Franchise Bill, and would not wait until | on which side the compactness lay in such a time that they could not be dealt the two proposals. As for keeping all with justly, calmly, and fairly.. the fishing and seafaring interests toMR. W. J. CORBET said, that the gether, there was no reason for departoriginal instructions issued to the Boun-ing, in the division of Wicklow, from the dary Commissioners had been very favourably received in Ireland. But how had those instructions been carried out? In the instructions given to the Commissioners, they found it stated they were "To hear any objections to the proposed con stitution of the divisions, and receive proposals for their alteration. It will be convenient that the substance of such objections and proposals should be handed in to the Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner in writing." course adopted in County Louth. In Committee he would oppose the scheme of the Commissioners to the utmost of his power. MR. BUCHANAN said, he had heard with great disappointment the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster; because, so far as he understood that statement, it seemed to imply that very little was to be done to carry out the Lord Advocate's scheme. He wished to point out that the proposals in the scheme were of three kinds. There was the proposal to merge certain of the small burghs in the counties, the proposal to re-group certain districts of burghs, and the proposal to constitute certain new constituencies. The last might give rise to differences of opinion; but in regard to the other two proposals, he had a note of the results of the In accordance with that invitation, some of the most influential gentlemen, clergymen and others, appeared before Mr. Commissioner White, at Wicklow, on the part of the popular side, and laid their views before him in favour of dividing the county into North and South instead of East and West. He intimated that such was the original view of the Boundary Commissioners, and asked to have the alternative scheme of the objections put in writing, assur-meeting of the Scottish Members with ing them it would receive due consideration. The proposal was handed in, but did not appear to have been taken the least notice of, and was not even mentioned in the Commissioners' Report. In the recommendations of the Commissioners it was proposed to give three baronies to East Wicklow, with an area of 165,389 acres, valuation £151,123, population 34,599; to West Wicklow five baronies, area 334,788 acres, population 35,787. That practically gave two-thirds of the county to West, and one-third, with the whole of the coast line, to East Wicklow. In the County Louth the seaboard had been almost equally divided between the North and South Divisions of Dundalk and Drog heda. The proposal laid before the Commissioners on behalf of the people of Wicklow was to divide the county into North and South, giving four baronies to each, which left for North Wicklow the Lord Advocate, and he would state the result in answer to his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who said that there was a great difference of opinion in regard to the proposals. The result was that in the one for the amalgamation of Bute and Argyll the minority was only eight, and the other proposal of the same description-namely, for the creation of a new county constituency of the Hebrides, was carried unanimously. In regard to the other parts of the scheme, some of the Scottish Members did not think they went far enough; but they were willing to consider them on their merits, and they had all been looking forward to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate placing his Amendments on the Paper. It had been a matter of great disappointment that nothing of this sort had been done, and he gathered from the speech of his right hon. Friend that nothing of the sort was to be proposed. The right hon. Gentleman had also adduced the argument, which he thought a very strange one, that this Bill was & kind of puzzle in which no piece could be displaced. He was surprised that the Government had not used this argument last night when they were pressing for increased representation; and he hoped that when the question of increasing the number of Scottish Representatives was again raised the Government would make use of his right hon. Friend's argument, and insist equally strongly that that part of the Bill should not be interfered with. The right hon. Gentleman had further said that there would be a final consultation as to what Amendments might be placed upon the Paper. For his part, he would much rather the right hon. Gentleman had said what Amendments would be put upon the Paper. In reality it came to this-that they could not get any definite promise out of the Government to fulfil the expectations which they had held out to the Scottish Members. It came to this-that the Amendments which the vast majority of the Scottish Members desired would depend, not upon the opinion of the majority of the Scottish Members who sat on this side of the House, but on the small minority of Scottish Members who sat opposite. This whole question showed the difficulty that attached to the consideration of the Bill owing to the peculiar nature of its inception, and to the fact of the Government being bound by pledges to right hon. Gentlemen opposite. He would firmly urge upon the Government that they should endeavour to redeem the expectations they held out to the Scottish Members. The proposals laid before the Lord Advocate were of a most moderate character; and it was exceedingly disappointing that, after all, nothing whatever was to be done. He was sure that the right hon. Gentleman would see that very great dissatisfaction and disappointment would be occasioned in Scotland if this matter were neglected. MR. LEWIS said, he thought that the attention of the House should be directed to the monstrous anomalies in the representation of the Metropolis under the new scheme. The Bill, he understood, was introduced for the purpose of correcting anomalies, and yet he found that there were really more anomalies in the construction of the new Metropolitan constituencies than ever existed before. A Return had recently been issued giving the population in the new boroughs proposed to be created in the Metropolis. Under the new scheme Chelsea was to have a population of 88,000 inhabitants, with one Member; while its next door neighbour, Fulham, with a population of 42,000, was to have the same representation. Then he would take the case of the two St. George's, one poor, the other rich. St. George'sin-the-East, with 47,000, was to be made equal to St. George's Hanover Square, with 89,000 inhabitants. Hampstead, with a population of 45,462, and Lewisham, with a population of 86,150, were each to have one Member. The like anomaly appeared in the case of neighbouring boroughs; Holborn and Finsbury were next door neighbours, yet Holborn had a population of 82,000 and Finsbury of only 46,000. Taking various cases together, the result was that sometimes 86,000 persons returned a Member, and sometimes only 40,000. So far as the new constituencies went, therefore, the same anomalies appeared in them as existed at present. How was it if the old constituencies were compared with the new? Westminster, with 229,000 inhabitants, had been divided into three one-Member boroughs. St. Pancras, with a population of 236,000, had received four Members; and more monstrous still, Kensington and Marylebone, with 318,061, were to have four Members together; while Mile End and Paddington, with 320,681, were to have six Members. These anomalies were altogether unaccountable, and bore the trace of the cloven foot. He thought that the anomalies which were to exist under the new system in the representation of London were a discredit to anyone who had had the drawing up of the details of the Bill; they were clearly opposed to propriety, fair play, and common sense; and he thought the House was entitled to some explanation from the Government on the subject. London itself was satisfied with its increased representation, and therefore did not object so much to these anomalies; but those who were to have their representation lopped off were entitled to question the fairness of such arrangements. Another point to which he wished to call attention was the case of towns which might, by a small extension into their suburbs, have retained their representation. This had been done in the case of Warwick, which had only 11,800 of population, whereas Wigan had lost one of its Members, although it was only just [Third Night.] MR. RAIKES said, he did not intend to enter into a discussion of the points raised by the hon. Member who had just sat down (Mr. Lewis), because he had placed Amendments on the Paper which would be considered in Committee, with the object of dealing with London in a different way from that proposed by the Bill. His proposal was to retain the existing boroughs instead of creating the numerous new constituencies proposed, and to apportion to each that fair share of representation to which it might be entitled. They would then be sub-divided into wards, exactly as Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester, and other large places were divided, which would be much more equal in population than anything which would be insured by the Government scheme. He rose, however, to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would have two maps made and hung in the Library of the House, the one showing the proposed divisions of London under the scheme as embodied in the Bill, and the other showing the representation of London as at present existing? below the necessary number. In fact | The Scotch Members were consulted as no other case than that of Warwick to the rearrangement of the seats in could be shown in which the limits of a Scotland; and, therefore, he thought it borough had been extended for the ex- would have been but fair that the Irish press purpose of saving its dual repre- Members should have had an opporsentation; and he considered that some tunity of expressing their views upon reason ought to be given for the excep- the arrangement of the electoral districts tional course which had been taken in in their country. Reference had been that matter. made to the fact that Belfast was the only borough in Ireland in the case of which instructions were given to the Boundary Commissioners. If additions had been made to other boroughs-to Limerick and Drogheda, for instancethey would not have been disfranchised, as was now proposed by the Bill. In his opinion, the two boroughs he mentioned had been very hardly treated; and if anything could be done by which they would retain their present representation, it was well it should be done. As to the County Cavan, he could not complain of the decision of the Commissioners. The original scheme proposed by the Boundary Commissioners was one with which he had no fault to find. His hon. Colleague did not take the trouble to attend before the Commissioners as he (Mr. Biggar) did; but he wrote a note to the Commissioners complaining of their scheme, and intimating that he would bring the matter before the House of Commons. By the scheme of the Commissioners Cavan was divided into two divisions, East and West, by a line running almost due North and South. His hon. Colleague proposed that the county should be divided into North and South by a line running from East to West. He (Mr. Biggar) could not see that, had his hon. Colleague's suggestion been adopted, any difference would have been made in the representation of the county. The Loyalist Party in Ireland, he also observed, sought to exaggerate the amount of power which the Nationalists would obtain under that Bill. Now, he believed that in the county of Antrim not a single Nationalist Member would be elected under the provisions of the Bill; and in other places, also, the measure would operate very unfairly towards that Party. He thought that under a system of proportional representation, or by the cumulative vote, the result in many English constituencies would be that the Irish Nationalists would be able to return a Member of their way of thinking; and that would be quite as beneficial for their interest as the Bill SIR CHARLES W. DILKE said, that he was afraid that it would be difficult to manage such a map, as the scale on which the maps were drawn was very large. He would be glad, however, to give any information in his power upon the subject. MR. BIGGAR said, he must express his disappointment that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster had not given his promised explanation as to the grounds on which Warwick was treated differently from other parts of the Kingdom. Hon. Gentlemen from Ireland had urged the claims of Limerick and Drogheda; and it would have been only reasonable for the right hon. Gentleman to state why those places were to suffer, in the one total disfranchisement, and in the other partial disfranchisement, while Warwick was to retain separate representation. Mr. Lewis MOTIONS. 11101 KITCHEN AND REFRESHMENT ROOMS (HOUSE OF COMMONS). APPOINTMENT AND NOMINATION OF SELECT COMMITTEE. now before the House would be. How- | Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) ever, as the Bill had been accepted by Bill at any opportunity they could get the Leaders of the two great Parties in to-morrow. It was their desire to get the House, there was no chance of suc- the Speaker out of the Chair; but the cess for the advocates of any other mea- clauses would not be proceeded with sure at present. But as to the details at an hour inconvenient to the House. of the proposed redistribution in different constituencies, he maintained that there In was very great cause of complaint. the county of Londonderry, for instance, they had altered the original scheme, and in the boundary scheme which they now recommended they paid no attention to community of interest in the populations which they had grouped together. They had cut into two a large Catholic population, which were most intimately connected, intermarrying with each other, attending the same fairs and markets, and having the same interests, and managed so to draw the line of division as to weaken the Catholic and National Party in each division, and prevent them from electing a Member in either. In the face of that decision of the Boundary Commission, he asserted that if the evidence which had been laid before the Commissioners could be brought before that House, it would be seen that it was proved to demonstration that the Commissioners had gone absolutely against the weight of evidence. It being a quarter of an hour before Six of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned till To-morrow. MR. HEALY said, he would like to have a Return of the attendance on this He did not think they Committee. should re-elect to the Committee deadheads who never attended its meetings. LORD KENSINGTON said, he could not give the Return at that moment. MR. SEXTON remarked, that he believed the hon. Member for the City of Dublin (Mr. Maurice Brooks) very rarely attended the meetings of this Committee. Indeed, he rarely attended the House. However, if they desired to appoint the Committee now, they would not raise further objection. Standing Committee appointed to control the arrangements of the Kitchen and Refreshment Rooms, in the department of the Serjeant at Arms attending this House. MAURICE Committee nominated of, -Mr. REAL ASSETS ADMINISTRATION BILL. On Motion of Mr. ARTHUR O'CONNOR, Bill to facilitate the administration of Deceased Persons Estates, ordered to be brought in by Mr. ARTHUR O'CONNOR and Mr. WARTON. Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 79.] MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (BOROUGH On Motion of Mr. WOODALL, Bill to amend an Act of the Session of the thirty-fifth and thirty-sixth years of the reign of Her present Majesty, chapter ninety-one, intituled "An Act to authorise the application of Funds of Municipal Corporations and other governing bodies in certain cases," ordered to be brought in by Mr. WOODALL, Mr. EDWARD CLARKE, Mr. JACKSON, and Mr. St. AUBYN. Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 80.] THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES) said, that he had examined the Bill, and thinking that it was one which should not pass without further consideration he had thought it well to defer the second reading. Corporation at which it might be supposed to strike. This matter had been brought under the notice of Parliament on previous occasions, four years ago and last year; and the promoters were told that a Royal Commission would not be granted to inquire into the subject, but that some other means of ventilating it would be taken. THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES) pointed out that the measure-which, it was true, he had at first supposed to be promoted by Trinity College-proposed to make alterations in the law between landlord and tenant in behalf of some tenants of Trinity College. It would, in its present form, open the doors to the introduction of most dangerous interference with the public law by private legislation. Time, he thought, should be taken for further consideration before reading the Bill a second time. THE EARL OF LEITRIM contended that the faults the Chairman of Committees conceived to exist in the Bill were questions for consideration in Committee. The Bill had been promoted because an inquiry by that House, whether by a Royal Commission or a Select Committee, had been refused on more than one occasion. They now sought to get the subject of the Bill inquired into with a view to legislation, or to have it shown to them that they had no case for legislation. They had no option but to endeavour to obtain what they desired by promoting this Bill. He was afraid that the action taken that afternoon was a gagging process, resulting from Trinity College getting hold of his noble Friend the Chairman of Committees. The Chairman of Committees had reported in favour of this Bill. THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES): No, no! THE EARL OF LEITRIM said, that THE EARL OF LEITRIM said, he Trinity College had pushed matters to thought the question as to whether or an extreme, and there was such a thing not the Bill was one which should not even as an Irish tenant becoming exasbe read a second time was for the judg-perated. They had been agitating this ment of their Lordships. The measure had been before the noble Earl (the Earl of Redesdale), and the noble Earl had admitted in the most candid manner that he believed the Bill was promoted by Trinity College. He did not think that a greater compliment could be paid to the promoters of a Bill than to say that it was one framed by the matter for four years, and it was now for their Lordships to terminate a very unseemly wrangle between Trinity College and its tenants. Trinity College had divisions in its own camp. Only recently a tenant had gone before the Board, and the majority had agreed to reduce the rents. The Provost, however, had put his veto on the matter, and |