MR. DILLON said, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether the Revised Ordnance Survey of Ireland has been completed; and if not, why it has been discontinued, and whether it is the intention of the Government that it shall be completed? MR. CHILDERS: Sir, it is not the case that the Revised Survey of Ireland has been discontinued. The counties of Louth and Dublin are now being revised ; and there is no intention of discontinuing the regular course of the Survey. REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE COMMITTEE. ADJOURNED DEBATE. THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, in reply, that he had to thank the hon. Member for kindly sending him an extract of the Private Act under which he thought this sum was levied. Having examined that Act, and taken an opportunity of conferring with his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General upon it, he had to state that they had no doubt at all that it was entirely beside the purpose of the Compulsory Church Rate Abolition Bill. It appeared to relate to a sum which was to be raised by authority of Her Majesty's Justices of the Peace, and which was not at all dependent upon any vote of a parochial community. The intention of the Bill was solely to affect funds raised by the parochial community, and consequently the Government thought the Act was entirely outside the provisions and purview of the Bill. If the hon. Gentleman should see reason to doubt the soundness of that opinion and should think it necessary to in-subject of a Re-distribution of Seats, is of opinion sert any words having relation to such cases, there would be every disposition to give them a fair consideration when they got into Committee on the Bill. PRUSSIA-THE GASTEIN CONVENTION. MR. WATKIN said, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether under the "Treaty of Navigation between Her Majesty and the King of Prussia," signed at Gastein the 16th day of August, 1865, it was intended to include the shipping of the territory captured by Prussia and Austria ? MR. LAYARD said, he must confess that he did not exactly understand his hon. Friend's question; but, concluding that he referred to Schleswig and Holstein he would remind the hon. Member that neither Schleswig nor Holstein had yet been as signed to Austria or Prussia; and that, Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to Question [28th May], That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair;"and which Amendment was, To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House, while ready to consider the general that the system of grouping proposed by Her Ma jesty's Government is neither convenient nor Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question." Debate resumed. MR. GOLDSMID said, he desired at the outset to thank the hon. and gallant Member for Harwich (Major Jervis) for kindly giving way to him on that occasion; for, as one of the Members who had been designated "the dying swans," the House would conceive that he was reasonably anxious to say a few words upon the Bill now before the House. The borough he had the honour to represent (Honiton) was one of those small boroughs which were most particularly affected by the Bill; however, though he might speak in its name, he did not speak in its name alone, but also in the name of a large number of other boroughs which were in a similar position. He trusted the House would believe him when he said that the course he was pursuing was not prompted by any spirit of opposition to Her Majesty's Government; because, since he had had the honour of a seat in that House, and before he was returned to Parliament, in the various contests he had entered into in order to obtain a seat, he had always professed Liberal principles, and desired to act with the great Liberal party. Before he proceeded further he wished to say that there were many hon. Members who held that the principle of population was the guide they ought to take in re-distributing seats. But he thought that principle could not be maintained for a moment. He thought so for several reasons. It was one element only-though certainly an important one-to be taken into consideration in dealing with this subject. It could not be the only one, for, if it was, the House would be reduced to a very great difficulty. For instance, the metropolitan boroughs, which were now represented by eighteen Members, and, according to the Bill which the Government had introduced, would be represented by twenty-two Members, ought to have as many Members as the entire Kingdom of Scotland. Again, the county of Middlesex, which at present was represented by two Members, ought, upon the same principle, to have something like twenty Members. In another point of view the principle of population could not be followed, because he found that, according to the statistics that had been presented to them, Scotland, if it were to have the number of Members to which it would be entitled from the number of its population, would have sixty-nine Members, whereas, at the present moment, it had only fifty-three. In the same way England would be entitled to 467 Members instead of 500, and Ireland 122 instead of He thought that if they were to follow this principle-which many hon. Members appeared to have advocated simply because they were not aware of the conclusions to which it would lead them-they would find they were following, not a guiding star, but an ignis fatuus. In coming more immediately to the Bill before the House it seemed to him to be properly divided into two parts; one was that portion which disfranchised, and the other was that portion which enfranchised. He would now deal with the first. As he understood it, the proposal of the Government was to take twenty-four Members from the Ministerial side of the House and twenty-five from the other, and to deal with the seats so obtained by distributing them between the counties and boroughs. So far, therefore, as the disfranchising clauses were concerned, it appeared to him that the Government had fairly treated the two sides of the House. [Cries of "No, no!"] It was a matter of opinion. He desired to state his objections to the Bill as it stood, and to suggest, if possible, a course which might be acceptable to both sides of the House. He had endeavoured to consider the proposal of the Government as impartially as it was possible to a Member of a small borough to do. His first objection, then, was that there was no principle in the selection of the boroughs grouped. He understood the proposal to be that all boroughs containing fewer than 8,000 inhabitants were to be grouped; but he found, on looking at the blue book presented to the House by command of Her Majesty's Government, that there were boroughs below that line and yet not grouped. He would give as an example the boroughs of Bewdley and Droitwich, and he cited those places because they were represented by two gentlemen of different politics. According to the Census of 1861, these two places contained a population of little more than 7,000 each; they were in the same county, and he believed they were but a few miles apart from each other. Therefore, according to the principle of the Bill, he did not see why they could not properly have been grouped together, thus constituting a population of 14,000; and that being below the second line the Government had drawn, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would thereby have obtained one more seat to deal with. His next objection was that in many of the groups which were proposed he was not able to discover the principle of geographical contiguity, which the House had been told was the principle which guided the Government in this matter. He would give two or three instances drawn from personal knowledge rather than observation of the map. He had the honour to stand at the last election for the borough of Cirencester, now represented by two Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House, and that borough it was proposed to group with Tewkesbury and Evesham. Evesham was twenty-five miles distant 15,000 and then to give them two Members. They also proposed, if a borough returned either one or two Members, and possessed at the last Census a population of more than 8,000, that that borough should remain in undisturbed possession of its representation. He thought he should be able to show that the Government proposals fixing the limit at which the smaller boroughs were to lose their privilege of returning Members to the House were not quite fair in their operation. For if there were vested rights above a certain line arbitrarily chosen, there must also be vested rights below it; and it was not fair to make a difference in the treatment of those vested rights merely because the populations of the boroughs happened to be above or below 8,000. De minimis non curat lex, said the legal maxim, and the boroughs with less than 8,000 inhabitants seemed to be treated according to this principle; while as soon as they passed the limit of 8,000 they rose into importance in the eyes of the Government. There were nine boroughs with populations between 8,000 and 10,000-namely, Chichester, Guildford, Lewes, Maldon, Newark, Stamford, Tavistock, Windsor, and Wycombe; and it was certainly unfortunate to find that from Cirencester as the crow would fly, and a hilly country separated the two places; there was no direct communication between them, and he believed the inhabitants of Cirencester were in that delightful state that they hardly knew of the existence of the borough of Evesham. The two boroughs were connected by no direct route, and the time occupied in travelling by a circuitous line of railways from one place to the other was little short of four hours and a half; and consequently, with regard to these two boroughs, he could not discover the operation of the principle of geographical contiguity. He was, however, more immediately concerned with Honiton, which was to be grouped with Bridport, (a maritime town, twenty-one miles distant), and with Lyme. Between these places there was no community of interest whatever. Honiton was the centre of au agricultural district, having a large market where the inhabitants of the country for some miles round made their weekly purchases, and was a fair representative of the majority of our country towns. The advantage of small boroughs had been clearly demonstrated by the leader of this House in 1859-yet now he proposed that these three small boroughs should be grouped together and should only return one Member. a great majority of the representatives of Now, he would ask the House to remember that at the present moment they had five Members-Bridport had two, Honiton two, and Lyme one; and if hon. Gentlemen would cast their eyes through the groups, they would find that no other boroughs that had enjoyed the advantage of sending five Members to the House had been treated so badly as these. In every other case where there were more than four Members belonging to the boroughs added together, the Government had given two Members to the group; but on this point he would have more to say by-and-bye. There was only one other group to which he would advert-namely, that consisting of Horsham, Petersfield, Midhurst, and Arundel, which were in about the same state of ignorance with regard to each other as were the boroughs of Cirencester and Evesham. Now, he wished to direct the attention of the House to the line the Government had proposed to draw. The Government drew the line at 8,000, and their principle was, they said, as far as possible, where geographical contiguity allowed, to group the boroughs with a population below that line and give them one Member, except where the population was over But these boroughs were Liberals-there were n # should, in future, only return one; and, in he felt certain, would go as far as possible the third place, that boroughs with more in endeavouring to rectify that injustice, than 10,000 inhabitants, whether now ex- and therein the House would support him. isting, or to result from the union of exist- The borough which he himself represented ing boroughs, should have two Members. (Honiton) might fairly be asked to give up This would be the legitimate conclusion of its redundant representation; and, having the Government proposition. If boroughs said last week in the face of his constituwith more than 10,000 inhabitants claimed, ents that Honiton was over-represented, on the vested rights" principle, to retain he was not afraid to repeat the statement their two Members, what could they say of in his place in Parliament; but he did not boroughs situated a short distance from each think it ought to be asked to give up more other, and having an aggregate population than its fair share. If the right hon. much larger, yet being allowed to retain only Gentleman, having considered his sugges one representative? Of boroughs between tion, were able to declare that it was one the limits of 8,000 and 10,000 there were reasonable in itself, and one to which effect exactly nine, returning, he regretted for ought to be given by the Bill before the the sake of his party, fourteen Liberals as House, he should be happy by his vote to against four Conservatives, and one Mem- sanction a sacrifice which the country had bers taken from each of those would a right to expect. The result of that vote exactly supply the nine Members necessary might be to deprive him of his seat in to give a double representation to each of Parliament, but he did not think votes of the groups of boroughs above 10,000. hon. Members ought to be governed by perThe coincidence was so exact, that it sonal considerations. They ought to vote appeared as if it were arranged by Pro- as their party required them (if they vidence to fill up the gap in the Govern- could honestly do so) as the represen ment Bill. With regard to the second or tatives of their constituents and the enfranchising portion of the Bill, that some country, and not merely to give effect to revision of the Government proposals was their individual opinions. No one valued necessary was obvious from the fact that more than he did the position of a Member, while such places as Middlesborough, Dews- or would do more, legitimately, to retain bury and Gravesend, were to return one it, but for that purpose he would never Member, Croydon, a place with 20,000 in- give an unfair vote. He asked the right habitants, was utterly unnoticed in the Bill. hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the ExIf again, it was to be the rule to give a chequer not to place him in a position of third Member to counties having a popula- difficulty by a refusal, but to allow all groups tion over 150,000, why should not the rule of boroughs having more than 10,000 in be applied to the county of Middlesex and habitants to retain two Members. Even to the metropolitan boroughs? As re- then they would make great sacrifices, as garded Scotland, he was in favour of giving he had shown in the case of his own the proposed additional Members. The modi- group. The House had not yet heard the fication of the plan which he advocated did views of the Government on this subject. not disturb the general scheme of the Chan- If any Member of the Government thought cellor of the Exchequer; it would be possible it worth while to express his opinion on the to adopt it without interfering with the prin- suggestion which he had made and other ciple of the Bill. For that right hon. Gen-points connected with the Bill he should tleman, before he entered the House, he feel very grateful. entertained a strong personal admiration, MR. GOSCHEN said, that before he and that admiration had if possible been proceeded to reply more in detail to increased by the noble manner in which, the arguments of his hon. Friend who upon the second reading of the Franchise had just sat down and to those of Bill, the Chancellor of the Exchequer the hon. and gallant Member for Wells declared how he had thrown off the tram- (Captain Hayter) who had proposed mels and prejudices of his youth, and learned the former Amendment, he thought it to have faith and trust in the people. If, was due to the former hon. Gentleman therefore, he made out to the satisfaction to say there was a great difference of the right hon. Gentleman and to the between the Amendment which he had satisfaction of the House that injustice had been committed unintentionally upon a portion of the people in order to favour another portion, the right hon. Gentleman, moved and that proposed by the hon. and gallant Member for Wells. [Mr. GOLDSMID said, he had not moved any Amendment.] He had thought that his 7 hon. Friend had concluded with the scheme, would only receive one Member. Amendment which stood on the paper in It appeared to him that there was a great his name; but he would say that there difference between those two propositions. was a vast difference between the views As to the first, he was quite prepared to adof the hon. Member and those of the hon. mit that the House had a right to deal with and gallant Member for Wells. The two boroughs having a population of 9,000 or speeches, also, were of a totally different | 10,000 or 15,000, as suggested by the character. His hon. Friend had addressed hon. and gallant Member for Wells-in himself to two points in the Government the same way as they had a right to deal Bill, but he had not dealt in vague ge- with boroughs simply reaching the figure of neralities, such as those of the Amend- 8,000. In such matters it was impossible ment of the hon. and gallant Member for to adopt any but an arbitrary line; and Wells, selected to command the consent it was equally impossible to fix upon any of hon. Members of different parties and arbitrary line which would not have the holding different views on the question of appearance of establishing certain ano-> Reform. He had not used such words as malies and of doing injustice more or less: "the scheme is otherwise unsatisfactory, to particular boroughs. Supposing that or, as "the scheme is immature." He instead of 8,000 the Government were to thought he was able to touch a blot in the draw the line at 10,000, would not an boscheme, and to that blot he had directed rough with a population of 9,999, or any! himself in his speech. And now, what was other very high number over 9,000 be the position of the Government as regarded likely to complain of being disfranchised, the whole question? Their position was while a borough with a population of this: the hon. and gallant Member for 10,250 was left in the enjoyment of its Wells (Captain Hayter) had moved an electoral privileges 3 It was impossible Amendment with which the House was in this case to lay down any rule which by this time sufficiently acquainted. In would exclude individual cases of hard-1 moving it the hon. and gallant Gentle- ship. He was willing to admit that in man called attention to certain matters the case of the borough which bis hon. which ought rather to be considered in Friend represented there was a particular Committee; and he was followed by other hardship. [Hear, hear!"] Honiton, BridMembers who pointed out certain anoma- port, and Lyme Regis had a population lies and certain difficulties which appeared which came nearest to 15,000 of any of the to them to arise out of the Government boroughs which were to be grouped. proposition. Then, on the Motion for the there was the slightest modification made adjournment the other night a speech was in the 15,000 line, those three boroughs delivered by the right hon. Gentleman would be the first to get the benefit of the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. it. They lost more than any other boDisraeli) in which he said the plan of the roughs which were grouped, and were Government was now before Parliament nearest the line of 15.000; and therefore for the first time as a whole that the he was not astonished that the hon. question of re-distribution had now come Member who represented Honiton should to be considered for the first time since say there was a hardship in the case. the measures relating to Parliamentary It was matter for the House to consider Reform had been introduced by the Go whether the line was, rightly drawn →→ : vernment. Now the House had the ques- whether 8,000 was the proper amount of tion before it in a third form one dealing population at which to draw the line. with a particular part of the scheme of the [Hear, hear!" What the Government Government. His hon. Friend the Mem- had endeavoured to do was this, so to draw. ber for Honiton had addressed himself to the line that the Bill might pass. ["Hear,.. two points. He said, in the first instance, hear!"] The Government would not have the line should not be drawn at 8,000, thought they were discharging their duty but at 10,000, and that one Member should if they proposed the line suggested by the be taken from every borough having be-hon. and gallant Member for Wells tween 8,000 and 10,000 inhabitants, which now returned two Members; and, in the second place, he proposed that the seats thus placed at the disposal of the House should be given to those groups of boroughs which, under the Government T い If namely, the line of 15,000, instead of that |