electors might secure a majority of the *LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICE representatives. This had happened (Wiltshire, Cricklade): There is over and over again, and had led doubt that in postponing this proposal to revolutions, as, for instance, in we are postponing a very important Geneva and in Ticino only a few matter to the Report stage. From what years ago. Reference has been made to the Chief Secretary has said he appears the case of London. It was very remark- rather favourably disposed towards some able, because at the last county council change from the Bill as it now stands. election a minority of the voters secured I hope the right honourable Gentleman a majority of the representatives. This the Member for South Hunts will allow would not have happened under propor-me to say, and I hope he will believe me, tional representation. I hope Her that I hope that whatever plan of repreMajesty's Government will not only con- sentation may ultimately be adopted, it sider the number of seats for each dis- may be a plan whereby the landlord or trict, but also the way in which the votes Unionist class in Ireland-call it which are to be given, in order that not only you will-will not be excluded from shall the minority have that representa- representation on these important bodies. tion to which they are entitled, but also Although I sit on the opposite side of the that the majority shall have the majority House from his, I look upon this quesof representatives. I hope the matter tion from that point of view. This will be fully considered by the Chief Amendment has been supported as a Secretary, but, after the assurance he has given, I think my right honourable Friend would be well advised not to press the matter.

tions in constituencies which are analo

means of defending the landlord class in Ireland; but I venture to ask the right honourable Gentleman to weigh very carefully the remarks of the Chief Secre*MR. SMITH BARRY (Hunts, S.): Amendment may not have the very oppotary, and to consider whether this After the satisfactory assurance that the site effect. May I remind the right right honourable Gentleman has given honourable Gentleman that in 1885 singleus that he will consider this matter, I member constituencies were strongly put ask leave to withdraw my Amendment. forward by the Conservative party as the In doing so I may say that I do not look best means of preserving the interests on this as a question of proportional of Conservatism at Parliamentary elec minority-representation, or as a landlord Amendment. It has met with gous to those now before us, and for obvious reasons? Suppose it happens great favour from many differthat a landlord is very popular in a cerent classes throughout Ireland, and is really a question of general conveni- another district in which he is not well tain district, and that you add to it ence rather than an Amendment moved known-it is very probable he would not in the interests of any particular party. be elected. The honourable Member for Mid-Armagh indulged in political prophecy, which I think is a rash thing political prophecy, but I venture to say to do. I am not going to indulge in political prophecy, but I venture to say that there is no certainty in the matter. It seems to me it is possible this proposal would work in a way different from what he thinks. that, if there are two members, people will split their votes and return one Unionist and one Home Ruler. How anxious that ladies should be represented that if there is a Unionist or a Home does he know? Is it not equally probable on these councils. I can assure him there is no strong objection to ladies on these benches, and we would be very glad indeed to see ladies elected.

SIR THOMAS GRATTAN ESMONDE (Kerry, W.): Before the Amendment is withdrawn, may I say that I very strongly object to it? I believe it would make the new bodies very unwieldy. The more members there are the more difficult it is to transact business. We have to look at this matter from the point of view of practical business. The

honourable Member for South Belfast is

Sir J. Lubbock.

He says

Rule majority, two Unionists or two Home Rulers will be returned? These are probabilities of which it is impossible to state the result. If I may express

boards of guardians are not elected on such grounds. It is probable that this will be the case in many of the new councils, and the probable result will be that one or two members will be returned of the tenant class and one of the grand jury

my own opinion it would be that the landlord or Unionist class in Ireland should identify themselves as much as they can with the people among whom they live; and if they do that, though I am not a Unionist myself, they will find, whether there be single or double-o: large ratepayer class. This would bə member constituencies, that, instead of being able to preserve only the rags of minority representation, they will very likely command a majority.

of all things the most desirable. I hope the Government will consider the Amendment favourably, as it is very strongly supported on this side of the House.

MR. TULLY (Leitrim, S.) I want MR. LOUGH (Islington, W.): May I very briefly to give the Committee one point out to the right honourable Gentleor two instances which tell against this man that one of the difficulties he menproposal. The unions in Ireland gene- tions exists in the last sub-section to rally consist of twenty-five or thirty elec- clause 18. He will see that any electoral divisions. Take the case of this toral division divided into wards will House. When it appoints a Committee to in future be divided into separate elecinquire into South African affairs, toral divisions corresponding with the petroleum, or any other important wards, and the council will consist of as matter, it seventeen many members as there are now wards. members. Does anyone imagine I am satisfied to a great extent with the it would be better to have 34 comments of the right honourable Gentlemembers! You will generally find that man in postponing this point, but I a crowd is always more cruel than 2 would attach great importance to the committee, and surely it stands to com- adoption of this Amendment or anything mon sense that where there is a large like it. It would throw on Ireland the number of men acting and reacting on difficulty of finding five thousand more each other there must be excitement candidates. Five thousand candidates

limits it to

and less chance of fair play. We are all will be required as the Bill now stands, aware that a mob will do a thing whic and it would be impossible to get an an individual would shrink from. In additional five thousand. The board stead of this Amendment being favour-room: would also have to be altered or able to the views of the Unionists, it would tell against them by crowding the board rooms.

MR. W. E. H. LECKY (Dublin University): I think it should be remembered that there are many electoral districts in Ireland now returning two members, and which have also an er-officio member, all working together in perfect harmony It is surely very desirable that these dis tricts under the new system should be able to elect this er-officio member with out being obliged to displace one of the two other members whom they had elected, and with whom they had every reason to be satisfied. The conversion of one member into two member constituencies will not secure a minority representative if the elections are run on exclusively political grounds. But politics have naturally little or nothing to say to that work of the district councils. Many

new ones built, and the councils would be very unwieldy. I hope the right

honourable Gentleman will consider these difficulties which he recognises, and if he does, he will stick to the Bill as it stands.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. JOHN ROCHE (Galway, E.): I have put down the Amendment standing in my name in order to ascertain how the electoral qualifications under the Bill compare with the qualifications now in force in reference to poor law guardians. At present any person holding rateable property to the value of £8 in a union can be a poor law candidate in any division of it, and what I desire to know from the right honourable Gentleman is whether an elector may become a candidate for any division within a rural dis trict other than the division in which he is residing.

almost identical with the words of the

MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Oh, yes. MR. JOHN ROCHE: That being so, I beg to move.

Question put.

MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am afraid the Government cannot accept this Amendment. What the honourable Member proposes is to shut out all the disqualifications provided by the Bill, one of which is that a person having a contract with the district council may not be elected.

MR. DILLON: Do I understand the right honourable Gentleman to say that any man who has a qualification in a district is entitled to stand for any division of that district?

MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Yes, Sir. MR. JOHN ROCHE: That is my point. MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I gave the honourable Member that answer, and I thought he was satisfied. But the Amendment not having been withdrawn, I gave my reasons for not accepting it.

MR. POWER (Waterford, E.): The wording of the Bill as regards county councils and district councils, with reference to this matter, is very vague. may assure the right honourable Gentleman that legal authorities in Ireland do not understand whether or not a man

I

eligible as a candidate for an electoral division must be resident in that division. I understand from the explanation of the right honourable Gentleman that he need not be resident in the division, but I would suggest that the wording of the Bill be made clearer.

MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It is perfectly clear. There is not the slightest doubt about it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed―

English Act, and, unless residence is made a qualification as well as rate-paying, it would be very much more difficult for women to be elected to district councils than without this qualification.

MR. TULLY: Would an elector who goes to the seaside for a couple of month be disqualified?

MR. GERALD BALFOUR: No, Sir.
Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed―

"Page 10, line 6, after 'district,' insert—

"And no person shall be disqualified by sex or marriage for being elected or being a district councillor.'"-(Sir C. Dilke.)

*SIR CHARLES DILKE (Gloucestershire, Forest of Dean): The Amendment which I propose to move is not an Amendment of substance, as far as the intention of the Government is concerned. I may call it an Amendment of form, and it is the most curious case of an Amendment of form being necessary that I have ever come across in all my experience of dealing with eligi bility and the qualifications for electors. Under the Bill there is an extension of legislation by reference, because a great the principle of number of things, which in other Acts have been done in the Acts themselves, in Council, which is to come before the are now proposed to be done by an Order House afterwards. Now, Sir, the case I have to put before the Committee is a much stronger one than the ordinary one to which I have referred. In this particular case no ordinary human being will be able to make out what is the meaning of the law by perusing it, and even lawyers will differ about it. The words which deal with the subject in this

"Page 10, line 6, after 'district,' insert legislation. should be quite clear. The

"Or has, during the whole of the twelve months preceding the election resided, and continues to reside, in the dis trict.'"-(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)

MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Perhaps it may be necessary to state why these words have been introduced. They are

rights of the electors and the question as to who should be elected are not questions of opinion, and ought to be clear to any ordinary person. They are matters which cannot be referred to the opinion of an official, they have to be decided by the electors themselves, and it is essential that the Act should be

clear regarding them. The effect of the | be careful to see that no contentious clause is to upset both the present law subjects were left out of the Bill and and the intention of the Government if that only those which were not we take the Act without the Order in contentious would be left to be dealt Council as regards married women. The with by the Orders in Council. honourable Member for South Belfast There are certainly a good many incarried in 1896 a Statute, entitled the stances in which he has not observed that Poor Law Guardians (Ireland) Women pledge. Under clause 62 the Order is Act, and that Act was clear as regards an Act in itself and a good deal of it the rights of married women. Married is concerned with detail about which women can now be elected to boards of contention would arise, and there are a guardians. But clause 20 repeals that good many clauses which undoubtedly Act, if it stood by itself without the ought not to be withdrawn from the conOrder in Council; but the Order in sideration of the House. These Orders Counci! sets it up again. The in Council are subsequently to be altered Order in Council again makes the law in accordance with any change made in that which Parliament made the law in the Act, and to be laid upon the Table of 1896. The intention of the Government the House, and the only method by which is perfectly clear. It is to include Par- the House can deal with them will be by liamentary electors, and, "in addition, moving an Address after Twelve o'clock at women, who would be Parliamentary night. It means practically withdrawing electors. but for the fact that they are the matter altogether from the considerawomen." But they are excluded under tion of the House. Well, Sir, in this the words of clause 20, to be again Order in Council, clause 11 deals with included by the Order in Council. disqualifications, and under that clause My case is no doubt a case of form, and comes Sub-section 1. Now, that is a the Order in Council is clear. I do not highly contentious subject of debate. suppose that will be disputed. But I The second sub-section is again a condo submit to the Committee that this is tentious question, and certainly one upon essentially a question in which it is im- which we may have a difference of portant that the definite meaning of the opinion. Then, again, there are in that Government should be conveyed in the clause several other disqualifications. Statute itself, and the words should not For instance, there is a disqualification be simply set out in an Order in Council. that nobody is to be eligible for any It should be clearly stated what the post or position of a county council intention of the Government is in the or a district council or board of guarAct, and then people will know exactly dians who has been, five years where to find it. With regard to the before his election, or since his election, rights of the electors as to who shall convicted on indictment and senbe qualified to be elected, the words of tenced to imprisonment with hard labour the Statute should be complete and final, without the option of a fine. Some years and it should not be necessary to go to ago, whole boards of guardians would have an Order in Council at all. been cleared out by the operation of that disqualification, and, possibly, the whole of a district council may be so affected. I consider that such a disqualification as that ought not to be put into the Bill, and the question will have to be raised by Amendments to that Bill. What I rose mittee upon, was to say that I entirely for the purpose of addressing the Comagree with the view put forward by the right honourable Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean, that the enorOrders in Council is a very evil precedent, mous extension given to this system of and the right honourable Gentleman ought, at least, to observe strictly the promise he gave in introducing the Bill,

MR. W. JOHNSTON: I have a similar Amendment a little lower down on the Paper, and, whilst I thank the Chief Secretary for accepting the first part of it, and inserting it in the Bill, I hope the Government will accept the Amendment of the right honourable Baronet.

MR. JOHN DILLON: The system adopted in this Bill of legislation by an Order in Council is, I think, entirely without precedent in the legislation of this country. The Chief Secretary in introducing the Bill said that he would