Sitting of 24 March 1885

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—School Board Elections (Voting), appointed.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolution [March 23] reported—Ordered—First Reading—County Officers and Courts (Ireland) [Pensions]* [112].
Motion for Leave—Telegraph Acts Amendment, debate adjourned.
Ordered—First Reading—National Education (Ireland) [111]; Police* [113].
Committee—Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) (re-comm) [49]—R.P. [Ninth Night].
Committee—Report—Cape of Good Hope (Advance)* [101]; Consolidated Fund (No. 2).*

QUESTIONS.

  AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS—BRITISH BARLEY.
  MR. HICKSasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he can state the number of quarters of British barley returned as having been sold in the week ending March 1st 1884 at and below 32 s. a quarter, the number of quarters returned as having been sold above 32 s. a quarter and not exceeding
  378
  40 s. and the number of quarters returned as having been sold at a price exceeding 40 s. a quarter; and, whether he can state the lowest and the highest price per quarter of British barley returned in the week ending March 1st 1884?
  MR. J. HOLMS: In order to obtain the information asked for by the hon. Member, the Board of Trade would have to communicate with their officers at the 187 towns at which the prices of corn are collected, and some of these officers would have to examine a large number of Returns. The process will be laborious and costly, and ought not, I think, to be undertaken unless there is some important public object to serve. Perhaps, therefore, the hon. Member would be good enough to call at the Office of the Board of Trade, when it may be found possible to supply the information he desires in some other form.

  LOCAL TAXATION AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT—LEGISLATION.
  MR. DUCKHAMasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he can state when it is purposed to introduce the measure for dealing with the whole question of Local Taxation and of Local Government, as declared to be most urgently required in the Amendment accepted by the Government and carried by this House upon the Debate on Local Taxation on the 17th April 1883?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The subject of the reform of local government in the Metropolis and in the whole of the Three Kingdoms is much in the mind of Her Majesty's Government. Large measures on the subject are ready; but the question as to which of them can be carried in the present Session is hardly ripe for decision until we see our way to the completion of the Committee and Report of the Amendments on the Seats Bill.

  THE BOUNDARY COMMISSION (SCOTLAND) —INSTRUCTIONS TO THE COMMISSIONERS.
  MR. JOHN HAMILTONasked the Lord Advocate, Why the instructions to the Boundary Commissioners for Scotland, as printed in their Report, contain a third paragraph instructing them to take into consideration the pursuits of

  379
  the population in counties, which was not in the instructions laid before the House of Commons, and issued to the public at the time the Commissioners held their meetings in Scotland; and, why no public mention was then made of amended instructions having been issued?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): It is true that in the Correspondence with the Secretary of State as to the appointment of Commissioners, which was laid on the Table of the House, and which contained a statement of the duties of the Commissioners, there was no Instruction to take into consideration the pursuits of the people in counties. But in the Instructions actually issued to the Commissioners for England and Wales, and also for Scotland, this defect was supplied, and the Commissioners were especially directed that in dealing both with county and burgh divisions special regard should be had to the pursuits of the population. The Instructions to the Commissioners for Scotland were not signed until after the close of the Autumn Session, and consequently could not be presented to Parliament, or published as a Parliamentary Paper, till Parliament reassembled. The Instruction in question is, I venture to think, even more required in the case of counties than of burghs.

  AFRICA—WEST AFRICAN SETTLEMENT —SIR SAMUEL ROWE.
  SIR WILLIAM M'ARTHURasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether it is true that Sir Samuel Rowe, Governor of the West African Settlements, has organised an expedition into the interior for the purpose of extending commercial intercourse with the Native tribes; and, if so, whether Her Majesty's Government will lay upon the Table any correspondence on the subject which they have received from His Excellency?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: We have as yet received no information from Sir Samuel Rowe of any intended expedition; but he went out with general instructions to endeavour by peaceful means to restore quiet and order in the countries adjacent to Sierra Leone and British Sherbro, with a view to the revival of trade. A great number of merchants interested in the district asked
  380
  for this special mission, because they thought Sir Samuel Rowe was the most likely man to be able to effect the purpose.

  NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND)— NON-VESTED NATIONAL SCHOOLS.
  MR. KENNYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If the Commissioners of National Education will be requested to reconsider the prevailing system of refusing grants for the repair, &c. of "non-vested" National schools, while the Commissioners keep the schools vested in themselves in repair at the public expense; and, if steps will accordingly be taken to relieve local trustees from the burden placed upon them by the present incomplete system?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I see no reason to depart from the principle I announced on the 1st of December last, that the owners of the school fabrics are the proper persons to keep them in repair.

  ISLANDS OF THE WESTERN PACIFIC— LABUAN.
  MR. GORSTasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether Labuan still remains a possession of the British Crown, or has been ceded to the North Borneo Company; whether the governor of that Company's territories has been recently appointed Governor of Labuan, and whether he holds the office of Her Majesty's Consul General at Brunei; in which capacity has he negotiated the late cession by the Sultan of Brunei of a large part of the West Coast of Borneo, and to whose sovereignty is it ceded; whether the expedition which annexed this territory proceeded from Labuan; and, what measures are taken to enable the Sultan of Brunei and others to distinguish between the sovereignty of Great Britain and that of the North Borneo Company?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: Labuan has not been ceded to the North Borneo Company. The Governor of the Company's territories is also an officer of the Colonial Service, who administered Labuan from 1877 to 1880, when he was permitted to leave the Colonial Service to hold the appointment of first Governor of the Company's territories. He has

  381
  lately been granted an extension of leave of absence. He is now acting also as Administrator of Labuan and Consul General during the absence on leave of the Administrator, Dr. Leys. It was in the capacity of Governor of the Company that he negotiated the late cession. The Sovereignty is that of the Company under its Royal Charter. I know of no expedition which proceeded from Labuan; but I believe that Mr. Treacher was conveyed across as a passenger by Her Majesty's ship Pegasus. The Sultan of Brunei is fully aware of the constitution of the North Borneo Company, whose Charter provides for the acquisition of territory, subject to the approval of Her Majesty's Government. I may add that Sarawak is interested in similar cessions, and Her Majesty's Government think that the Rajah's position should also be considered.

  NAVY—H. M. S. "GARNET."
  MR. GORSTasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether H.M.S. Garnet is now undergoing extensive repairs at Bermuda; what is the nature and estimated cost of those repairs; whether the Garnet was fitted out for service in the West Indies at the end of 1882, at a cost of £15,000; and, whether the efficiency of ships of the Garnet type is such as to render the expenditure of such sums upon their maintenance advisable?
  MR. CAINE: Her Majesty's ship Garnet is not undergoing extensive repairs at Bermuda. The only repairs which have been authorized are estimated to cost £127. The Garnet was fitted out for service in 1882 at a cost of £15,000. Ships of the Garnet type are efficient, and such as to justify the expenditure incurred for their maintenance.

  LAW AND JUSTICE—SENTENCE ON HENRY WILLIAMS AT WINCHESTER ASSIZES.
  MR. W. FOWLERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the sentence passed on Henry Williams, at Winchester, in November last; whether he has received a Memorial from Poole, numerously signed, and including several magistrates amongst the signatures, protesting against the con-
  382
  viction and sentence; and, whether he will order an inquiry into the case?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I have gone into the case more than once, and have come to the conclusion that there is no reason to interfere.

  CENTRAL ASIA—RUSSIA AND AFGHANISTAN —PENJDEH.
  MR. M'COANasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether there is any, and, if so, what, truth in the following paragraph in The Daily Telegraph of yesterday:—
  "The Central News is enabled to state that Her Majesty's Government have received information that the Russians have endeavoured to create an outbreak in Penjdeh, the assumption being that Russia would immediately use this pretext for interfering and seizing the place. The British authorities have certain knowledge of a letter sent by the Russian Officer Ali-khanoff, instigating the Sarikhs of Penjdeh to rise. It is not known whether the Government of St. Petersburg has disavowed this act on the part of its officer, but, as the English Government were aware of this Russian intrigue previously to Mr. Gladstone making his recent reassuring announcement in the House of Commons, it is believed that M. de Giers has made such a disavowal?"
  MR. ONSLOWasked, Whether it was not within the knowledge of Her Majesty's Government that General Alikhanoff had on the occasion of the late advance attempted to get into Penjdeh by a coup de main, but that the Afghans turned out in considerable force, and the Russians retired?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: In reply to the Question of the hon. Member for Wicklow (Mr. M'Coan), that of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Onslow), and that of which the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) gave Notice yesterday, but has not put on the Paper, I can only repeat what I have stated more than once in this House—that in the present stage of the negotiations it would be inexpedient to reply to Questions of this nature, more especially when they are founded upon newspaper reports. I may add that I am not aware that The Daily News, as stated yesterday by the hon. Member for Eye, has published a report to the effect that Her Majesty's Government are prepared to assent to the Russian occupation of Penjdeh.
  MR. ONSLOW: I beg to point out to the noble Lord that the Prime Minister asked us to put Questions with regard

  383
  to the matters of fact. The Question which I have put is no controversial matter, but is purely a matter of fact, and has reference to whether a certain fact is not within the knowledge of the Government. If the noble Lord cannot answer it now, I will put it down for next Thursday.
  MR. M'COAN: I wish to ask whether information was not received by telegraph from Sir Peter Lumsden early this month, advising Her Majesty's Government of Russian intrigues going on in Penjdeh; if so, whether that communication will be laid upon the Table of the House?
  [No reply.]

  EGYPT (FINANCE &c.)—REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE.
  SIB JOHN LUBBOCKasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, as Sir E. Baring, in his Despatch of the 3rd November 1884, stated that a Return of the Revenue and Expenditure of Egypt would always be available ten days after the close of each month, he would lay upon the Table such a Return for the year 1884?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): No, Sir; we have a provisional account, but the Annual Return has not yet arrived in a complete state. I have asked Earl Granville to telegraph for it, and as soon as it arrives, and I have had time to examine it, I hope to arrange that it be laid on the Table.

  TURKEY—THE FRANCO-ENGLISH LOAN OF 1855—THE CONVENTION.
  MR. GIBSONasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Would he reprint and cause to be circulated the Convention relating to the Franco-English loan to Turkey in 1855, in order to enable the House to realise the significance (if any) of its being referred to in recent negotiations relative to the Egyptian financial proposals? He also wished to know whether the Convention contained any clause or term expressly dealing with the subject of international interference? [Parl. Papers, c. 4342, 4343.]
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Yes, Sir; orders have been given for the Declaration and Convention relating to the loan in question to be reprinted without delay, and I have this afternoon laid them upon the Table.
  MR. GIBSON: Can the noble Lord say whether the Convention itself contains any term expressly dealing with international interference?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will perhaps be content to wait until he sees the Papers, which will be in his hands at once.

  SUEZ CANAL—THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION.
  MR. GIBSONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Are the instructions to the British representatives on the proposed Commission to draw up the Agreement relative to the Suez Canal yet prepared; when will those instructions be laid before Parliament; how soon will the Commission begin its work; and, will the Report of the Commission be directly or indirectly communicated to Parliament before a final decision is arrived at upon it by the Government?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: It would be unusual and inconvenient to publish the instructions to our representatives before the meeting of the Commission; but I may mention that, as stated in the despatch of February 3, 1885, from Lord Granville to Lord Lyons, which is included in the Papers I laid on the Table yesterday (Egypt, No. 7), all that is required is to draw up a formal Article for the purpose of carrying into effect the principles set forth in the Circular of two years ago with the addition of a provision regarding the equipment of ships of war in the Canal. This is stated at page 9 of the Papers presented last night, in the section marked B. The Commission will meet on March 30. In reply to the last part of the right hon. and learned Member's Question, it is not intended to depart from the usual practice, which, in these matters, places the responsibility of negotiation on the Executive Government.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Will the noble Lord have any objection to reprint the extract from Lord Granville's despatch of January, 1883, in regard to the Suez Canal? Such a course would be very convenient.
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I shall be very glad to mention the matter to the Secretary of State. I may, however, remind the right hon.

  385
  Baronet that the Blue Book containing the despatch is a very recent one; it is the last Blue Book of 1882, although the despatch is dated 3rd January, 1883.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: If the decision of the Commission affects the value of the Suez Canal shares, and if that decision is not submitted to Parliament before the Government act upon it, what remedy will Parliament have against the Government for deteriorating the value of public property?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAUEICE: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Portsmouth will hardly expect me to answer a Question of that kind without Notice.

  EGYPT (FINANCE, &c.)—RECEIPTS AND PAYMENTS.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTONasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he could state the exact amount by which the payments out of the Egyptian Exchequer will exceed the receipts and balances during the month of April; and also specify the nature of such payments?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): The noble Lord will, perhaps, on reconsideration, see that one expression in his Question is a little unreasonable. Even in this country I could not state the exact amount by which the payments out of the Exchequer will exceed or fall short of the Revenue in a particular month to come, and I certainly cannot give such an exact statement with regard to Egypt. But, after the Question which the noble Lord put to me yesterday, I asked Lord Granville to telegraph to Sir Evelyn Baring for the probable financial position of the Egyptian Treasury in April; and I find that the deficit, after exhausting the balance in hand on March 31, will be about £310,000. The chief items are the payment on account of deficiency on the Domain Loan, the payment of the tribute to Turkey, and the salaries of the Administration. Both of the former payments are obligatory under the laws now in force. These sums do not include the payment of certain advances made to the Egyptian Treasury under Article 37 of the Law of Liquidation of 1880. Some of these will fall due on the 1st of April.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: There is a matter of great importance in the papers published to-day. There is a statement made that, as regards the Commissioners of Public Debt, they are in possession of a sum exceeding by £200,000 all demands to be made upon them for some time to come. It is also stated by Sir Evelyn Baring that after the month of April the receipts of the Egyptian Treasury will exceed the expenditure up to the month of September. That being so, there only remains this one sum of £100,000; and what I want to ask the Government is, whether, if these be facts, it is outside the financial capacity of Her Majesty's Government to make some arrangement to meet this paltry sum other than prematurely binding this House to a permanent loan of £9,000.000?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): The noble Lord has evidently not read the Papers. Had he done so he would have observed that the use of the money in the hands of the Caisse is what has been condemned by the unanimous voice of the Powers; and, after being parties to the Convention, we could not, without a violation of the public law, take any money out of the Caisse which is applicable to local purposes. As to the noble Lord's other suggestion, that we ourselves should lend money to Egypt, I am not aware that this House would be prepared to pass an Act for that purpose.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BAETLETT: Is it true that the Government have promised to a Foreign Power that this question shall be settled before Easter by the House of Commons?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERS (Mr. CHILDERS): The hon. Member had better place his Question on the Paper. I certainly have never heard of such a promise.

  EGYPT (THE MILITARY EXPEDITION) —THE NAVAL BRIGADE.
  MR. BRETTasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, From what ships the men composing the Naval Brigade now with Lord Wolseley were selected; and, whether their places on board these ships have since been filled up; and, if not, for what reason?
  MR. CAINE: The men composing the Naval Brigade appear to have been taken from the Alexandra, Inflexible,

  387
  Superb, Monarch, Invincible, and Témé-raire. The Commander-in-Chief selected them. Supernumeraries have been sent from home to fill the places of these men.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—THE GRAND JURY AND THE "FREEFORCE," CO. KILKENNY.
  MR. MARUMasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been directed to a Petition to Parliament of the Grand Jury of the county of Kilkenny adopted last week, containing the following statement:—
  "That whereas the justices of the county, acting upon the advice and recommendations of the local executive and Constabulary officials, have determined that the 'free' force of the Constabulary is insufficient efficiently to work the several police stations of the county without the addition of an extra force, which now involves an annual local charge of £1,700, we therefore submit that the 'free' force should be augmented to the full complement required to make up such proper normal standard;"
  and, whether, in the promised Police Bill, provisions will be inserted so that wherever the "free" force shall be found insufficient for the proper working of Constabulary stations, it shall be augmented to a proper standard for such purpose, and that the measure shall not be restricted to a mere redistribution of the existing "free" force, even though such be deficient as aforesaid for ordinary service?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I have not seen the Petition referred to in this Question. The views of the Government as to the "free" force have been embodied in a Bill which is in the hands of hon. Members.

  LOCAL TAXATION AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT —LEGISLATION.
  SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is the intention of the Government this Session to make any provision for the relief of local taxation, according to the Resolution of the House of Commons last Session; and, seeing that about nine-tenths of the local rates are now administered by popularly elected bodies, and most of the rest under the immediate direction of the Home Office, and seeing also that the London Government Bill
  388
  of last year, stated to be the basis of a County Government Bill, contained no provision for such relief, whether it is still the determination of the Government to postpone all such relief until the passing of a County Government Bill?
  MR. GLADSTONE,in reply, said, this Question was one of a family of Questions which had not unnaturally been put to him with regard to a variety of Bills as to which the Government had more or less pledged itself to bring before the House on the first opportunity. The time had not yet come when they could arrive at a decision on the question. The subject was one of great complication, and would require a good deal of time for its consideration. The Government were quite sensible of its urgency. He would make a statement whenever they saw what time would be at the disposal of the House; but to attempt to do so now would be premature.

  EGYPT (FINANCE, &c.)—THE NEW LOAN, 1885.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the undertaking of the Khedive to issue a Decree for a new Loan of £9,000,000 is subject to the obligation first to submit the matter for the opinion of the Egyptian General Assembly, in accordance with the 35th Article of the Organic Law of the 1st May 1883, as follows:—
  "Art. 36. L'Assemblée Generale doît être consultée pour avis. I Sur tout Emprunt Public;"
  and, if this is not to be done, then whether the Organic Law has been abrogated, or is it to be set at nought in this instance, with the consent and approval of the British Government?
  MR. GLADSTONE: My hon. Friend asks me a Question with regard to which I cannot give particular details. The business of the Khedive, no doubt, if he thinks proper, is to take all the steps required by the law in force in Egypt to fulfil in a regular manner his part of the duties connected with this Convention. Application has been made to the Khedive upon the subject, and he has engaged to take all those steps. Therefore, my hon. Friend need not feel any alarm as to what has been done so far as Egypt is concerned.

  CENTRAL ASIA—RUSSO-AFGHAN FRONTIER COMMISSION.
  MR. E. STANHOPEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If he can now hold out any hope of a day being fixed for the commencement of the work of the Afghan Frontier Commission, or if it is to be understood that, in accordance with the request of the Russian Government, the negotiations for the settlement of the Frontier are to take place in London?
  MR. GLADSTONE: There are two Questions here, and I am not able to answer them at the present moment. I think I ought to say, however, in justice to the Russian Government, that we do not think the time has come when we can fairly make it a matter of complaint that there has not been received an answer to an important communication by Lord Granville, which was but recently made—on the 16th of March. That has been transmitted to St. Petersburg; but we could scarcely expect an answer to have reached us by this date. We do not believe that the answer will be long delayed. The effect of that answer will be to bring to an issue the question whether negotiations shall take place in London, or whether there is to be a preliminary inquiry on the spot, and consideration by a Commission, which we desire.
  MR. E. STANHOPE: I will repeat the Question on Monday.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: Perhaps the noble Lord the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs can answer this Question now; if not, I will put it on the Paper. I wish to ask, as a Question connected with this matter, are we to understand that the state of local tension on this question as to the disputed boundary will prevent our Commission from continuing and completing their survey so as to ascertain the physical facts, or, notwithstanding the occupation of those parts of the country in dispute, that our boundary officers are still at work completing the survey?
  MR. ONSLOW: Was it not, as a matter of fact, arranged last Autumn between the Governments of England and Russia that the boundary should be fixed in Afghanistan and not in London?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I must request the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) to put his Question on the Paper. With respect to the other
  390
  Question, I do not think it would be convenient to enter into a discussion of the matter now. The Russian Government had made this proposal to us—a proposal which we were bound to consider, and we have not yet received a reply to our answer.
  MR. ONSLOW: What proposal?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I do not wish, to go back to that—[Opposition laughter]—and I decline to go back, notwithstanding the method of receiving Ministerial answers in very grave circumstances, and which seems to be greatly gaining ground in this House—I decline to go back and give partial replies to partial questions on partial transactions, from which partial answers inferences may be drawn that may be injurious to the public welfare.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: Will Her Majesty's Government, before the House breaks up for the Easter holidays, be prepared to make a statement as to the state of the relations between this country and Russia?
  MR.GLADSTONE: I may answer that Question by saying that I have not the least reason to suppose that it would be in the least degree advantageous to the Public Service that we should make any such statement at any time whatever.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: The right hon. Gentleman has referred to a proposal made by the Russian Government. Will he be so good as to say to what proposal he refers?
  MR. GLADSTONE: The proposal to negotiate.

  LUNACY LAWS—RECEPTION OF INSANE PERSONS INTO WORKHOUSES.
  MR. W. H. SMITH (for Lord ALGERNON PERCY)asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether the Guardians of the Westminster Union have called the attention of the Board to the recent decision of Mr. Justice Wills, in the proceedings lately taken against the Master of the Marylebone Workhouse, and other officials of that Union, with regard to the reception of insane persons into workhouses; whether it is proposed to issue any letter instructing masters of workhouses and relieving officers as to their duty in this matter; and, whether it is proposed to introduce any measure for the amendment of the Law relating to the reception of persons supposed to be insane into workhouses,

  391
  and for the protection of Poor Law officials from the responsibilities in which they may be involved by the strict application of Mr. Justice Wills's decision?
  MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: The Guardians of the Westminster Union have called the attention of the Board to the decision of Mr. Justice Wills in the Marylebone case. It appears that in that case a woman who was not a pauper, and who was alleged not to be under proper care and control, was by stratagem removed to the workhouse, and was detained there against her will for a period of 14 days, and that the requirements of the Statute were altogether ignored. The publicity which has been given to the decision in this case will be a warning to the officers of other Unions if there should be any disposition to adopt a similar course. It does not at present appear to the Board to be necessary to issue a Circular letter on the subject, neither would they be prepared to propose legislation for legalizing action such as that in the case in question.

  EGYPT (WAR IN THE SOUDAN)—GENE. RAL GRAHAM'S FORGE—ACTIONS ON THE 20TH AND 22ND MARCH.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he had any further news from General Graham; whether he could give any more details with regard to the numbers killed in the action of the 22nd of this month; and, also, whether he could state the number of transport animals and camp followers killed on that occasion?
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked, Whether it was true that the English Forces were fighting against the women and children of the Soudan as well as the men?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I have received no communication from General Graham except some telegrams on Departmental business, and except the telegram received last night, which has been published in the papers.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked, Whether the noble Marquess would answer the Question put by his hon. Friend the Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) as to whether he had received any confirmation of the statement which had appeared in telegrams from the seat
  392
  of action, that the bodies of some women and several boys were found around the zerebas; and, whether he would not think it necessary to communicate to the Military Authorities on the matter?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I answered the Question when I said that I had received no intelligence beyond the despatches published in the newspapers this morning.

  EGYPT—THE SLAVE TRADE IN THE SOUDAN—PRISONERS OF THE MAHDI.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether his attention has been called to a statement by The Daily News Correspondent at Korti, that—
  "There is an immense traffic in slaves around Khartoum. In consequence of the large number of prisoners, female slaves are selling at 48 reals to 92 reals apiece;"
  and to statements which appear in all the papers that female prisoners from Khartoum are being freely sold near Korti for £16 a-piece; and, whether Her Majesty's Government will authorize Lord Wolseley, by telegraph, to ransom these unfortunate victims, and also to ransom Slatin Bey and M. Cuzzi, now prisoners of the Mahdi?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I have seen the paragraph in The Daily News to which the hon. Member refers; but I am not aware whether the statements made in it are accurate or not. It appears to me to be extremely doubtful whether it would be desirable to direct or authorize Lord Wolseley, as the hon. Member suggests, to ransom those unfortunate victims, and it seems to be extremely probable that such a course might greatly tend to encourage the traffic that is said to be going on. With regard to Slatin Bey and M. Cuzzi, I can add nothing to what was stated the other day by my noble Friend the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs. The noble Lord said that Her Majesty's Government had taken no steps to ransom Slatin Bey or M. Cuzzi; but one of the main objects of Lord Wolseley's Expedition would be to secure the safety of those who remained loyal to the Egyptian Government, and that he would take every step that is likely to secure that object. He also said that Lord Wolseley had received full powers to take whatever steps he thought proper.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked whether the noble Marquess distinctly declined to advise Lord Wolseley by telegram that he was at liberty to ransom these unfortunate persons, and especially Slatin Bey and M. Cuzzi? He also asked the Prime Minister whether he still adhered to the opinion that the Slave Trade had received a decided check in the Soudan? ["Order, order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is asking the noble Lord to reply to a Question he has already replied to; and is, therefore, not in Order.

  PROTECTION"OF YOUNG GIRLS— LEGISLATION.
  MR. CROPPERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it was the intention of the Government to introduce any measure this Session for the better protection of young girls?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Yes, Sir. The Bill introduced last Session into the House of Lords will be re-introduced there almost immediately.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—RIOT AT NEWRY—TRIAL AND ACQUITTAL OF WILLIAM ORR.
  MR. O'BRIEN: I would like to ask the Solicitor General for Ireland a Question which I think he will have no difficulty in answering without Notice—Whether he has learned that William Orr, charged with discharging a revolver from the Orange Hall at Newry on a Nationalist procession, was acquitted to-day by a Belfast jury; whether it was sworn by the police that the prisoner threw the revolver out of the window when one of the barrels had been discharged; and whether the jury not only acquitted Orr, but expressed their disapproval of the Nationalist procession permitted by Lord Spencer; whether the further charge of riot against Orr will be proceeded with before a Belfast jury; and, whether the trials of the other Orangemen charged with firing at the Nationalist procession will be entrusted to juries which have made so gross a display of partizanship?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, he could not answer the Question.
  MR. O'BRIEN: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman answer whether it is
  394
  intended to proceed with the cases against the Orangemen at the Belfast Assizes?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, he would speak to the Attorney General on the subject.

ORDER OF THE DAY.

  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (REDISTRIBUTION) (re-committed) BILL.— [BILL 49.]
  (Mr. Gladstone, The Marquess of Hartington, Sir Charles W. Dilke, Mr. Attorney General, The Lord Advocate, Mr. Campbell-Bannerman.)
  COMMITTEE. [Progress 23rd March.]
  [NINTH NIGHT.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  THIRD SCHEDULE.

    BOROUGHS TO HAVE ADDITIONAL MEMBERS.
    MR. SEXTONmoved, in page 15, column 2, line 41, after the word "Dublin," to leave out the word "four," and insert the word "five." The hon. Member said the object of the Amendment was, of course, obvious. It was to increase, by one Member, the representation which was allotted by the Bill to the City of Dublin. He thought he should easily be able to show that the City of Dublin had been treated exceptionally hardly in the Schedule; and if he established that contention he hoped to be able to lay before the Government, with great confidence, the Motion he had the honour to make. He was still further encouraged by the circumstance that the right hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had dealt very tenderly with the claims of the City of Westminster, the proposed representation of which he had agreed to increase from three Members to four, although the City of Westminster had a population of nearly 40,000 less than the City of Dublin, which had only four Members allotted to it, even with an extended boundary. The Motion which he desired to make was one which he thought would commend itself both to English and Scotch Members of the House. He did not propose to call in question the relative augmentation of

    395
    the representation allowed to the three countries under the Bill. He was satisfied that the gross representation of England, Ireland, and Scotland should remain as it was now proposed; and as the additional Member for the City of Dublin, if he were allowed, must be taken from some other constituency in Ireland, he conceived that the English and Scotch Members would be in a position to give a fair and impartial consideration to the case he proposed to make. It would also commend itself to men of all political Parties. The Motion was not made in the slightest degree in the interest of any political Party, and he candidly confessed that if it was adopted he was unable to see to what particular Party it would work with advantage. Indeed, he thought there were very few people in Dublin itself who could speak with confidence upon that point. The vital principle of the Bill was the principle of population. Whenever the Government had been attacked with reference to any of their proposals they had generally defended themselves by a reference to the principle of population; and when they were not prepared to agree to an Amendment that was proposed they usually referred to the population principle in order to justify their objection to such Amendment. But before he came to the question of the population of the City of Dublin, he wished to say, in the first place, that he pleaded for Dublin as the capital city of Ireland. If any deviation was to be made from the strict principle of the Bill in the case of a capital city it should be a deviation favourable, and not adverse. Dublin was a capital city in every respect, except that it was not the seat of the Legislature. It was formerly the seat of the Legislature, and he had no doubt whatever that it would very soon again occupy that position. But in the meantime, and until that result was secured, the special interests of Dublin were such as needed particular representation in that House. Questions relating to the municipal life of the city—to its rating, and to the collection of its rates, were constantly demanding attention; and, therefore, he maintained that Dublin was entitled to the full measure of representation which it ought to have according to the principles of the Bill. The position he laid down was this—that Dublin should no
    396
    longer be cramped within artificial and restricted boundaries—that the boundaries ought to be so drawn as to include the whole City of Dublin, as it actually stood at the present moment; and that when the boundaries were so drawn the representation ought to be fixed according to the principles of the Bill to the full extent of the population. Speaking of Dublin as the capital of Ireland, he found it described by a standard authority as the centre of all the political, ecclesiastical, educational, fiscal, commercial, and military institutions of the country, and he might add that it was also the seat of judicature, and the centre, not only of literary and scientific research, but also of political Party organization. The right hon. Baronet the President of the Local Government Board, in repulsing the case of Limerick last night, referred to the question of area. The right hon. Gentleman stated that the area of the borough of Limerick was exceptionally large. Now he ventured to assert that no such point could be made in reference to the borough of Dublin, because the present extent of the Parliamentary borough of Dublin was only 5,500 acres. The addition he proposed to make to that area was about 3,000 acres, so that the total area of the extended borough would only be between 8,000 and 9,000 acres, or less than one-third of the area of the present boundaries of the borough of Limerick. He found, by a Return issued in 1881, that the area of Sheffield in that year was 20,000 acres, or more than twice as much as he proposed to give to the borough of Dublin; the area of Leeds was 22,000 acres, or more than twice as much; and he thought he could point out upon the maps appended to the Report of the Scotch and English Boundary Commissioners at least half-a-dozen cases of boroughs where extensions had only been carried into effect under the fifth Schedule of the Bill, which covered an area more extensive than that which he proposed for Dublin—a borough much more considerable in point of population. He came now to the question of population, which was the vital point under the Bill. The unit of representation in the Irish boroughs was 47,000—that was to say, that for every Member allowed to an Irish borough there were 47,000 inhabitants in the borough. The unit for the Irish coun-

    397
    ties was 52,000 for each Member, and the average for all Irish Members, taking the counties and boroughs together, was a little over 51,000. Now the present population of Dublin was 273,000, which, with the four Members proposed to be given to the borough, allowed an average of 68,000 odd for each, or, in other words, the proportion of the population of Dublin was nearly one-half as much again as the proportion for the Irish boroughs in general. Moreover, the proportion for the borough of Dublin was one-third in excess of the general unit of population for the whole of Ireland. Perhaps the Committee would allow him to compare Dublin with the other Irish boroughs. Newry had one Member for 15,000 population, Kilkenny one for 15,000, Galway one for 19,000, Londonderry one for 29,000, Waterford one for 29,000, Limerick one for 48,000, Cork one for 52,000, Belfast one for 55,000, and Dublin one for 68,000. If the representation of Dublin were calculated upon the basis of the average population of the Irish boroughs, the result would be as follows:—The population of Dublin was 273,000, and four Members for the borough upon the general average of 47,000 would give 188,000, leaving Dublin a surplus population of 85,000 unrepresented. He would compare Dublin with the only other strictly parallel case of a borough that occurred in Ireland; he referred, of course, to the borough of Belfast. Dublin got four Members, with a population of 273,000, but Belfast got four with a population of 221,000; so that Dublin, with an excess over Belfast of 51,000, got only the same representation, although the average of population for a borough Member was as low as 47,000, or 4,000 less than the excess of Dublin over Belfast. If he were fortunate enough to obtain an additional seat for the City of Dublin he presumed that the seat would have to be taken from some Irish county; but he did not shrink for a moment from that test. He had been obliged, in previous debates, to agree with the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) that there was no tenable claim in the case of Drogheda or Limerick for the transfer of a Member from any Irish county, because if such a transfer were made the Member would have to be taken from a place representing a larger number of people
    398
    and given to a place representing a smaller. Therefore, he had found it impossible to maintain that position, having regard to the fact that the principle of population was the vital principle of the Bill; but he was prepared to say that Dublin was entitled to have another Member, even although that Member had to be taken from some Irish county. He had pointed out already that the county average for Ireland was 52,000 for each Member, whereas the average in Dublin City was 68,000, or one-third in excess of the general county average in Ireland. The county average in Ireland varied from 30,000 at Longford up to 70,000 in Clare; and out of the 32 counties in Ireland there were no fewer than 30 in which the average of population for each Member was less than the unit proposed for the City of Dublin. He, therefore, contended that he was entitled to press upon the Government—and he believed they had no reply to his contention—that he was strictly adhering to their own principle of population when he claimed that Dublin was entitled to take a Member from any one of those 30 counties. The right hon. Baronet had told them that the county of Tyrone was to have four Members for a population of 197,000, or one for every 49,000. The county of Tyrone, therefore, was the first of the Irish counties from which a Member might be taken.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEremarked, that Tipperary had a population of 2,000 less.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, the right hon. Baronet had distinctly referred to Tyrone. He had asked which of the Irish counties came first, and the right hon. Gentleman said Tyrone.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEremarked, that if he had said so he had made a mistake. As a matter of fact the population of the two counties was almost the same; but that of Tipperary was 2,000 less than that of Tyrone.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, that was not so according to the Census Rturns.
    SIR.CHARLES DILKEstated that on referring to the Census Returns he found that the hon. Member was right. The population of Tipperary was 199,000, while that of Tyrone was 197,000, or 2,000 less.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, that in order that there should be no dispute he would

    399
    quote the actual figures. The population of the county of Tyrone was 197,233, which gave an average of 49,308; and the population of Tipperary was 199,612, which gave an average of 49,903, so that the difference of 2,000 was in favour of Tipperary. Therefore, if an additional Member was to be given to the City of Dublin it would have to come from the county of Tyrone. He would not, however, press that matter further than to say that each Member for Tyrone would only represent 49,000 persons, while the average in Dublin was 68,000. If they took away one Member from Tyrone the average for each of the three remaining Members would be 65,000, while the average for five Members in the City of Dublin with an extended boundary would be one for every 63,000; so that after taking away a Member from Tyrone and giving him to Dublin the principle of population would still remain unviolated, seeing that the city and county average would still be practically the same. A very curious collateral result had followed from the abstention of the Boundary Commissioners from recommending the extension of the boundaries of the City of Dublin. The population of the county of Dublin, under the Bill, was 145,000. His proposition was that 40,000 should be taken out of the county and put into the city, which would leave 105,000 in the county, and would still supply an average for each of the two Members above the county average for the rest of Ireland. But if the county was to be divided, as it now stood, its average would be 72,000 for each Member—that was to say, that while they cramped the representation of the city, and starved the representation of the borough, they placed in the county the highest average of any county in Ireland—namely, 72,000. He had stated that the Boundary Commissioners declined to commit themselves to the recommendation of any extension of the boundaries of Dublin. What were the Instructions to the Commissioners? They were instructed, no doubt, that the boundaries should be in conformity with Schedule 5 of the Bill; but he found that their Instructions contained these words—
    "Where it appears to the Commissioners from information obtained in the course of their inquiry that an alteration of the existing borough boundaries is desirable, a description
    400
    of the alteration shall be embodied in their Report. Should there be any such case the Commissioners will, before making any recommendation, take the necessary steps for satisfying themselves whether or not there is any number of houses beyond the boundaries, but contiguous thereto, the occupiers of which, either by community of interests with the borough, or from any other circumstance, form part of the county population proper."
    He would turn now to the plea of the Commissioners for declining to enter into that question in the case of Dublin. They said—
    "The Corporation of Dublin pressed upon us the propriety of incorporating with the City some of the external townships constituted under various Acts of Parliament, but with separate rating powers; but as it was evident that the proposed extensions were of such magnitude as to affect the representation of both county and borough, we pointed out that it was beyond our discretion to enter into the consideration of the question."
    He contended that it was not beyond their discretion, because the words of their Instructions which he had just read enabled them and entitled them, if they thought it desirable, to inquire into the question of the extension of the boundaries of the borough without regard to Schedule 5 of the Bill. Schedule 5 governed the boundaries they were to make on the maps; but it was within their Instructions to inquire into the extension of boundaries. They stated that the proposed extensions were of such magnitude as to affect the apportioned representation of both county and borough; but he maintained that that assertion was untrue. It was absolutely and obviously untrue both as regarded the county and also as regarded the borough. The population of the county was 145,000. It was sought to take away 40,000 from it, leaving 105,000, and giving an average of 52,000 for each Member. That average was quite up to, if not beyond, the general average for a county constituency; and how could the Commissioners, with decency, contend that the extension of the borough boundaries would affect or alter the apportioned representation of both county and borough? It did nothing to affect the apportioned representation of the city and borough. He had pointed out that the average of the borough representation in Ireland was one Member for every 47,000 people, and he had shown that the representation proposed to be given to Dublin was

    401
    one Member for every 68,000. The average of Dublin therefore, under the Bill, was 21,000 over the average required for the representation of all the other boroughs in Ireland; and when the Government had already, by the Schedule, violated every principle of representation by population in regard to the City of Dublin, it was superfluous and absurd for the Commissioners to refuse to inquire into the extension of the boundaries of Dublin on the ground that it would do that which had already been done. The Commissioners seemed to think that the reason they assigned would not bear the test of inquiry, because they proceeded to add another reason for not inquiring into the extension of Dublin City. They said that although the case of Dublin had been made the subject of a previous inquiry by a Municipal Commission in 1881, no legislative action had been taken to give effect to the recommendations of the Commission. But no legislative action was taken in the case of Belfast. Nevertheless an inquiry was hold in Belfast, and 13,000 people were added, in order to eke out the necessary population and give the borough a presentable margin above the average. Although in Dublin legislative action was considered to be a necessity, in the Northern city no such object was held to be a vital one. A good many years had been spent and wasted in the efforts to extend the municipal boundaries of Dublin. A Select Committee of the House of Commons reported upon that question in 1878, and upon the recommendations of that Committee the Conservative Government of that day appointed a Commission of Inquiry. The Duke of Marlborough was Viceroy at the time, and in appointing the Commission language of an imperative character was employed directing the Commissioners to report by a certain date in the following year. If the Conservative Government of seven years ago thought the question of the extension of the boundaries of Dublin an urgent and pressing matter then, although the Liberal Government of the present day professed to be more concerned about the principle of municipal government than their Conservative Predecessors, they had, nevertheless, been content to give all the recommendations which resulted from that inquiry the go-by. In 1881 the Muni-
    402
    cipal Commission reported, and at the end I of that year the Government, with the Report of that Commission before them, recommending the extension of Dublin,; excused themselves from carrying out the recommendation, on the ground that; they were very busy with the Land Act. In 1882 they further excused themselves, on the ground that arrangements for the working of the Land Act were still occupying their attention. In 1883 Earl Spencer made a further excuse to the Corporation of Dublin for not carrying out the recommendations of the Commissioners, on the ground that the rating of Dublin required a revision, and that the Government had a measure in contemplation, which, however, had never come to light, for the amendment of the law relating to the local government of cities in Ireland. Last year Earl Spencer again excused himself to the Corporation, upon the still more vague and impalpable plea that he had other matters to engage his attention. They all knew that matters of an extremely unpleasant kind did occupy the attention of the Irish Government during a great part of last year; but from one excuse or another the Irish Government, for the last four years, had staved off this question of the extension of the municipal boundaries of Dublin. It was well known, however, that the authorities at Dublin Castle were never at a loss for excellent excuses for doing nothing. What were the recommendations of the Boundary Commissioners in 1881? What the Irish Members were now urging was an extension of Parliamentary boundaries, and not a municipal extension, although both were based on the same principle. His contention was that Dublin and the townships converging upon Dublin formed one body of people—one indivisible city, with a common ground of enterprise, law, trade, and industry, and a common fund for income and profits. In the map appended to the Report of the Municipal Commission of 1881 the part coloured blue represented the present borough of Dublin. The five other districts represented the five townships abutting on the city; and here he would direct the attention of the right hon. Baronet and the Committee to a very curious fact. One of the five townships—the township of Pembroke—already formed part of the Parliamentary borough of Dublin;

    403
    and side by side with it, lying alongside the present boundary of the city, alike in position, with a similar area, and differing from it in no one quality that could be discerned, was the township of Rathmines. He would defy any human intelligence to point out any reason why the township of Pembroke should be included in the Parliamentary borough of Dublin and the township of Rathmines left out. Two of these five townships were situated on the Southern side of the city, and two of them on the Northern. They were not distinguishable to the eye from the city itself; and, as an illustration of the close and definite character of the tie which bound them to the city, he might point out that there were four lines of tram-cars running from the centre of the city to the outer extremity of these four townships, and the bulk of the people dwelling in the four townships earned their income as merchants' clerks or artizans in the City of Dublin. They went into Dublin by the tram-car lines in the morning, and returned in the same way to their homes in the evening. Many of those persons had shops in Dublin, where they realized their incomes, but lived with their families in one or other of those four townships. No test could be applied by which it could not be proved that those four townships were one in unity of position, in unity of interest, and in everything that could constitute a unity or give a claim to one common government with the City of Dublin. He failed to see how the claim he made for the unification of these townships with the City of Dublin was to be contested. He believed he might say that Dublin was the only instance in the Three Kingdoms where the Government had refused to extend the boundaries of the city. He did not know any other case contained in the Report of the Commissioners.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEremarked, that a similar extension had not been acceded to in the case of Drogheda.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he was speaking now of the Report of the Commissioners. In every case where the Commissioners had recommended an extension of boundaries their recommendation had been adopted, and in most cases the Parliamentary boundaries had been made coincident with the municipal borough. He would invite the Committee
    404
    to consider for a moment the remarkable contrast in the treatment of the Irish and the treatment of the English and Scotch constituencies in a similar position. Take the case of Birmingham. In the case 'of Birmingham, the Boundary Commissioners had added four areas—three of them, judging from the groves and hills and dales they contained, being practically rural, and all of them outside the municipal boundary. Was he right in saying that that was the case? [Sir CHARLES W. DILKE: No!] He (Mr. Sexton) had carefully examined the map, and he was of opinion that the areas proposed to be included within the Parliamentary borough were outside the municipal borough of Birmingham. Birmingham already contained 436,000 people; they proposed to add 36,000 more to it under the Bill, and to give seven Members to it; but if Birmingham were treated as Dublin was treated, it would only be entitled to six. In the borough of Bradford, with a population of 180,000, they had extended the Parliamentary boundaries, so as to make them coincident with those of the municipality. By those means they had added 4,000, making the population 184,000, and they proposed to give to Bradford three Members. If they had treated Bradford in the same way as Dublin, that town would only be entitled to two. Then, again, there was the case of Bristol, with a population of 206,000. He asked the right hon. Baronet's attention to this case. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to doubt whether the Parliamentary borough of Birmingham had extended beyond the municipality.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, it had not; the hon. Member was labouring under a misapprehension. There was a population of 36,000 outside the municipal boundary.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he was glad of that admission; 36,000 people outside the municipal borough had been added to the Parliamentary borough of Birmingham, in order to entitle it to seven Members, and they had been added to a borough that already had a population of 400,000 within its boundaries, and a borough which had a co-extensive boundary for municipal and Parliamentary purposes. In that case the Government proposed to go outside the municipality and to add 36,000 more, in order

    405
    to entitle Birmingham to seven Members. In Ireland they altogether disregarded the recommendations of a Commission to extend the municipal boundaries, although in England, where a municipality was already extended as far as it could be, they went outside and took in an additional area. All he would say was that the additional areas added to Birmingham were in no respect urban. His point, however, was that the same treatment was not extended to Ireland, and that in Dublin the Government refused even to extend the municipal boundary to its natural limits; whereas in England they first extended the municipal boundary as far as it could go, and then carried the Parliamentary boundary beyond it. He would now take the case of Bristol. The Commissioners reported that in Bristol, before they set to work upon it, the boundaries of the borough and of the municipality were the same. Then, what had they done to it? The Parliamentary boundary of the borough was already extended as far as the municipality; but they had now actually added to Bristol three Local Government districts and part of a parish—having added to the borough a district as large as the old municipality itself. They had doubled, under the Bill, the size of the Parliamentary borough of Bristol, and they had added to it a population of 47,000. In the case of Dublin he only asked them to add 40,000, and they refused. By the addition to Bristol they were enabled to give to that city four Representatives, but if they had treated Bristol as they had treated Dublin it would only have been entitled to three. And now he would turn to the case of Liverpool. In Liverpool, before the Bill was drafted, the borough and the municipality had the same boundaries. They contained 550,000 people. What did the Government do under their Bill? Although they had already extended the borough to the utmost verge of the municipality, they actually added to Liverpool by the Bill so much of two great and populous parishes as was not already included within the boundary. To the population of 550,000 they added 48,000 more, and they gave to that 600,000 nine Representatives; whereas, if Liverpool had been treated in the same way as Dublin, it would only have been entitled to eight. The Parliamentary borough of Manchester had
    406
    already, before the introduction of this Bill, had its borough boundaries extended beyond the municipality. What did the present Bill do? It added to J the city two Local Government Board districts containing a population of 30,000, and to the borough thus created they proposed to give six Members; whereas, if they had treated it as they had treated Dublin, it would only have been entitled to five. The course pursued in regard to Edinburgh and Glasgow was precisely similar. In each case large additions had been made to the Parliamentary boundaries, in order to make them coincident with the municipal boundaries. The Government added 20,000 people to Glasgow, which would entitle it to seven Members instead of six, and they had in the same way increased the boundaries of Edinburgh, in order to entitle that city to additional representation. Then, he maintained that, on every ground of comparison, whether they contrasted Dublin with the other boroughs in Ireland, or with the Irish counties, or with the great boroughs of England and Scotland, the City of Dublin was clearly entitled to another Member, and it was entitled, if its boundaries were properly extended, not only to five, but to six Representatives. He was, however, content to rest his demand upon five. He felt that that claim was supported by the vital principle of the Bill; and he believed that, in moving that the representation of Dublin be increased from four Members to five, he was making a demand which could not be refused except by a gross and palpable violation, in the case of Ireland, of the principle which had been freely applied to every other great city of the Three Kingdoms, and of the principle which the Government professed to rely on as the fundamental principle of the Bill. He therefore submitted the Amendment with the utmost confidence to the Committee.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 15, column 2, line 41, after the word "Dublin," to leave out the word "four," and insert the word"five,"—{Mr. Sexton,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the word 'four' stand part of the Schedule."
    SIR CHAELES W. DILKEsaid, he had no fault to find on that occasion with the speech of the hon. Member,

    407
    because the hon. Member had frankly met and faced the difficulties of the situation, instead, as he and others had done in former instances, of dealing only with general statements. On this occasion the hon. Member had fairly stated from what quarter he sought to take the seat which the acceptance of his Amendment would cost, and he had put before the Committee the claims of the City of Dublin as against those of the county of Tyrone. The hon. Member must excuse him if he reminded him once more of a remark which he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had made once or twice before—namely, that the Irish Members generally were treading on dangerous ground when they proposed to treat the Irish constituencies in any degree exceptionally, because the retention of 103 Members for Ireland had been defended by the Government, and had been accepted by the House generally in the earlier stages of the Bill, on account of the desirability of having an even scale as between the three countries. The hon. Member had spoken of the Irish borough scale and Irish borough averages as if they were standing by themselves; but they were not. They were an essential portion of a scale which applied to the whole of the Three Kingdoms. The hon. Member had proposed to the Committee to extend the boundaries of Dublin by adding, so far as he could make out from the Amendment which the hon. Member had placed on the Paper, a population of about 44,000 people. The hon. Member said the area he proposed to add was 4,000 acres. He (Sir Charles W. Dilke) made it very much more than that.
    MR. SEXTON: How much more?
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he made it nearly 8,000 acres; but he would not quarrel with the hon. Member on that score.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, the total area of Dublin and of the county which he proposed to include within the boundaries of the borough was between 8,000 and 9,000 acres.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that was a point upon which he could not agree with the hon. Member; but it was not a point that was of particular importance in the matter. The only difference would be that the proportion which now existed in the borough and county area would be altered.
    MR. SEXTONremarked, that, of course, if 4,000 acres were added to the boundaries of the city the area of the county would be so much less.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the hon. Member seemed to think that Dublin was treated in some way exceptionally; but he could not admit, in the least, that that was the case. Dublin stood, in the scale of representation, in the place in which its population would entitle it to stand. Islington, for instance, was much larger than Dublin, and it had allotted to it, by the Bill, the same number of Members. Dublin, he admitted, was a little high up in the scale; but, of course, if they had a scale with averages, they must have some places above the average, and some places below. Ireland had many seats which were below the average of the towns to which the hon. Member had alluded. If they took the cases much above, and compared them with those that were much below, they might make out instances of apparent hardship; but such instances were inseparable from any proposal to deal with the constituencies as a whole. In proposing to extend the boundaries of Dublin, the hon. Member proposed to make a boundary which, in his (Sir Charles W. Dilke's) opinion, would be of a somewhat irregular and objectionable shape, especially in regard to the inclusion of Kilmainham. He, however, did not propose to argue the question on that ground. The hon. Member had gone through a number of English and Scotch cases, and had contrasted the refusal of the Commissioners to extend the Dublin boundaries with the readiness with which the extension of boundaries had been granted in various English and Scotch constituencies, and in the case of Belfast. He (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had, on several former occasions, told the Committee that the Government had not proceeded upon any uniform plan in regard to the extension of borough boundaries. Each case had been considered separately, and on its merits. For instance, in the case of Glasgow the extension was small, and was only intended to bring the Parliamentary boundary up to the municipal limits. That extension was not made for the purpose of giving additional representation to Glasgow, because Glasgow was rather short of the average number of Mem-

    409
    bers. The hon. Member for Glasgow, and the people of Glasgow, were desirous of a large extension of the borough boundaries, so that a much larger population might be included than had been included.
    MR. SEXTONremarked, that such an arrangement would have disturbed the representation, so far as population was concerned, of two counties adjoining.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that, no doubt, that would have been the case. The Government, however, would not have resisted the proposal on the ground of disturbance between county and borough. But when they came to examine it on its own merits, they arrived at the conclusion that the arguments in favour of an extension were not tenable. There was a great objection altogether apart from that of including people outside in the towns. When such an inclusion was made, it was simply for Parliamentary reasons; but in this case it was proposed to be done for municipal purposes. The hon. Member had said nothing about the wishes of the population of the county of Dublin outside the present Parliamentary borough; but he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) fancied, from letters he had received, that there was considerable objection on the part of the people outside to being included within the limits of the City of Dublin. But, no doubt, the feeling in regard to the municipal extension and municipal rates had something to do with that opposition. He assumed that the Corporation of Dublin, as was the case with the Corporation of Glasgow, would be quite willing to say that the enlargement of the Parliamentary borough should be without prejudice to the question of municipal boundaries; but still the people of the suburbs, he fancied, had a great dislike to any proposal for including them in the city. In many of these cases the people living outside disliked, and would greatly resent, the idea of being included within the limits of a city; and that feeling strongly existed, he believed, in the suburbs of the City of Dublin. That was an argument which, in several other cases, had been used before the Committee. There were many cases where they could extend, and bring into the town everything that properly belonged
    410
    to the town. Such, judging from the maps, and from what he had heard, was the case in Belfast. They could easily extend the limits so as to include everything that properly belonged to Belfast; but it was not so in the case of Dublin. The extensions proposed by the hon. Member would not include within Dublin everything closely connected with and commercially forming part of it. It appeared to him that in Dublin they had to face the same difficulty as that with which they had to deal in Glasgow, in London, and on Tyneside—namely, that they could never get quite to the end—that they could never, by any such extension of boundaries as the Committee was likely to sanction, include the whole urban population, having more or less to do with the life of the town. They had had, in the case of Tyneside, a proposal for the extension of the borough of Newcastle, so as to include the whole urban district; but it had been thought better to deal with the matter by the formation of single-Member county divisions. They had dealt both with Glasgow and Tyneside upon that principle, and he thought not unfairly. With respect to Birmingham, on the extension of the boundaries of which the hon. Gentleman had dwelt, that case would have to be considered under the next Schedule, and the Amendments which had been placed upon the Paper; but when the hon. Member, in a facetious way, spoke of the additions made to Birmingham, being rural, because of the "groves," "dales," "hills," and other romantic names borne by some of those places, he was taking a very fallacious test as to the true character of particular neighbourhoods, as anyone familiar with the Metropolis itself could easily show. In his own constituency (Chelsea) there were several "hills," and "dales," and "groves;" but it could not be argued, from that fact, that the population was rural. The hon. Member had severely criticized a remark of the Boundary Commissioners that the extension of Dublin, and an addition to its number of Members, would affect the representation of the county and of the borough as regarded numbers. The hon. Member said that that was untrue; but he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) would be disposed to say it was perfectly true. He fancied the hon. Member must have

    411
    misunderstood the sense in which the Commissioners used the phrase. What they meant was that the proposal for the extension of the City of Dublin was made with the view of gaining an additional Member for the city, and that that was shown by the nature of the proposals of the hon. Member himself.
    MR. SEXTONremarked, that Dublin was to have an additional Member already.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: But not according to the scale.
    MR. SEXTON: What scale?
    SIR CHAELES W. DILKEsaid, he referred to the scale of population which prevailed throughout the United Kingdom. Dublin did not stand in the highest place upon the scale; but was below certain other boroughs. There was, at least, one borough with a larger population than Dublin, to which it was only proposed, by the Bill, to give four Members. He, therefore, maintained that Dublin was fairly treated according to the scale in the Bill. If the hon. Member could show that the Bill proposed to give five Members to any borough smaller than Dublin, it would be a strong argument in favour of his Amendment, and he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) would be satisfied that a mistake had been made. So far, however, was that from being the case, that there was no instance of a borough with a less population than Dublin having over four Members allotted to it.
    MR. SEXTONwished to remind the right hon. Baronet that it was intended to give five Members to Leeds, which had a less population than Dublin would have with its extended boundaries.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The hon. Member said "with its extended boundaries;" but the Government went on the boundaries as defined by the Bill. It was impossible to contend that, as the Bill stood, Dublin was unfairly treated. He would admit at once that if they added 42,000 to the population of Dublin, as the hon. Member proposed, that city would be entitled to a fifth Member. That was exactly what the Boundary Commissioners meant when they said that the proposed extension of boundaries would affect the representation of counties and boroughs. The hon. Member proposed that Dublin should have an additional Member, because of the addition of 42,000 population.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, that what he had stated at the beginning of his speech was that he did not intend to raise the question of the relative representation of the Three Kingdoms. He had said that Dublin must be treated on its own merits.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that in that case, if the hon. Member desired to separate Ireland from England, he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) must point out again that it was a dangerous thing for the Irish Members to raise the question of the equality of representation between the Three Kingdoms, or to attempt to upset the arrangement by which the Government considered they were justified in retaining 103 seats for Ireland. If they were to upset the even scale, and were to hold that Dublin ought to be represented by a larger number, they would lose all the ground on which they now took their stand for keeping the representation as it was. The hon. Member wanted both to eat his cake and have it. He wanted to keep 103 Members, and yet desired to cut the feet of the Government from under them by establishing an Irish scale which would remove the justification for retaining 103 Members. On all the grounds he had stated, he must ask the Committee to reject the Amendment of the hon. Member, although on this occasion the hon. Member had acted fairly by the Committee in placing before it an alternative.
    DR. LYONSsaid, that no one felt more constrained than himself, from the circumstances of the case, to vote for the Amendment. He thought there was every justification for it; and it could not be contended that Dublin was not perfectly entitled to five Members. An inquiry had already taken place by a Select Committee into the propriety of extending the boundaries of the City of Dublin. The Commissioners took considerable pains to inquire into the whole subject. In addition to that Committee, there had been a Royal Commission upon the same question, upon which several able and distinguished persons were appointed to inquire into the whole circumstances of the case. One of the Commissioners was Mr. Exham, a gentleman now deceased, but of high character and great ability, and well known to many Members of the House. Another Commissioner was Mr. O'Brien,

    413
    who filled a distinguished position in Ireland in connection with a most important public Department—namely, the Prisons Board—and whose position pointed him out as a gentleman in whom the public could repose complete confidence. The Commissioners applied themselves, with the greatest possible diligence, to the examination of the subject intrusted to them, and presented a Report. He could not see how the conclusions they arrived at could be successfully contested. They stated that, in their opinion, the extension of the City of Dublin had been too long neglected, and that it ought to be undertaken immediately. That was, no doubt, in the contemplation of the Government of which right hon. Gentlemen opposite were Members, because there were circumstances which showed that the late Government had intended to extend the boundaries. He had spent the greater part of his life in the City of Dublin, and he knew there was nothing more artificial or unsustainable than to attempt to draw a distinction between the City of Dublin and its suburbs. The functions of one were identical with those of the other. There was a continuous line of streets, bearing the same names, running through the Parliamentary borough into the surrounding districts; and the suburbs were, to all intents and purposes, part of the city, and undistinguishable from the Parliamentary borough. There might have been distinctions in former days; but they ought no longer to be tolerated. The identity of the population was the same; persons occupying businesses in the city had their private residences in those outlying townships; and in every respect, so far as the suburban property was concerned, it belonged to what was practically and popularly known as the City of Dublin. He, therefore, contended that the artificial distinction which now existed ought no longer to be maintained; and the day must come, before very long, when it would be universally recognized that such a distinction was altogether untenable. His own opinion was that that day had come. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill had stated what amounted in substance to this—that the case of the townships outside the Parliamentary borough of Dublin, although in direct contact with it, had been fully inquired
    414
    into by the Boundary Commissioners. That was not the case. What had really occurred was this—when the Commissioners found that the population of Dublin, within its present boundaries, was exhausted by the four Members awarded to it by the Bill, they proceeded no further with an inquiry which he (Dr. Lyons) maintained they were in a legal sense bound to make—namely, what should really be the proper limits and requirements of the city. He was forced to the conclusion that an artificial limit was laid down in the first instance, and that the Instructions given to the Commissioners had been something to this effect—"You are to give four Members to the City of Dublin; but when you have got a proper number of population for four Members, according to the scale laid down, then you are to go no further with your investigation." An arbitrary line was drawn at that point, and the inquiry was not allowed to proceed further. He believed that such a principle constituted a blot upon the Bill, and that there had been a failure to do justice to the City of Dublin such as to necessitate a reexamination of the whole case. The restriction of four Members placed upon Dublin by no means did justice to the city, according to the scale which the Government had themselves laid down. Why should the City of Dublin be deprived of its fair share of representation? Why should Dublin have four Members only in the face of nine Members for Liverpool, and seven for Glasgow? He certainly hoped that the question would be reconsidered upon the Report. The Committee had already departed from the hard-and-fast line laid down in the Bill in the case of Westminster, the representation of which had been raised from three to four; but, as far as he remembered the figures, the population of Westminster was not nearly as great as the present population of Dublin. Having transgressed the rule in the case of Westminster, and shown that the Government were not adopting a hard-and-fast line, he thought they would act not only unfairly, but illogically, if they continued to apply a hard-and-fast line to Dublin. He trusted that the case of Dublin would be treated as one of the reserved cases for ulterior consideration. The right hon. Baronet who had charge of the Bill a few nights ago said that as far as possible the policy

    415
    of the measure was to retain the natural boundaries for boroughs; but that contention failed altogether in the case of Dublin, because in that case some most unnatural and artificial boundaries had been created. The Government only proposed to give four Members to Dublin, and had drawn an arbitrary line and prevented further investigation. He contended that the Government ought to re-open the investigation into the boundaries of Dublin for Parliamentary purposes. In the future, Dublin would have to fight many contests in that House; but where would she be with only four Members?
    MR. MACMAHONsaid, he had listened with attention to the speech of the President of the Local Government Board; but he failed to ascertain how he accounted for the fact that 118,000 of the population of the City and County of Dublin were unrepresented. The City of Dublin contained a population of 273,000, and the county 145,000, making a total population for the city and county of 418,000. The initial average number for one Member was 52,000, which would entitle the county and city to eight Members. The hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton), however, only asked for seven—two for the county, and five for the city. The city, according to its population, was entitled to five seats. The population was 273,000, and five Members would give an average of 55,000 for each seat; and if hon. Members would look over the printed list, they would find that there were numerous seats provided for a less population than 55,000. He hoped the right hon. Baronet would reconsider the matter, and give five Members to the City of Dublin, as proposed by the Amendment. Great discontent existed in the city in regard to the manner in which it had been treated.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORdesired to call attention to the extraordinary manner in which the debate had been conducted by the Government. In the first place, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had been sitting upon the Treasury Bench absolutely alone during the discussion of this important matter. The Committee were discussing the representation of the chief city of Ireland—its Metropolis; and surely in the discussion of that question they were at least entitled to
    416
    have Her Majesty's Government represented by more than a single Member. At the end of one of the speeches they had, indeed, been left without a Representative of the Government at all, because the right hon. Gentleman disappeared; and at a breakneck pace, panting and puffing, they saw the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) coming in to take part in a discussion not one word of which he had heard. He (Mr. O'Connor) ventured to say that such a proceeding was neither decorous nor respectful towards the Irish Members. He did not think it was difficult to answer the arguments of the President of the Local Government Board. He had no wish to be personally disrespectful to the right hon. Gentleman; but he could not help describing the speech of the right hon. Gentleman as eel-like, because no sooner had the right hon. Gentleman been answered in one argument than he immediately, with pantomimic velocity, put forward another, leaving the Committee in some bewilderment as to the real ground of his opposition. His hon. Friend the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) had pointed out that if Dublin were treated as Leeds was in the Bill it would be entitled to additional representation. "Oh dear no," said the right hon. Gentleman, "that is not so." His hon. Friend immediately pointed out that it would be so if the boundaries of Dublin were increased. Whereupon the right hon. Gentleman said that he was not talking about any increase of boundaries, although that was the whole gravamen of the arguments of the hon. Member for Sligo. He (Mr. O'Connor) wished to call the attention of the Committee to the different manner in which London and the Irish constituencies were treated. Last night they were discussing the representation of Westminster, and the right hon. Gentleman swallowed the proposals of his own Bill, and stated that he was going to give another Member to Westminster. The result of adding one Member would be that Westminster would have a Representative for every 59,000 inhabitants; while Dublin, according to the present proposal, would only have one for every 68,000, and one for every 79,000 if the boundaries were extended. He maintained that that was the very reverse of the principle which was supposed to

    417
    regulate the Bill, and the reverse of the principle on which the attention of the House of Commons was drawn to the Bill when it was first mentioned by the Prime Minister. He referred to the remark of the Prime Minister when the right hon. Gentleman was not speaking upon the Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) Bill, but upon the Representation of the People Bill, and when he found occasion to give a historic and prospective view of what the Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) Bill would do. In the sketch which the right hon. Gentleman then gave he said that one of the things to which great attention would have to be paid was the distance of constituencies from the seat of power. The right hon. Gentleman was very much ridiculed for laying down that principle; but it required no argument to show that a constituency which was distant from the political centre of the country fairly demanded larger representation than constituencies which were situated at the centre of political power. Everyone knew that a London constituency, from the nature of things, would be able to bring greater pressure to bear upon the political and Parliamentary decision of the country than a constituency at a remote distance from the political centre. In point of fact, the great complaint which was made in every part of the country with regard to the Metropolis was that the Metropolis exercised an undue influence and pressure upon the Legislature of the country. That was an argument used by the Prime Minister over and over again when fighting his Russo-Turkish Campaign against the late Conservative Government. His argument was that London was "Jingo," and that the country was pacific; but owing to the fact that London was the centre of political gravity, those who were in favour of a "Jingo" policy were able to overthrow the pacific policy of the rest of the country. But, notwithstanding the attitude in this respect which had been assumed by the Prime Minister, they found the opposite principle laid down by the Government now. Westminster—the very constituency in which the Houses of Parliament were situated—was to have one Representative for every 59,000; while Dublin, which was removed physically by 60 miles of sea from Great Britain, and
    418
    morally and politically by countless millions of miles from the centre of political gravity, was only to have one Representative for every 68,000 population. He maintained that that was a monstrous contradiction of the principles laid down by the Government themselves. What was the answer of the President of the Local Government Board to the arguments of the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton)? His hon. Friend laid down the principle that if Dublin were treated like the English constituencies, it would be entitled to at least one, and probably to two additional Members. To show that that was so, he would take one or two cases. Leeds, according to the present arrangement, with a population of 309,000, would return one Member for every 61,000 population, and would have five Members in all. Sheffield would have five Members for 284,000, which gave the proportion of one Member for every 56,000 population. Thus Leeds would have one for 61,000, Sheffield one for 56,000, while Dublin was only to have one for 68,000. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had restated one argument which he (Mr. O'Connor) confessed that he was unable to understand. He stated that it was very dangerous to raise the question of the scale of borough representation. Why was it dangerous? The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that if that argument were raised the result would be to show that Ireland was not entitled to retain its present number of 103 seats. The Irish Members were not at all afraid of that argument, and he did not see why they ought to be, when it was clearly shown that Leeds was to have one Member for every 61,000 population, Sheffield one for every 56,000, and Dublin only one for every 68,000. Under such circumstances, the right hon. Gentleman said the Irish Members ought to be afraid of raising the question of the proportion of population to the representation. If Dublin were treated in the same way as Leeds and Sheffield, upon its present population, without any extension of boundaries, it would be clearly entitled to five Members. With the extension of the boundaries which his hon. Friend proposed to carry out, Dublin would be represented by one Member for every 79,000 population, whereas Leeds

    419
    would have one for every 61,000, and Sheffield one for every 56,000. Nevertheless, the right hon. Gentleman warned them, in the most solemn and portentious manner, that if they raised any objection to the proportion of population to the representation they would be treading very dangerous ground. As to the question of boundaries, why should they not be increased? The right hon. Gentleman suggested that if the boundaries were increased, it might be held by some of the townships that the question whether they were to be included within the municipality or not was prejudged; but it would be very easy for the Corporation of Dublin to give a guarantee that nothing in the Parliamentary boundary should affect the question of municipality. There was one fact to which he wished to call the attention of the Committee, and it was this—that wherever the townships outside a constituency objected to be included in the Parliamentary boundaries in England or Scotland, on the ground that it would prejudice the return afterwards, their representations were thrown over and disregarded. Then why should not these townships be included in the case of Dublin? He would tell the Committee why. Their exclusion from Dublin was intended for the purpose of creating a constituency in the county of Dublin, which was supposed to be hostile to the National Party. It was intended, in reality, to make a certain portion of the county of Dublin a Tory preserve. He had not the slightest objection to the Irish Tories being adequately and properly represented in that House. He would be quite willing that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dublin University should have all the 33 Members the right hon. and learned Gentleman said the so-called Loyal minority in Ireland was entitled to, provided the National Party were to get as many Irish Members in England and Scotland as they would be entitled to have on the same scale. He did not, however, see the least chance of that. On the contrary, it was all the other way. The President of the Local Government Board and the Boundary Commissioners, acting on the Instructions of the Government, had taken care to reduce to a minimum the representation of the Irish Nationalists, whether situated in Eng-
    420
    land or in Scotland. The Government refused now to give this additional Member for Dublin, although he quite agreed with the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) that the political complexion of the Member who would be returned was altogether problematical, and could be foretold by nobody. The right hon. Gentleman refused because it would interfere with the arrangement of the Bill, and yet he consented to give an additional Member for Westminster, which would certainly interfere just as much with the arrangement of the Bill. In fact, from beginning to end, by every quibble and caprice of jerrymandering, the framers of the Bill had sought to deprive the Irish Nationalists of adequate representation in that House. He, therefore, felt bound to join his hon. Friend in offering to the proposal of the President of the Local Government Board the most strenuous opposition in his power, so that, even although they were unable to succeed in the object they had in view, they would make their protest so emphatic as to convince the Government that the rights of the Irish people were not to be interfered with with impunity.
    MR. MELDONsaid, the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) had brought forward the Amendment with so much force and argument that he had left very little, if anything, for his Friends to say in support of it. He (Mr. Meldon) had listened with attention to the objections which had been urged by the right hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill, and he must say that, with one exception, the speech of the hon. Member for Sligo had been left entirely unanswered. The only exception was, that on the scale fixing the number of population for a borough in the United Kingdom, and giving 103 Members to be divided upon that scale for Ireland, it was impossible to give a fifth Member to Dublin. That was the only argument adduced by the right hon, Baronet in justification of keeping the Bill as it stood. But the Government had failed to adduce, either now or at any other time, any reason whatever why any weight should be attached to this argument. If the Irish seats were now proposed to be fixed at 103, and it could be urged that that was a larger proportion than Ireland was entitled to, the argument of the right hon. Baronet might have some force in

    421
    support of a proposal for a reduction of the number; but when once it was conceded that Ireland was to have 103 Members, no force whatever was left in that argument. Therefore, the one reason which had been adduced why there ought not to be 103 Members, distributed according to the principles on which. Members were allocated in England and Scotland, altogether failed; and if there were to be 103 Members, it was clearly demonstrated, and no attempt had been made to establish the contrary, that in Ireland, if the principle of population were to be adopted, Dublin, with its present boundaries, was entitled to an additional Member. Even throwing that argument altogether aside, and adopting the population principle which was followed in fixing the number of Members for the United Kingdom, it was plain that Dublin did not, under the present Bill, receive her fair share of representation. It would be found that in England, when it was sought to give an additional Member to a borough, this principle was invariably acted upon—that an extended boundary was provided which was made to include a sufficient additional population to justify the concession of an additional Member. According to the statement of the right hon. Baronet, the only result of extending the boundaries of the City of Dublin would have been to take away a portion of the county population and give the city the right to another Member. No reason whatever existed why the Boundary Commissioners should not have further extended the boundaries of Dublin, unless it was for the purpose of depriving Dublin of an additional Member. The argument was that the boundaries of Dublin ought not to be extended, and that, in accordance with the scale, it already had its full number of Members. But, unfortunately for that argument, the boundaries had been extended, although only to such an extent as could be done without increasing the number of Members to which the city was entitled according to the scale of the Bill. The Commissioners took in one township, but left out two others. If they had taken in another township the population would have been so increased that an additional Member could not have been refused. Therefore, to his mind, it was perfectly clear that the only object the Boundary Commissioners
    422
    had in extending the boundaries by taking in the Pembroke district and omitting the Rathmines and the Kilmainham districts, was to add to the city without making it necessary to increase the number of Members to five instead of four. What was the reason alleged for not further extending the boundaries of Dublin? It was that the population, living outside the boundaries, had no desire to be taken in. Now, he certainly had not heard any such reason assigned, and he did not believe there was any considerable number of persons in Dublin, or in the suburbs, who desired to leave the boundaries as they were. The right hon. Baronet said he had received letters from certain persons who said they objected to any proposal for extending the boundaries; but, notwithstanding such an objection, the boundarips had been extended so as to include the township of Pembroke, which, as compared with Rathmines, was certainly by far the most rural district of the two. The district taken in by the Commissioners was a district composed of villa residences, and was far more rural than the districts which had been excluded. There was not a single part of it which could be properly designated as a street. But what was the case in regard to Rathmines? There, they had a continuous row of streets—one called Upper, and the other Lower—and disconnected simply by a bridge. There was a large number of continuous shops; and so far as its urban character was concerned, of all the townships it was possible to include the one selected was the one which, upon every ground, ought to have been left out. He failed to see, however, what use there was in arguing the matter when the Government distinctly told the Committee that they would make no alteration. There was practical unanimity among the Irish Members upon the question. He knew that in Dublin the people were entirely unanimous, and it was unintelligible to them why on earth the township of Pembroke should have been included and the other townships left out. To his mind it was as clear as the sun at noonday that the Commissioners had instructions, fur some reason or other, to extend the boundaries of Dublin so as to limit the number of Members to four, and not to justify an increase to five. That was the only intelligible way of explaining

    423
    what had been done, and the refusal, now, of the Government to make any alteration in their proposals, although none of them knew anything about the locality or the wishes of the people of Dublin, proved that they had arrived at a foregone conclusion, and that it was only wasting time to expend further argument upon the subject.
    MR. PLUNKETsaid, he was not going to follow the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board into the arguments he had presented to the Committee in opposition to the Amendment. Those arguments were founded upon certain ascertained figures; and he (Mr. Plunket) thought that the right hon. Gentleman had shown that, according to the general scheme and plan of the Bill, Dublin, in regard to its representation, had been dealt with on sound principles. He was not going to express any opinion himself as to how many Members he should like his native city to return, if he could depend upon returning what Members he liked. That was not the question he desired to discuss; but he had risen to order to correct an impression which had been loft by the hon. Member who had just sat down in that part of hip speech in which he challenged the statement of the President of the Local Government Board that the opinion in favour of including the outlying townships was not universal. The right hon. Gentleman stated that he had received representations to the effect that the proposal to extend the boundaries did not secure the universal assent which it was supposed to have secured. Now, he (Mr. Plunket), speaking from his own knowledge, was bound to say that not only did that proposal not receive the universal assent of, but that almost the universal opinion in the townships affected was that they ought not to be included in the Parliamentary boundaries of the City of Dublin. He would cite one strong argument in support of that view—namely, that when the matter was being considered by the Boundary Commissioners in Dublin, and a scheme as nearly as possible similar to that which was now proposed was put forward in reference to the township of Rathmines, which was by far the most important of those townships, the township itself thought it worth while to employ the most
    424
    eminent counsel at the Irish Bar to resist it on their behalf. It was only right that the Committee should be acquainted with that fact, and should know that the almost universal feeling of the townships was opposed to the Amendment, and to the proposal for including them within the Parliamentary boundaries of the City of Dublin.
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, he knew the City of Dublin perhaps better than he knew the parish of Paddington, in which he resided at the present moment. He, therefore, thought that he was entitled to address the Committee upon the statement which had been made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman who had just addressed the Committee, that the inhabitants of the township of Rathmines objected to be included in the Parliamentary boundary of the City of Dublin. If that were so, it arose from the simple reason that the local taxation of the City of Dublin amounted to something like 10s. in the pound on the valuation, and the inhabitants of the outlying townships were simply afraid that one of the consequences of being included within the Parliamentary limits of the city would be that hereafter they would be compelled to contribute in a similar proportion to the local taxation. He thought the Committee was bound to throw that consideration on one side, and unless the townships were able to bring forward some reason quite apart from a sentiment based on their own self-interest—some reason that would commend itself to the common sense of the Committee—this objection, even if it prevailed, should not be accepted for one moment. The hon. and learned Member for Kildare (Mr. Meldon) stated that the township of Pembroke was, comparatively speaking, a rural township. It was a rural township, divided by a canal from the City of Dublin, and divided in the same way that Rathmines was divided from Dublin—by a bridge; but while the one consisted of villa residences, the other was the continuation of a line of streets from Dublin extending over a distance of more than a mile, with houses as close together as in any part of London. Yet this district was absolutely shut out, while the township of Pembroke was included. He hoped that the right hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill, whose conduct of it had won the admiration

    425
    and approval of hon. Members on both sides of the House, would take this question seriously into consideration before the Report. He was sure that if there was any reason why the township of Rathtnines would object to be included within the City of Dublin, it was only the reason which would be obvious to everyone—that they did not want to pay an additional tax of 4s. in the pound for local rates for the mere privilege of being included within the Parliamentary area. That objection, however, ought only to apply to an extension of the municipality, and not to the extension of the boundaries for Parliamentary purposes. No other intelligible reason could be brought forward to justify the distinction between those townships and the city proper which now existed.
    MR. O'BRIENsaid, be was not at all surprised to find that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin(Mr.Plunket)agreed with the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) that Dublin had been treated on sound principles. The right hon. and learned Gentleman himself represented a constituency which had been treated so tenderly by the right hon. Baronet that 70,000 persons outside Trinity College had only the same political weight as 2,000 within its walls. He was not at all surprised, therefore, at the view which the right hon. and learned Gentleman had taken of the right hon. Baronet's objection. He bad listened to the right hon. Baronet with a good deal of attention, and it seemed to him that the right hon. Baronet had really left unsaid the only effective thing that could be alleged against the proposal now made—namely, that the mischief was done, and that the whole matter was concluded by an arrangement between the Heads of the Whig and Tory Parties—an arrangement made without the slightest reference to the Representatives of Ireland. For good or evil the Ministry had bound themselves by law that 103 Members was the proper proportion of Members for Ireland, and the only question, therefore, to be settled now was whether those 103 Members had been fairly and equitably distributed. Could anything be more utterly indefensible than the contrast between the measures meted out to Dublin and Belfast? Supposing that Belfast were the capital of Ireland, and supposing that it
    426
    contained, like Dublin, 273,000 inhabitants, and that with an extension of boundaries it would contain 317,000, as Dublin would have if the recommendations of Exham's Commission were carried out, did anyone mean to suggest that those 817,000 so-called "Loyalists" in Belfast would have been dismissed with four Members? He ventured to say that the Government proposal under such circumstances would not have stopped short at the modest figure of five. The present population of Belfast, even with the addition made to it by the Boundary Commissioners, would only be 221,000. If the rate of increase which, had been going on in Belfast for 10 years before the Census were maintained—and it was perfectly notorious that the population as well as the prosperity of Belfast had been declining instead of growing—but even admitting that it would increase at the rate of 1,300 a-year, it would be a quarter of a century before its population reached the population of even the present restricted borough of Dublin; and half-a-century, if Rathmines and the other townships were thrown in with Dublin, in the same way as the townland of Holywood and the straggling districts around Belfast had been included in the boundaries of that borough. Had the right hon. Baronet given any sort of satisfactory reason why Dublin, as the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) had pointed out, should be cramped and mutilated within an unnatural boundary line, while Belfast received its full and natural development? He believed that the only reason that would for a moment hold water was that the population of the suburbs of Belfast was of the same politics as the dominant Party of Belfast, while the population of Rathmines was notoriously a nest of Tories; and it was supposed that there would be more likelihood of securing a Tory seat by leaving them out, and keeping them as a carefully arranged Tory preserve where they were, rather than adding them to the population of the city. As had been pointed out by several hon. Members, Rathmines was really a continuation of the streets of Dublin. The line of demarcation between Rathmines and Dublin was simply artificial, and not half as wide as the division between the two banks of the pond in St. James's Park, nor half the width of the Chamber

    427
    in which they were then assembled, Although the long and straggling suburbs of Belfast were taken in order to make a fourth seat for the borough, this compact portion of the City of Dublin was cut off in order to preserve a Tory seat for the county. The matter was one which, in his opinion, would not bear a moment's argument. Even with the population which was now proposed to be added to Belfast, the population of that town would still be 50,000 under that of the present borough of Dublin; and what the Committee were really asked by the right hon. Baronet to do was to say that 55,000 persons in Belfast, because they were Orangemen, and had certain political views, were entitled to equal electoral power with 68,000 Nationalists in the capital of the country. He confessed that he looked in vain for any sort of explanation of that most galling and unfair contrast which had been drawn between Belfast and the capital of the country. If Belfast excelled Dublin in commercial greatness, or if it could be pointed to as a great centre of enlightenment and of intelligence, he could understand the favour shown to it. But he did not think its warmest advocate in that House would point to Belfast as a place to which such a distinction should be applied. It was a place which had never to this day admitted a Roman Catholic into its Corporation, and only recently it had exhibited its liberality by rioting and breaking convent windows. His hon. Friend the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) had dealt with the question of where they were to find the additional Member; and he confessed that Trinity College was as much over-represented as the City of Dublin was under-represented by the Bill. But Trinity College was defended upon the same principle which had been put forward in defence of the extension of the boundaries of Belfast, and the refusal to extend those to Dublin—namely, the principle of keeping up and maintaining the contrast which was observed in the treatment of the so-called Loyalists and the Nationalists of Ireland. One of the secrets of the failure to govern Ireland had been that Her Majesty's Government never gave a thing without crooking it. They could not make the concession of the new franchise to Ireland without making it as ungraciously and grudg-
    428
    ingly as was possible. He would not go into the question of the interesting tricks the Boundary Commissioners had applied, even with regard to the four seats given to Dublin. The Committee would have an opportunity of discussing that question hereafter; but even if the Government should succeed, by their present daring course of procedure, in depriving the Irish Party of full representation in Dublin, and in cutting the representation down even from five to three, he thought that, from their own point of view, they would find the achievement dearly purchased by leaving in the minds of the people of Dublin and of Ireland a feeling of soreness and injustice.
    SIR CHAELES W. DILKEsaid, that several Members, and especially the last speaker, had referred to a contrast between the treatment accorded to Belfast and to the City of Dublin under the present Bill. He, therefore, thought it would be as well to give the Committee some facts, in order to show that there were many large boroughs where the averages were higher than in Dublin, and which, according to the arguments of hon. Members, must be even worse treated. There were the cases of Bat-tersea and Islington.
    MR. SEXTONasked the right hon. Gentleman to cite the case of some four-Member constituency.
    SIR CHAELES W. DILKEsaid, he had already given several four-Member boroughs. The hon. Member spoke of the unfairness of giving Dublin one Member for every 68,000 population.
    MR. O'BRIEN: As contrasted with one Member for every 55,000 in the borough of Belfast.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that was picking out the lowest places that were in the scale, and, as he had already pointed out, every scale must have its high and low places. He had already mentioned Newcastle-on-Tyne, the great city of Manchester, Kensington, Mary-lebone, Oldham, and several of the Metropolitan Divisions.
    MR. SEXTONasked how many Members it was proposed to give to those boroughs?
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the number varied. Some had two, some three, and others four; but they were all in the scale. All he wished to show was that there were worse cases than

    429
    that of Dublin. Taking his own constituency—the parish of Kensington—which was increasing far more rapidly than the City of Dublin, according to the Census of 1881 it had a population of between 81,000 and 82,000, and it was only to have one Member. The hon. and learned Member for Kildare (Mr. Meldon) was altogether wrong in saying that the Commissioners had extended the boundaries of Dublin so as to include the township of Pembroke. That was not so. Pembroke was already within the Parliamentary borough of Dublin. The hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien) said the secret of the matter, and the real objection of the Government to this proposal, was that the arrangement with the Opposition precluded it; but he might say that the question of the extension of the boundaries of Dublin formed no part whatever of any arrangement.
    MR. MAYNEsaid, that as the right hon. Baronet had given examples favourable to his own side, he (Mr. Mayne) would mention cases that went the other way. Take the case of Bristol. Bristol, with a population of 206,503, was to have four Members, or one to each 51,625. Then, again, there was the case of Kingston-upon-Hull. Hull had a population of 161,519, and the average there was only 40,379. Nottingham was a stronger case still. The population was 111,631, which for three Members gave an average of 37,210 for each Member.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the hon. Member was quite mistaken. The hon. Member was taking the Census Returns of the population of the Parliamentary borough; but Nottingham had been enormously extended.
    MR. MAYNEcontinued: It was said that there was an objection on the part of Rathmines to be incorporated with the City of Dublin for Parliamentary purposes. No hon. Member who had spoken had given the Committee the real reason why the inhabitants of the township of Rathmines objected to row in the same boat with Dublin for Parliamentary purposes. The right hon. Baronet had assigned no reason whatever, because, probably, he was not aware of any; but he (Mr. Mayne) was pretty sure that the right hon. Gentleman's correspondents from Rathmines to whom he had alluded had carefully kept the real rea-
    430
    son why that township objected away from him. It was certainly no part of the policy of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket), although he knew the reason very well, to allow the Committee to become acquainted with it. The reason was this—it had nothing to do with taxes or anything of that kind, but, as the Committee had already heard from more than one hon. Member, Rathmines was virtually part of the City of Dublin. The division between them was merely an artificial one, consisting of a narrow canal; and in regard to some of the streets, the upper portion was in Dublin and the lower part in Rathmines, just outside the municipal boundary. All the inhabitants of Rathmines were entitled to the Parliamentary franchise; but the position they occupied enabled them to enjoy practically a double voting power, and that was the secret of the opposition of the inhabitants of Rathmines to the proposal to transfer them to the City of Dublin. Nearly 90 per cent of the male adult population of Rathmines and of the surrounding neighbourhood were citizens of Dublin—that was to say, that they had warehouses in the city where they carried on their business in the daytime, being rated for those places and entitled to vote in the borough elections, while they resided in Rathmines or the neighbourhood, and, being rated for their residences there, enjoyed a second vote for the county. Now, if Rathmines were added to Dublin, even if Dublin were to get a fifth Member in consequence of the extension of the boundaries, these gentlemen would only be able to vote once—namely, for the city. That was the gravamen of the whole case. It was only natural and quite reasonable, from their point of view, that they should object to lose the privilege they now enjoyed—namely, that of a double voting power. Whenever a General Election occurred they were enabled to vote within the city as urban voters and without the city as rural voters. It was patent that a considerable number of gentlemen now voting outside the city, as rural voters, if transferred in future to the city would interfere materially with the voting power of the county of Dublin. Those gentlemen were perfectly acquainted with the favourable position in which they now

    431
    stood, and, indeed, they had made an extraordinary request to the Boundary Commissioners when they were sitting in Dublin. They claimed not only to be left as they were, as voters for the county, but they said—"We are an urban population, although outside the city, and we think that in addition to the votes we already possess within the city, as county voters in the county there ought to be another seat given to us as an urban district. "When his hon. Friend the Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien) said that the bargain was made and sealed, and that no alteration would be permitted, the right hon. Baronet the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke) shook his head; but it seemed to him that he was justified in dissenting from the negative gesture which the right hon. Baronet made. If this question was still open, he said that some other and a much stronger case ought, to be made out for the proposed representation of the City of Dublin than had been made out up to the present time. The right hon. Baronet had only given two reasons why the present state of things had been permitted to remain. One of them was the objection of the surrounding townships to being included in the Parliamentary borough; the other reason was indeed an extraordinary one, and if the right hon. Baronet had known Dublin half as well as hon. Members on those Benches, he believed he would not have made use of it. The right hon. Baronet said it would be introducing a most inconvenient precedent if the Parliamentary boundaries were extended in the manner recommended by the Royal Commission which sat to consider this subject; but let the right hon. Baronet look into the facts of the case. The present Parliamentary borough of the City of Dublin, for some extraordinary reason which he had never heard explained, went all the way down to the Cross of Black Rock and the sea coast. Indeed, the Cross of Black Pock was nearly two miles further than Path-mines, so that if in the past it had been thought proper to extend the boundaries to the centre of Black Pock township, it was a sufficient reason for including now the populations of Rathmines and Kil-mainham. He regretted that there was no chance of a further opportunity presenting itself for the consideration of
    432
    the question, because he felt sure that the right hon. Baronet, on further consideration, would see that the reasons which had been furnished by him in respect of the proposed boundaries, and which he invited the House of Commons to accept, were not such as the Committee ought to follow.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid, here was a case in which Irish Members were all practically agreed upon a certain question with reference to the City of Dublin, and, instead of taking into consideration the opinions of the majority of the Irish Members upon a purely Irish question, the right hon. Baronet the President of the Local Government Board got up and gave his decision without giving any heed to the expressions of opinion which he had received from Irish Members on both sides of the House. Throughout the discussions on this Bill the Government had treated Ireland unfairly, and in every place where it was possible they had so arranged the boundaries as to secure the greatest possible degree of representation for the miserable Orange hierarchy in Ireland which now, with the assistance of an Army, held Ireland for the British Crown. But looking at all that had taken place throughout these discussions, he did not think there had ever been a case of more clear injustice than the case with reference to the City of Dublin. Here were two suburban districts of Dublin excluded from the city boundaries for some unknown reason—Kilmainham and Rathmines—both of which, as had been abundantly pointed out, were practically part and parcel of the City of Dublin. And yet, in spite of the fact that a great majority of the citizens of Dublin were anxious to have their Parliamentary boundaries settled in a compact way which would embrace the whole city, in spite of the fact that the majority of the Irish Members of all shades of opinion in that House were in favour of the inclosure within the boundaries of those two districts, the right hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill would not accede to their demands. And why? Because it appeared that he had received certain letters from persons in Dublin saying that they would not like to have those two districts brought into the boundaries of the city. The hon. and learned Member for Kildare (Mr. Meldon) said in

    433
    the course of his very able speech that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had received letters from certain parties in Dublin deprecating the idea of including Rathmines and Kilmainham in the boundaries of the City of Dublin. Would the right hon. Baronet be kind enough to inform hon. Members from whom he received those letters, and would he say that the people who wrote them had influence sufficient to counterbalance the influence which was possessed by the majority of the Representatives of Ireland in that House? Certainly to Irish Members it must be considered a matter of extreme humiliation to find that the right hon. Baronet made his decision in accordance with the advice contained in letters from people whose names were unknown, and that he paid no attention whatever to the demands of the Representatives of Ireland in the House of Commons. He maintained that there was a very great deal of injustice in the conduct of the Government in refusing to pay some attention and consideration to the demand which Irish Members had put forward that day. "Well, he was sorry that there was no prospect, as apparently there was none, of the Government giving way to the demand of giving to Dublin an extra Representative; that there was no probability that Dublin would get the five Members to which it was entitled. Still, from every other point of view he was glad that the Government had taken up their present position with regard to this question, because when the news reached Ireland to-morrow morning that Irish Members of all shades of opinion had proved that Dublin wanted and was entitled to have five Members, and that the right hon. Baronet and his Colleagues had paid no attention to the claims of the City of Dublin, the people of Ireland would regard the action of the Government as one further proof of the fact that they had very little to expect in the way of justice from the British Government. It had been pointed out that there would be some difficulties in including in the boundaries of Dublin the two districts of Rathmines and Kilmainhain. No doubt there were difficulties, but they would not be insurmountable difficulties. If an exception could be made in any part of the Bill with regard to Ireland, that exception
    434
    should be made in the case of the City of Dublin, which, as it had already been pointed out, was the centre of the social and political life of the country. He was perfectly sure that if it were a case of giving to London an extra Member to which it might be entitled, that some other part of England would be made to suffer or made to do without a due measure of representation, in order that the capital of the British Empire should be fully represented. Now, what London was to England, Dublin was to Ireland. London was the centre of the Empire and of Great Britain; Dublin was the centre of Ireland, and Irish Members asked that the capital of Ire-laud should have a fairer and fuller representation. They asked the Government to take from some other district, say, from the county of Tyrone, a Member, and give it to Dublin, in order that the City of Dublin, with its great interests, might have an adequate need of representation. It was an extraordinary statement, as coming from the right hon. Baronet, that in fixing the boundaries of electoral districts in Ireland, care had been taken that those districts should be fixed on the principle of the arrangements made as to England and Scotland. Now, he contended that they were entitled to have the electoral districts in Ireland fixed with respect to Irish circumstances and requirements alone, and without any reference to the circumstances or requirements of England and Scotland at all. The Government might mix up England and Scotland as much as they pleased in this matter of boundaries; but in fixing the boundaries in Ireland, he repeated that regard ought not to be had to circumstances which might exist in England and Scotland. Unfortunately, the Government had not acted in this way, and accordingly Orange boundaries had been drawn in Ireland, and Members had been given to certain places on arrangements made in England and Scotland. Ireland was a separate country from Great Britain, and as a separate country, and inhabited by a population totally different from that of England and Scotland, he contended that it ought to have had a Redistribution Bill all to itself. But it was not to be wondered at that in this respect, as well as in other respects, the Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) Bill was unsatis-

    435
    factory to the people of Ireland. He understood that before the Bill was drawn up, Her Majesty's Government had given sufficient consideration to the interests of Scotland by inviting Scotch Members to meet them in conference and discuss the scheme of the Bill. He did not know whether that was the fact; but certainly, if it were, it was the most extraordinary thing, that in these matters relating to everything that concerned Ireland, neither Her Majesty's Government nor right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench had the common fairness, or the common politeness, to consult even one Member for Ireland in respect of the redistribution of seats. The Government were going to redistribute the electoral divisions in England and Scotland, and they very properly consulted the wishes of English and Scotch Members; but although they had done so, they had not acted in the same way with regard to the wishes of Irish Members. He supposed the Government regarded Irish Members as mere nonentities, or possibly irresponsible persons; at any rate, they did not extend to Irish Representatives that justice which they had extended to Scotch Members. Under these circumstances, he said that they had in Ireland, from the beginning to the end of the Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) Bill, every cause for complaint. As he had said, justice was being done to the City of London; but Dublin was not to have adequate representation in that House. But although there was no possibility of getting this question settled in accordance with the wishes of Irish Representatives, he was glad, as he had stated before, that the Government was so stubborn, because their stubborness would prove to the people of Ireland that, whether in respect of redistribution or other legislation, they had nothing to expect in the shape of consideration from English Members in that House.
    MR. KENNYsaid, the right hon. Baronet the President of the Local Government Board had argued in this case that there were certain places in England, which he named, much more unfavourably treated than the City of Dublin, and he had pointed to two instances in which the boundaries had been extended and additional Members given. The Government had given two
    436
    Members to the City of Dublin; but they refused to extend the boundaries, and therefore he said that the contrast made by the right hon. Gentleman was utterly unfair. Hon. Members on those Benches wanted the Government to extend exactly similar treatment to Dublin as they had done to other boroughs in the United Kingdom. They wished it to have its fair chance as compared with other places, and it had been pointed out that by extending the boundaries, and adding one more Member, a condition of things would be brought about which would leave Dublin fairly represented, as having one Member to every 63,000 of the population, and that would still leave it to compare most unfavourably with many English and Scotch constituencies. Now, in the case of the City of Edinburgh, the capital of Scotland, the position of which was almost perfectly analogous to the position of the City of Dublin, it would be found that it had had two Members added to its former representation, and that the population was only 236,000, or 40,000 less than the population of Dublin, which city was only to have the same number of Members. Now, if they added to that portion of the suburban district of Dublin the district which Irish Members asked should be added, and retained the present proportion of Members, they would have a representation in the proportion of 79,000 people to each Member, while, if they added one Member, they gave something like a fair proportion. As far as England was concerned, it was only the case of one or two Metropolitan boroughs which could be cited as an unfair and unjust arrangement. There was another point to which he desired to refer in connection with the refusal of the Government to listen to the request of Irish Members. Their proposal extended to, and would meet, an anomaly, and it would put an end to the inconsistency which had been occasioned by the Boundary Commissioners. The Instructions to the Boundary Commissioners were that, as far as possible, all suburban districts should be included in one constituency. Irish Members desired to add to the City of Dublin certain outlying suburban districts; but at the present time, under the provisions of the Bill as it stood, the Government divided those suburban districts into two separate divisions.

    437
    Another point which the right hon. Baronet put forward, and upon which the changes had been rung by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket) was that the people of Rathmines objected to Parliamentary consolidation with the City of Dublin, and the right hon. Gentleman argued that they objected because there was such a great difference in the relative taxation as between the City of Dublin governed by the Corporation of Dublin and the outlying districts, and that an injustice would be inflicted on the outlying districts by their being incorporated with the City. But he would point out, what everyone knew, that the difference of taxation referred to was in all probability purely temporary in its character; and, further, that the real objection of some of the inhabitants of Rathmines to Parliamentary consolidation with the City of Dublin, was that they wished to preserve their present double system of voting. Another advantage to be gained by adding Rathmines to the City of Dublin was that the compactness of the constituency would be thereby greatly improved. At the present time the shape of the Parliamentary boundaries of the City of Dublin was something like that of a tennis bat; there was a thin narrow line running out from the City of Dublin which had no connection with it, and which was detached from its natural constituency, the Southern portion of the county of Dublin. If they added Rathmines and the other districts in the same direction with this line, they would add to the constituency a district which would greatly improve its formation. This consolidation and compactness of constituencies had been directly recommended to the Boundary Commissioners, and they had been instructed to effect it wherever it was possible. There was no case more convenient for, or which more clearly demanded the application of, that principle than the case of the City of Dublin; but in this respect the Boundary Commissioners had plainly disobeyed their Instructions. The right hon. Baronet could not defend the position he had taken up logically in any way; he seemed to argue that, as a line had been laid down, there must be no departure from it with regard to the City of Dublin. If the Government and
    438
    the Opposition distinctly stated that they would not accept any Amendment which might be proposed in Committee on this Bill, he said the sooner the discussion on this stage of the proceedings terminated the better it would be. He thought it would be much more in accordance with strict justice and equity if the Government would accept, in matters of this kind, arguments which they could not logically meet, and thereby afford satisfaction and content to persona who were directly concerned. But if they continued to refuse that just proportion of representation which they laid claim to, it would lead to discontent, and leave this question a source of future agitation, no matter how final the Government might think the present measure would be.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, he had listened attentively to the speech of the right hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill, and although he believed that some of his arguments were entitled to a certain amount of consideration, he did not think that the right hon. Baronet had made out a very strong case. There were one or two points with regard to the representation of Ireland which he (Mr. Biggar) thought were entitled to a considerable amount of attention. One was the way in which the Boundary Commissioners were instructed and the way in which they had acted with respect to Dublin and Belfast. In the case of Belfast, they had introduced into the Parliamentary borough a very considerable area which, in fact, could not be fairly called an urban district at all. The place was studded, to a large extent, with detached villas, and had nothing about it which entitled it to be considered part of the town; but in Dublin they refused to admit into the Parliamentary borough districts which were clearly urban in their character. For those reasons he thought the contention of the right hon. Baronet was not sound, and that he ought to give way to the arguments of his hon. Friend the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton). Another contention of the right hon. Baronet was that there were certain anomalies with regard to the representation of the country as a whole. Of course, that was perfectly well known; but, on the other hand, he (Mr. Biggar) contended that it was the duty of the Committee, as far as possible, to make

    439
    the redistribution of political power as nearly equal as possible. It was very clear that Belfast had a greater representation than Dublin had; but Dublin was the capital of the country, the place where the chief professional men resided, and where the educational establishments of the country were situated to a larger extent than any other Provincial town, and therefore, from that point of view, Dublin, he said, was very much worse treated than it should have been. Seeing that Dublin was a place of much more real importance than any other part of Ireland, he contended that the Government ought to deal with it as they had just done with Westminster—that was to say, they should give it another Member at the expense of some over-represented constituency. They could take it away from the county, which was rather over-represented according to the present arrangement, the population being under 200,000. He thought the Government should give way, and agree to the Amendment.
    MR. GRAYsaid, that most extreme discontent had been caused by the proposed arrangement with reference to the representation of the City of Dublin, and, as he did not understand from the speech of the right hon. Baronet who had charge of the Bill that this was a question upon which the Government were absolutely bound by their compact, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would take it into his serious consideration. Under the scheme, no doubt un-authenticated, but never repudiated by the Government, which was published in The Standard as the draft scheme, it was proposed not to give the same number of Members to Dublin and Belfast, but to give Dublin twice as many Members as Belfast; but after consideration, and probably consultation with the Representatives on the other side of the House, the Government, in their matured scheme, were found giving an equal number of Members to Belfast and Dublin. The discrepancy was so enormous that it was only by a device that it could be defended for one moment. The device was to extend the boundaries of Belfast, as recommended by the Exham Commission which sat a couple of years before, and to refuse to extend the boundaries of Dublin as recommended by the same Commission. The Boundary Commissioners in their
    440
    Report gave as their reason for the repudiation of the recommended extension in the case of Dublin, that legislation had not followed that recommendation. But legislation had no more followed in the case of Belfast than in the case of Dublin, and the argument was, therefore, as good in the one case as it was in the other; and if legislation did not follow the recommendations of the Royal Commission, who, he would like to know, was to blame? The Government had been appealed to again and again to adopt the recommendations of their own Commission, and to act on them. Questions had been put in that House; Motions had been made, and deputations had waited on the Head of the Irish Government on the subject; but all of no avail. It was out of the power of the Local Authorities to carry out the recommendations of the Commission. All that the Commission did was to dislocate all local arrangements and induce Dublin to hang up its reform pending the adoption of the recommendations of the Commission—to leave Dublin to stew in its own gravy, waiting for the Government to carry out the recommendations of the Commission. And now they were told that because the Government did not do its duty in one respect it was a good excuse for not doing its duty in another. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman was well acquainted with Dublin; but anyone who had ever taken an active interest in this matter, and was fairly well acquainted with Dublin, would know that Rathmines was absolutely a continuous portion of the city—that a continuous street ran into it, and that there was no real distinction between Rathmines and the city proper. In Dublin they had this extraordinary state of things, that while the borough extended in one direction far away into the rural districts, in another its artificial boundary shut out a portion of the city. The only argument the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had addressed to the Committee in favour of the retention of the present extraordinary boundaries was that certain persons in Rathmines had written to him objecting to the proposed absorption of the township. He (Mr. Gray) was not aware that in any other case the views of individual residents had guided the policy of the Go-

    441
    vernment. He had been under the impression that general principles had been laid down, and that the Government had made up their minds to follow them. No doubt, many private individuals had made representations to the Government in regard to their constituencies or other districts affected by the Bill; but he did not know that they had paid any particular attention to such representations. Now, if the present scheme, which was most imperfect and unfair, were adopted, Dublin would have no chance of fair representation for many years to come. He himself did not regard the matter from a political standpoint. He did not think it would affect the political Parties one way or the other. He did not think it would give a seat to the Home Rule Party or take one away from the opposite Party; but he knew that on the fortunes of the municipality and the general community in Dublin it would exercise a very great effect. They were now maintaining an artificial division between one portion of the city and another portion. That division would have effects more far-reaching than concerned Parliamentary representation—it would establish a distinction in municipal affairs and in social affairs, and would keep up a rivalry between persons whose interests ought to be identical, and who ought to work together. To say for a moment that because a certain number of persons in Rathmines who under the existing system enjoyed the unfair privilege of two votes—one for the city and one for the county—whilst some of them possessed old corrupt franchises such as the freeman franchise, and voted for parts of the county other than those in which their residences were situated—to say that because of this therefore these people should retain their qualifications in violation of all principles of common sense and of the principles of the Bill itself, was a most preposterous proposition. Dublin, as at present arranged, had, he believed, the largest numbers for each Representative. It was only beaten by Glasgow—which was a case rather to be avoided than followed. They had treated Glasgow as badly as they proposed to treat Dublin. He maintained that the proportion of inhabitants to each Member in Dublin would be still above the average of the United Kingdom, even if the boundary were properly
    442
    adjusted. He did not wish to detain the Committee any longer. The right hon. Baronet was probably well aware of all the arguments which could be adduced on the question. He would merely add that he did not think they were informed, when the Commission was appointed, that it was to report in the bald fashion that it had done. Though the Commission had taken a great deal of evidence, and though everyone knowing the situation had been bound to acknowledge that the arguments in favour of extending the boundary were solid and irrefutable, the Commissioners had paid not the slightest heed to the circumstances brought before them; and the Committee, therefore, had no means of knowing whether what the Irish Members asked for was reasonable or unreasonable—that was to say, no means of knowing, of their own personal knowledge, of the facts. All that could be hoped for was that those whose business it was to investigate the matter and to know whether the contention of the Irish Members was a fair one or not would, if they were not bound hand and foot by the compact, give adequate consideration to that contention.
    MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYsaid, the Committee would have liked to hear something from the Treasury Bench as to the position taken up by the Government. They had only had a few words from the right hon. Baronet the President of the Local Government Board in answer to the convincing speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton), who had made out a case so clear that it was impossible for the Government, with justice, to refuse to act on it. The argument, so far, had been altogether one-sided. All that the right hon. Baronet had said was that some other places had been treated as badly as Dublin; but he had failed to show that in those cases there was as easy a means of remedying the injustice as there was in Dublin. The Irish Members maintained that as a mere matter of justice—if there were no question as to the population and number of Representatives—the proper boundary for Dublin was only to be found by taking in the Rathmines district. If that Rathmines district—which most naturally and properly belonged to Dublin—were taken in, Dublin would then have an unquestionable claim to

    443
    an addition to her number of Representatives. He supposed the reason why the Committee had heard nothing more from the Government was tolerably plain—at least, he thought public opinion in Ireland would not find it difficult to discover the reason. It would be said that the Government were determined, by some process or other, to rescue a seat in the city or the county of Dublin from the growing opinion of the National side. He doubted whether the Government would find this operation attended with the desired effect. On the contrary, he believed that the course taken by the Government would only create a Stronger feeling and provoke greater energy on behalf of the Nationalist candidates. He expected that the Nationalists would now secure all the Dublin seats.
    MR. SEXTONagreed with the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down as to what would be the effect of the plot arranged between the two Front Benches with regard to Dublin. It would be such as the intriguers little expected. The right hon. Baronet had told them they should not compare Dublin with other parts of Ireland; but he (Mr, Sexton) contended that they had a right to make such a comparison, and that, having their 103 Members in Ireland, they were justified in asking for a fair apportionment. The right hon. Baronet, speaking of extended boundaries, had referred to letters he had received from anonymous writers; in fact, at one time he had considered one part of the case and at another time another, but he had refused at any one time to take into view the whole case. This was the unanimous feeling on the part of the Irish Members, and he (Mr. Sexton) could assure the right hon. Baronet that they condemned and resented the manner in which this question had been dealt with.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he also felt it necessary to protest against the course taken by the right hon. Baronet. He was sure that this debate and the whole discussion and proceedings on this Bill would be a further warning, if any further warning were wanted, as to what Ireland had to expect from the present Ministry and from any Ministry of the same kind. When the Government announced for the first time that Ireland was to retain 103 seats, Mem-
    444
    bers on the Irish Benches and the Irish people generally thought that at last they had received from the present Ministry a boon which might be taken without suspicion or arrière pensée, and everyone believed that the just claims of Ireland were to receive full, frank, and honest acknowledgment from the Government. But what had occurred? Why the 103 Members, given to them with one hand, were taken from them as far as possible with the other. The concession to Ireland of 103 Members was a sham, a delusion, and a snare. The eyes of the Irish Members, if they had been closed for some time, were now open, and they could see what an utter sham was this concession on the part of the Government. By every trick, device, and juggle which could suggest itself to the ingenious mind of man, this so-called "concession" had been destroyed, by filching away from the Irish people their fair share of popular representation in England, Ireland, and Scotland. In Ireland they had a proverb which said that there were three things to be suspected and feared—the first was the stones in Dinan River, the second the dog that did not bark, and the third the smile of the Sassenach. He would venture to add a fourth—namely, an Irish reform from an English Liberal Government.
    SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, he thought the Irish Members had rather had "the smile of the Sassenach" in their favour in this Bill. He, certainly, as one person in the House, must thank the Government for having given Ireland the 103 Members to which the hon. Member (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) had alluded. He was not "speaking to the country." He was merely addressing to the Committee a few observations in reference to hon. Gentlemen opposite. The hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had a world-wide reputation. His words were winged, and went far beyond the House; therefore, it was easy to understand the wide range that his observations took. Without going into the general question of the franchise, he (Sir Patrick O'Brien) felt, probably more deeply than the hon. Member who had preceded him, how important this matter was to Dublin, and how strongly the Motion of the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) ought to commend itself to every man who

    445
    had been long connected with that ancient city. In that sense he should certainly be disposed to give the hon. Member his vote. It was too funny, if he might say so, when they had heard talk of Ireland getting 103 Members, and when they found it was more than talk, to find an hon. Gentleman get up here and—wanting a special grievance, without which he could not speak with that platform smartness or command that attention which he could with a grievance—try to manufacture a grievance out of Ireland having 103 Members. He (Sir Patrick O'Brien) did not reply to observations which he knew were only made for electioneering purposes. He had risen to say that the interests of the City of Dublin commended themselves to the attention of all Irishmen, and that, in that sense, he should vote for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Sligo.
    MR. LEWISsaid, that any stranger coming into the House that day for the first time, and listening to the speeches of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, would believe that a conspiracy had taken place between the two Front Benches in order to deprive Ireland of its fair share of representation in the House. He (Mr. Lewis) would not fight over again battles already decided in the House during the progress of the Bill, or he might have occasion to say something about the manner in which certain portions of the community in Ireland had been treated relatively to the rest of the country. He should not have risen if it had not been to protest against an observation of the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray) to the effect that Dublin City had been treated worse than any other constituency in the United Kingdom. That was not the case. Islington had one Member for every 70,000 inhabitants; Kensington, one for every 81,000; Marylebone, one for every 77,000; whilst Dublin had one for every 68,300. If they went to Manchester they would find that it had one for every 70,600. It must be remembered that this Motion had come from the same hon. Members who had supported the Amendment for retaining a Member for Drogheda and two for Limerick. Unless one could follow the pea under the thimble which was upon the table, it was difficult to know how
    446
    some of the Irish Members would have the seats bestowed. He believed that nothing would satisfy those Gentlemen but the distribution of the whole of the representation of Ireland over certain constituencies that they believed themselves able to control. Those who had been favoured with a sight of The United Ireland map of the future representation of Ireland would come to the conclusion not only that hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway had nothing to complain of, but that they had appropriated by anticipation and with evident satisfaction the enormous advantages they hoped to secure from the Bill. Those hon. Gentlemen used language in the House to the effect that the Loyal minority in Ireland were likely to have some 20 or 23 Members, and he hoped that prediction was more likely to be realized than the fearful estimate they circulated amongst their friends, as showing how very few out of the Nationalist Party would be returned. The map to which he referred bad been prepared, of course, to show how loyal those hon. Members had been to their friends as against the desperate Tories and Whigs to be found in the North of Ireland; but when they came to that House they said—"Do not be guided by this map that we have prepared, but by our professions here, and we say the Loyal Party will be so over-represented that this Bill is nothing less than a farce—a delusion and a fraud." He thought the Committee was entitled to judge those Gentlemen by their acts when they were at home—when they circulated for their own glorification a map—[Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: Who circulated?] He (Mr. Lewis) thought United Ireland was a representative journal, and that at least one hon. Gentleman below the Gangway knew something about it. At any rate, it was an organ which those hon. Gentlemen were very much disposed to uphold and stand by. He preferred to judge the opinions of those Members by the representations there made; and, in answer to the wail they had heard from below the Gangway to the effect that the Nationalist Party had been defrauded of their fair share of the 103 Members, he submitted the estimate of United Ireland, and maintained that the Loyalists ought to be the parties to complain rather than the Nationalists.
    MR. CALLANsaid, the hon. Gentleman had spoken of The United Ireland map showing the gains to the Nationalist Party under the Bill; but the hon. Member had forgotten to mention that if the Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) Bill were not before the House at all, the Nationalist gain would be much larger. One advantage he (Mr. Callan) looked forward to was, that under the enlarged franchise, when Irish boroughs or counties wanted a Member, they would go to Irish gentlemen, and not to practitioners in the London Bankruptcy Court.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 76; Noes 32: Majority 44.—(Div. List, No. 77.)
    Schedule agreed to.

  FOURTH SCHEDULE.

    NEW BOROUGHS.
    MR. RAIKESsaid, that in accordance with the resolution at which the Committee arrived last night, he begged to move the omission of the words "Bermondsey | Surrey | One | Parish of Bermondsey." It would only be necessary, he thought, to explain to the Committee that those words were in the Bill as part of a scheme by which Bermondsey was to be made a separate borough. By the decision, however, at which the Committee unanimously arrived last night—namely, to restore the borough of Southwark to its ancient dimensions, those words would be out of place. In proposing this Amendment, he might perhaps be allowed to remove a misapprehension which possibly existed in the minds of some hon. Members. The result of the Amendment to which the Committee arrived last night would not be to create a borough of Southwark, returning three Members, as one constituency; but the borough of Southwark would be divided into three wards, each of which would return one Member. It would be possible to make a very much more reasonable division of the borough of Southwark, under the circumstances, than would have taken place under the scheme which was originally proposed by the Government. He begged to move the Amendment which stood in his name.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 16, line 9, to leave out,—

    "Bermondsey

    Surrey

    One

    Parish of Bermondsey.

    "—(Mr. Raikes.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he did not think that the boundaries which were made in the old constituency of Southwark were everything that were desired. In many respects there was to be a change for the better; but he wished to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke) to the fact that, as the boundaries were settled by the Commissioners, there was to be a constituency of Rotherhithe.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Not by itself; with St. Olave's.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORwished to be perfectly candid with the right hon. Gentleman in the matter. The population of Rotherhithe were under the impression that theirs was one of the very few constituencies in England in which the Irish minority would have some chance of returning someone to represent their views. Some time ago he asked the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Charles W. Dilke) what provision was to be made in England and Scotland for the representation of the Irish minority. That minority counted altogether about 2,000,000 of the population of the two countries, or, in other words, about 1–20th of the entire population. As there were to be in the new Parliament 570 English and Scotch Members, a simple sum of division would show how many Representatives that minority could fairly claim. He made out the calculation, and put it in the shape of a Question to the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman declined to answer, and, no doubt, very fairly so, as the Question seemed to involve matter of argument. Any way, he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) thought that the Irish minority in England and Scotland would be entitled to something like 18 or 20 Members if the representation were to be regulated by the proportions of the population. He did not wish to re-open the question of the representation of Ireland; but some days ago a very strong demand was made on

    449
    the part of the minority in that country to a fair proportion of the representation. Nobody contested the principle which the Representatives of the minority in Ireland made out. The lowest estimate of the number of Representatives which that minority should have was 23 out of the 103 returned by the country. Now, they who formed the Irish minority in England would be very well content with a very slight approach indeed to the same amount of representation which the so-called Loyal minority in Ireland claimed. But those who had studied the question very closely understood that the Irish minority in England and Scotland had scarcely a chance of having more than two or three Representatives out of the 570 Members who were to be returned by the two countries. Now, that would be nothing like an approach to the fair representation they should have. The case was stronger with regard to the Irish minority in England than with regard to the Loyal minority in Ireland. In Ireland it was quite possible to have a Protestant returned by Catholics. The hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), the Leader of the Irish people, was a Protestant, and his Predecessor, Mr. Isaac Butt, was also a Protestant. The Catholic majority had always been willing to select their Leaders altogether irrespective of creed; but to return a Catholic for an English constituency might be described as a practical impossibility. He did not wish to make this a matter of creed; but it was notorious that the vast majority of the 2,000,000 Irishmen in England and Scotland were Catholics. This Catholic minority had a right to have its interests fairly represented in the House of Commons; and it was for that reason he hoped that in the reconstruction of the borough of Southwark the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke) would have due regard to the question of nationality, which he thought fairly came under the principles of the Bill, as they had been laid down, and that he would not deprive the Irish portion of the population of a chance of having at least one out of the three Representatives of the borough.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he knew that, as a matter of fact, there was a large Irish population, not only in
    450
    Rotherhithe, but also in Bermondsey. He doubted whether any change which might be made in the district of Rotherhithe would be likely to affect the Irish population. There were courses open—namely, to add St. Olave's to Rotherhithe, or to add a small piece of Bermondsey to Rotherhithe, or to leave Rotherhithe entirely by itself. He did not imagine that the adoption of either of those courses would be likely to influence the proportion of the Irish population. However that might be, the division would be a matter of local convenience. If any re-arrangement were proposed by Sir John Lambert a local inquiry would be held; and he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) promised to look into the matter before any proposition was laid before the House.
    MR. SEXTONwas bound to say that the course of affairs appeared to him and his hon. Friends to bear a suspicious character. Last night the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke) very readily assented to the proposal to add another Member to the fashionable and aristocratic part of London at the expense of the representation of the East of London, which of any district in the Metropolis counted the largest Irish population. He (Mr. Sexton) would not be inclined to look too curiously into the particular manipulation of localities if the right hon. Gentleman had shown any reasonable disposition to meet the appeals which he (Mr. Sexton) and his hon. Colleagues had had to make to him with regard to an equitable redistribution of the representation of Ireland. As they had found that influences to prevent a fair representation of the people of Ireland were supreme in the minds of the Government, it would be necessary henceforth to give a closer, and perhaps a more critical, attention to the proposals concerning the constituencies of Great Britain. He quite agreed with his hon. Friend (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) that the number of Irish people in England and Scotland was large enough to entitle them to between 20 and 30 Members. It appeared to him they would not have that number, or any considerable part of it. It was questionable whether they could count on more than two or three constituencies in England in which Irishmen had a chance of re-

    451
    turning a Member. His countrymen in England were, as a rule, massed together; so that if the Government were to take any trouble in the matter, if they would take a tithe of the trouble they had taken in Ireland to give the imported element in that country an undue share of the representation, Irishmen here would get a material share of the representation. All the steps the Government had taken, so far, had, instead of being in the direction of giving Irishmen in England their proper share of representation, been in the direction of depriving Irishmen of the political power they ought to have. He was disposed, so far as he could understand the matter, to protest against the right-about-face of last night. He could see in the transfer of power from Rotherhithe to Westminster nothing but an effort to still further complete the process of intrigue by which the power of the Irish people was being minimized under this Bill. He thought his hon. Friend (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) had done good service in calling attention to this subject. The contrast between the treatment of Dublin and Westminster was most striking; so striking, indeed, that he (Mr. Sexton) and his hon. Friends would be obliged to give a most critical attention to the proposals in the Bill regarding England.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he was not at all satisfied with the answer of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke). The right hon. Gentleman had said nothing at all to meet the fair and reasonable claim he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) put forward. The other day, in reply to a Question, the right hon. Gentleman said that the principles of the indirect representation of minorities were the same in the throe countries. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman to be true to his own principles; he would ask him to put the treatment of England and Ireland side by side, and then see whether the same principle was carried out in both cases. Where was the uniformity of principle in the retention of two Members by 4,000 electors in Trinity College, Dublin, in order to secure a certain two Representatives of the Loyal minority in Ireland, and the practical cutting down to one or two seats the representation of the Irish minority in England and Scotland?
    452
    Unfortunately, he was not in the House last night when the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board made his extraordinary change of front. Business took him elsewhere; but had he been present he should not have allowed the right hon. Gentleman to make the change without, on his part, a strong, though, no doubt, unavailing, protest. What had the right hon. Gentleman done? He had increased the representation of Westminster. Westminster had no right to increased representation, if such a city as Dublin had not. In fact, the case of Westminster was one of the very worst for anything like increased representation, for, as he pointed out on a previous Amendment, Westminster was the constituency in which the Houses of Parliament were situated, and, therefore, the constituency which had the largest indirect pressure upon the proceedings and policy of the Legislature. How did the right hon. Gentleman propose to get the additional Member for Westminster? By taking it from the East End of London; and that being the poorer part of the Metropolis, was the part in which the Irish chiefly congregated. Accordingly the increased representation of Westminster could only be purchased by the diminished chance of the representation of the Irish people in London. He would take the case of Southwark. In each of the three constituencies in which the borough was to be divided there was a very considerable Irish population; and he did not wish the right hon. Gentleman to misunderstand in the least the claim put forward on behalf of that Irish population. The claim was that as the local circumstances supplied the opportunity the right hon. Gentleman should give the large Irish population concentrated in certain portions of Southwark a chance of having that representation in the House of Commons which such a minority was entitled to have. He put the question to the right hon. Gentleman on the ground of fairness, though he might put it on the higher ground of policy. He assured the right hon. Gentleman that the more men of the Irish race in England, Ireland, and Scotland could be induced to take an interest and actually participate in political questions the better. The reason why so many Irishmen, at so many periods of Irish history,

    453
    had been driven into the dark recesses of conspiracy, and still darker recesses of crime, was that the Legislature of this country gave them no Constitutional method of carrying out their purpose, and gave them no Constitutional hope of gaining their ends. Did the right hon. Gentleman wish the 2,000,000 Irish people in England and Scotland to understand that by the deliberate action of the Government they were to be wholly deprived of any representation in the House, while, with a large, and lavish, and generous hand, the Government provided representation in the House for the English faction in Ireland? He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) considered the contrast between the representation of the two minorities was most instructive and significant.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that the case of Westminster and that of the Tower Hamlets did not arise now, and could not arise until the alteration in the Bill which it was proposed last night to make was made. It was not yet known what the alteration would be. Report would be the proper time to raise the matter. No doubt it would be matter for discussion.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I was perfectly in Order.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Well, Sir, that is a question for you, and not for me.
    MR. SEXTON: It is a matter for the Committee.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I say that the cases of Westminster and the Tower Hamlets cannot arise on this occasion.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will tell him how the question arises. I was discussing the general policy of the representation of minorities; and I was perfectly right in bringing in, by way of illustration, what was done in regard to Westminster.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: This is a matter of convenience. What the hon. Gentleman has said with regard to Southwark is worthy of attention; but his general remarks with regard to the representation of the Irish minority in this country have no special point. I promise him to give a close examination of any proposal with respect to the borough of Southwark. I can do no more. The proposal with regard to
    454
    Bermondsey is not one, I fancy, likely to diminish the Irish character of the constituency. I shall, of course, be glad to receive suggestions from any quarter of the House.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I shall be very glad to give the right hon. Gentleman some details.
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. J. G. HUBBARDproposed to leave out "Two," after "Bethnal Green, Middlesex," in page 10, line 10, and insert "One." He thought the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Charles W. Dilke) in charge of the Bill would welcome his proposition, because, instead of adding to his difficulties and his liabilities as other Amendments had done, it would diminish them. He proposed to remove one from the present list of Members, in order to place it at the right hon. Gentleman's disposal for other claimants who had a stronger and a better qualified demand for increased representation. He ventured to justify his appeal to the right hon. Gentleman upon the grounds of the words which fell from himself (Sir Charles W. Dilke) earlier in the discussion that evening. The right hon. Gentleman, speaking of boroughs, had said they were not all to be dealt with by a rigid scale, but each upon its own merits. That was exactly the ground on which he (Mr. Hubbard) asked the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee to consider the question of the representation of Bethnal Green. Bethnal Green was one of the boroughs which had been placed in the Schedule simply upon the process of arithmetical computation with regard to the population now existing in the district. The population principle had been described as the basis of the Bill, and as the basis of the Bill he had no objection to it. Admitting population to be in the first instance the guiding principle, there were, in his opinion, certain considerations which proved conclusively that the borough of Bethnal Green was not entitled to more than one Member, and that one Member he did not grudge the borough. Bethnal Green was a very interesting locale of an exceedingly useful industry in days of yore—the silk-weaving industry, which he believed was still carried on, though not, perhaps, in the same prosperous form. The industry of Bethnal Green was essentially

    455
    uniform; there was no variety in it; the shuttle was the incidence of industry; and one Representative of the Bethnal Green weavers would be as effective as half-a-dozen. He (Mr. Hubbard) thought a great mistake had been made in the discussion of the question of redistribution by conceding that in order to have a population of a borough or a county thoroughly well represented they must multiply the number of Representatives. The number of Representatives only required to be multiplied where the interests involved, concentrated in any particular places or towns, were vast, varied, and conflicting, in order that all the different interests might be properly represented. But where, as in the case of Bethnal Green, the interests were uniform and homogeneous, it was clear they did not need to multiply the representation—one Representative of the borough would be amply sufficient. He proposed now to consider how Bethnal Green stood with regard to other boroughs with reference to what ought also to be a matter for consideration—the wealth which they represented. He would not go into the question of taxation, because he had no precise data to go upon. He, however, held in his hand a Parliamentary Report which contained a statement as to the valuation of the borough of Bethnal Green. The population of Bethnal Green was 126,000, and the whole of the rateable value of the borough was stated to be £375,000. The Committee would see that that was an average of about £3 per head; £3 per head, therefore, represented the capitation wealth of Bethnal Green. What did that imply with regard to taxation? If there wore five people in each house it meant that, on the average, each house would be rated at about £15 a-year. Now, £15 a-year did not bring a house under the operation of the Inhabited House Duty at all, so that, upon the average, it might be said that Bethnal Green was perfectly free from the charge under the Inhabited House Duty. Then, with regard to the Income Tax. If they assumed that rental represented one-tenth of the income, the average income of Bethnal Green would be £150 a year; and that was exactly the point at which the operation of the Income Tax began. The Committee were now re-adjusting the seats of the House, and the Mem-
    456
    bers who would be sent to fill those seats would have the regulation of the taxation of the whole country. What were they doing in this instance? They were multiplying the Representatives of a class who paid no taxation whatever. That class, through its Representatives, might insist upon a large portion of the income of the country being levied through the means of the most oppressive and iniquitous tax that ever existed, and from which they were practically exempted—the Income Tax. It was quite possible they would advocate the levying of the tax upon an aggravated ratio—perhaps in a graduated form, as advocated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain). He thought the Committee ought to pause before they put into the hands of the weavers of Bethnal Green power to send two Members whose interest it might be to advocate the retention of the most injurious and mischievous system of taxation that ever existed. Compare, again, the wealth of Bethnal Green to that of other boroughs. The rateable value of Bethnal Green was £3 per head of the population, whereas in Islington it was £5 per head, in Hampstead and Kensington it was nearly £10, in Paddington nearly £12, and in St. George's, Hanover Square, which was, of course, a very opulent borough, the rateable value was nearly £18 per head of the population. Now, he did submit to the right hon. Gentleman in charge of this Bill and to the Committee that they could not treat boroughs where the rateable value was as low as £3 per head on the same footing as those where the rateable value was as high as £10 and £18 per head. That was the ground on which he contended that Bethnal Green had no right to more than one Member. They certainly ought to admit the principle that rateable value should be taken into consideration in dealing with this subject, and that the matter should not be dealt with solely in regard to the mere question of population. He begged to move the Amendment which stood in his name.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 16, line 10, after the words "Bethnal Green, Middlesex," to leave out the word "Two," and insert the word "One."—(Mr. J. G. Hubbard.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'Two' stand part of the Schedule."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEregretted that the right hon. Gentleman should have brought a Motion of this sort before the House, which proposed that a borough with 127,000 people, an increasing population, and a rateable value of £375,000, should receive only one Member, when one Member was left to small places of 15,000 population, and when many places also with far fewer than 127,000 inhabitants and a lower rateable value would have two Members. The right hon. Gentleman would certainly not strengthen the feeling in the Committee on behalf of the City of London by attacking the representation which had been allotted to large constituencies like that of Bethnal Green. The rateable value of Bethnal Green was considerably above the average; and though, of course, it could not be compared with that of the City of London, yet it must be remembered that Bethnal Green had more than double the population of the City. The two divisions of Bethnal Green would contain 60,000 and 65,000 inhabitants respectively, and were increasing; but the right hon. Gentleman did not compare them with the City, which had a decreasing population of 50,000 for two Members, which had been given it out of consideration for its ancient position. No doubt, the silk-weaving industry in Bethnal Green was a declining one; but Bethnal Green was by no means a declining portion of the Metropolis, either as regarded population or rateable value; and, therefore, he did not think the right hon. Gentleman ought to try and reduce it to the position of a single-Member constituency.
    Amendment negatived.
    MR. GRANTHAMwas very happy to say that the Amendment which stood next on the Paper in his name was not one which would necessitate him occupying the attention of the Committee for any considerable length of time. It seemed to him that the necessity for moving the Amendment at all was probably due to the mistake of the draftsman of the Bill, who did not know that the hamlet of Penge was situated in the county of Surrey, and not in the county of Kent. All parties in Penge were agreed that it was desirable that the change he proposed, which was to take the hamlet of
    458
    Penge from the proposed borough of Lewisham and to add it to Camberwell, should be effected. Then came the question whether the change could take place, and how was it to be effected? Penge was situated in the county of Surrey, and though it was not part of the parish of Camberwell, yet he would point out that if it were added to the new borough of Camberwell, it would enable them to divide the parish of Camberwell in a much better manner, and make the districts much more homogeneous in their character, instead of being broken up as they were at present. It was contiguous to Camberwell, which it was not to Lewisham, and in every respect ought to be added to the nearest district in the county of Surrey. This was not a Party question, and he hoped the right hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill could see his way to give it his favourable consideration. He was quite sure his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition would have supported him in this matter—in fact, he had the authority of the right hon. Gentleman for saying that if he had been back in his place in the House in time he would have supported the Amendment which he now had the honour to move.
    Amendment proposed, in page 16, line 11, at end, to add the words, "and the Hamlet of Penge."—(Mr. Grantham.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he was in some doubt in regard to this matter on first principles. He preferred the Bill as it stood, because the hamlet of Penge was in the Lewisham Board of Works District; but, although that was so, he did not attach very much importance to the matter, and if the feeling of the Committee was against him he would not press his objection to the Amendment, especially as the hon. and learned Member had stated that he had the support of the Leader of the Opposition, who had no doubt given much consideration to the matter. It was possible that if they made the change, however, they might see Members rise up to object. He should have preferred to have left the Bill as it stood. There was also this difficulty—that if they altered the Bill they would have to re-divide the borough of Camberwell. It was hardly worth while dividing the Committee upon the matter, however;

    459
    and, therefore, he should yield to the hon. and learned Member.
    MR. RAIKESsaid, that he had not heard of any opposition to this proposal.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that in the absence of any evidence on the other side he would consent to make the change. With regard to the hon. and learned Member's second or consequential Amendment, if he would agree not to move it he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) would be happy, because he had rather a better form of words which he would move when the proper time came.
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. RAIKESsaid, he rose now to move the next Amendment in his name —namely, to leave out Clerkenwell. The object of this was to restore the borough of Finsbury as far as the three new boroughs of Clerkenwell, Holborn, and Finsbury were concerned. By a subsequent Amendment he proposed to remove the name of Holborn, and to add these two boroughs to Finsbury, so as to restore the existing borough to its present position, without altering its boundaries, and dividing it into three single-Member districts of the one borough. If the right hon. Gentleman preferred that this should be moved on Report he should be very happy to postpone it until that stage.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he would accept the Amendment; but he should prefer to substitute another Amendment for the next one which stood in the right hon. Gentleman's name.
    MR. W. M. TORRENSasked whether the constituency of Finsbury would still retain the three Members given it by the Bill? [Sir CHARLES W. DILKE: Yes, Sir.] He (Mr. Torrens) had asked, because he understood from some of the papers that morning that it was intended to cut the representation of Finsbury down to two.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 16, lines 13 and 14, to leave out—

    "Clerkenwell

    Middlesex

    One

    Parish of Saint James and Saint John Clerkenwell."

    —(Mr. Raikes.)
    Amendment agreed to.
    On the Motion of Sir CHARLES W. DILKE consequential Amendments made,
    460
    that Holborn should be struck out of the Schedule, to assign three Members instead of one to the borough of Finsbury, and to constitute that borough as follows:—
    "The parishes of St. James and St. John, Clerkenwell; the parish of St. Luke's, Middlesex; Holborn district; St. Giles' district; Gray's Inn; Charterhouse; Furnival's Inn; Staple Inn; Lincoln's Inn; and the Liberty of the Rolls."
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsupposed the object of these Amendments was simply to make the matter a little plainer.
    SIR. CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that was so. It was proposed to make St. Luke's just a little larger by adding to it some small parishes south of Clerkenwell and thus reduce slightly the population of Holborn.
    MR. WARTONasked how it was that the Liberty of the Rolls had been omitted in the Schedule up to the present?
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the Liberty of the Rolls was under the Bill included in the Strand Borough as part of the Strand Board of Works District.
    MR. WOODALLsaid, he proposed to commend to the attention of the Committee an Amendment standing in his name, which related to the town of Tunstall, one of the six towns which constituted the borough of Stoke-upon-Trent, the population of which fell just short of 165,000, the limit that would have entitled it to three Members. The population of Tunstall was approaching 15,000, and the proposal in the Bill was to detach it from the existing borough of which it was part, and annex it to Newcastle-under-Lyme. He was happy to say that no Party considerations were involved in his proposal, and to know that it had found favour with both political Parties. His chief reason for dissatisfaction with the proposal to annex it to Newcastle-under-Lyme was on the ground that the two towns had no kind of interest in common, and it would be found to be extremely inconvenient and difficult to get the two towns to act in concert. On the other hand, the town of Tunstall had, in common with the towns from which the Bill proposed to detach it, an identity of interest, social life, and political feeling, which made the severance extremely distasteful to the inhabitants. Tunstall shared with the other towns in the privilege of having a Stipendiary

    461
    Court, was connected with them by tramways, and was an essential part of the Pottery District. The proposal in the Bill was extremely unpopular in the town of Tunstall. The population of Newcastle-under-Lyme was above the limit which would have brought it under disfranchisement. If his proposal were adopted, he pointed out that it would not affect the divisions of the county or district in any particular, or the general arrangements of the Bill. He knew it would have the effect of making one division of the Potteries—the new borough of Hanley—proportionately large, and increase the population from 75,000 to 90,000; but he was bound to say that that constituted no objection in the eyes of the people. In concluding, he said it was impossible for any hon. Member to follow this discussion without feeling the force of what had been said in last night's debates with regard to the re-adjustment of representation in the case of growing districts; and he believed that, at no distant date, the borough of which he was speaking would be entitled to that additional representation which its claims only just fell short of.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 16, lines 45 to 47, leave out "and is not included in the Local Government District of Tunstall."—(Mr. Woodall.)
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he thought the only argument against the Amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. Woodall) was the extreme disparity which would result in respect of population. The hon. Member was, he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) believed, right in saying that, generally speaking, the change which he wished to make in the Bill was desired locally. But it seemed to him that the desire that was expressed had come from one side only, and it would be impossible for him to make any change until an expression of opinion on the other side had been received. He was bound to say that such expressions of opinion on this subject as he had received were all in favour of the proposal of the hon. Gentleman; but as it was just possible there might be some opinion the other way, he would suggest that the most convenient course would be to avoid dividing on the Amendment now, and that it should be agreed to on Report, unless there was any very strong opinion expressed against it.
    MR. DAVENPORTsaid, the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) was probably right in supposing that the general feeling was in favour of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Stoke-upon-Trent (Mr. Woodall). He should not have ventured to intervene in the discussion but for the unfortunate circumstance that neither of the hon. Gentlemen who represented Newcastle-under-Lyme were in the House at the moment. Under the circumstances, he thought it perhaps right to express, on behalf of the inhabitants of Newcastle, their complete concurrence with the Amendment of the hon. Member for Stoke-upon-Trent. There would be no doubt, as had been stated, a great disparity of numbers between the two boroughs of Hanley and Newcastle-under-Lyme; but he was bound to point out that in the latter district there were large coal and iron industries, which, if trade revived, would lead to a great increase of population there. He did not speak on behalf of Newcastle-under-Lyme only, but generally on behalf of the district with which he had been long connected. He believed that the suggestion of the right hon. Baronet was one which the Committee could accept, because it would lead to a change being made which was generally desired. He presumed that the consequential Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Stoke-upon-Trent would also be agreed to by the right hon. Baronet, who he did not think need fear any large increase of correspondence on the question.
    MR. CRAIGsaid, after the remarks of his hon. Colleague who had just spoken (Mr. Davenport), there remained very little for him to say on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Stoke-upon-Trent (Mr. Woodall). He might, however, mention in regard to the disparity of population, that the districts of Chesterton and Silverdale, added to the borough of Newcastle-under-Lyme, were rapidly increasing in population. He knew that there were several large mining industries being started in the district, and that factories were springing up there, which rendered it possible that, in the next 10 years, the population would be nearly doubled. It was owing to this that he attached little importance to the disparity at the present moment. He was satisfied that the intimation of

    463
    the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) that he was willing to adopt this Amendment, subject to the reservation made, would be received in the district with general satisfaction, where it was a matter of surprise that the arrangement set out in the Bill should ever have been made.
    MR. BROADHURSTsaid, he also had to ask the Committee to accede to the proposal of his hon. Colleague (Mr. Woodall). The case of Tunstall was, perhaps, scarcely comparable with that of any other place in the country. Tunstall was one of a series of townships fully and closely allied in one general productive manufacture, and the proposal in the Bill was to take one of those towns and attach it to the town of New-castle-under-Lyme, with which it had no sympathy, or anything whatever in common. To that annexation both the people of Tunstall and the people of Newcastle-under-Lyme objected. With regard to the suggestion of the right hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill (Sir Charles W. Dilke), that the Amendment should be inserted on the Report, he (Mr. Broadhurst) would be personally willing to agree to any arrangement that secured the end in view; but he ventured to put it to the right hon. Baronet whether the suggestion, in the form in which it was made, did not rather tend to invite the raising of difficulties, and whether some cantankerous persons, supposing it were possible to find such persons in the Potteries, which he did not readily admit, might not construe the right hon. Baronet's suggestion as an invitation to commence operations at once? He thought it right to deal frankly with the Committee, and to say that at the commencement of the agitation with regard to this Bill there was not that perfect unanimity on this subject in the town of Tunstall which now existed. He trusted that the Committee would allow the alteration proposed by his hon. Colleague to be placed at once in the Bill.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, it seemed to him that although one difficulty had been pointed to in the course of the discussion, all who had had an opportunity of expressing their opinion were in favour of the proposal of the hon. Member for Stoke-upon-Trent (Mr. Woodall). He (Sir Stafford Northcote) thought that the course suggested by
    464
    the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Charles W. Dilke), was perhaps the best to take. At the same time, it was quite possible that there might be others who might desire to see the decision of the Commissioners respected, and who might desire to be heard upon the arrangement before it was finally concluded. He would press upon the hon. Member for Stoke-upon-Trent the desirability of withdrawing his Amendment for the present, in order to enable the subject to be considered on Report. So far as he had been able to examine into the question, it appeared to him that the Amendment would be a good one, and that it was desirable that the change should be made.
    MR. WOODALLsaid, he was in the hands of the Committee in the matter. He was bound to say, however, that it was not the Commissioners who had put Tunstall in. It was one of the proposals of the Bill as it stood on the Paper for second reading. He would also venture to remind the Committee that the Bill, as it stood for second reading, did give an extra Member; but that was merely an error of the draftsman. It had led to a great deal of complication, and had prevented them from arriving at a conclusion that, he believed, would otherwise have been arrived at with unanimity. He asked leave to withdraw the Amendment on the understanding that the subject of it would come up again on Report.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. RAIKES: There is a consequential Amendment here. You must leave these places out.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: That is so.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 16, lines 48 to 54, leave out,—

    "Holborn

    Middlesex

    One

    Holborn District.

    St. Giles' District.

    Gray's Inn.

    Charterhouse.

    Furnival's Inn.

    Staple Inn.

    Lincoln's Inn."

    —(Mr. Raikes.)
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule," put, and negatived; words struck out accordingly.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he had an Amendment on the Paper to insert in page 16, line 58, column 2, after "Kent," the words "and Surrey." This was a verbal Amendment which had originally been necessary. It was not needed now, however, in consequence of what had been done in regard to Penge.
    MR. RAIKESsaid, he begged to move the next Amendment, acting on the principle observed in other cases—that was to say, in order to give an opportunity for the reconsideration of the question affecting the Tower Hamlets.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 16, line 59, leave out,—

    Limehouse

    Middlesex

    One

    Limehouse District."

    —(Mr. Raikes.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he had had an opportunity of consulting the Commissioners on this question, and they were of opinion that it should be left over to the Report, in order to give time for the consideration of the case of the Tower Hamlets. If the right hon. Gentleman would consent to that course, he would propose that this subject should be deferred.
    MR. RAIKESsaid, he could not see any objection to that course; but he would put it to the right hon. Baronet whether it would not facilitate the labours of the Commissioners if the minor boroughs were struck out, leaving the larger area, which, by the direction of the Committee, they were to reconstitute?
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he should not have proposed the course he bad mentioned if he had thought any hon. Member objected. So far as he himself was concerned, he had no feeling in the matter one way or the other. The right hon. Gentleman did not propose to leave out "Poplar"?
    MR. RAIKES: No.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: As the Amendment will not commit the House one way or the other, I accede to the Amendment.
    MR. BRYCEsaid, he must enter a protest against the course being taken by the Committee, as it appeared to be
    466
    prejudging the case of the Tower Hamlets. He certainly had not thought last night that the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had done more than promise to inquire. For his own part, he was ready to give the most strenuous opposition to the proposed scheme.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the question of the number of Members would not be prejudged. The Committee had adopted a course similar to that proposed in the case of Finsbury. He thought they had better leave the matter over to Report.
    MR. RAIKES: I will not press the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. BRYCEsaid, he begged to move the next Amendment on the Paper, in line 59, after "Limehouse District," to insert "except the parish of Wapping." This change would affect the boundaries of the proposed boroughs of Limehouse and St. George's-in-the-East. The effect of the Amendment, with another consequential Amendment which he should move lower down, would be to take Wapping from the borough of Limehouse, and add it to the proposed borough of St. George's-in-the-East. The present Limehouse District, which it was proposed to make a borough, had a population of 58,000; and he desired to take from this the parish of Wapping, with a population of 2,225, and add it to St. George's-in-the-East, which had a population of 47,000, thus doing something to equalize the two boroughs. Wapping was a long narrow district, extending along the Northern bank of the Thames from the parish of Limehouse, to whose District Board of Works it belonged, although inconveniently outlying, and adjoining St. George's-in-the-East to the North. Geographically, it had a much closer connection with St. George's-in-the-East than it had with Limehouse; and, moreover, the change he proposed would give them an opportunity of altering the name of St. George's-in-the-East, which was unsuitable, inasmuch as it led to confusion with St. George's, Hanover Square, and which had somewhat un-pleasing associations, recalling, as it did, to one's mind the disturbances which had occurred in connection with the services of the parish church a few years ago. The new borough could therefore

    467
    be called the borough of Wapping. That was a name of considerable interest. The Committee would remember that Macaulay, in his History, told the story of how Judge Jeffreys was discovered disguised as a coal-whipper in a small house in Wapping by a scrivener, whom he had once bullied in Court. Then they all remembered the pleasing ballad of "Wapping Old Stairs," which Colonel Newcome sang in the Cave of Harmony. Looking at the convenience of the alteration he proposed, and at the fact that they would get a better name for the borough, he would urge the Committee to assent to his Amendment.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 16, line 59, after "Limehouse District," insert "except the parish of Wapping."—(Mr. Bryce.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR CHAELES W. DILKEsaid, he thought that as the whole question of the Tower Hamlets was to be considered on Report, it would be undesirable to commence making small changes now. He would admit that the change proposed would, so far as it went, be an improvement; but the Committee had not all the facts fully before it now, and it would be well, therefore, to postpone the matter.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he wished to remind the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Bryce) that "Wapping Old Stairs" was mentioned in Vanity Fair, and not as having been sung by Colonel Newcome in "The Newcomes."
    MR. BRYCEsaid, he consented to withdraw the Amendment; but, in doing so, he must take the liberty of correcting the hon. Member opposite (Mr. T. P. O'Connor). The song was sung by Colonel Newcome, as the hon. Member would find if he referred to the first chapter of the novel. And why should not a song that had been sung in Vanity Fair be sung again in "The New comes?"
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEregretted that they could not now have the song.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. RAIKESsaid, he would not move the next Amendment, relating to the hamlet of Mile End Old Town, as that also was connected with the Tower Hamlets. He would move, however,
    468
    the Amendment in lines 9 and 10, to leave out St. George, Hanover Square, Middlesex, One, Parish of St. George, Hanover Square.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 17, lines 9 and 10, leave out—

    "Saint Georgo, Hanover Square

    Middlesex

    One

    Parish of Saint George, Hanover Square."

    —(Mr. Raikes.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
    SIR CHAELES W. DILKE: I agree to the Amendment.
    Question put, and negatived; words left out accordingly.
    MR. RAIKESsaid, he now had to propose an Amendment to substitute the historic name of Stratford for that of West Ham. He did not wish to change the framework of the Bill; but merely to bring about this alteration of name. He had no doubt the Local Government Board had considerable cognizance of the existence of West Ham, and so had its neighbours, although he very much doubted whether the district was generally identified by Her Majesty's subjects. He thought an hon. Gentleman rising in his place as the Member for West Ham would afford some doubt, as to the other 600 and odd Members in the House, where he came from. There was another West Ham in Sussex, and another in Hertfordshire, and they were both inconsiderable places. The place that gave its name to the Local Board of West Ham was also an inconsiderable place, It had a church, and there were a few houses in the neighbourhood; but the population of the district was, for the most part, congregated round the Town Hall of Stratford. Stratford had, for many years, been a growing town. It contained 30,000 or 40,000 inhabitants, at least, and for a long time it had contained the depot of the Great Eastern Railway. There were several small places, such as Plaistow, in the proposed new district; but West Ham was really little more than a geographical expression. No doubt, the name might be useful if it could become known; but his contention was that it was not

    469
    known, and never would be, as the place was nothing but a sham. Stratford-atte-Bowe was a place of historical interest, and a place of antiquity; and he could not help thinking that an hon. Gentleman returned to the House would rather be styled Member for Stratford than Member for West Ham. The question was one for the Committee to decide; his desire being merely to put before it what he believed to be a more convenient and euphonious nomenclature, and one that he thought they should be glad to welcome in the House.
    Amendment proposed,
    In Schedule 4, page 17, after line 16, insert—

    "Stratford

    Essex

    Two

    The Local Government District of West Ham."

    —(Mr. Raikes.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the argument in favour of retaining the name of West Ham was stronger than it would otherwise be, because they were creating, as a new borough, the Local Grovernment district of West Ham—they were taking that exact district as it now stood. Surely it would be a very curious thing on the part of the Committee to take a complete Local Government district, which had been created with a certain name, and change that name for Parliamentary purposes. He was bound to say that the name of the district of West Ham was now generally accepted and recognized in the Metropolis. The name of Stratford was, no doubt, very ancient; but he was not at all sure whether the Stratford of the olden time was the place included within the district of West Ham. He found there wore several Stratfords in that part of Essex. There was in the Metropolis Stratford-le-Bow and Stratford-atte-Bowe. The districts were somewhat obscure; but he had certainly discovered four of them—one being in Poplar, and another in. Essex, outside the Metropolis. It would only be confusing to accept the Amendment; and he therefore, thought it would be better to adhere to the nomenclature of the Bill.
    MR. SAMPSON LLOYDsaid, the Committee must remember that they
    470
    were going to make a district of Stratford-on-Avon, and that to have another hon. Member for Stratford in the House would lead to unnecessary confusion. It was desirable that there should be only one Parliamentary borough of Stratford. MR. RAIKES: I am quite willing to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. RAIKESsaid, he should not move his Amendment to line 19 in regard to the Tower Hamlets, in view of the understanding which had been arrived at as to the consideration of that subject on Report; but it would be necessary for him to move his Amendment in lines 20 and 21.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 17, lines 20 and 21, leave out—

    "Westminster

    Middlesex

    One

    Westminster District.

    Close of Collegiate Church of St. Peter."

    —(Mr. Raikes.)
    Question, "That the words proposed to be loft out stand part of the Schedule," put, and negatived; words left out accordingly.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, that, in the case of West Ham, he would make an earnest appeal to the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) to treat it as he had treated the Tower Hamlets and Southwark, and leave it over for further consideration on Report. This was one of the districts where, if properly divided, there might be some chance of the Irish in England securing the return of a Representative. He was glad to find that the right hon. Baronet had shown a somewhat conciliatory spirit in this matter. No doubt, it would be admitted, on all hands, that so considerable a section of the community as that to which he referred should be represented in the House; and he could not believe the right hon. Baronet would experience much difficulty through postponing the matter as he proposed. The division of the district, he was told, was, at the present moment, extremely clumsy. It seemed to be so arranged as to deprive the Irish of any chance. He understood that as West Ham was one of the divisions which had been fixed by the Boundary Commissioners, it would come under the compact to which the Leaders

    471
    on both sides of the House were pledged. He would, therefore, appeal to the right hon. Baronet the Leader of the Opposition (Sir Stafford Northcote), in case the right hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill consented to the plan he proposed, to allow the question to stand over. The right hon. Baronet was not in the House during the earlier portion of the evening, when they were discussing this question; but he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) could inform him that it had been pretty generally conceded that, under the Bill as it at present stood, there would not be a fair opportunity for the large Irish minority in this country to get a Representative sent to Parliament to speak in their interest.
    MR. RAIKES: If the hon. Member proposes to move an Amendment, he will see that the most convenient place to do it will be on page 38, when we come to the sub-division of the borough.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Yes; I was just about to point that out.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I forgot that. I will not proceed with my Amendment.
    MR. RAIKES: I do not propose to move my Amendment as to Woolwich.
    GENERAL ALEXANDERsaid, that when he complained the other day that South Ayrshire, with a population of nearly 90,000, the population of the whole county being no less than 220,000, was only to be represented by one Member, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Trevelyan) had endeavoured to console him by saying that the average population, per Member in the Scotch counties did not exceed 52,000. Now, it was absurd, almost an absolute farce, to endeavour to console a Member the population of whose constituency exceeded the average by no loss than 36,000 in this way. The Committee had no right to make these deductions or calculations based on large averages. They must take every case, and make every case a special one as it arose. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster must know very well that the constituency that he (General Alexander) represented had not only the largest population in Scotland, but that it had the largest population in the United Kingdom. The population of South Ayrshire was larger than the population of any county constituency in Ireland, and larger than any county constituency in England. The
    472
    largest in England was a division of North-East Lancashire; but that had some 20,000 inhabitants less than the population of South Ayrshire. He remembered that, on Friday last, the right hon. Baronet the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke), when objecting to merge two boroughs in the county of Mid Lothian, said that it would raise the population of Mid Lothian to 94,000, and that that would be much too large and unwieldy a population for one Member to represent. But if 94,000 was too large for so great a man as the Prime Minister to represent, surely 90,000 would be too many for a humble individual like himself, or many others, to represent. Last night the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board was asked to give another Member to Westminster, and he consented to do so on the ground that the population of St. George's, Hanover Square, amounted to no less than 89,000. If the right hon. Gentleman was able to give an additional Member to Westminster because one of the parishes had a population of 89,000—much more compact, of course, than the population in a county—he had himself acknowledged that he ought to give another Member for the county of Ayr. The right hon. Gentleman ought to do one of two things—either give Ayr an additional Member, which they would much prefer, or, if he could not do that, make some endeavour to separate the urban from the rural population. Like the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Lanarkshire (Sir Edward Colebrooke), he (General Alexander) had no objection whatever to a mixed population, provided that the urban population were not allowed to swamp entirely the rural population. He would like to know why it was that the fair demand of the county of Ayr for additional representation was refused? He had a very strong suspicion of the reason of the refusal; he had a strong suspicion of the reason why a difference was made in favour of Fife, which had only a population of 171,000, as against the county of Ayr with a population of 220,000. As he always said what he thought, he had no hesitation in saying that the real reason why the county of Ayr had been so unfairly treated was that, unlike the other Scotch counties, it had presumed, at two General Elections,

    473
    to send two Conservative Members to Parliament, whereas the county of Fife had steadily adhered to the side of the Government. He did not wish to take up the time of the Committee; but there was one remark he wished to make with reference to something which fell from the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate (Mr. J. B. Balfour) the other day. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said he had taken the opinion of the majority of the Scotch Members upon this subject. He (General Alexander) considered that there was very little use of appealing in such matters to a majority of 51 as against a minority of 9; the majority held 51 seats, and they wished to deprive the minority of the 9 which remained. He understood it was one of the duties of a Government to protect the minority, and not to appeal to the majority. He did expect, from what the right hon. Baronet the President of the Local Government Board said when this question was first raised, that the right hon. Gentleman would endeavour to show some justice to the great county one division of which he (General Alexander) had the honour to represent. He was sorry to say, however, that although the words of the President of the Local Government Board were softer than butter, he had war in his heart. He (General Alexander) would not put the Committee to the trouble of dividing on this question, and for the simple reason that he did not so much care for adding the burghs mentioned in the Amendment to the existing group of burghs, as to have for the whole country the additional representation of another Member. If the Government would consider this point favourably, the addition to the Ayr Burghs was a matter of secondary consideration. He begged to move formally the Amendment which stood in his name.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 17, after line 30, add as new lines—

    "Ayr (District of Burghs)

    Ayr and Argyll

    One

    The Burghs of Ayr, Irvine, Campbeltown, Galston, and Old Cumnock."

    —(General Alexander.)
    Question proposed, "That those lines be there added."
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, he understood from what
    474
    the hon. and gallant Member opposite (General Alexander) had said that he was rather moving this Amendment as a means of introducing the question of increasing the county representation of Ayr than of taking those five towns out of the county and adding them to existing groups of burghs. He (the Lord Advocate) therefore need say nothing on the question, which was fully discussed the other day, except that at that time he did not think that, on either side of the House, they were in a position to say they had an expression of opinion from the places affected by the proposal. But since the discussion the other day he had had a variety of communications from Galston, strongly protesting against the proposal to take it out of the county, and the Committee would feel that that confirmed the resolution which had been come to. In regard to the representation of Ayrshire, he was quite sure they were all alive to the great importance of that county; but he was afraid he could not admit that it was under-represented as compared with other counties which were in possession of a particular representation at present. The county of Ayr had two county Members, and it gave the names to two groups of burghs—the Ayr and Kilmarnock Burghs. Although, no doubt, these burghs overflowed into other counties, they were the head burghs of the county of Ayr, and a considerable representation was given to that county. One of the great objections which was so strongly urged on the part of Ayrshire to the suggested re-arrangement of the Kilmarnock Burghs was that Kilmarnock really did represent a fourth Member for Ayr, so that he thought it could not be said that Ayrshire was at all under-represented in comparison with Fife on the one hand and Mid Lothian on the other. Ayrshire had already two county Members, and it had two burgh Members; and, even on the showing of the hon. and gallant Member, Ayrshire would not come next for an additional Member, because Fife was over the 100,000, and he thought 90,000 was the number that his hon. and gallant Friend said he represented; and even in the case of Mid Lothian, if there had been the addition of Portobello and Musselburgh, there would have been 94,000, which would have come before the division of Ayrshire which the hon. and gallant Member repre-

    475
    sented. [General ALEXANDER: There are more than 200,000 in the whole county.] The proposal with regard to Mid Lothian involved that there should be two considerable towns thrown into it. If another Member could not be found for Mid Lothian, he was afraid it would be quite as difficult to find another Member for Ayrshire, oven if there were a reason for it.
    MR. DALRYMPLEsaid, his hon. and gallant Friend (General Alexander) had laid special stress upon the desirableness of obtaining increased representation for the county of Ayr; but his speech, in moving his Amendment, went to show the great disproportion between the county and burgh representation. The remarks which had fallen from the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate (Mr. J. B. Balfour) did not at all deal with that disproportion. It was true that in the county of Ayr there were practically four Members—two county and two burgh Members—but there remained still the extreme disproportion between the county and the burgh population, and that was the point to which all the Amendments which had been put down from the Conservative side of the House with regard to the burgh representation in Scotland had reference. The division of the county of Ayr which his hon. and gallant Friend represented had a population of nearly 90,000; whereas the Ayr group of burghs had only between 30,000 and 40,000, and it was in order to rectify that gross inequality that the Amendment which stood in the name of his hon. and gallant Friend was placed on the Paper. It did not, in his (Mr. Dalrymple's) estimation, signify whether Galston or any other place were selected in order to adjust the inequality; but what they contended for was that there should be some adjustment of the great inequality between the county and the burgh population. Her Majesty's Government had declined to make the adjustment desired. The case of Ayrshire was a small illustration of the disproportion between the county and burgh population in Scotland. He could mention two other cases illustrative of the disproportion of which he and his hon. Friends complained. East Aberdeenshire had a population of 83,000, while the Elgin Burghs, a very interesting group of burghs, no doubt, had a population of only 31,000 odd.
    476
    The case of the county of Stirlingshire was a specially remarkable one, for the population of the county was 78,000, while the burgh population was only 36,000. It was extremely important, whether this Amendment were divided upon or not, that the Committee should be in possession of the cases of extraordinary disproportion between the burgh and the county constituencies in Scotland; and no comparison which might be placed before them by the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill (Sir Charles W. Dilke), or anyone else, could in the slightest degree avail to remove the anomalies. He was aware that they had taken a great liberty—that it was positively audacious that hon. Members on the Conservative side of the House should in any way attempt to correct these anomalies—but whatever might be the result of their exertions, he was extremely glad to have the opportunity, by means of this Amendment, of pointing out how very gross these anomalies were. It was no answer to them to say, as his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Tre-velyan) said the other day, that the object was to get the free expression of the opinion of the country. It could only be in irony that those words could be used, because it was exactly the opinion of the country parts of the county which would not be obtained if the country parts of counties were so overshadowed numerically by the numbers in the towns. He cared nothing whatever for the epithets which were applied to their efforts in this direction. They know perfectly well what it was they desired. They had been at great pains to explain to the Committee that their object was to correct what were glaring and outrageous anomalies, and they now knew the Party opposite intended to maintain and perpetuate these anomalies. The credit or discredit of preserving these anomalies indicated by their measure, and their doing nothing whatever to remedy them, rested on the Government and on hon. Gentlemen opposite. He desired to remark once more upon the treatment which Scotland had received in reference to this redistribution scheme as compared with other parts of the country. He did not know how much attention might have been extended to other parts of the country, but the amount of attention which had

    477
    been given to Scotland in reference to redistribution seemed to have been of a very limited kind. The other night there was a solemn discussion as to whether Exeter should receive a second Member, though it was not able to muster a population above 48,000, yet on a previous evening—he was not quite sure whether it was not at an earlier hour the same evening—it was found perfectly impossible to give a Member to Leith, which had at present 58,000 inhabitants, and which was known to have a rapidly increasing population. That was the sort of inequality he de-sired to remark upon. In his opinion, those who were to blame for this state of things were the Representatives of Scotland. who sat on the Ministerial side of the House. If the Scotch Members who sat opposite asserted themselves, as they were very well able to do, or at least as they might do in respect of their numbers, Scotland would receive better attention than it did. The Welsh and Irish parts of the Kingdom received considerably more attention than Scotland, and the reason was not far to seek. The Representatives of those parts of the Kingdom asserted themselves in the House, and were not merely the old bodyguard of the Government. The Scotch Members on the other side were so busy supporting the Government that they forgot or neglected the interests of Scotland, and that was why Scotland had received so very scant attention in regard to redistribution, and why, owing to the breakdown of the praiseworthy attempt on the part of the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate to deal with the question, all the anomalies which at present existed in the burgh representation of Scotland were to be perpetuated for a long time to come. He cared little whether his hon. and gallant Friend went to a division or not; the case was a very strong one, and he was glad it had had, at all events, the recognition of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, although they had received no encouragement to press it on the Committee.
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, he felt obliged to say a few words in reply to his hon. Friend (Mr. Dalrymple). He did not think it ought to go out in the Scotch newspapers, which reported the debates of the House very minutely, that Scotland had been very ill-used in
    478
    this matter on account of the apathy of Scotch Members. In what did good-usage consist, and ill-usage in distributing the proportion of Members for the different parts of the United Kingdom? It consisted clearly in the average population to which a Member was allotted. In England, which might be taken, he supposed, as the country most powerfully represented in the House, and which might, therefore, be supposed to come off best, there was one Member to every 53,500 of the population. In Scotland, which, according to the hon. Member, had been shamefully ill-used on account of the short-comings of the Scotch Members, there was one to 53,300 of the population. Statistics told something, and they spoke with a voice which could not be mistaken against the proposition of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (General Alexander). Scotland was actually better used than England in the matter of distribution if they took not what the country had, but what it gained. Scotland had actually gained by this Bill 12 Members—that was to say, some 20 per cent of her representation, which was a gain far exceeding that of any other part of the United Kingdom. The hon. and gallant Gentleman argued that these burghs ought to be taken from the county of Ayr, and added to the Ayr district of burghs, because there was such a contrast between the numbers of the population in the county, and the numbers of the populationin the burghs. But his hon. and gallant Friend forgot that these were questions of averages, and that, taking Scotland all over, the counties were exactly as well represented—they were represented within 100—as the burghs. The hon. and gallant Gentleman argued that because the population of the county of Ayr was larger than the burgh population, therefore they must take the burghs out of the county, and add them to the group of burghs. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dalrymple), however, a little lower down on the Paper, had an Amendment in regard to another Scotch county in which the county population was actually smaller than the burgh population, and yet the hon. Gentleman proposed to take the burghs out of that small county and add them to the burgh population. The hon. Gentleman, in order to be consistent, ought to take the county of Lanark, and cut off consider-

    479
    ably from the county representation and add it to the representation of Glasgow, which was very much under-represented as compared with the county. In this matter, they must look to the general average of the county and burgh population, and, accepting facts as they found them in the different counties and burghs, ought to think themselves very fortunate if they could secure so exact a balance, as the Bill secured, between the justice due to the counties and to the burghs.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he must point out what he thought was a fallacy in the argument of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Trevelyan) when he talked about averages. It was not only a question of what the general average of county Members or burgh Members might be throughout Scotland, but it was a question in each individual district how far the one and the other class of population was properly represented. He sympathized very much with his hon. and gallant Friend (General Alexander) in the effort he had made to bring about some modification in the representation of Ayr and the Ayr Burghs, by putting a larger proportion of the county into the burghs, and so bringing about a greater balance between them. The object, of course, which had always been brought forward as one they were to seek was, that there should be a proper arrangement of county districts, so as to take out of the counties the purely urban element. That was what his hon. and gallant Friend endeavoured to do by the Amendment he had on the Paper some time ago, and by the present Amendment. He (Sir Stafford Northcote) thought, after all that had passed on the subject of the Scotch burghs, and considering the difficulties in which they found themselves plunged by the abandonment of the scheme proposed by the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate, it was hardly to be avoided that they should find themselves very much where they were, and that the attempt to make a proper arrangement of the burghs should be found impracticable. He was glad to hear that his hon. and gallant Friend (General Alexander) thought it better, on the whole, not to go to a division on his Amendment; but he (Sir Stafford North-cote) thought it was right to put on record that the hon. and gallant Member,
    480
    and the hon. Member for Bute (Mr. Dalrymple), had made their protest against the system upon which the proposals of the Government had been framed, and that they should express their sympathy with his hon. Friends in regard to the continuance, in some cases, of an arrangement which did not meet the fair claim of the county interests.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, that no doubt the Bill removed a great many anomalies and inequalities; but it also left a great many behind it. It was not a complete Bill; in his opinion it would have been better, much better, if the Government had not made two bites at a cherry. He was in favour of equal constituencies, and if the Government had brought in a Bill to secure such an end, as nearly as possible, they would have received his support, and he had little doubt the support of most of the Scotch Members on the Liberal side of the House. With regard to the proportions as between Scotland and other parts of the Kingdom, he thought Scotland had got bare justice, and no more. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Trevelyan) seemed to forget that London ought not to be regarded as a part of England. London was the capital of the United Kingdom, and was somewhat under-represented. If the right hon. Gentleman took England, apart from London, he would find that in comparison with England, Scotland was not so favourably treated as he seemed to imagine. He (Sir George Campbell) desired to say a word upon another subject. It would be observed that the hon. and gallant Gentleman (General Alexander) had included in his Amendment a proposal to add certain towns; but that he said nothing as to his omission from the Ayr group of the small burghs of Oban and Inverary, in Argyllshire. He (Sir George Campbell) had put down an Amendment to reconstitute the group, by omitting those places; and he did so because he believed that that was the only part of the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate's (Mr. J. B. Balfour's) scheme, with regard to which there was any general agreement; he understood there was no objection to the proposal of the Lord Advocate to include these two small burghs in the county of Argyllshire. The complaints as to the scandal with regard to the

    481
    grouping of Scotch burghs, were chiefly due to the Ayrshire group. Oban and Inverary were situated in the extremest parts of Argyllshire, and they could not be reached from Ayrshire except by performing a journey something like that which was known as the overland route to India. It would be a very great advantage if these two burghs could be merged in Argyllshire. The county was willing to have them, and therefore he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote) to consent to that part of the Amendment of his hon. and gallant Friend (General Alexander). He might remind the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Stafford Northcote) that if by any chance it should be discovered that any parties in Argyllshire did object to the alteration, "there would be an opportunity in "another place" of making a rectification. The rearrangement would get rid of the greatest scandal which existed in the system of grouping burghs in Scotland, and, therefore, he hoped the Leader of the Opposition would see his way to assent to it.
    MR. J. A. CAMPBELLsaid, he had an Amendment a little further down on the Paper of a similar nature to the one now before the Committee, but in regard to another group of burghs; but if his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (General Alexander) did not go to a division, he would not trouble the Committee by moving his Amendment. He wished to say, however, that the action taken by the Government had made it impossible for them to have the groups of Scotch burghs properly adjusted. He had intended to move, but for the decision of the Government, that Fraserburgh should be added to the Elgin group. The position of Fraserburgh formed a good illustration of the inconvenience of the resolution of the Government. The Elgin group was formed mainly of fishing towns, and in the midst of these was Fraserburgh. Under the Bill, that town, with a population of 6,000, was to be merged in the county, though it had no interest in common with the agricultural community, but had identical interests with the neighbouring fishing towns. He would remark that the mode of grouping he advocated was in reality the only way in which, in many parts
    482
    of Scotland, the urban and the rural elements in the constituencies could be properly separated. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster had referred to Lanarkshire; but it should be remembered that that was one of the few counties of Scotland in which it was possible, by erecting sub-divisions, to obtain something like a separation of the two interests, because in Lanarkshire there were sub-divisions that were mainly urban, but this was not the case in other counties. It was not the case in the district to which he (Mr. J. A. Campbell) had referred. With regard to the inclination of the population to be classed according to their different interests, he would remark that since this subject had been brought before the House there had been expressed on the part of a population spread over three contiguous centres along the Banffshire coast, and numbering together upwards of 6,000, a desire to be added to the Elgin group of burghs, in order that a group might be formed consisting of the whole of the fishing towns in the North-East of Scotland. Such an arrangement would, in his opinion, be a very reasonable one, as it would give representation to a particular branch of industry, and only pay proper regard to the community of interests in such a constituency. But, in the face of the positive declaration by Her Majesty's Government that on no account would they add any new towns to the old burgh groups, he felt that it would be quite futile for himself or his Friends to press Amendments of this kind, and he would, therefore, conclude by saying that if the hon. and gallant Member for South Ayrshire withdrew the Amendment he had proposed, he (Mr. J. A. Campbell) would not put the Committee to the trouble of pronouncing any opinion on the Amendment he had placed upon the Paper.
    MR. WILLIAMSONsaid, the hon. Member for Buteshire (Mr. Dalrymple) had taken it upon himself to lecture hon. Gentlemen sitting on that (the Ministerial) side of the House for inconsistency in not having attempted to remove anomalies in the representation of Scotland by taking advantage of the opportunities afforded by this Bill. But the hon. Member did not seem to be aware of the fact that he was himself

    483
    amenable to the charge of inconsistency, because he was one of those who had voted against the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold) when he had proposed to draw the limit of population capable of becoming a constituency at 20,000, in contradistinction to the Government proposal sanctioned by the Leaders of the Opposition that the limit should be drawn at 15,000. The hon. Member for Buteshire had gone into the Lobby against the proposal of the hon. Member for Salford, and he (Mr. Williamson) was astonished that having done so, the hon. Gentleman should blame hon. Members on this side of the House for simply endeavouring to carry out the arrangement that had been come to between the two Parties.
    MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, it seemed to him, as the Representative of an English constituency, a somewhat surprising thing that, whereas most of the English Members were going at the next General Election to contest divisions of counties which would, for the main part, consist of from 50,000 to 60,000 electors, his hon. Friends who represented the Scotch counties were able to bring forward a case in which there would be a county constituency in Scotland with a population of 217,000, to whom it was only proposed under the Bill to assign two Representatives. The reply to this extraordinary fact was that there was to be an addition of two Members for the burghs in that county, and that, therefore, on the whole, it would have a fair amount of representation; but he contended that this was in reality no answer to the case. In England there was an endeavour to adjust the proportions between the urban and the rural elements; but they did not propose to carry out the same principle in Scotland, and the grossest part of the anomaly was to be seen in this—that whereas in Scotland they were perfectly ready to break up groups of burghs for the purpose of throwing them into the county constituencies, they made it a vital principle not to form any of the other burghs into new urban constituencies. Why, he asked, was that the case? He had tried to ascertain the reasons by which such a proposition was supported, but he had heard no reason for it whatever. They had groups of burghs in Scotland that were exceedingly reasonable for
    484
    many purposes, groups that were found to be exceedingly convenient, because they absorbed a sufficient portion of the urban population of the counties to enable those groups to return Radical Members, and yet left a sufficient number of urban electors to enable them to swamp the rural portions of the counties. Why could they not alter this? Was there any earthly reason why they should not? It was not as though they would thereby be doing something that would destroy the general character of the Bill. What they were asked to do was to make a fair and proper distribution between the urban and, rural populations in Scotland, as was proposed to be done in regard to England. [Sir CHARLES W. DILKE: Between the urban and rural populations in Ayrshire.] It was all very well to say "between the urban and rural populations in Ayrshire," and he was ready to meet the right hon. Gentleman on that point. If they took the case of Ayrshire, he thought there was a case of very gross inequality presented to the Committee, and, he hoped his hon. and gallant Friend (General Alexander) would not rest satisfied with this discussion, but would consider the matter between the present time and the Report, and that, in the meantime, something would be suggested that would enable a fairer adjustment to be made as between the urban and rural populations, so that when the Report came to be considered some so he me might be adopted that would have the effect of securing this result.
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. E. Stanhope) had mentioned the English counties in order to draw a contrast between them and the Scotch counties. He had stated that such anomalies as that which he had drawn attention to did not exist in the different counties in England. In answer to what had been said on this point, he (Mr. Trevelyan) would take the case of the first county on the English list taken alphabetically—the county of Bedford. In that county there were two seats, one with a population of 66,000, and the other with a population of 63,000; there was a borough seat with a population of 19,000. Therefore, he put it to the Committee, that the very first of the English counties did not show ill by the side of Ayrshire.
    MR. BUCHANANsaid, he had understood that, after the discussion which had taken place a few days ago, hon. Members on the other side of the House were going to pursue the same course as hon. Members on that side, and that when the Amendments to the previous Schedule were rejected, all the consequential Amendments to this Schedule were to be abandoned also. That was the conclusion at which he and his hon. Friends had arrived, and they had believed that the same course would be followed by hon. Members opposite. He should like, however, to say a few words upon what they had just heard from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. E. Stanhope). The hon. Gentleman had supported the proposal as an attempt to separate the urban from the rural population in the Scotch counties. But, as a matter of fact, there was a much more marked separation already existing in Scotland than in England. In Lincolnshire, as the hon. Gentleman was aware, there were several burghs like Spalding and Louth, each with a population of 8,000 or 9,000 inhabitants, forming part of the county constituency. In Scotland, on the contrary, the number of burghs of a similar size, which were not included in some Parliamentary group, could be numbered on the fingers of one hand. There was already a much greater separation of the elements in Scotland than in England. Another characteristic of Scottish representation which the hon. Gentleman did not seem to be aware of was this. There was a much greater diversity in size between the Scottish county constituencies than between those in England or Ireland. The large Scottish counties would be much larger and more populous than any counties left as separate constituencies in England or Ireland. But there were also much smaller counties left in Scotland than in England. If the hon. Gentleman would take the case of the county of Bute, which was represented by his hon. Friend (Mr. Dalrymple) sitting behind him, he would find that Buteshire had a population much smaller than that of any county constituency in England. The county of Bute had a population of only 17,000, and the united counties of Peebles and Selkirk had no more. But what he (Mr. Buchanan) had chiefly risen to do was to complain of the
    486
    charge made by the hon. Member for Buteshire that hon. Members on that (the Ministerial) side of the House were to blame for what had taken place, and were doing what they could for the purpose of perpetuating anomalies in the representation of Scotland. For his own part, he had heard nothing on his side of the House which would justify that accusation; and he might even go further, and say that a more unfounded charge had never been brought against them. What were the facts of the case? They knew that the Amendment on the Paper was one of a number which hon. Members opposite representing Scotch constituencies had been prepared to support; and on "Wednesday last a statement was made by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition (Sir Stafford Northcote) to the effect that proposals of this character were entirely apart from the compact that had been arrived at between the two Front Benches. Subsequently, however, they had a statement from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster(Mr. Trevelyan), who plainly informed the Committee that the addition of new burghs to the existing burgh groups was a matter which the Government considered to be a vital innovation, and which they would resist by every possible means in their power. Immediately after this it was found that a very curious change of front took place on the part of the Conservative Members for Scotland, for he believed that, with the single exception of the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. Orr-Ewing), all the Conservative Members for Scotland voted in the division that took place on Wednesday against the last Amendment of the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate. Well, what took place after that? As it had appeared in the newspapers, and was a matter of notoriety, he supposed he might refer to it. There was an interview between the hon. Member for Buteshire (Mr. Dalrymple) and the Marquess of Salisbury. Of course, what took place at that interview had not transpired; but they knew very well what was the issue of it, because the very next morning—
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. Member was out of Order in going into matters irrelevant to the Question before the Committee.
    MR. BUCHANANsaid, he would apologize if he had been out of Order; but he had only been calling attention to a charge which the hon. Member for Buteshire (Mr. Dalrymple) had brought against the Liberal Party, that they were endeavouring to perpetuate the anomalies in Scottish burgh representation. He (Mr. Buchanan) was only endeavouring, to the best of his ability, to rebut that charge; and he would conclude very shortly what he had intended to say. What it was that had happened on Thursday he would, after what the Chairman had said, pass by. They knew, from certain statements in the newspapers, what really did take place; and the result in the House was this—that on Friday the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate got up and stated that all these Amendments were going to be abandoned, because they had received information that the Leaders of the Opposition could not—
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. Member was again transgressing the Rules of Order by going into a subject which had already been ruled out of Order upon the Question before the Committee.
    MR. BUCHANANsaid, he was very sorry; but he submitted that he was only endeavouring to repudiate the charge which the hon. Member for Buteshire had most unfairly brought against hon. Members on that side of the House. The hon. Member for Buteshire had not been ruled out of Order in bringing the charge. It surely could not be out of Order in him to repudiate it. Nevertheless, he did not propose to go into the matter any further. He would merely conclude by saying this—that among the many surprises to which hon. Members on the Liberal Benches had been subjected, the last, and the one least to be expected, was the moving of the present Amendment by the hon. and gallant Member for South Ayrshire (General Alexander). They had all of them regretted the course taken by Her Majesty's Government on the occasion referred to; but they were beaten then, and they had accepted their defeat with as good a grace as possible, it being understood that that decision should govern all the consequential Amendments. But when they came down to the House on the present occasion, and found hon. Members on the other side moving
    488
    Amendments on the same point, he thought they had at least good ground for the complaint that hon. Members opposite had not faithfully observed the understanding which was supposed to have been come to on both sides of the House.
    MR. ORR-EWINGsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Trevelyan) had stated that he thought Aryshire was sufficiently represented, and had spoken of the four Members for that county, thereby including the representation both of the county and the burghs. But he (Mr. Orr-Ewing) desired to call the attention of the Committee to the fact that, in reality, Ayrshire had only three Members—namely, one for the burghs, and two for the county, the constituency for the burgh Member being made up from burghs outside the county. He asked the Committee to contrast this with the state of things in Fifeshire, the result of any comparison that might be instituted being that if they were to divide Ayrshire with a population of 218,000 by three, they would have one Member to something like 73,000 inhabitants; whereas if they were to divide Fifeshire by four and,' a-half, they would have about 38,000 inhabitants to each Member, and yet Fifeshire was to have a new Member under this Bill instead of Ayrshire, which was the county that ought to have had the additional Representative. When they asked themselves whether this was just and fair, and when they saw how unjust it really was, they naturally asked themselves what was the reason for it, and the only answer they could give was that Fifeshire had shown itself to be consistently Radical, while, on the other hand, Ayrshire had been as consistently Conservative. Again, in the case of Stirlingshire, he put it to the Committee, was it just that out of a population of 112,000 the burghs should have a Representative for 29,000, while the county should be restricted to the same representation for 83,000? In Dumbartonshire there was a similar disparity, there being a population of only 13,500 in the county town, while that of the county, with the population of to-day, would have 73,000, He contended that the Government ought not to permit such anomalies as these when bringing forward a great measure for the redistribution of seats.
    GENERAL ALEXANDER,in asking leave to withdraw the Amendment, said, he would call attention to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had asserted the other day that a population of 94,000—in the case of Mid Lothian—was too unwieldy for representation by one Member, whereas, in his (General Alexander's) case, the population included in the division he represented was over 90,000.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    DR. LYONS,in moving, as an Amendment—
    In page 17, to add at end, "Royal University of Ireland | Two (in column for number of Members),"
    said, he rejoiced to find that hon. Members had, by a large majority, affirmed the principle of University representation in that House. University representation, he contended, was the natural means of affording representation to one of the most important classes in the country; and as they were about to extend on a very large basis, and, as he believed, in wisely determined directions, the representation of the country, it was only right that the measure proposing to do this should secure the adequate representation of all important interests. He had, therefore, sincerely rejoiced at the decision the House had arrived at on the question of University representation, which had occupied its attention during the earlier portion of these discussions. The object of his Amendment was that two Members should be given to the Royal University of Ireland. That University was the legal heir and successor of the Queen's University, and the position it now occupied was set forth in a paper he held in his hand, which showed that the number of graduates at the present time was about 2,700, which number was increasing at the rate of about 200 each year, so that ere very long it might be able to hold a position level with that of the great historical Universities of England and those which existed in Scotland. If they compared the Royal University with the University of London, it would be found that it had on its books more graduates than the latter University had when the claim of that Institution to Parliamentary representa-
    490
    tion was granted. He did not wish to institute any invidious comparison between the great University of Dublin and the Royal University; but for the purpose of showing what had been the position of the former, he would refer to the claim made for additional representation in 1832. It was then urged that the number of members of the University of Dublin was 200, and that in a certain number of years it would have between 600 or 700; but that number had been far exceeded. With regard to the position of the Royal University, although its increment of members was probable only, and could not be precisely stated, he maintained that it had far superior claims to representation at the present time than the University of Dublin had at the time mentioned to additional representation. And as it had been conceded that University representation was part and parcel of the representation of the country in that House, he contended that he had proved that the Royal University had a claim to the concession of that representation which he advocated in its behalf. He repeated that he entirely avoided raising any invidious comparison between the two Universities; but he felt that this advocacy of the claims of the Royal University was due from him and from everyone within those walls who owed her allegiance. He believed that if a condition of equilibrium was to be established in Ireland, it was to be done not so much by putting down the great historical University of Dublin, as by raising the status of the new University, whose claims he ventured to put before the Committee. Now it might be said, although the question was one to be settled by Her Majesty's Government, that it was incumbent upon him to show where the two Members which he proposed should be given to the Royal University were to be found. He believed that at least amongst the Irish Representatives in that House, it would be considered that Ireland had a claim to two seats which, if he might say so, had been in a hasty moment extinguished. In one sense, those seats had been extinguished; but, as far as he could gather, it appeared to be the intention of Her Majesty's Government, in dealing with the question of redistribution, to proceed as if they were still in existence, and to make use of them

    491
    for the purpose of English and Irish representation. He believed that this view of the case was one which had not as yet been touched upon; but the question was one which Her Majesty's Government were bound to answer sooner or later. If the Government were going to make use of the two seats of Cashel and Sligo, in order to complete the number of seats proposed to be established by the present Bill, he ventured to say that Ireland had undoubtedly a much stronger claim to them than any of the other portions of the Kingdom. While on this subject of the number of seats proposed under the Bill, he would take the opportunity of tendering his very grateful and cordial thanks to the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Charles W. Dilke) for having acted in a spirit of equity and fairness towards Ireland in this respect. But having gone so far, and having acted in such a generous spirit towards Ireland as to maintain the number of seats at 103, he would venture to ask the right hon. Baronet to go a short step further, and restore the number of seats that were recognized in 1832 as the proper number for the representation of Ireland, after a long series of debates conducted by some of the most eminent statesmen the country had produced. He thought that the Amendment he was about to move had fair claims to the consideration of hon. Members on both sides of the House, and especially of the right hon. Gentlemen at the head of the Government and the Leader of the Opposition. It was with some confidence that he submitted this proposal to the right hon. Baronet on the grounds put forward, and he trusted that before the Bill passed from the House he might be fortunate enough to secure its adoption.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 17, at end, add "Royal University of Ireland | Two (in column for number of Members)."—(Dr. Lyons.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the hon. Gentleman had proposed his Amendment on the Schedule of the Bill which had to do with the boundaries of the new boroughs which the Bill created. No doubt, Universities had sometimes been called boroughs; and, in a certain technical sense, they were so; but this
    492
    was a Schedule of the towns and places which the Government said ought to be included in boroughs, and he could not help thinking that it was most inappropriate to the question which the hon. Gentleman had raised. The hon. Gentleman had said he was willing to raise the question on Report, which would allow the subject to be discussed on its own merits. But he must point out that there was a great difference between the retention of University representation as existing at present, and the creation of new University seats. The objections to the latter were far more numerous than in the case of the former. There was a great deal of objection taken even to the existing University representation, and he fancied there would be still more objection to the creation of new University seats. The hon. Gentleman proposed to give four University seats to Ireland; but if this suggestion were acceded to, an undue disproportion would be created in favour of that country, seeing that there were but five University seats in England, two in Scotland, and none in Wales. If they were to look beyond these considerations, he would point out to the Committee that the seats of Cashel and Sligo, which the hon. Gentleman suggested might be used for the purpose of the Royal University, were seats which had long since ceased to exist. The boroughs in question had been disfranchised by Act of Parliament, and the seats had been already allocated under the Bill. The proposal of the hon. Gentleman was, therefore, either to increase the total number of seats for the Kingdom, or else to take two seats for University purposes from some part of England or Scotland. He did not think that either of those views was at all likely to prevail with the Committee, and therefore he could not hold out much encouragement to the hon. Gentleman to raise the question again on the Report.
    Question put, and negatived.

  FIFTH SCHEDULE.

    CONTENTS AND BOUNDARIES OF BOROUGHS WITH ALTERED BOUNDARIES.
    MR. WIGGIN,in moving, as an Amendment, in page 17, line 43, to leave out "Harborne," said, he had been strongly urged by his constituents

    493
    in the parish of Harborne to resist its proposed annexation to the county of Warwick. The parish of Harborne had hitherto been considered a part of the county of Stafford, and it was situated at the south-west border of that county, and had been truthfully and graphically described by Elihu Burritt as one of the green border lands of the Black Country. "When this Bill was printed a second time, to the amazement of almost everyone acquainted with the district, it was found that Harborne was to be annexed to the borough of Birmingham. Meetings were held, and resolutions proposed by the Chairman of the Liberal Association and seconded by the Chairman of the Conservative Association were passed, unanimously condemning the proposed arrangement which, as a matter of fact, was opposed strongly by everyone in the parish, Conservative, Liberal, or Radical. Deputations had waited on the Commissioners at Birmingham and Stafford; petitions were signed by every householder in the place; but the only answer returned to them was that the Commissioners regretted what had been done, but that the tranference having been scheduled they were powerless to give any relief. He (Mr. Wiggin) had ascertained the fact that, so to speak, Birmingham did not want Harborne, and that Harborne did not want to be transferred to Birmingham, although, no doubt, it might be considered by some that it was an improvement for it to become part of the great borough of Birmingham. He confessed that it was to him most extraordinary that this disturbance of existing arrangements should have been proposed. The parish was to be divided into two under the present scheme, the Petty Sessional arrangements were to be changed, and the inhabitants were to be politically separated from their own people. The population of Harborne was partly rural, and partly engaged in Birmingham and in the iron industries of South Staffordshire, and why they were to be taken from Staffordshire and united with Birmingham they were unable to conceive. All they asked, whether Conservatives, Liberals, Radicals, Churchmen, or Dissenters, was that Harborne should remain as it was at present, and it was in order to effect that, that he moved the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed, in page 17, line 43, leave out the word "Harborne."—(Mr. Wiggin.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'Harborne' stand part of the Schedule."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he had great difficulty in rising to reply to an hon. Member of such overwhelming popularity as the hon. Member for East Staffordshire (Mr. Wiggin); but he was bound to put before the Committee certain considerations against the Amendment, which, looking at the reception they had given to his hon. Friend's speech, he was sure would be necessary to enable them to make up their minds in an impartial manner. In dealing with the suburbs of Birmingham, various courses had been considered. It had been considered how far they could be constituted separate boroughs, how far they could be dealt with as single-Member county divisions, and how far they ought to be annexed to the borough of Birmingham. Harborne was not large enough to be made a new borough; neither was it connected with any urban district in the same county, except as connected with Birmingham; and from its own county it was almost entirely detached. In fact, a right hon. Friend of his had suggested that if the Committee would look at the map of Staffordshire in the Boundary Commissioners' Report, they would see that Harborne, "like a rich jewel in an Ethiop's ear" hung like a pendant to the county by a very narrow thread. It was connected, as the hon. Gentleman had said, with the Smethwick division of Staffordshire. He would ask the Committee to glance at the map to see how the parishes were connected. They were connected by the narrowest strip, and he could not help thinking that it would be inconvenient to throw this particular parish in with Smethwith for Parliamentary purposes. If the map of the borough of Birmingham were glanced at, it would be seen that the four districts in question were all of them completely within the natural boundary of that borough, and that if they were left out, the borough would resemble more than anything else a salmon over which the others had had a good fight. He held a sketch map in his hand which fully illustrated this, and which he should be glad to hand to

    495
    any hon. Member who wished to see it. The hon. Member had proposed to make this change without carrying out corresponding changes in other districts, and that, no doubt, made his case very much more easy than it would have been if he had proposed to make corresponding changes in the various divisions of the county of Stafford. But could the Committee make this change, and be content with making this change alone? That was one of the matters which were essential in the consideration of this case. As regarded the town of Birmingham, the change, no doubt, could be effected. He agreed with his hon. Friend, that it would be possible to leave Harborne out of that borough and yet to make no other change; but, in regard to the county of Stafford, he feared that that could hardly be the case. If the proposed change were carried out, hon. Gentlemen who had already spoken to him on the subject would press for similar changes in the county of Stafford, and it would be hard to resist the corresponding changes which would be proposed. It so happened that the district out of which Harborne would come would then be the smallest in the borough, and that into which it would go would be the largest in the county of Stafford. The division of Birmingham which comprised Harborne had a population of 60,000, and that in a borough which was rather well represented in proportion to its numbers. The Handsworth division of Staffordshire had likewise a population of over 60,000, and it was a very large division, the division having been made large on account of the difficulty which had been found in getting a good boundary for it. The 60,000 was a population outside the borough, south of Walsall, Wednesbury, and West Bromwich; there was an additional 190,000 within those boroughs, the total population within the area of the county division being 250,500. All the freeholders of the 190,000 would vote in the Hands-worth division, so that the electorate of the division would not only be taken from this population of 60,000, but would also include the freeholders from the population of 190,000. To this district outside the boroughs which, without counting the freeholders, would have a population of over 60,000, the hon. Member would add 6,500. He would
    496
    add that number to a district suburban in its character, closely connected with Birmingham in its interests, and adjoining Edgbaston. The result would be the formation of a district larger than any other in the county of Stafford, even without the freeholders. If they assented to the proposal, he did not see how they could resist proposals to re-divide the rest of Staffordshire; therefore, as there would be great difficulty in doing that, the Committee would, he thought, probably hesitate before it sanctioned the change proposed by the present Amendment.
    MR. STAVELEY HILLsaid, that, judging from the map which the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had been kind enough to hand across to them, if Harborne was separated from the county, or, rather, only connected with it by a narrow strip, it was only connected laterally with the borough of Birmingham. It stood outside it, and in all other respects was entirely connected with Staffordshire. It had existed without Birmingham hitherto, and he was not surprised at the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Staffordshire (Mr. Wiggin) having great dread of its entering the borough of Birmingham in any way and for any purpose. Those of them who lived anywhere near Birmingham knew what this meant—knew how, from the point of view of local government, anyone interested in Harborne would do his best to prevent its coming into any sort of connection with so heavily rated a borough. The hon. Member for East Staffordshire would not advise any poor man to live inside the borough of Birmingham if he could live outside it. The right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had spoken about the freeholders who would come into the borough. He (Mr. Staveley Hill) would remind the Committee how that matter stood. Reference was made to a number of different divisions in the county of Stafford, and it had been said that if Harborne was to go into the division represented by the hon. Member, there would be a considerable number of freeholders added to the 60,000 population who already constituted the division, and this population had been contrasted with the 46,000 of another division, the 49,000 of another, and so on. But let them look at South-WestStafford-shire. Into that would come the whole

    497
    of the freeholders of the borough of Wolverhampton and West Bromwich, and its population would be raised in a far higher degree than would the population of the Eastern division by the inclusion of Harborne. He was sorry to hear the right hon. Baronet arguing that if this one point were granted it would bring about a general disarrangement of the scheme of the Commissioners. The right hon. Baronet threatened them that if Harborne were thrown into the Eastern division of the county, Rushall might have to be thrown into the Lichfield division. But hon. Members were not afraid of that. If the right hon. Baronet thought that could fairly be done, let it be done; but do not let them do an unfair thing to Harborne, because of the danger of some other district asking for what it considered fair play. The district of Rushall was a mining district, and had nothing to do with the district of Lichfield. In the same way, Harborne had no connection with Birmingham. It had no desire to be thrown into Birmingham, and he trusted the Committee would allow it to remain in the county of Stafford.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I have paid a great deal of attention to this question. Several of my hon. Friends in different parts of the House have spoken to me with regard to it; and, moreover, I have communicated with the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Staffordshire (Mr. Wiggin) on the subject. That hon. Gentleman has explained the matter to me, and I am free to confess that what I have heard from him, from my hon. and learned Friend behind me (Mr. Staveley Hill), and others with whom I have spoken on the subject, I should be disposed to agree to the proposal made, if it could be treated as one standing entirely by itself. I feel, however, that it would be most undesirable to break into the scheme of the Boundary Commissioners, and that if we do break into it we must be prepared for the consequences. So far as I am able to understand the matter, there is very little doubt that if Harborne is removed from its connection with Birmingham, and thrown into a division of Staffordshire, each division will have to be revised, and a proposal will be made—in fact, Notice of such a proposal has been already given by the
    498
    hon. Member's Colleague (Sir Arthur Bass)—to remove the district of Rushall from the Eastern division of Staffordshire, and to throw it into the Lichfield division. I find there is as much, or even more, objection to that change, as there is desire for the removal of Harborne from Birmingham. I think, therefore, our safest course is to stand on the divisions as they are in the Bill. If it could be shown that the Harborne case would stand alone, and that we should not have other changes forced upon us, it would make a great difference, no doubt, in our position; but, as at present advised, if the change were subject to other alterations to be hereafter made, I believe it would entail the alteration to which I have referred, and which would cause great inconvenience, and, therefore, I am not prepared to support the Amendment.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 104; Noes 50: Majority 54.—(Div. List, No. 78.)
    Amendment negatived.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he had placed the following Amendment on the Paper for the purpose of correcting an oversight:—
    "In page 18, line 8, at end, insert 'and also excluding there from a part which, is situate on the north side of the borough, and was formerly included in the parishes of Skirbeck and Boston within the borough, but has been added by-Orders of the Local Government Board to parishes not situate within the Parliamentary borough, namely, one part thereof to the parish of Sibsey, and the remaining part thereof to the parish of Frithville, all which said parts are in the Sessional Division of Spilsby, in the parts of Lindsey.'"
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    SIR CHAELES W. DILKEsaid, he would now move the next Amendment standing in his name on the Paper; and here, again, his object was to supply an omission. It had been agreed to extend the boundary, but the necessary words had not been inserted in the Bill.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 18, line 38, at end, insert as a sepa-rate paragraph,—"And so much of the municipal borough of Darlington as is not above specified, and is not included in the said Parliamentary borough."—(Sir Charles W. Dilke.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. SEXTONsaid, it appeared to be quite a matter of course that, in England, when the inhabitants of a district desired to have the municipal boundary extended, it was extended for them.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The same thing which will be effected by this Amendment was done in the case of Ireland by a general provision in 1868—a provision which does not apply to England.
    MR. SEXTON: How about the case of Dublin, about which we have been arguing most part of the evening?
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: In the case of Dublin, the Parliamentary boundary was in question. In the present case, it is only an extension up to the municipal boundary, whereas the Parliamentary borough of Dublin already comprises all the area of the municipal city and more besides.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    MR. PICTONsaid, that in the absence of his hon. Colleague (Mr. Alexander M'Arthur) he begged to move the next Amendment—namely, to leave out from "Leicester" to "Soar," in line 13 of page 19. There was a considerable consensus of opinion in favour of the Amendment, both in the town of Leicester and in the district of the county affected by this portion of the Bill; therefore, he begged the Committee to allow him to say a few words on the subject. The object of the words in the Schedule was to add to Leicester the district now included in the place called Belgrave, containing at the last Census about 7,000 inhabitants. The number of inhabitants in the borough of Leicester, where the municipal and Parliamentary boundaries were now identical, was, at the last Census, a little over 122,000, thus, the Committee would perceive, giving one Member to a little over 61,000. Now, the town of Leicester was a rapidly growing town. Within the municipal boundary there had been considerable additions made to the population; in fact, it was believed that many thousands had been added since 1881. Within his own recollection of Leicester, about 50,000 people had been added to the town, and now the vote in the county, with Belgrave included, was worth far more as an instrument of political power than the vote in the town. According to the arrangement
    500
    of the county in the Bill, there was not one division which had a population of much more than 50,000. There was, therefore, in the county one Representa-tive to rather less than 50,000 people, on the average, while in the borough the proportion was, as he had said, one Member to 61,000. Now, he asked why the Committee should increase that disproportion, which was already a considerable one? He thought it would be most unfair to this large manufacturing town. But there were other reasons besides those of justice which ought to induce the Committee to adopt the Amendment which stood on the Paper, for the proposal to include Belgrave within the town of Leicester sinned in other respects against the directions given to the Boundary Commissioners. For instance, it divided a parish. The parish of Belgrave extended to both sides of the River Soar; but, under the Bill, only the part of the parish east of the river was included in Leicester. The proposed boundary of Leicester was not at all compact. The boundary of Leicester, which at present was the same for municipal and Parliamentary purposes, was approximately circular; if Belgrave were added, an enormous extension was given in one direction, and in one direction only. Again, the proposal sinned against the directions given to the Boundary Commissioners, inasmuch as it forced together populations having very different interests—populations which within the last few years had contested together several points of interest in the neighbourhood, and were likely to do so again. He must say that the Local Board of Belgrave were strongly against their inclusion in the town of Leicester, and the people of Leicester were equally opposed to the change. There had been strong public expressions of opinion in both localities against the proposed extension. In conclusion, he asked the Committee to beware of one mistake which was naturally made when the name of Belgrave was mentioned. He found that it was commonly supposed that Belgrave was only an outgrowth of the town of Leicester, and that it had received its name of Belgrave in imitation of that given to a fashionable part of London. It was far more likely, however, that Belgrave Square and Belgravia in London had derived their names from Belgrave, near

    501
    Leicester, which was the only original Belgrave in the country. The place was mentioned in the Domesday Book, under the name of Merdegrave, and in a Charter granted in 1082 it was mentioned by the name of Belgrave. In Nichols' History of Leicester, the family which settled there and took the name of Belgrave was traced to other places, and amongst others to the West End of London, and from that fact the fashionable quarter of Belgravia had derived its name. He mentioned this, not as of any antiquarian interest, but to show the locality had an independent history and existence of its own, and that it was not to be imagined that it was an outgrowth of Leicester. He was sorry that the time at which this Amendment had come on was such that many hon. Members of the House who were interested in the locality were not in their places. He believed he was right in saying that the noble Lord opposite (Lord John Manners), who had so long represented North Leicestershire, would, had he been present, have expressed his approval of this Amendment. He hoped, therefore, that no difficulty would be felt about making the very slight alteration proposed, which was only a measure of justice to what he thought a large and important town.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 19, line 11, leave out from "Leicester" to "Soar," in line 13, both inclusive.—(Mr. Picton.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Leicester (Mr. Picton) had referred to the absence of the noble Lord the Member for North Leicestershire (Lord John Manners). His noble Friend had been obliged to leave London that day on business, and he did not expect that this Amendment would have been reached; but he thought it quite possible, and he therefore requested him (Sir Stafford Northcote), in case of its coming on in his absence, to do that which he would have done himself—that was to say that he was entirely in favour of the Amendment which had now been proposed. He (Sir Stafford Northcote) was afraid it was not in his power to go into the details which his noble Friend would
    502
    have so well handled. The general feeling of his noble Friend was that this was not a political question, but merely a question of the convenience of the formation of the borough of Leicester. The noble Lord considered that the boundaries, as proposed, would be of very awkward and inconvenient form, and that the proposed alteration would greatly improve the arrangement of the borough. He (Sir Stafford Northcote) only rose to say these were the opinions of his noble Friend, and to express regret on his part that he was not able to be present.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, in face of the general agreement with which this proposal seemed to have been received, he would not object to the change; at the same time, he must make his reply in the same form to that made just now in another case—leave it as a matter for reconsideration on the Report. So far as the Committee stage on the Bill was concerned, he would not propose to make any consequential Amendments. His impression was that the Loughborough division of the county would bear the additional population of Belgrave; but he would consult his Advisers on the point, and on Report he would be prepared to state whether, in their opinion, it was necessary to make the change in the county division. At that stage of the Bill he would accept the Amendment conditionally. If, however, it was the general wish of the Committee to deal now with this particular point, he would prefer to alter the form of the Amendment by leaving out the whole of the lines 11, 12, and 13. He thought that if the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Picton) withdrew his Amendment, and allowed him to substitute what he suggested, the object would be effected much better.
    MR. PICTONasked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed, in page 19, to leave out lines 11, 12, and 13.—(Sir Charles W. Dilke.)
    Question, "That the lines proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule," put, and negatived.
    VISCOUNT EMLYNsaid, he wished to bring under the notice of the Committee the manner in which the borough of Pembroke, concerning which he had

    503
    given Notice of an Amendment, was dealt with under the Bill. He thought that by merely reciting the facts of the case, he should be able to show to the Committee that Pembroke was to be dealt with in an entirely different way to any other borough in the whole of the United Kingdom. He did not hesitate to say that the treatment of Pembroke was absolutely contrary to the principles laid down by the Government in regard to boroughs; and he should endeavour to show that it would be undesirable in any case to deal with Pembroke in the way proposed. The constituency of Haverfordwest was composed of the boroughs of Haverfordwest, Fishguard, and Narbeth, and the total population was now 9,107. That constituency, of course, under the Bill, lost its separate representation. Now, the constituency of Pembroke was also a group of boroughs, and included the Dockyards of Pembroke. Pembroke had a population of between 25,000 and 26,000; and therefore, under the Bill, it was entitled to separate representation. For some time, while the discussion upon the Scotch groups of burghs was proceeding, it was really very difficult for ordinary Members to ascertain on what principles the Government intended to deal with borough groups; but, at the close of the discussion, there was no doubt at all as to what the Government held to be one of the principles of the Bill, and part of the agreement made with the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Opposition Bench (Sir Stafford Northcote), for they stated, as far as his memory carried him, that with regard to groups of boroughs they had come to the conclusion, he presumed, though of course he did not know it for a fact, after representation from the Leaders of the Opposition, that there could not be any merging of boroughs in any part of Scotland. There had been no merging of groups of boroughs in any other part of the country, and, therefore, he maintained that the present proposals of the Government were absolutely contrary to the principles of the Bill. He had endeavoured to guess at what might be the reasons for this proposed straying away from the principles of the Bill, but he had been unable to discover them. He might be told that the reason for this change was that the numbers did not work out so
    504
    nicely as they might, unless the change was made. If the Committee would bear with him, he would put before them one or two figures upon the point. The total population of the borough of Pembroke, as he had said, was 25,618. Now, out of that number, no less than 16,000 belonged to the Dockyard of Pembroke alone. Now, in Milford, a town very deeply interested in questions affecting Dockyards, there was a population of 2,000; in two other districts there were 4,000 inhabitants, and a small country district brought up the total population of the borough of Pembroke to 25,600. He wished to point out to the Committee that the bulk of that population was a Dockyard population, distinctly interested in Dockyard and navigation questions. Now, what was proposed to be done was to add the 9,177 of Haverfordwest, which was not a population of one town, but a population of three towns in three different portions of the county—towns which, he might say in passing, had no manufactures of any sort or kind—at least, they were in no sense manufacturing towns, two of them being purely country places -it was proposed to put this 9,000 of population into the borough of Pembroke, raising the population of that borough to 34,795. It might be said—"Oh, you have got in the county of Pembroke, without the population of Haverfordwest, 57,000, and therefore it is perfectly impossible to throw this extra 9,000 population into Pembroke, because then you would make it too large for one Member. "He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Charles W. Dilke) was going to advance that argument; but, if so, he would like the right hon. Gentleman to cast his eye to the next county to Pembrokeshire. If he did, he would find that, in Cardiganshire, there was a population of 70,000, with only one Member. That argument, therefore, was not a very strong one; but he did not wish entirely to build upon the population of Cardiganshire. If the right hon. Gentleman would only glance over the list of the populations of the different counties, he would find an enormous number with very much larger populations than 57,000. Take the divisions of Durham and Kent, for instance. In Durham there were eight divisions, and every one had a larger

    505
    population than57,000. There were eight divisions in Kent, every one of which had a larger population than 57,000. There were six divisions in South-East Lancashire, four in North-East Lancashire, and no less than seven in the West Riding of Yorkshire, and every one of these had more than 57,000 of population. Under these circumstances, he maintained that the case he had brought before the Committee was a very exceptional one. In his opinion, there ought to be no exception to the principles of the Bill, unless the very strongest grounds could be shown. No such grounds existed for dealing with the borough of Pembroke in an exceptional manner; indeed, the whole burden and weight of evidence was exactly the other way. Now, there was only one further argument he wished to put before the Committee, and it was this—that when one looked at the combination of the Pembroke boroughs, he could only feel that all it was necessary and desirable to preserve was the representation as affecting the Dockyard and the Haven. He might be told there was a scattered population in the different districts. It was true there was one district in the Pembroke group of boroughs which had only a population of 717 persons. He would not in the least mind wiping that away, if that had been the principle on which the Government had set to work. In his opinion, however, it would be most unwise to weaken the direct representation of this Dockyard, by throwing into its numbers three other towns in three entirely different parts of Pembrokeshire, towns which had no interest in the Dockyards, which were not connected with them in any shape or form. He trusted that if the Government were true to the principles of the Bill—if they were true to what they said was part of the compact with the Front Opposition Bench in regard to their method of dealing with groups of boroughs—they would accept the Amendment which he now proposed.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 20, line 20, to leave out lines 34 and 36,—

    "Pembroke

    The present Parliamentary borough and Pembroke, and the present Parliamentary borough and Haverfordwest."

    —(Viscount Emlyn.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the noble Viscount (Viscount Emlyn) had made out a very good case for his Amendment, as, indeed, he did for anything he moved in the House. He (Sir Charles W. Dilke) should have thought, however, from what they had heard on previous Amendments, that it was rather contrary to the general principles of the Party opposite to try and merge into county districts a borough of the size of Haverfordwest. The groups of Welsh boroughs, with very few exceptions indeed, were county groups; ever since the time of Henry VIII. they had been treated mainly as county groups. One of the groups ran over three counties, and that had been merged altogether under this Bill. In what the Government proposed to do in this matter, they were only following the general, though not quite universal, Welsh system. As regarded the size of the constituency, the noble Viscount had anticipated his (Sir Charles W. Dilke's) argument on that point. He did not wish to press the matter too much, because, of course, there were cases where the disproportions were greater than those created by the noble Viscount. Taking this county by itself, however, there would be a much fairer distribution of population under the Bill than under the proposal of the noble Viscount, Under the Bill the county would have a population of 57,000, and the boroughs a population of 35,000; under the scheme suggested by his noble Friend the county would have a population of 66,000, and the boroughs only a population of 26,000. On the whole, he thought that the balance of convenience was in favour of the proposal contained in the Bill, and, therefore, he was not inclined to disturb it.
    MR. GORSTsaid, the noble Viscount (Viscount Emlyn), in proposing his Amendment, made a distinct and lucid speech, not only because the noble Viscount always did make a clear and lucid speech, but because he had, in this instance, an exceedingly good and strong case. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had made an extremely confused speech, not because the right hon. Gentleman could

    507
    not make as lucid a speech as the noble Viscount when he chose to do so, but because, on this occasion, he had got an extremely bad case. What was the sole answer the right hon. Gentleman made to the noble Viscount? Why, that the Welsh groups were county groups. What on earth was meant by the Pembroke Dockyard being a county group? That was exactly what it was not. If the Pembroke boroughs consisted of a number of agricultural and rural boroughs, without any manufactures—if they were of a strictly urban character, there might not be much harm in adding a few more boroughs to them; but Pembroke was an important borough constituency—it was a Dockyard constituency—a constituency which had a distinct life of its own, distinct interests of its own, it was of great importance, and it contained not only one of Her Majesty's Dockyards, but it contained also a part of Milford, which had a seafaring population who ought to be represented in the House of Commons. It was quite evident that the purpose of putting Haverfordwest into this urban group was to endeavour to swamp the Dockyard and seafaring interest. It was as clear a case of jerrymandering as any to be found in the Bill. He remembered that when, a few nights ago, the system appertaining to the grouping of Scotch burghs was under discussion, his right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Wigtown Burghs (Sir John Hay) challenged the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke) upon this very case. His right hon. and gallant Friend said—"What account do you give, if these are your principles, of putting Haverfordwest into the Pembroke boroughs?" The right hon. Gentleman was then unable to give an answer; and he was unable to give an answer now. He (Mr. Gorst) thought it was quite possible that the noble Lord the Member for Haverfordwest (Lord Kensington) was the author of this singular manœuvre. If so, the Committee, no doubt, would like to know the noble Lord's views upon the subject.
    LORD KENSINGTONsaid, he hoped the Committee would excuse him if he troubled them with a few words. He wished, in the first place, to disclaim the authorship which the hon. and learned
    508
    Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gorst) had assigned to him; he quite agreed with the course pursued by the Government, but he was not the author of it. The hon. and learned Gentleman had said that the Pembroke boroughs were not a county group; that they formed a Dockyard constituency, pure and simple; that they were entirely different from the boroughs he (Lord Kensington) had the honour to represent; and that, therefore, Haverfordwest ought not to be thrown into Pembroke. Pembroke, no doubt, did contain a very large Dockyard element; but the rest of the boroughs which formed the group were a great deal more similar to the composition of the boroughs he (Lord Kensington) had the honour to represent than his boroughs would be to the county. Pembroke Dock was the largest constituency by far, and, of course, had the largest electorate in the group. Pembroke town, however, was a purely county town; there were no manufactures in the town any more than there were in the boroughs he represented. Milford was a small town, and was composed chiefly of residences for many of, the Dockyard labourers, who came over the Haven in boats. Milford had nothing whatever to do with the Dockyards of Pembroke; it had only to do with the docks that were in course of formation on its own shore. Tenby was a seaside watering-place, and could in no sense be regarded as a manufacturing place; it was inhabited in the summer by a great many visitors, and most of the people there were not a bit more urban in their habits, or more connected with Dockyard interests, than the people of the boroughs he represented. He did not think that the noble Viscount opposite (Viscount Emlyn) would assert, for a moment, that there was a very large urban constituency in Wiston. The Wiston district was a very scattered one, and only contained a population of 1,717. Now, Haverfordwest had a town population, pure and simple, and except on market days, when people came in from the country districts, the occupations of the people were town occupations. Fishguard had a seafaring population, and he really failed to see that the noble Viscount had made out a case why the Haverfordwest and Pembroke boroughs should not be grouped together. He had never himself heard

    509
    any objection to the proposal put forward in the Bill.
    SIR HARDINGE GIFFARDsaid, the noble Lord (Lord Kensington) had mentioned the names of several places; but he had not given the Committee the information they might have expected with reference to their situation towards each other, and any community of interest which might exist between them. What relation had Fishguard to Tenby, and what relation had any of the villages which the noble Lord represented to the borough of Pembroke? Fishguard was 15 miles to the north of Haverfordwest, and Pembroke was 10 miles to the south-west. Any number of villages might be got to form into a borough. He believed there had been no map presented to the Committee—nothing by which persons not familiar with the neighbourhood could see the the absolutely monstrous nature of this proposal. These villages could not be made into a group of boroughs at all. When, for some reason or other, the arrangement was made to form the borough of Haverfordwest by collecting these different villages together, it was supposed that they had an identity of agricultural interest, and that there would be a community of interest among them; but the putting together of Pembroke and Haverfordwest—an arrangement entirely outside the general scheme of the Bill—was only to be reconciled with the notion that some Party advantage was to be gained by it. No doubt, Haverfordwest had latterly been entirely faithful to the noble Lord; but Pembroke had been much more fickle, and had altered its political views from time to time, and it was supposed that this arrangement would give a tendency to Pembroke which it did not entirely possess before. He thought the Committee were entitled to some further explanation on this point. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had given them no explanation of the meaning of the proposal. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of a county group; but he (Sir Hardinge Giffard) would like him to explain what he meant by that. The right hon. Gentleman illustrated the county group by the Cardigan boroughs; but was there a single county group in Wales which, in respect of distance, community of interest, and the representation of the same class of
    510
    people, would compare in the smallest degree with the united borough of Haverfordwest and Pembroke? He challenged the right hon. Gentleman to bring forward a single instance, and he thought some explanation ought to be given to the Committee of the reason for this extraordinary exception.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: The hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down (Sir Hardinge Giffard) asks us for some example of the present proposal. Well, I should say the case of the Flint boroughs, where small towns are grouped together, is a similar case to this. Or you may take the case of the Montgomery boroughs, where there are no less than six different small boroughs grouped together. In the case of Pembroke, there are two groups of boroughs, and it is now found that one of these groups is to be disfranchised. The question is, whether the places so dealt with and disfranchised should be placed in the county or added to the other existing group. It is more in conformity with the practice, and the way in which we have dealt with other cases, to add these small places to the existing group which is to be continued in the county of Pembroke, than it would be if we were to merge them in the county. I need not go into the figures of the population; but when the hon. and learned Member asks what relation there is between Haverfordwest and Pembroke, I would answer by asking what relation there is between Tenby and Milford and Pembroke? There is precisely the same difference or similarity between the once case and the other. But we say that the convenience of the population is, on the whole, better considered by adding these places to the existing group than it would, be by projecting them into the county. The only other Welsh county which at all approaches this case, is the county of Cardigan. With that exception, all the other Welsh counties have between 45,000 and 50,000 people. If you make this exception, you would give Pembroke county a population of 60,000, which would be rather large for one Member.
    MR. HICKSsaid, he wished to know who was the author of this extraordinary provision; and he also wished to draw the attention of the Committee to certain figures which might perhaps throw some

    511
    light upon it. He found that, at the last election for the borough of Pembroke, the present Whig Member for that borough was returned by a narrow majority of 33. Seeing the great changes which had taken place of late in the way in which the majority of electors had chosen their Representatives, and particularly within the last few months, he thought there was some reason to imagine that the majority at Pembroke at the next election might go the other way. But when he turned to Haverfordwest, he found that in a very much smaller constituency the majority was 164; and, therefore, if these two boroughs were added together, the Liberals would get a majority of 200, which it might be difficult to shake. These figures might perhaps enable the Committee to arrive at some conclusion upon the extraordinary divergence from the principles of the measure which had been introduced in this particular case. As the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) had drawn the attention of the Committee to the Flint boroughs, he (Mr. Hicks) would remind the Committee that all those eight boroughs which constituted the group had been part and parcel of the same borough for many years, and were not a fresh creation under the Bill. Taking all the circumstances into consideration, he trusted that the Committee would act fearlessly and impartially, and that they would adopt the Amendment of the noble Viscount (Viscount Emlyn).
    MR. LEWISsaid, he thought that after the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) the Committee would be wondering what was the real reason that impelled the Government to make this change. All that the matter came to, according to that right hon. Gentleman, was this—that, on the whole, the Government thought it would be more convenient to attach Haverfordwest to Pembroke than to merge it in the county. He (Mr. Lewis) would ask the Committee to remember what had been the one constant strain throughout the whole of these proceedings—that no addition to existing groups of boroughs should be made, and that any proposal to create a new group should not receive any sanction or encouragement. Why was this change proposed now? Was not this proposal a piece of pure and unadulterated
    512
    grouping, such as the Government had, all along, been arguing against to the very utmost? It was, perhaps, unpleasant to refer to the extremely pertinent instance which had just been produced by the hon. Member who last addressed the Committee (Mr. Hicks); but when they saw that this particular case was to be made an exception, they were driven to the conclusion that there might have been some little slanting of the eye and divergence of the pen when this portion of the Government scheme was taken in hand. As for Pembroke, it could not be said that it was an insignificant borough in itself. If it could be said that it was an insignificant borough for England or Wales, there might be something in the argument; but when they turned to the statistics of the Welsh boroughs, they found that there were no less than three groups of boroughs which were less in point of population than the borough of Pembroke, for Pembroke had 26,000 inhabitants, while the Flint boroughs had 24,000, the Denbigh boroughs 22,000, and the Montgomery boroughs had only 19,000. It could not, therefore, be suggested that Pembroke needed the stimulus of additional population. They had learnt from the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General, and also from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke), that the Government, in placing this proposal before the Committee, had proceeded upon no principle, and were not even actuated by any feeling in the matter. Then why did they not relinquish it? It was suggested that if the proposal was not carried out, the county of Pembroke would be made inconveniently large; but when the hon. and gallant Member for South Ayrshire (General Alexander) complained of a population of 89,000 as being too large, and asked to have a group of boroughs constructed, the suggestion met with the most strenuous opposition from the Government. He thought the Committee ought to ask for a little consistency in these matters, and that they should, ask the Government for a little fair play. It was impossible for any Member of the Committee who had heard the facts to come to any conclusion in favour of this most exceptional way of dealing with the representation of these small boroughs;

    513
    and when they looked at all the circumstances it would be impossible to rest satisfied with a division which might defeat the Amendment. They must, therefore, fight this matter out on Report, if they could not dispose of it now. He entreated the Government to consider whether it would not be fairer and more satisfactory to give way to what was really a fair and reasonable, and, at the same time, a strenuous opposition.
    MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, he wished to add his protest against this most jerrymandering proposition on the part of the Government. The Pembroke boroughs were notoriously a purely Dockyard constituency, and it was proposed to add this rural constituency of Haverfordwest to them. The Postmaster General was responsible for an extraordinary statement, for he had drawn an analogy between the Monmouth boroughs and this proposal to join Haverfordwest to Pembroke. The distances in the one case were much greater than in the other, and the analogy failed altogether. The proposal to join a Dockyard constituency to the rural constituency of Haverfordwest, which had been for some time represented by a leading Member of the Ministry in that House, was clearly made in order to turn the natural tendency of Pembroke from one side to the other; and for that reason he thought it should be opposed by every Member of the Committee who had any interest in maintaining the purity of constituencies.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: I wish to say one word, because it is quite clear that we are now outside the agreement. It gives one great pleasure to be able to speak outside the agreement, and I have already spoken once or twice. But I would rather appeal to the Government to consider this case, because it is clear on their own showing that this is an exception; and, as a general rule, an exception ought not to be pressed upon the House without the very strongest possible ground for it. From the very fair speech which has been made by the right hon. Gentleman who has charge of the Bill (Sir Charles W. Dilke), it is clear that he wished to leave this as an open question; and he said very fairly that, on the whole, he thought the preponderance of opinion was one way. But it is perfectly clear that he will be satisfied with the decision of the Committee
    514
    whichever way it goes; and what I want to impress upon the Committee is this—that no special grounds have been placed before us to show why an exception should be made of this particular case. Throughout the whole Bill I have never dwelt on political matters at all, and I do not want to do it now. I would much rather exclude them, and consider the convenience of the electors generally outside political grounds, I would put the matter upon this ground—that, so far as I have learnt from the speeches which have been made in the course of this discussion, it seems to me that no fair case has been made out for adding the Haverfordwest boroughs to the constituency of the Pembroke boroughs. The right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General referred to a considerable number of other places in Wales, and he talked of the boroughs and localities; but he took great care to say nothing about the constituencies. If he went into that matter, he would find that in all the instances quoted there is not the least analogy with the present case. I would strongly appeal to the Committee, if the Government do not give way, as I hope they will, either now or on Report—I would strongly appeal to the Committee to express their opinion that the case put before as by the Government is an exceptional case, and that no good grounds have been submitted to us to show why it should be dealt with in the manner proposed.
    LORD KENSINGTONsaid, he wished to add another word, in consequence of what had fallen from the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett). So far as he could catch the hon. Gentleman's words, he understood him to say that Pembroke had always been a pure constituency, and that it was now proposed to join it with the corrupt constituency of Haverfordwest. He (Lord Kensington) wished to take the plainest and most distinct exception to that accusation. He believed that both the noble Viscount the Member for Carmarthenshire (Viscount Emlyn) and the hon. and learned Member for Launceston (Sir Hardinge Giffard) would agree with him in saying that there was not a shadow of foundation for such an accusation.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: With reference to what has fallen from the

    515
    right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir E. Assheton Gross), I may remark that it is true, as he said, that I did not attempt to put this matter as one of great principle; but after what he has said about it being outside the agreement I will just say how the matter stands. It has not been directly provided for in the agreement, one way or the other. But it was one of the proposals submitted to the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends, and another case was proposed to be dealt with in a similar way. Objection was, however, taken to the other case, and it was dropped; but no objection was taken to this case.
    VISCOUNT EMLYNsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General had spoken of several groups of Welsh boroughs which he thought had been dealt with in the same manner as this particular group; and he had talked of the "Welsh practice. But surely the right hon. Gentleman must be aware that not one single group of Welsh boroughs had had its limits altered by one iota under this Bill. What, then, did the right hon. Gentleman mean by telling the Committee that the Welsh practice in regard to these groups was on the same lines as the present proposal of the Government? That was almost misleading the Committee. His noble Friend (Lord Kensington) had asked him if he (Viscount Emlyn) was not aware that Pembroke was a simple country town? He could inform his noble Friend that Pembroke abutted quite close upon the Dockyards, and a large number of the men who worked in the Dockyards resided in Pembroke itself. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board once more. He (Viscount Emlyn) had not said one word with regard to any false practice in this matter. He did not suppose that anything of the kind existed; and, so far as he had been able to watch the proceedings of the Committee, he thought the right hon. Gentleman had always seemed to meet these questions in the fairest spirit. He appealed to the Committee to say whether the impression produced had not been that if the noble Lord the Member for Haverfordwest, who was personally interested in the matter, because it affected his constituency, had not been alongside the President of the Local Government Board, that right
    516
    hon. Gentleman would have given way before this.
    MR. GORSTsaid, he wished to say one word before the division was taken. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had himself admitted that there was a similar case to this brought forward by the Government; but when it was found that exception was taken to it by the Leaders of the Opposition it was given up by the Government. He (Mr. Gorst) appealed to the right hon. Gentleman's sense of fair play. Now that exception had been taken to this case, as it was taken to the other, ought not the Government to give way here also? He thought the conduct of the Government throughout the Bill had been singularly fair. He had always said it was a fair Bill; and he thought the Government had shown the greatest fairness in conducting it. Was it worth while to impair that character for impartiality and fairness on account of this one wretched little place? The right hon. Gentleman himself admitted that, if it had been challenged by the Conservative Leaders when the compact was arranged, the Government would have given way. Now the matter was challenged in Committee, and there was an almost universal opinion on the Conservative side of the House that the matter ought to be yielded. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to give way, and so allow the Government to carry the Bill through Committee with that high reputation for fairness and impartiality which they had so far earned.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 80; Noes 51: Majority 29.—(Div. List, No. 79.)
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I think it would be unfair to ask the Committee to go on any longer, therefore I will now move that the Chairman report Progress.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Sir Charles W. Dilke.)
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: Before that Question is put I wish to express a hope that, after the division which has just been taken, and the strong expres-

    517
    sion of opinion it embodies, the right I hon. Baronet will reconsider this question on the Report. I wish, also, to call attention to the notes on the bottom of page 22, with reference to this Schedule. It seems to me that the notes belong to the category of the matter coming before the Schedule, and that they should not appear in this form.
    SIR GHARLES W. DILKE: I promise the right hon. Gentleman to consider both these points before the Report.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

MOTIONS.
  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—SCHOOL BOARD ELECTIONS (VOTING).

    APPOINTMENT OF SELECT COMMITTEE.
    SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid, he wished to move for a Select Committee "to inquire into and Report on the best mode of Voting in School Board Elections." As he understood that Her Majesty's Government did not object to the Motion, he would not trouble the House with many observations in regard to it. Everyone who had paid any attention to the cumulative system of voting at School Board elections would admit that it involved a great waste of votes. When the cumulative vote was originally proposed by Mr. Marshall the voting was open, and the introduction of the ballot had effected a great change in the operation of the system. In illustration he referred to the case of Lambeth, where, at the last election, Mr. Brook, who was at the head of the poll, received no fewer than 35,000 votes, while 8,200 would have been sufficient to return him; he had, therefore, 26,000 more than he required, and these votes were really wasted. He did not say that this was conclusive; but he thought that such cases raised a fair ground for inquiry. However, as he understood that the Government were going to be so good as to support his Motion, he would not trouble the House with any argument, but would content himself with moving the Resolution.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into and Report on the test mode of
    518
    Voting in School Board Elections."—
    (Sir John Lubbock.)
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he was somewhat reminded in this matter of the saying in reference to "fearing the Greeks when bearing gifts;" and he was not sure that if he had noticed the Motion on the Paper in time he would have allowed the hon. Baronet to bring it on to-night. At that hour of the morning, he was inclined to look with suspicion on an insidious proposal of this kind dealing with the present system of School Board elections. The present system had secured for certain minorities in this country an amount of representation which they would not otherwise have obtained. He was rather surprised to find the hon. Baronet, one of whose chief claims to such public reputation as he had was his desire to secure the representation of minorities by means of proportional representation, signalizing himself by proposing a Motion the direct object of which he maintained was the putting down of a fair representation of minorities in School Board elections. The Roman Catholic population of the country was very well pleased with the existing mode of election; and he imagined the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) was displeased with it because it gave Catholics some power at these elections. He hoped the Government would look very narrowly into the constitution of this Committee.
    SIR JOHN LUBBOCK: I can assure the hon. Member that it is not at all my desire to prevent Roman Catholics from being fairly represented.
    Motion agreed to.
    Select Committee appointed, "to inquire into and Report on the best mode of Voting in School Board Elections'"—(Sir John Lubbock.)

  NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND) BILL.

    MOTION FOR LEAVE.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Sir, in asking for the leave of the House to introduce a Bill on the subject of education in Ireland, I am obliged to occupy a small portion of its time. The Bill is of such importance that I think it deserves explanation, and I will endeavour to explain it as briefly as possible, without wasting time by dwelling on the importance of the subject, or in making

    519
    any general observations. The Bill contains three Parts. The first Part deals with the attendance of children at school, and the keynote of this Part is contained in the 1st clause, which provides that—
    "It shall be the duty of the parent of every child to cause such child to receive efficient elementary instruction in reading, writing, and arithmetic; and if such parent fails to perform such duty he shall he liable to such orders and penalties as are provided by this Act."
    The Bill, in short, provides the principle of compulsory attendance. Now, I will not occupy the time of the House by speaking on the general question of compulsory attendance; but I may say that it is some personal satisfaction to myself, and also some proof that I really believe in what I am now proposing, that so far back as 1869 I put on the Paper an Amendment to an Education Bill then before the House in favour of the application of compulsion to attendance at school. That was a year before the first introduction of the principle in a tentative way into the English Education Act. With regard to Ireland, we need not go further back than three years ago. In 1883 my Friend, Mr. O'Shaughnessy, then Member for Limerick City, moved a Resolution in the House, which was carried unanimously, to this effect—
    "It is expedient to introduce into Ireland the principle of Compulsory Education, with such modifications as the social and religious conditions of the Country require."
    That Resolution having been carried unanimously, it really became imperative that any large Bill the Government introduced dealing with this subject should embrace this proposal. Now, compulsion has two objects—in the first place, to bring into school those children who at present fail to come; and, in the second place, to insure greater regularity in the attendance of those who do come; and I think myself that most of those who have looked into the question of education in Ireland will be of opinion that the great evil occurs from want of a provision dealing with the latter case. I was myself startled at finding—I promise not to trouble the House with many figures —that out of the total number who attended school in Ireland during the latest year that I have seen analyzed only 19·7 per cent attended 150 times and over; 24·7 per cent attended I between 100 and 150 times—that is days
    520
    according to the Irish way of reckoning; 24 per cent between 50 and 100 times; while, under 50 times, there were as many as 31·6 per cent. This last degree of attendance is really so small as to produce results hardly worth considering. Apart altogether from book learning and instruction of the ordinary kind, the disciplinary effect of regular and sustained subjection to school control is most valuable; but these and other advantages are impossible of attainment by children who only give this small modicum of attendance. I will say no more as to the general necessity of this provision, but will give some outline of the particular method of the application of the principle. In the first place, as to the enforcement of the obligation. There are two modes provided—first, by imposing penalties on the parents of the children who fail to attend school; and next, by prohibiting, under penalty, the employment of such children. These are substantially the same as the English provisions. Next, for the enforcement of the Act, a Local Authority, to be called the School Attendance Committee, is created—it is impossible to introduce the system which prevails in England of School Boards— and on the School Attendance Committee will be represented the three bodies of persons who may be presumed to be interested in the subject—namely, the National Board of Education, the managers of National and other schools in the district, and the Boards of Guardians, who represent the ratepayers, and may also be taken in some degree to represent parents and employers. The next point is as to the degree of attendance required. In order that a child may become exempt, it must either have obtained a certificate of proficiency or a certificate of what is known as "previous due attendance," and previous due attendance in Ireland is stated by this Bill to mean 75 attendances at a National school in each half-year for four years, or 150 attendances in each year. In England the rule is that education commences at five years of age and continues for five years; but in Ireland, according to this Bill, it will commence at six years of age and continue for four years. It must be explained to those who are not aware of the fact that in Ireland a child can only put in one attendance in a day, and not two as in

    521
    England, so that the 150 attendances, of which I spoke, are really equivalent to 300 attendances in this country, and the manner in which this number of 150 is arrived at is this. If you deduct Saturdays, holidays, and vacations, you are left with a number of available school days in the year of about 200; but we must bear in mind that there are an enormous number of small farmers in Ireland who absolutely require the assistance, in seed time and in harvest time, of every member of their family, and therefore it is that we make an abatement of 25 school days in each of these two seasons, making 50 in all, and thus we arrive at the 150, which I think hon. Members will agree is not an unreasonable demand to make on children, and is really as small an amount of attendance as is consistent with proper instruction. Then, lastly—and this is the most critical point of all, perhaps—I will state what are the conditions as to reasonable excuses for non-attendance, and the shortest way is to read the very words of the Bill—
    "Any of the following reasons shall be accepted as a reasonable excuse:—

    "(1.) That there is not within two miles, measured according to the nearest road from the residence of the child, any public elementary school which the child could attend, or any such school to which the parent of the child does not object on conscientious religious grounds to send such child.

    "(2.) That the absence of the child from school has been caused by sickness, delicacy, or any unavoidable cause.

    "(3.) That the child is under seven years of age and lives at too great a distance from any public elementary school which he could attend, even though such distance is less than two miles.

    "(4.) That the child is receiving suitable elementary education in some other manner."

    These, briefly stated, are the conditions under which we propose, by this Bill, to introduce the system of compulsion; and, with these guarantees and conditions, it is our hope and belief that it will involve no hardship, while it will do much to extend the blessings of sound education in Ireland. Then, Sir, I turn to the second Part of the Bill, about which I shall have very little to say in detail. It gives compulsory power for the acquisition of sites for schools and teachers' residences. If it was necessary, any amount of evidence could be produced from all parts of the country,
    522
    from the Reports of Inspectors and otherwise, to show how grievously the system of education has been hampered and embarrassed by a want of some provision of this kind. Sometimes from unwillingness on the part of the owners of land, and sometimes, I am bound to say, from reluctance on the part of the occupiers, but for some reason or other, there has been, in many cases, a difficulty, and the consequence is that new schools have not been built, and that schools continue in a condition which makes them unfit for the purposes for which they were built. I will not go into details, but will merely say that the removal of these grievances will be accomplished by the Bill. Now I come to the third and most important question—as to the remuneration of the teachers. I will begin by stating that I believe that we are all agreed that there is no body of men who perform more useful services for the community, and who deserve greater consideration at our hands, than the teachers in our public elementary schools. At the same time, I would say that it is allowed by general consent that the emoluments of Irish teachers may with propriety be increased. A good deal has been done in this direction in recent years. On going back to 1872 I find this—that a principal teacher of the third class received £24, and now he receives £35. Passing over to the intermediate classes, the teacher in the first class, who then received £52, now received £70. In like manner a mistress of the third class in 1872 received £20 a-year, and now gets £27 10s. a-year; while a first class school-mistress now gets £58 a-year against £42 a-year in 1872. There has thus been a very considerable increase in class salaries. It must be borne in mind that although the salaries of the lower grades are not very great, yet it has always been open to a qualified teacher to pass from rank to rank, and obtain the full privileges of the higher ranks by examination. Besides that, within the last 14 years the system of result fees has been introduced and developed. This has now reached to such an amount, owing largely to the intelligence and successful energy of the teachers themselves, that in the next year's Estimates the sum of £166,460 has been provided for this purpose, all of which is a pure addition in the last few years to the emoluments

    523
    of the teachers. [Mr. SEXTON: Is that for next year?] Yes; that is the Estimate for next year. In fact, it has been calculated—I think not unfairly—that the income of a teacher in 1871 amounted, on an average, to 13 s. 11 d. per pupil; whereas now the average salary per pupil is 23 s. 8d., or nearly double. Of course, we must now look forward to a very considerable increase under the head of result fees from the influence of compulsion. Compulsion will not only bring more children into the schools, but will make the children more regular in attendance, and thus provide more material out of which the teacher can earn his fees. I do not mention these matters to prove that the present state of things is satisfactory, but to show that there has been no indisposition on the part of Parliament and of successive Governments to recognize and meet the claims of these deserving public servants. But this system of results fees appears to deserve somewhat closer attention. I know enough of education and of educational systems to be aware that this results fees system is approved of by all educational authorities whose experience is of weight, and whose opinions are deserving of attention. It does good all round. It stimulates the energy of the teachers, it attracts the interest of the managers. It excites a spirit of emulation in the pupils, and its good practical effect can be proved by the fact that in Ireland, in the first 10 years after the introduction of this system, the attendance of children at school increased at the rate of no less than 32 percent, and the quality of the instruction increased almost in an equal degree. It is, therefore, by extending this system, and by giving a greater security for the fees given for results, and not by any addition to the fixed salaries of the teachers, that we propose to raise their emoluments. I am glad to say this conclusion, which has been the fixed conclusion of the Government for some time, has received the most striking corroboration within the last few days, in a Memorial which has been addressed to the Lord Lieutenant by the Episcopal Committee on Education acting for the Catholic Bishops in Ireland, who have most strongly expressed their opinion that this is the proper course to be followed in improving in any way the pay of the teachers.
    MR. SEXTON: Is that document to be laid on the Table?
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: No; I do not imagine it will.
    MR. SEXTON: No!
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: But now arises the question from what source shall these additional fees be paid—shall they be paid from Imperial or in some part from local funds? The principle of the local ratepayers cooperating in paying teachers was introduced by the late Government in 1875, when they passed an Act authorizing Boards of Guardians to become contributors. Up to that time £60,000 a-year was the settled amount of the results fee; but by this Act a second amount of £60,000 was made available to be paid conditionally on the Poor Law Unions providing an equivalent sum. Comparatively few Unions, however, exercised this power. I am sorry to say that still fewer exercise the power now; and I am not altogether surprised, because when a duty like this is left in a voluntary position it is apt to be treated in that way. But in 1876, finding so few Unions availed themselves of this opportunity, the Government agreed to accept, in lieu of contribution from the rates, any bonâ fide subscription or endowment to a like amount; and in 1881 there was a further step taken, when it was allowed that even if these local contributions did not quite come up to the full amount received, so much of the contingent part of the result fees should be paid as was equal to the local subscription. That is to say, suppose the maximum result fee for a certain subject is 2.s., there is 1s. given absolutely by the Treasury without any condition whatever. Then, if it is in a contributory Union the rate gives a second 1s., and the Treasury meet that with a third 1s. so that the teacher receives 3s. altogether. Elsewhere, if the local subscriptions are equal to it, he also receives 3s. but otherwise he receives his unconditional 1s., he receives all that maybe subscribed or contributed locally, and he receives as great a proportion from the Treasury as is subscribed locally. That is how the matter stands now. Now, we have to consider whether this scheme of local contribution in one form or another is to be carried further, so as to secure the income of the successful teacher, or is the whole new

    525
    burden, such as it may be, to fall on the Exchequer? That, of course, raises the question, does the Imperial Exchequer already bear a sufficient proportion of the cost of Irish education? In round numbers, the Imperial Exchequer bears four-fifths of the cost of Irish education, and two-fifths of the cost of that of England and Scotland. The actual proportions are these—For educational purposes money is derived from Imperial funds; secondly, from local rates and subscriptions, and so forth; and, thirdly, from fees paid by parents. The figures from these three sources are—in England, 41 per cent, 31 per cent, and 28 per cent respectively. In Scotland 41 per cent, 29½ per cent, and 29½ per cent. In Ireland 80 per cent. 10 per cent. and 10 per cent. I am aware that a great deal can be urged in extenuation of these facts. A great deal can be said and has been said that I may be allowed to say is not very much to the point; but a good deal can be said that does deserve attention. But even making any admission you like, the figures I have quoted are awkward and stubborn facts to get over. After any deductions that can be made from the figures I have mentioned, in face of them it is impossible for the Government to submit any proposal to increase the proportion paid out of the Imperial funds as against local funds. This House will never grudge anything that is required for the true development of education; but it will be quite unfair to place upon the Imperial taxpayer a larger burden than the very great proportion of the cost he now boars of the cost of Irish education. We, therefore, propose that a sum shall be contributed from the local rates and paid to the teachers equal to half the results fees received from the Treasury in each year, so that the teachers will be in all cases assured of the three moieties of the results fees. Taking, as before, a subject for which 2s. is the maximum, the teacher will get 3s. altogether—that is, 2s. from the Treasury, and 1s. from local rates. But now we are met by the fact that if each Union is treated separately some of the very poorest Unions in Ireland will have the largest sums to raise. If over there was an object in reference to which there ought to be solidarity throughout the Island it is surely this. It is to the
    526
    interest, the direct interest, of every man in Ireland, that all his countrymen should be well educated, whether living in his own neighbourhood or not; and I cannot but believe that a small equal contribution to this great object would be cheerfully paid. The Bill, therefore, provides that all Unions shall contribute rateably in proportion to their valuation—in fact, that the requisite sum shall be raised by means of a national rate. It is exceedingly difficult to estimate with anything like accuracy how much the rate that may be required will be. To begin with, apart from other reasons, it is so uncertain what the result of the compulsory provisions may be; but, according to the best calculations that can be formed, it is believed that at first the rate would not exceed 1½d. in the pound, and it is to be observed that the local contribution cannot exceed one-half of the Treasury payment, and thus Parliament will control the amount of the rate by controlling the estimate for result fees. Well, Sir, these, plainly stated, without argument or embellishment, are the main outlines of this Bill. It is a measure of great importance, and if it receives the sanction of Parliament we trust that it will do much to attain that which ought to be our object in any great educational measure—namely, not only to remove a grievance, or to improve the position of public servants, however worthy they may be, but to advance still further towards the higher end of improving and developing the education of the people.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to improve National Education in Ireland,"—(Mr. Campbell-Bannerman.)
    MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYsaid, he certainly would not attempt to criticize the Bill now at anything like considerable length; but it appeared to be a more extensive and enterprizing measure, whether for good or for evil, than he had expected. As to the first Part—the question of compulsory education—that was a difficult one, and would depend altogether on the way compulsion was applied. He fancied they were all in favour of the principle of compulsion; but, taking the words of the Resolution passed by the House into account—namely—

    527
    "It is expedient to introduce into Ireland the principle of Compulsory Education, with such modifications as the social and religious conditions of the Country require,"
    it was impossible to give this part of the question any serious consideration before they knew how the compulsion was to be applied. He did not think the proposal that the increased remuneration of the teachers should be derived solely by an increased rate of results fees was at all satisfactory, and there was nothing clear as to the teachers' residences. He was told there was to be compulsory power to hire them; but they were not told how that was to be done, and how the teachers were to derive benefit. As to the proposal of a national rate, and also in the case of the compulsory principle, the measure would largely depend for its beneficial results on the way in which it was applied. Under the present circumstances of the election of Poor Law Guardians, and the manner in which the Boards were constituted, they would have to consider carefully that part of the Bill before it could be received with anything like approval. He had no intention of pledging himself or his Colleagues to support or disapprove of any of the provisions of the measure. All he would say was that it was less limited in its scope and more enterprizing in its character than he expected, and that, whatever its present defects as to remuneration and housing, he and his hon. Friends would endeavour, if they could, to make it in its ultimate shape a useful and workable measure.
    MR. MELDONsaid, he would not criticize the proposal of the Government at any length at that moment. In the first instance, he must say that he was glad, even at that late day, to see some kind of tangible proposal brought forward by the Government. There was one observation which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant had made with which he could not agree—namely, that the Executive Government had by their acts shown their disposition to improve the system of primary education in Ireland. The present Government, though pled god hilt deep to do something, had taken no steps to do anything since they came into power to redeem their pledges or 'forward education in Ireland. And now that they brought forward a Bill it was exceedingly unfair to mix up in it such
    528
    a multiplicity of subjects. The present Government, as well as the late Government, were pledged as deeply they could be to remedy the defects of the system introduced in 1875 with regard to the Irish National Teachers. And what had they done now? Why, they had introduced a general Bill dealing with all educational questions which must necessarily, so far as he could understand it, raise many different and difficult matters for discussion, and which might very probably end in wrecking the measure. That, he thought, was not a fair thing for the Government to do. They should fulfil their pledges, and deal with the questions of remuneration and residences of teachers, without, in the same Bill, going into those vast educational questions raised in the measure—he referred particularly to the question of compulsory education. The Resolution passed by the House in favour of compulsory education was one to which nobody could take objection; but it really meant very little, for until they had a definite system of compulsion applicable to Ireland before them it was impossible for anyone to form an opinion as to whether they could support it or not. With regard to the observations of the hon. Gentleman who last addressed the House (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) on the question of tcaches' residences, so far as he (Mr. Moldon) could see, the Bill appeared to be exceedingly satisfactory. Parliament had provided very large funds indeed for the purpose of teachers' residences; and the only reason, heretofore, why the large sums which had been voted had become utterly useless, and had been retained at the Treasury, had been the impossibility of acquiring the buildings. It had been pressed on the Government, as it had been urged on their Predecessors in Office, that the only way to bring about the desired result was to render the acquisition of the residences compulsory. No ground in Ireland should be taken for school residences unless it were proved to the Commissioners that the schools to which they were to be attached were fit places to continue as schools. The Commissioners were to blame for having neglected to improve the conditions in all but one or two exceptional cases. In the future they should see that the school was a proper one, and—what was equally important—that the residence was attached to the

    529
    school; and if the Bill did not provide for that at present he trusted it would be amended in order to insure that it should do so. With regard to the proposal to make the Act of 1875 compulsory—as it virtually was—he approved of it. Hon. Members might differ from him, but he might mention that the plan now proposed was not by any means a new one. It was proposed to the late Government in 1875—a plan of national rating was distinctly proposed to the then Chief Secretary, and had his thorough approval; but for some reason or other was objected to by the Treasury. The advantages of that system were very great. It would get rid of a vexed and difficult question—that was to say, the claims of School Boards and Boards of Guardians to interfere in educational matters in Ireland, which, to his mind, was a thing as detrimental to the interests of education in that country as anything could possibly be. The establishment of a system of rating would obviate that difficulty, which was a more important point than that called attention to by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary—namely, that the heaviest rate would be on the poorest Unions, which would be the least able to pay it. The question as to residences and national rate for supplementing the fund for paying results fees appeared to him to be, as far as they went, satisfactory. But he regretted to hear that there had been any decision come to upon the great question of results fees itself. That system was introduced in 1872 as a novel one, and he thought he might say that it had not worked satisfactorily. But in 1875 it was demonstrated that the system had been carried far enough, and that any further help to the National teachers must, in the future, be effected by adding very substantially to their salaries. He hoped that it was not because an opinion was expressed in some Memorial to the Government that the position of the teachers should not be improved by direct additions to their salaries that the course proposed had been decided upon. In regard to the payment of teachers by results there were considerations of the utmost importance which should induce the Government to abandon, at any rate, to a great extent, the development of a system which was injurious to the cause of education in Ireland, and was certainly
    530
    most unjust to the very class of teachers in primary schools who most wanted help—namely, those who were most unsatisfactorily situated as regarded scholars, and to whom it was most difficult to obtain result fees. Those were the teachers who required the assistance most, and would get it least, if the system of result fees was extended. On those heads he had thought it only right to express his views to the House, in the hope that hon. Members would not make up their minds to pass the Bill in its entirety without necessity being shown for it in Committee, and without its being altered in some most material points.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he thought the last remark of the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down was one which deserved the best attention of the Government. This was a very serious Bill—it dealt with some very grave and contentious matters, and it was indispensable that the Government should refrain from obstinately or stiffly making up their minds not to accept Amendments. If there was to be any hope of making progress with the measure, they must be prepared to accept such modifications as might be shown to be desirable. He agreed with the hon. and learned Member, when he called in question the conduct of the Government in mixing up in the Bill the question of the remuneration of the teachers with questions of a contentious character. The Government had acted in regard to the Bill pretty much as they had acted in regard to a Bill which was lately the subject of discussion in the House—that I was to say, they had given a pledge that they would deal with one question, and had then brought in a Bill dealing with several. The Irish Members had expected a measure dealing with one subject; but they now found that the right hon. Gentleman not only proposed to legislate in the matter of the salaries of teachers, but to ask the assent of the, House and the public to a proposition which certainly would not command the same general approval as that which had been made the subject of the pledge. He spoke in unreserved commendation of that part of the Bill which proposed to make compulsory the giving of sites for the residences of school teachers. Unquestionably, the absence of good schools and residences for teachers had been a great drawback to the cause of

    531
    education in Ireland; and if the provisions of the Bill in that respect answered the words of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman), and if the provisions were properly carried out by the Department in Dublin, much good would result. He thought, however, that it was a thing of evil omen for the future of the Bill that the essence of it was compulsion. Both as regarded attendance and the other objects of the Bill the method it was proposed to apply was force. Now, the principle of compulsory attendance was well, perhaps even requisite, in this country; but in a country like Ireland it would be found that the success, and even the practicability, of the principle would depend upon the discretion and the good judgment with which it was applied and worked out in the various localities. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) had quoted the Memorandum addressed to the Lord Lieutenant by the Bishops, in which document the Bishops expressed their approval of the system of payment by results. He (Mr. Sexton) would like to know if, before the Bishops sent the Memorandum to His Excellency, they had had laid before them the scheme which had been announced at the Table that night; did the Bishops know it was proposed to compel parents to send their children to school on 150 days in each year? There were only about 200 school days in a year, and the right hon. Gentleman would compel attendance on 150 out of that number. Did the right hon. Gentleman imagine that the agricultural operations in the spring, and in the harvest and potato seasons, would be covered by seven weeks? He (Mr. Sexton) ventured to say that 150 attendances in Ireland was in excess of the figure at which there was any hope of arriving. The people of Ireland were poor; they needed the assistance of their children in their fields; and therefore the figure mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman was in excess of the figure which could be applied. Moreover, if the compulsory system was to be successfully applied, or rather if they were to procure regular attendance at National schools, the system of education must be made one that would command the confidence of the people. He was bound to say that the two methods which the right hon. Gentleman proposed for the pur-
    532
    pose of procuring regular attendance at school were two of the most questionable that could be suggested. If it were not that he was desirous of avoiding extreme language on this subject, he might employ a much stronger phrase. Now, with regard to the improvement of the condition of the teachers. It had always been contended by the teachers, and the associations of teachers, who had spoken upon this question for years past, that the one method of improving their condition was that of increasing their salaries. They were now told that that was the one method the Government would not adopt—that the result fees were to be increased. The right hon. Gentleman said it was always open to teachers to improve their rank by examination. He (Mr. Sexton) had shown that the system of examination for promotion was so surrounded by the interference and red tape of Marlborough Street, and so impeded by humiliations, that many a teacher who, by his own voluntary act, had presented himself for examination with a view of improving himself had retired, heartbroken, from the contest. They had not been told to what extent the emolument of the teacher would be improved—it might be little or more. The proposal was so vague that it was impossible to see to what extent it would meet the right of the teacher to a decent living. They were to have compulsion with regard to the local rate. While they were to have that compulsion, the question of results was to be governed by a Committee composed partly of the Board of Works, partly by managers nominated by the Government, and partly by the Board of Guardians. It was not known to what extent the Government proposed to give the ratepayers control over the system of education. He must say he was extremely surprised that, although lately an Irish Member of the House suggested a national rate of 1d. in the pound for a purpose more urgent than the present—namely, for keeping the roofs over the heads of the labourers of Ireland, and although a Select Committee was induced to assent to the proposal, the Bill brought in by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Campbell-Banner-man) made no reference to the proposal. If the right hon. Gentleman thought that a rate in aid was not a suitable proposal for improving the wretched homes

    533
    of the labourers of Ireland, his refusal on that subject would not recommend his present proposal. He (Mr. Sexton) stated frankly that upon the whole his first impression of this Bill was that the clause respecting compulsory attendance would not commend approval in Ireland, but would be regarded as arbitrary, injudicious, and ill-judged. He believed that until they brought the whole system of education in Ireland into accord with the popular sentiment of the country, and under popular government, a proposal to levy 1½d., or oven ¼d.,in the pound on the rates of Ireland, would not only be received with discontent, but would raise a storm of disapprobation, which it would be impossible to withstand. He had no expectation whatever that the Bill would be treated as a serious attempt to approach the solution of the Education Question; on the contrary, he thought the Bill would be immediately signalled out by public opinion of Ireland as adding to the long list of failures to legislate on the question.
    COLONEL COLTHURSTregretted very much the tone of the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton). Having taken much interest in this subject for many years, and knowing something of the opinions of those most concerned in education in Ireland, he (Colonel Colthurst) believed there was a great deal of good in the Bill. He regarded the measure as an honest attempt to deal with some of the difficulties of the Irish National teachers. If they were establishing a new system some of the remarks of the hon. Member (Mr. Sexton) might be apposite; but this Bill, on the contrary, was merely intended to redress some of the grievances existing in the actual system. Now, as to the compulsory clauses of the Bill, he believed that a great many of the managers of schools in Ireland, especially in towns, wished for a modified compulsion, In the Irish towns there were many children running about the streets. Although there were schools in accord with their religious convictions, parents would not take the trouble to send their children to school, and therefore it was that the managers would welcome some compulsion. He was sorry to differ from his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Meldon), who he knew had greatly interested himself in this subject. He (Colonel
    534
    Colthurst) believed that the addition to the teachers' salaries by result fees was a proper system. Seven or eight years ago the Bishops, or, at any rate, a great many of thorn, deprecated in the strongest terms any addition to the class salaries, but recommended the adoption of the system of results fees. It was incumbent upon the Government and upon Parliament to see that the teachers were in a position to earn their salaries, and without compulsory education he did not see how they could. As to the question of sites for residences, he believed the payment of £5 was but a very small burden to put upon a parish. As a matter of fact, the teacher was always very willing to bear half the burden—in some cases, even the whole of it. He (Colonel Colthurst) was sorry that the Bill had excited so much opposition as had been evinced that night; and he hoped that when the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) and others came to gauge public opinion they would be inclined to look at the measure in a more favourable light.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he quite agreed with his hon. and gallant Friend who had just spoken in his views upon compulsion; and he thought his hon. Friend the Member for Sligo (Mr. Soxton) was expressing what was really public opinion on the subject, when he said the principle of compulsion must be safely guarded where large masses of people were engaged in a deadly struggle with the severest forms of want, for that was no exaggerated description of the position of the population in Ireland. The Bill, universally acknowledged to be one of very great moment, was much more ambitious than he and his hon. Friends had anticipated; and they were entitled to make some complaint that matters that wore still contentious were mingled in the Bill with matters that were thoroughly ripe for settlement. The Bill was ambitious, he said; but where he thought the Government were to blame was, that the Bill being so ambitious in one direction should be so abortive—so feeble in another. He would not go into the general question; but it was perfectly well known what was the real cause of the disinclination of the Irish people to compulsion, and he must say it seemed a very curious thing, that when the Government were making up their minds

    535
    to take so long a leap in the dark as to take up this question of compulsion, they did not at once decide to make the system of education more national, and governed by a body more representative of the people of the country. He was sure, if the Government were to take another step and make the Central Board of Education for Ireland a Board in which the people of Ireland could have confidence—he would not say now whether an elective Board or not—but, at any rate, a Board such as the people could accept as fairly representative of National instincts, then the feeling of all Ireland would be that they would more cheerfully subscribe the money for schools and teachers than for any other purpose to which the ratepayers were called upon to subscribe. He feared the Bill contained principles that would not work well together. But he would not commit himself to an opinion now—he and his hon. Friends would give to the measure that frank and honest consideration it deserved.
    MR. KENNYsaid, he approved of a system of compulsory education, and would be glad to see the principle applied in Ireland; but there were a great many circumstances in Ireland that prevented the application of the compulsory system in the same organized manner as in England. Not long since he had had the advantage of a conversation with a reverend gentleman, a friend of his, and a high authority on educational matters; and he expressed a decided doubt as to enforcing a system of compulsory education. He was a gentleman of whose judgment the Government would have a very high opinion; and in his view a Government system of compulsory education would have to be surrounded with many safeguards, or it would press irksomely on the people, and raise a feeling antagonistic to education. In Ireland everything was done to make it unpopular; whereas in England everything was done in the other direction, by such means as breakfasts and dinners for the children of the destitute poor. In Ireland, on the other hand, the comfort of the children was not consulted. In the depth of winter they had to travel miles to school sometimes, and they might often see the children carrying sods with them to keep up a fire to warm their schoolroom during the day. It would be almost impossible to enforce
    536
    a system of compulsory education unless it were modified in accordance with the circumstances of the case. It was also an important matter to take into consideration the position of the assistant teachers. There were 2,000 or 3,000 of these, and they constituted an important element in the question, and something would have to be done to improve their condition. When did the Chief Secretary propose to circulate the Bill, and ask for the second reading?
    MR. O'BRIENsaid, he would not enter upon the Bill in detail; but he wished to express agreement with his hon. Friend the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton), that the provisions in reference to compulsory education would meet with very grave and close scrutiny and suspicion in Ireland until they had a National and truly representative system. As to the unworkable character of its provisions he need only point to the West Coast, where for six months in the year the people were so miserably poor that it was perfectly idle to expect parents would send their children half-starved and half-clad along two miles of road to the schoolroom. The Chief Secretary would have to add insufficiency of food to the reasonable excuses for non-attendance. As to the provisions for improving the condition of teachers, he thought they would be received with hearty disfavour by teachers and ratepayers in Ireland. The proposal to confine the improvement in their condition to results fees entirely was flying in the face of all the National teachers had been demanding and agitating for years. The proposal to lay an enormous burden on the local rates was certain to meet with fierce resistance. There was a storm of indignation rising in Ireland at the extent to which the local rates were burdened and overloaded. The people were crushed—the ratepayers were crushed—with all sorts of taxes, the Blood Tax, the Extra Police Tax—the charges for Parliamentary registration, and all the rest of them, and public opinion in Ireland would be directly opposed to the proposal. The Irish people paid something over £8,000,000 a-year in taxes, besides the millions that found their way to England in the way of absenteeism for rent. With this constant drain, and considering the vast sum paid for dragooning them, the people might fairly ask the Government to

    537
    expend something like £700,000 on education, instead of laying £100,000 a-year additional charge on the ratepayers.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN, Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL for IRELAND, and Mr. HIBBERT.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 111.]
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, the Bill would be circulated immediately—to-morrow, he hoped.

    TELEGRAPH ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Telegraph Acts, 1863 to 1878."—(Mr. Shaw Lefevre.)
    Debate arising.
    Debate adjourned till Thursday.

    POLICE BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER, Bill to make provision respecting the pensions, allowances, and gratuities of Police Constables in Great Britain, and their widows and children, and to make other provisions respecting the Police of Great Britain, ordered to be brought in by Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER, Secretary Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT, The Lord ADVOCATE, and Mr. HIBBERT.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 113.]

    COUNTY OFFICERS AND COURTS (IRELAND) [PENSIONS] BILL.
    Resolution [March 23] reported, and agreed to:—Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN and Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL for IRELAND.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 112.]
    House adjourned at a quarter after Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Third Report— Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments and Office of the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod.
PUBLIC BILL—First Reading—County Justices* (55).

FRANCE AND CHINA—HOSTILITIES— INTERNATIONAL LAW—RIGHT OF SEARCH.—QUESTION.
EARL DE LA WARRasked, Whether there was any truth in the statement that there was a difference in the treatment by France of England and Germany as neutrals?
EARL GRANVILLE: In answer to the Question of the noble Earl, I have to state that yesterday I was informed by the French Ambassador that, noticing that a similar Question had been put in the House of Commons, he had immediately telegraphed to his Government, and the French Government authorized him, in the most formal manner, to assure me that the treatment of neutrals would be exactly the same in all cases, whatever the nationality might be.

METROPOLITAN IMPROVEMENTS— PARLIAMENT STREET, &c.

  MOTION FOR PAPERS.
  LORD LAMINGTON,in rising to call attention to a Bill entitled—
  "An Act to authorise the widening of Parliament Street, Charles Street, and Delahay Street, and the making of a new street in the parish of St. Margaret, Westminster, and for other purposes,"
  said, that he wished to explain the extraordinary nature of the Bill, although it was not "before the House, and he could not, therefore, properly discuss it on the present occasion. The Bill really transferred the whole responsibility of the Government as regarded most important public buildings to a private Company. Nothing could be more unsatisfactory than for the Government to hand over its duties to an irresponsible body. A similar Bill was introduced last year for the construction of a railway from the Marble Arch to Westminster, and the inducement held out to the Government was that the Company would carry out all those improvements in Parliament Street which, he maintained, ought to have been made many years ago by the Government themselves. The Bill of last year was very properly thrown out. The approaches to the Houses of Parliament were a perfect disgrace to the nation. The first thing that the Government ought to have done was to take down the remainder of Parliament Street and to build thereon a new War Office, making-proper approaches to the two Houses of Parliament. But nothing whatever had been done by the Government, and the blame did not rest with the present Government alone. Notwithstanding all this, large plots of ground purchased by the Government had been kept for years without any buildings, and meanwhile the property that would have to be taken ultimately was greatly increasing in value. This extraordinary Bill proposed that a Company should be formed with a capital of £300,000, held in £20 shares. There were to be five Directors, whose qualification was to be £500 each. Three were to be a quorum, and two had already elected themselves.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY THE EARL OF ROSEBERY rose to Order. The Bill the noble Lord opposite (Lord Lamington) was discussing was not before the House at all. Al-
  374
  though the Rules of the House were sufficiently elastic, he was convinced that none of their Lordships would consider that the noble Lord was in Order in discussing such a Bill.
  LORD LAMINGTONsaid, he wished to point out that he had admitted that he was not strictly within the Rules when he began. If the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Rosebery) objected, of course, Notice could be given when the Bill came on in the usual course.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that, though the Bill was before the other branch of the Legislature, his noble Friend (Lord Lamington) was not restricted from discussing the subject.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, that would be a dangerous precedent to introduce into that House. What he objected to was not so much the noble Lord's discussing the Bill as to himself (the Earl of Rosebery) having to discuss it in answer to the noble Lord. The Bill would come before the House on a future occasion, and then they could proceed regularly.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, if the noble Earl really thought there was a danger of the discussions of the House of Lords getting too lengthy upon the matter, that altered the case; but that danger was hardly to be apprehended.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, that he would not further contest the point with the noble Marquess.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that the noble Lord opposite (Lord Lamington) might, of course, go into the general subject after proper Notice of Motion without any impropriety at all, and the mere fact of a Bill being pending in "another place" would not preclude his doing so. If his ears did not deceive him, however, the noble Lord was going into particular details of a Bill now pending "elsewhere," which he (the Lord Chancellor) ventured to think did not belong to the general subject. Such observations ought to be reserved until the Bill came before the House.
  LORD LAMINGTONsaid, that he would not go into the details of the Bill; but its principle had been objected to by many public bodies, and, in particular, by the Westminster Board of Works. He would point out what the noble Earl (the Earl of Rose-

  375
  bery), having been so recently appointed to his present Office, might not be aware of, that we were actually paying no less than £35,000 or £40,000 a-year for the hire of Public Offices scattered all over London. Even if the new War Office were built, there would still remain £25,000 a-year, which represented a capital sum of about £900,000; yet only £300,000 was wanted for the purposes of this Company, which was to have seven years allowed for effecting these improvements. As he could not refer to the Bill, he would conclude by moving for Papers.
  Moved," That there be laid before this House, papers relating to the widening of Parliament Street, Charles Street, &c."—(The Lord Lamington.)
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, that so far from objecting to the general sense of what the noble Lord had said, he thought the House was indebted to him for bringing the question forward. Since entering on the Office which he (the Earl of Rosebery) now held, he had investigated the subject; and, although formerly he had been of opinion that a Private Bill for the purpose was not one that it was necessary to interfere with, he now agreed with his noble Friend that it was highly objectionable that this great site and the improvements to be made on it should be left to private enterprize. Since his former answer to the noble Lord, other circumstances had come to his knowledge of which he was not then cognizant. He found that it might be necessary to find room for the Admiralty officials, who might be turned out before the end of the year to make way for the new buildings designed for the Public Offices. He might say generally that there was another objection, which was that the Bill gave a private Company large powers to deal with a particular site for a considerable time without putting upon them any compulsion to use those powers. A third objection was, that a site of so much importance and so closely connected with the Government ought not to be handed over to a private Company. The noble Lord was Chairman of a Committee under the late Government, which Committee reported on three different schemes, each costing at least £2,250,000. Even under that Government the noble Lord was quite unable to obtain the slightest attention
  376
  to his urgent request for money to carry out the scheme. It must be obvious that, at this moment, when our financial position could not be considered to be as satisfactory as it was upon that occasion, the Government could not be expected to find funds for dealing with this site in what his noble Friend called an Imperial spirit. He was afraid, therefore, that he could not hold out any hope of the Government doing anything at present. As to the particular measure to which the noble Lord had hypothetically alluded, the most careful and serious attention of his Office should be given to it at once.
  LORD NORTONinquired, whether the sham buttresses outside Westminster Hall were intended to afford the only means by which the judgment of this House was to be appealed to as to the design for that part of the building? He wished to know whether any designs would be laid before that House, or exhibited in any room there?
  VISCOUNT BURYsaid, he wished to remind the noble Earl that he had given no answer respecting the production of the Papers for which his noble Friend (Lord Lamington) had moved.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, he had to ask that Notice might be given of the Question concerning Westminster Hall. With regard to the point about the Papers, he did not think there were any Papers relating to the matter, and certainly there were none which could be produced before their Lordships.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

NAVY—TORPEDO BOATS—THE CONTROLLER OF THE NAVY.

  QUESTIONS.
  VISCOUNT SIDMOUTHasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether the Board of Admiralty have sent a naval officer to the United States for the purpose of inspecting a newly invented torpedo boat recently purchased by the American Government for purposes of harbour defence; and whether the report of that officer can be laid on the Table for the information of Parliament? Also, Whether the copy of an Order in Council procured by the Right Honourable Hugh Childers, the purport of which was to render the Controller of the Navy responsible to the First Lord

  377
  as distinguished from the other members of the Board of Admiralty, can be laid on the Table?
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK,in reply, said, that a naval officer had been instructed to inquire into the matter on the spot and to inspect the vessel; but it would not be desirable to give the Report to the public. In answer to the second Question, he had to say that the Order in Council had been already laid upon the Table of that House. Moreover, a Select Committee of their Lordships' House was appointed to inquire into all the circumstances of the case, and the Order in question would be found in the Appendix to the Report of that Select Committee in the year 1871.

  COUNTY JUSTICES BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the law relating to Justices of the Peace—Was presented by The Earl BEAUCHAMP; read 1a (No. 55.)
  House adjourned at Five o'clock, to Thursday next, a quarter past Ten o'clock.