordships passed this Bill, they would be introducing a principle which involved the utmost confusion in our families. The Bill would introduce discord between husband and wife, it would place women in a position of equality with men which by nature they did not possess, and it would open out sources of the gravest disaster in order to meet some exceptional cases which certainly had not been laid before their Lordships. All cases of litigation were cases of difficulty and doubt. What their Lordships had to consider was how our existing law affected our English homes in our every-day life. In his opinion, that law was for the benefit of the children. He did not deny that there were exceptions to the general rule; but for the sake of exceptions which were limited in number, and for which the proposed remedy was exceedingly doubtful, they had no right to upset the principles regulating the relations of a father towards his children. Perhaps he might be told that a Select Committee had carefully considered the Bill; but really this question was one not so much for the consideration of lawyers as for the consideration of fathers of families. The Select Committee did not pay so much respect to the interests, the position, and the duties of fathers of families as they did to the somewhat exaggerated and hysterical view of the case which had been made out for mothers as against fathers. He thought he had now shown that the Bill itself was full of dangerous matter. He quite admitted, however, that there was one point in which the law might be amended with safety. As the law at present stood, the mother did not become guardian of the children if the father made no appointment at all. He thought there could be no doubt that when the guardian nominated by the father was dead, or if the father waived his paternal rights, it was right and proper that the mother should become the guardian of the children. This was one reason why he had hesitated to move the rejection of the Bill; but he thought he had shown that the measure would introduce novel and dangerous principles into our legislation, and therefore he intended to move, in Com-

  299
  mittee, the Amendments of which he had given Notice.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORremarked, that if the noble Earl's speech were of any value at all, it did not stop short of the total rejection of the Bill. He had listened to that speech with much regret, because it showed that his noble Friend had not a just appreciation of the legitimate claims and rights of the mothers of this country, and of the scandalous state of the law, which at present entirely ignored them. He had hardly expected to be so soon reminded of the enormous and irreparable loss which that House had sustained in the death of Lord Cairns. The noble Earl had spoken of the Select Committee as if it had been composed of men who approached this question with the feelings of lawyers only. Some of those who sat on that Committee, including himself, might accept such censure; though lawyers, as well as others, were husbands and fathers, and, if influenced at all by professional prejudices, were not likely to be so in the direction of change. But was there a man in that House who would say that Lord Cairns had not considered the question with a mind open to broad and generous views of the rights and interests of fathers and children? He would now make a few observations on the criticisms of his noble Friend. In the first place, there was not in the Bill a single word which interfered with the rights of a father. He denied that a father, after he was dead, was capable of discharging the duties of guardian of his child, and he also denied that any person whom the father might put in his place could possibly succeed to the father's position and to his natural rights, however earnestly he might desire to discharge the duties intrusted to him. The objection of a divided authority had been raised; but surely such an objection would have no validity, because the Bill introduced no change of principle in that respect. As things were now, more guardians than were might be appointed by the father, and the authority might be divided between them. In the event of a disagreement between the guardians, the Bill provided that the Court might be appealed to, and would make such order as might appear to promote the welfare of the children. In his opinion, the welfare of the children was intimately bound up
  300
  with their relations to their parents, and the law, at all events, had enough of humanity in it to treat the mother as a child's guardian, when there was no other. And what was the title it gave her? The language of the law was "guardian by nature and nurture." He thought it would be a very unfortunate day for their Lordships' House on which such a Bill as this were rejected on such grounds as had been urged against it.
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEexpressed his fear that the Bill would give rise to a large amount of litigation, which, as their Lordships knew, meant ruin to the purse and continued hostility between the parties concerned. The Bill would, in fact, bring about a totally new state of society. The domestic habits and relations in this country were as good if not better than in any other part of the world. The onus probandi of the existence of the evils which this Bill was intended to remedy lay with those who were responsible for the Bill, and yet the noble and learned Lord in charge of the measure had not cited any cases of cruelty which did not come under the law as it is at present, and therefore showed no good cause for new legislation.
  LORD INCHIQUINsaid, he objected strongly to that clause of the Bill which empowered a mother to appoint a testamentary guardian to act jointly with the father. If a father should object to being associated with a guardian of that kind, he would be compelled to prove before the Court of Chancery his fitness to have the sole charge of his own children.
  LORD ELLENBOROUGHthought it would be a great mistake to refer questions of such extreme delicacy as those connected with the custody of children to County Court Judges. He, therefore, on that ground alone, would be prepared to support the rejection of the Bill, if it should be moved, on the third reading.
  Motion agreed to: House in Committee accordingly.
  Clause 2 (Surviving parent to be guardian).
  EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP moved, at the end of line 9, to leave out ("if surviving"), and insert ("unless the father shall have by deed or will otherwise appointed"). He thought they should be acting much more wisely by retaining the right which the father now possessed. He believed the system, on the

  301
  whole, was conducive to the peace of families. In cases of this kind they usually heard a great deal about the law of other countries. According to the law of the United States, the father had the right of appointing a guardian to his children. That was an argument which ought not to be disregarded. He entreated their Lordships not through the consideration of exceptional cases to upset a well-ordered system of English law which had existed for upwards of 200 years.
  Amendment moved, in page 1, line 9, leave out ("if surviving"), and insert ("unless the father shall have by deed or will otherwise appointed").—[The Earl Beauchamp.]
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that the exact point involved in the Amendment was that though there might have been a divorce through the husband's fault, and though the children might be in the wife's care during their father's lifetime on account of his misconduct, he might by will appoint a guardian who was to supersede the mother.
  On Question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 5; Not-Contents 40: Majority 35.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Remaining Clauses agreed to, with Amendments.
  The Report of the Amendments to be received on Friday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 78.)

FRIENDLY SOCIETIES ACT (1875) AMENDMENT BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to amend the Friendly Societies Act, 1875—Was presented by The Lord GREVILLE; read 1a. (No. 77.)
House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock, to Thursday next, a quarter past Ten o'clock.