in moving the insertion of a new clause relating to Pembroke, said, that the effect of the Amendment was to adhere to the original provision of the Bill. Since the question of Pembrokeshire had been discussed, he had considered the matter; and the feeling which he had then expressed with regard to the Bill as it stood had not been removed by the further consideration which he had given to the subject. The proposal which had been made by the noble Viscount the Member for Carmarthenshire (Viscount Emlyn), to turn one of the boroughs into the county, and keep another as it was, had been put forward by him chiefly on the grounds of distances and convenience. But the Bill, as it stood, equalized the population as between the county and the borough better than the noble Viscount's proposal. The Haverford west boroughs were comparatively small, whereas Weston had a very large area. The boroughs of the county were completely mixed up; and, so far as geographical features went, there was a strong case in favour of the proposal in the Bill. The noble Viscount had argued in Committee that some of the boroughs of the proposed group were situated at a great distance from one another. No doubt the extreme distance of any one borough from another was in the case of Fishguard and Tenby, which were 24 miles apart; but in the case of boroughs in some of the other Welsh counties the distances were greater still, being in one case 32 miles, and in another 36. Under the circumstances of the case, he did not see his way to change the proposal of the Bill with regard to the grouping of these boroughs. According to promise, he had now placed on the Paper as a clause what had formerly appeared as a Note to the Schedule. The clause was to the effect that the law relating to the elec- tion for the boroughs of Pembroke should also include the present Parliamentary borough of Haverford west. He would, therefore, move the second reading of the clause.

said, that his argument against the change proposed by the Bill rested chiefly on this ground—that it violated the principle laid down by the Government with respect to grouped boroughs. What case did the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Charles W. Dilke) make for breaking through a principle which he had declared to apply to the whole of the United Kingdom—namely, that there should be no grouping of boroughs? He took a scattered group of seven boroughs, one of which was purely agricultural, and because of the position of that one borough between two others, he argued that the principle of the Bill should be departed from. In the Pembroke district of boroughs were included towns of an electorate respectively of 16,300,4,750, 3,812, and 717. Because of the position of the small town of 717 persons, the right hon. Gentleman claimed to apply a different rule to these boroughs than he applied to other parts of the country. If the small borough of Weston ought not to be in the group, let it be taken out; but there could be no doubt that Pembroke, having a population of over 25,000, was absolutely entitled, according to the principles of the Bill, to its own Representative. The Government had no right to try and equalize the population, because it happened to suit their purpose. There were numbers of cases where gross anomalies took place, and no attempt was made to equalize the population. There was no reason why the Haverford west boroughs should not be amalgamated with the county of Pembroke. The population of the latter, 57,000, was by no means excessive, as compared with many other counties. With regard to local feeling, he might say that while Pembroke did not desire to be connected with Haverford west, the latter was in favour of the proposal. Seeing that the people of Pembroke strongly objected to the proposal, he should certainly divide the House upon it.

in supporting the insertion of the clause, said, he would ask whether the noble Viscount opposite (Viscount Emlyn) possessed any evidence to show that the people of Pembroke were opposed to the Government proposals? Yesterday he (Lord Kensington) presented a Petition from. the Corporation of Haverford west in their favour. He denied that there was any Party spirit whatever involved in the matter; and it was the desire of both political Parties in the borough that the arrangement proposed should be made.

said, he strongly supported the scheme in the Bill, which commended itself to his judgment, distinct from Party, as better than the proposal of the noble Viscount opposite the Member for Carmarthenshire (Viscount Emlyn). The noble Viscount objected to the provision now in question as a departure from the principle of the Bill. That was a mistake, for the principle of the Bill was to equalize electoral districts so far as could be done without undue interference with the existing system. The rule applied to England that disfranchised boroughs should be merged in the counties involved no principle, but was found a convenient rule to adopt so far as regarded England, where grouping of boroughs was unknown. In Wales all their boroughs were grouped, and it was but natural to join a disfranchised group to another in the same county when that was found to be a convenient arrangement. The county of Pembroke had already a population of 57,000, whilst the Pembroke boroughs had only about 30,000. It was, therefore, in accordance with the principle of the Bill to add Haverford west to the boroughs and not to the county.

said, the scheme of the Government in this matter was in shock- ing bad taste. The Welsh boroughs generally, and the case of Haverford west in particular, formed the great blot on the Bill. It was ridiculous to say that the Bill was one to equalize population; for if that was the principle of the Bill the principle was violated in every line, and it was only invoked in this particular case of Haverford west, which, being a Welsh town, it was no doubt convenient should be forced into the borough of Pembroke. A little trick was being played in the case of Haverford west. The great towns of Wales, such as Pembroke, were really not Welsh, but English towns; the people who lived in them were English; they were, in fact, a little England in Wales. What was done by the clause was to destroy this little English element, by importing into the Dockyard constituency a number of small Welsh agricultural villages. In this case, Haverford west was Welsh, and there was no reason why it should be merged into Pembroke, except that it was hoped thereby to insure the return of a Radical candidate. ["Oh, oh!"] Of course, it was no use talking. The noble Lord opposite (Lord Kensington) had his big battalion down on this occasion. After the experience of Friday, the Government Whips would be more careful, particularly on an occasion like the present. He repeated that the proposal was in shocking bad taste. It was an entire violation of the whole principle of the Bill to save Haverford west by adding it to the Pembroke group. It had no affinity with the Pembroke boroughs; and though the noble Lord opposite (Lord Kensington) had quoted local feeling in favour of the proposal, he would ask in what other instance had local feeling been allowed to prevail in the arrangements of this Bill? The Government had a shocking bad case, and he should certainly vote against it.

said, as Member for the county of Pembroke, he trusted he might be permitted to say a word on this subject. He was very much amused by the observation of the hon. and learned Member who had just spoken (Mr. Gorst) that Haverford west was a Welsh town. That showed what he knew about it. Haverford west was a purely English town. [Laughter.] Hon. Members laughed. Why, he was born in it—was educated in it—had resided in it; but he could not speak a word of Welsh. It was a very extensive town—it was a large town with a small population. He did know something about Haverfordwest and about the county of Pembroke, and a little more about them than the noble Viscount opposite (Viscount Emlyn). It was so much on a par with Pembroke Dock and Denbigh that scarcely any distinction could be drawn between them, all being English places. If the noble Viscount had gone into the matter, he would have found that nearly the whole of Pembroke Dock was in favour of the scheme proposed by the Government. [Laughter.'] That was true, because he had inquired into it. It had actually been proposed to him that a Petition should be presented to that House on the subject; but he had discountenanced the proposal, but strong representations had been made in favour of grouping these towns. The noble Viscount was attempting to convert Haverfordwest from town into county. Haverfordwest was one of the ancient boroughs of the Kingdom, and sent Members to Parliament before Wales sent any at all. Why, therefore, should it now be extinguished and merged in a county—a proceeding which its inhabitants strongly objected to? Moreover, if the proposal of the noble Viscount were adopted, between 200 and 300 electors of Haverfordwest would be disfranchised. [An hon. MEMBER: Why?] That showed that hon. Members opposite had not investigated the thing. At present, they voted for the borough as occupiers, and they also voted for the county as freeholders; but if the town was merged in the county they would only have their county vote. That ought to weigh with the House. The population of Pembrokeshire was now 57,000; why, therefore, should it be increased to 64,000? To increase it to that extent would be to add to the expense of standing for his county, although he had no doubt that it would also add to his majority. Upon that ground the increase would be most objectionable, and he ventured to hope that the Amendment would not be carried.

in opposing the insertion of the clause, said that there were two or three jobs in the Bill, but that this was the greatest. [Cries of "Divide!"] He could well understand the impatience of the Liberal Party. Hon. Members opposite were so ashamed of this job that they wanted to hurry it through without any discussion.

said, that it was perfectly true that he had received a letter from Haverfordwest, asking the reason for the vote he had given in respect of this matter on a former occasion; and as he intended to repeat that vote he desired to give his reason for doing so. There were two principles in the Bill which ought to be adhered to—one was that, as far as England and Wales were concerned, the grouping of towns was not allowed; and the other was that boroughs of less than 1,400 electors were to be merged in their counties. In his opinion, no satisfactory grounds had been shown for departing from those two recognized principles in the present case; and he should, therefore, vote against the proposal.

said, he hoped the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) would not persist in adding to this borough two places, one of 1,100, and the other of only 15 population. He, therefore, moved an Amendment, with a view of excluding from the borough Fishguard and Narberth, to the effect that the municipal borough (and not the present Parliamentary borough) of Haverfordwest should be included in the new Parliamentary borough of Pembroke and Haverfordwest.

said, he could not accept the Amendment, which would break up the town in a perfectly artificial fashion.

in moving, as an Amendment, to leave out Clause 27, (dealing with the disqualification of voters for corrupt practices), and to insert the following clause:——

who had two new clauses on the Paper for the removal of the disqualification of certain voters in Norwich and Great Yarmouth, said, that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, in moving the clause under notice as he had, had accepted the principle of the two new clauses which stood in his (Mr. Birkbeck's) name, and had been on the Notice Paper some days prior to the Attorney General's new clause. This Amendment on the part of the Government would be greatly appreciated by the disqualified voters of Norwich and Great Yarmouth. There would now be no necessity for his moving the new clauses which stood in his name, and he should consequently withdraw them.

asked, with regard to the freemen of Dublin, by what means they could get again upon the Poll; and whether they would have to go through all the formalities which they would have to go through when coming on as new men? They were an extremely corrupt class, and were generally taken out of the workhouses, given a new suit of clothes, in order to go to the poll, and after having spent the sovereign which they got for the vote went back again to the workhouse. Under ordinary circumstances, the freemen of Dublin had to pay something like 10s. as a fee to the Town Clerk. He wished to know whether the freemen would be, by this clause, entitled to be put back in globo on the voters' lists? It would be a very unfortunate state of affairs if they were. Frightful corruption had been proved against them; and it had been proved in the case of Lord Ardilaun, formerly Sir Arthur Guinness, that whole oceans of beer, as well as money, had been spent in corrupting them. For the pur- pose of giving the Government an opportunity of considering the matter, he would move that this clause do not apply to the freemen of Dublin.

said, he would consider the matter. He would, however, point out that the object of the hon. and learned Member could be attained better by his moving the Amendment in a later part of the Bill.

said, he would accept the suggestion of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and withdraw the Amendment.

in moving as an Amendment, in page 2, after Clause 8, to insert the following Clause:——

said, he agreed in substance with the desire of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Healy), but not with the mode in which he sought to give effect to it. It was a hardship that the municipalities in Ireland could not alter their wards without an Act of Parliament, as they did in England; but the present proposal was not germane to the Bill. Perhaps, however, some measure would be brought in—it might be in this Session—dealing with that subject.

said, he was willing to withdraw his clause; but he would point out to the right hon. Baronet that unless the Government attended speedily to the matter it would be too late. He supposed the Revision Courts could sit a month earlier this year, and the Town Councils were now preparing the lists.

in moving an Amendment giving the City of London four Members instead of two, said, he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman who had charge of the Bill would now see his way to accepting the Amendment, when it would no longer interfere with the main principle of the Bill. There was one point upon which he wished to make some remarks—that was, the subject of the Livery vote in the City. It was not the case that the Livery vote gave a citizen of London two votes, as seemed to have been supposed. After the full discussion which the question of the City representation had received, he would not go into the matter at greater length, but would ask the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board to waive the objection which he had on a former occasion taken to his proposal.

said, that the question had been decided in a very large House; and, considering the way in which the Committee had decided it, he thought that it was not desirable that he should re-open on the present occasion the arguments which he had used before. The hon. Member had remarked that the question of the Livery vote ought not to have been made so much of, because it did not give two votes. Of course, it did not give two votes for the same constituency; but it increased the voting constituency. He must ask the House to re-affirm its former decision.

said, he wished to protest, although he knew it would be unavailing, against the taking away of two Members from the City. He was aware that it was only a protest, because they all knew that all these matters had been settled before they had been brought under the notice of the House. They were even deprived of the Court of Appeal, which they might have found in the House of Lords, since the arrangements come to between the Leaders of the two Parties were binding there also. The defence made by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition (Sir Stafford Northcote) on this point was utterly invalid; he had maintained that by giving up, or rather throwing over, the City of London, he had gained advantages for his Party which he would not otherwise have obtained. For his own part, he (Mr. Alderman W. Lawrence) protested against the mode in which this matter had been settled, and the manner in which the City had been treated. The citizens of London felt that they had been unjustly dealt with by the Bill, and that there had been a want of appreciation and a want of knowledge of the commerce, the trade, and the exceptional circumstances of the City. He should not be doing his duty unless he protested in the strongest possible manner against the conduct of the Leaders of the two sides in settling this question behind the backs of the City of London—it ought to have been left to the decision of both Houses of Parliament. A great deal had been made of the sleeping population in the City; but there was a day and night population of the City which was not a sleeping population. The arguments drawn from the Census population were of the most fallacious kind. The history of the City of London was a glorious history, and he was astonished that it should have been disregarded by the persons who had prepared the Bill. There was once a Cecil who had appealed to the City for assistance in the Plantation of Ulster, at a time when the Crown found it impossible to obtain Colonists on the proposals placed before the public. The City responded to that appeal; the flourishing Cities of Londonderry and Coleraine were evidences of the success of that arrangement. From that time to the present there had been the most intimate relations between the Cecils and the City of London. He regretted that a Cecil should now have joined in a scheme to deprive the City of half its Members. Those who had arranged the clause had shown their incompetence to deal with the matter.

said, that although he felt bound to reiterate his opinion that taking away two Members from the City of London was a great blot on the Bill, he would ask permission to withdraw his Amendment.

in moving the following Amendment to Clause 8, which provides that boroughs in the Sixth Schedule should be divided into divisions:—

"Provided, That this section, so far as it applies to the city of Dublin, shall only remain in force until the thirty-first day of December, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-seven, and no longer,"

said, he was sorry that he could not accept the Amendment any more than he could accept the one made at an earlier stage of the proceedings. It would place the alteration of the boundaries in the hands of a body of persons other than Parliament, and that could not be agreed to. The arrangement proposed by the Bill was, upon the whole, a satisfactory one, and ought not to be open to disturbance.

said, he must express his regret that the Amendment was not accepted.

said, he thought the boundaries of the City of Dublin were very fairly drawn; and in saying that he happened to have the advantage, which was not possessed by the two previous speakers, of being a Dublin man.

I live there too, and pay taxes there as well.

said, he was born in Dublin and knew the locality, and he was convinced the boundaries in the Bill were fair, reasonable, and convenient. The Amendment proposed to give to the Corporation of Dublin the power to upset the arrangements with regard to the boundaries of Dublin which Parliament in its wisdom had laid down; but he (Mr. Gibson) was sure that Parliament would never allow any power other than itself to interfere with the boundaries. Besides, it would be inconvenient in the highest degree to declare in an Act of Parliament that the arrangements were of a temporary character.

in opposing the Amendment, said, it was contrary to the principle of the Bill. The sub-section did not apply to counties; and in the case of large towns he did not see why, for instance, a man with a number of shops in all the leading thoroughfares should have the right to vote in all the divisions. The clause in no way interfered with the property qualification which did not exist in boroughs.

said, he thought the principle of one man one vote, as applied to the boroughs, ought to be extended to the counties. He could understand it if it were so extended.

said, he did not see why a man with the necessary qualification should not have votes in the various divisions of a largo town; but, while he sympathized with the object of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Warton), as the matter had been practically settled by what had occurred previously, he hoped his hon. and learned Friend would not press his Amendment.

said, he was sorry that, for one, he could not accept the advice of the right hon. Baronet (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach). He objected most strongly to the disfranchisement of property proposed by this provision—a disfranchisement totally at variance with the provisions of all previous alterations of the franchise; and he thought the House ought to go to a division on the question. He did not know whether this particular point was included within the terms of the celebrated agreement of which they had heard so much; but, if it was, he trusted that the right hon. Members on the Front Opposition Bench would for once have the courage of their convictions, and vote for that which in their hearts they must feel to be right.

in moving to amend the clause by the insertion of the following words:—

"A person shall not be registered as entitled to vote and shall not vote in any Parliamentary borough who is registered as a voter in any county constituency conterminous with such borough,"

said, he could not assent to the proposition, which had been fully discussed on previous occasions. The hon. and learned Member had done, on the present occasion, what he did when this question was last before the House—he had treated it as if Dublin had a greater grievance than existed elsewhere. But the case of Dublin was precisely the same as the case of London and Glasgow.

said, the argument of the right hon. Baronet amounted to this—that two wrongs made a right. But there was a special grievance, because of the artificial character of the boundaries of the City.

supported the Amendment.

in moving to amend the same clause by the insertion of the following words:—

"A person shall not be registered to vote and shall not vote in any borough where a university is situate who is registered as a voter for such university,"

said, he would point out that the hon. and learned Member's speech covered a great deal more than his Amendment. He (Sir Charles W. Dilke) thought it was unnecessary to repeat to the hon. and learned Member what he had already said on a previous occasion with respect to his individual opinion on the question of the double vote. As it had been found necessary, however, to concede something on this head for the purpose of carrying the measure through Parliament, the question of the double qualification had been agreed to as a matter of arrangement between the two Parties. He could not accept the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member. He did not believe that the double voting power was possessed by those who voted for University Members; but he would promise to look very closely into the matter.

said, that the point raised by his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Healy) was that persons having votes for University Members within the walls of a University had also votes for Members of Parliament out of chambers in the University in the division in which those chambers were situate. He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) was confident of the existence of the double qualification. It was a monstrous injustice that a man should have a vote as a graduate of the University of Dublin, and should, at the same time, be at liberty to go outside the gates of the University to another polling booth, and record a vote for one of the Members for a division of the City. That was one of the greatest and most grievous absurdities in the whole Bill.

supported the Amendment.

said, that if the Dublin University students were deprived of the right to exercise the franchise in virtue of their occupation holdings, they would be the only persons in the community who were debarred their right of doing so.

said, that the Amendment on the Paper raised a very important question as to whether students of a University were, owing to the accident of being within the walls of a College for two or three years, really the persons intended by Parliament to come within the designation of lodgers at all? However, the effect of the Amendment made the issue a very much narrower one. It was a question as to whether persons in a College or University should be entitled to two votes, one for the University, and another for the constituency in which the University happened to be situate? In the case of Dublin City, the question was whether the graduates should vote for the Members who represented that University, and also for other Members of the House. He would ask whether the lodger franchise had been ever intended to cover the case of students whose fees, &c. were paid by their parents while they were inmates of a College?

said, the difficulties suggested by the hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. Healy) applied to the Scottish Universities as well as to the Dublin University; but the remedy was not to be found in the restriction proposed by the hon. Member. What they wanted to do was to abolish the University representation altogether.

said, that this was a matter which should be settled before the Election. The matter had been very carefully considered by the Boundary Commissioners for England; and he thought that the hon. and learned Member had better not interfere in any way until the discussion on the English Registration Bill.

in moving an Amendment to omit from the clause the subsection which provides that the polls in a divided borough shall take place on the same day, said, he would point out that no similar provision was made in regard to counties, and that to impose this obligation on Returning Officers was needlessly to increase the expense. He saw no reason why the same staff should not be employed where possible upon different days in the different divisions in the same boroughs, in order to lessen the expense.

said, he could not accept the Amendment, because he believed, if it were agreed to, that it would lead to great inconvenience, especially in the large boroughs of England and Scotland—such, for instance, as Liverpool, with nine divisions. He thought the advantage in saving would be counteracted by the facility which it would give to organizations of a formidable kind to go round the town with money or other inducements to voters. He did not, however, attach much importance to either of these arguments; but he thought that a town would be considerably disturbed if different days were taken up in polling.

in moving an Amendment to the effect that nothing in Subsection 4 of the clause, which enables the Returning Officer to fix the polls in a divided borough for the same day, should be taken to enlarge or extend the discretion vested in the Returning Officer by the Ballot Act of 1872 as to fixing the day of poll, said, he thought that in order to prevent any Returning Officer exceeding his powers the day should be fixed in accordance with the provisions of the Ballot Act of 1872.

said, that a difficulty of the kind suggested by the hon. and learned Member might arise in the case of some Returning Officers; and the Government would, therefore, accept the Amendment.

said, he agreed that it would be necessary to pass a clause on the subject brought forward by the hon. and learned Member; but the proper place to do so would be in the Returning Officers' Expenses Bill. On the part of the Government, he would undertake to have the matter looked into.

said, he had been requested by his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) to move an Amendment in regard to the dividing of Irish counties into divisions. Except, perhaps, in the case of the Ulster counties and the county of Dublin, the Amendment, if carried, would make no great change. Why should a county like Longford be divided into divisions, when there was no increase whatever in the representation? No political effect could arise in the case of the counties referred to. Nothing would be gained but the casting of extra expense on the Parnellite Party, who would gain their seats all the same. It was only another instance of the error of applying English ideas to an Irish situation. Where counties returned an increased number of Members he could understand why the division was made, because a new political situation would be created; but why counties having the same complement of Members as of yore should be divided he could not understand. He regarded the single-Member constituency principle with aversion, and believed it would ultimately break down. But for that the National Party would have 90 seats instead of 80, and something like 17 or 18 seats in England. The single-Member principle applied to Ireland would give the Tory Party votes they would not otherwise gain, depriving the National Party of the majority they were entitled to. Thus, in Donegal the Tories would gain one seat, in Tyrone two, in Derry two, in Armagh two; whereas in all these cases, except Armagh, the Catholic National Party were in the majority. Then take the converse case—in Antrim, and any other instance, except Down, would the Nationalists gain thereby? He saw no reason for interfering with a constituency which the Bill did not benefit.

in opposing the Amendment, said, the hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. Healy) advocated a departure, in the case of only a part of Ireland, from the general principle upon which the Bill was framed as regarded all counties. It was impossible, in a matter of this sort, to have regard to local circumstances, or to the bearings which the division or the non-division of counties would have on any political Party, and he should be sorry to believe that in any part of the Kingdom there should continue to be no political stir whatever. An advantage of small constituencies was that it gave variety of representation, and 50,000 was a better number of constituents to represent than 100,000 in a double constituency, say, for instance, such as Newcastle-upon-Tyne. It admitted of exactly that mixture of political and personal relations between constituents and Members which produced the most healthy representation. The Bill applied the general principle all around, irrespective of local political circumstances. That principle had been argued over and over again, and it was impossible on this occasion to depart from it; indeed, he almost thought the Amendment was only moved as a final protest.

in supporting the Amendment, said, he disapproved entirely of the system of single-Member districts. He also objected to the general principle and description of the Bill just given. There was no arrangement of political life in America against which politicians protested more than the single-Member constituency. Through its operation a large number of eminent men were excluded from the National Councils, because they had no home in a constituency they might otherwise represent. The very fact of a man having personal connection with a locality was often the best reason why he was not returned. A prophet was not always regarded in his own country. The Bill, however, presented several exceptions to the rule, and the right hon. Gentleman had alluded to one, for instance, Newcastle, as a double constituency. Why not apply the exception to Ireland? To secure variety of representation he granted an advantage; but the advantage in Ireland gained by dividing the Ulster counties, would be purchased at the cost of giving the minority an excess of representation far beyond their fair claim.

said, he felt himself in some confusion as to what was the object of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) when he placed the Amendment on the Paper, if it was not with the object of gaining a political advantage. At first, he thought the Amendment must be misprinted. The arguments by the hon. Members who had supported the Amendment were ingenious, and directed against the whole principle of single-Member constituencies; but the Amendment of the hon. Member for the City of Cork would apply this obnoxious principle to all Ireland except the Province of Ulster. The fact was, the only possible object was a most unblushing, audacious attempt as far as possible to extinguish the minority in the only place where that minority had a chance of being represented.

said, he thought the principal point in the controversy was the question of convenience and reduction of the Returning Officer's expenses, and he should not think the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) could be fairly accused of political selfishness. There need not be a great anxiety for consistency in the Bill. No Bill over passed that did not contain some anomalies. On the considerations he had mentioned, he supported the Amendment.

said, that in order to meet the case of certain Irish counties, and that of the alternative names of county divisions, he would move to amend the clause by the insertion of the following words:—

"And any name placed before the description of a division shall be the name of the division, and where the names of the divisions are in the alternative, the division may be designated by both or either of such names."

in proposing the omission from the Amendment of the words "and any name placed before the description of a division shall be the name of the division," said, he would refer more especially to Birr and Tullamore, as names which could not stand alone.

said, he had been no party to prolonging discussion on names, which he thought unimportant, and, while he was disposed to agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Warton) as to the names mentioned, the objection to them would not, in his opinion, be met by the Amendment.

said, he would point out that some confusion might arise by one authority using one name and another another in referring to these divisions. In that case, who was to be the authority to exercise the discretion given by the right hon. Gentleman in the selection of a name?

in reply to the noble Lord opposite (Lord John Manners), said, the overseer would select the name. It might be possible to create uniformity when they came to the Schedules; but he should point out that it was the House in Committee, and not the Government, who had pushed forward this matter of alternative designations.

said, that different overseers might select different names, and that would lead to confusion. The Quarter Sessions might be a fit authority.

proposed to amend the Amendment, by rendering it obligatory that where there were two names both should be used.

said, that the Registration Bill was to come into operation within seven days. He was afraid that in connection with the retention of alternative names there might be difficulty with respect to the names under the Registration Bill, which might come into operation before this Bill.

said, that he had already pressed the same view on the House. He should have preferred that there was no alternative name; but the Committee on the Bill had decided otherwise. The matter would, however, have to be reconsidered when the Schedules were reached, and he would meanwhile give attention to the subject.

said, on the whole, he thought it might be the better course to get rid of the alternative names, especially as in some cases both the alternative names were taken from localities. Before that was done, however, the subject would require serious consideration.

said, that, no doubt, as he had just said, the subject would have to be reconsidered on another occasion.

in moving an Amendment in the clause, the effect of which would be to make the law uniform for boroughs and counties with regard to qualification by successive occupation, said, he did not see why qualification by successive occupation should be confined to the boroughs alone.

said, the matter had been fully discussed on an Amendment of his hon. and learned Colleague (Mr. Firth), and he did not now wish to re-open the question. He thought the House would be more inclined to move in the direction of short- ening the qualifying periods than of extending the application of the principle of qualification by successive occupation.

in moving the insertion of an Amendment, constituting in the boroughs of Newry and Galway the Chairman of Town Commissioners the Returning Officer instead of the Sheriff, said, he made this proposal on no political grounds whatever, but simply to uphold the dignity of the office of the Chairman of Town Commissioners. In Ireland there were very few boroughs now left. He believed that in Belfast and one or two other places, the Mayor was the Returning Officer; while in Cork, Kilkenny, and one or two other places, the Sheriff was the Returning Officer. He had also reason to believe that the Chairman of the Newry Town Commissioners was a Conservative, so that no one could imagine that his (Mr. Healy's) object in moving the adoption of the Amendment was in any sense a political one. Up to the time of James I. Newry had a Charter. James repealed all the old Charters, and gave Newry a new one; but when William III. came in he abolished all James's Charters. Only for that, Newry would now be a corporate town, and, of course, entitled to its Mayor, who would be the Returning Officer.

said, he had followed the case of the hon. and learned Member with regard to Newry, and although he knew very little about that place, he thought the case was a good one, and that there was something in what had been said. As to Galway, however, he could not follow the hon. and learned Gentleman so well, for that was a county of a town, and to pass over the Sheriff of a county of a town would be to create an anomaly. He must, therefore, oppose the Amendment.

said, he also opposed the Amendment, contending that the House was now asked to introduce a new thing in the history of elections, and to create a precedent. It was quite true the Chairman of the Town Commissioners answered all the purposes of the Mayor; but, after all, the Mayor was an officer of long standing, whose position and duties were well understood. He thought the House should be careful how they created precedents in these matters, and he hoped the Government would not consent to make an exception in the case of these boroughs. They recognized the Mayor and Sheriff as Returning Officers; but he knew of no case in England in which the Chairman of a Local Board was made the Returning Officer.

said, that, as far as he knew, there was no instance of such a creation of a Returning Officer by legislation as was now proposed. In no case he knew of was the Chairman of a Local Board a Returning Officer. They were asked in this case to create new Returning Officers, and he must confess that his instinct was against it. On that account, he could not agree to the hon. and learned Member's proposal.

said, he supported the Amendment with regard to Newry. He believed that Newry was altogether in an anomalous position, as it was difficult to ascertain who was really the chief man in the borough.

said, the Returning Officer for Newry, under the Bill, would be the Sheriff of the County Down, who would have the same duties to perform for the whole of the divisions in the county. He was already the Returning Officer for the four divisions of the county, and also for the four divisions of the city of Belfast, and if the borough of Newry were added, there would, in fact, be only one Returning Officer for nine divisions, which he (Mr. O'Connor) considered to be a very anomalous position. It was, therefore, he contended, a case where a separate Returning Officer was required. He therefore asked the House to make a special provision for this ease. He did not think the case of Galway was as strong as that of Newry, and they had a Sheriff there

said, he thought the Sheriff of the County Down need not be frightened at having to act for nine constituencies, seeing that the High Sheriff of Lancashire would be Returning Officer for 23 constituencies.

said, he thought that the proposal of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Healy) should be adopted if for no other reason than because it would establish uniformity in eight of the nine boroughs left in Ireland, in all of which they had a local urban Returning Officer. The local officer in authority for the time being would be the Returning Officer, and he wanted to know why Newry should be made an exception? The Chairman of the Town Commissioners was a most suitable officer for the position of Returning Officer; and he was sure the Conservative Town Commissioners of the town of Newry would not be very thankful to the Conservative Member for Derry (Mr. Lewis) when they found that he was the man who was particularly opposed to their obtaining this simple act of justice and convenience.

said, he would point out that the Sheriff of County Down had always acted as Returning Officer for Newry.

said, the remedy appeared to be rather to give a Corporation to the town of Newry.

said, he thought it was obvious that Newry was entitled to have the Chairman of the Town Commissioners as the Returning Officer at elec- tions. It was a very ancient town, for it was mentioned by Dean Swift, who said it was—

"High Church, low steeple,

Dirty streets, proud people."

said, he should like to have the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Charles W. Dilke) on the matter?

said, that, no doubt, Newry would be the exception in Ireland; but if the Amendment was passed, it would be an exception also to the general rule in the United Kingdom, and consequently exceptions would also have to be made in other instances.

supported the Amendment, and asked if the right hon. Gentleman who had charge of the Bill could point out any reason for treating Newry in an exceptional manner? He thought the Conservatives of Newry would be very much surprised to find that the only Irish Member who opposed the Resolution was the hon. Member for Derry, and after all he was an Englishman.

said, he fully agreed with the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis). He thought it quite immaterial where the Returning Officer was located; but he looked with great suspicion upon anything brought forward by the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan, because it was generally against the Irish Church.

said, he would invite the right hon. Baronet to give his serious attention to this matter. It would be unfair to throw the expense on Dublin.

said, he would admit that this was an anomaly, and he thought it would be properly dealt with in the Registration Bill.

Will you introduce a clause to that effect in the Registration Bill?

said, he would do so.

remarked that a Registration Bill was introduced, and yet the Government without pressure would not remedy this injustice to the ratepayers of the City of Dublin.

said, he must oppose the Amendment on the ground that in some county divisions in Ireland there were no towns containing adequate accommodation for the officers conducting nomination proceedings and those connected with the counting of votes.

said, he would ask the House to consider the importance of this question in the case of Ireland. Although there might not be a town in some of the divisions, he believed there were none in which there was not to be found a pretty considerable village which would be available. There was no division without a Petty Sessional Court or a police barrack. His hon. and learned Friend proposed that a candidate should have the power to compel the Returning Officer to conduct the nomination in some town or village in the very division which contained the constituency. It was not likely that a candidate would propose that the proceedings should take place in a town inconveniently situated.

explained that in many counties there were central places to which it would be specially easy to bring the ballot-boxes in consequence of the facilities of railway communication. It was reasonable that such a place should, in certain cases, be looked upon as the centre of more than one Division.

said, that in every division in Ireland sufficient accommodation could be found for the officials engaged in an election. At the same time, there were some Irish districts where the same facilities in the way of railway communication did not exist as in others. He would instance the cases of Cork, Donegal, Mayo, Sligo, and many other parts of Ireland, where great difficulty would in some cases be found in reaching the place selected, if something was not done to meet their requirements.

said, he was afraid that if the Amendment were not agreed to, Sheriffs in Ireland might disregard the convenience of constituencies in fixing the places of nomination.

said, that while he generally approved of the objects of the Amendment, its scope was too large. He held that it was not desirable that a polling place should be outside the limits of the county, which was the locus of the election.

said, he would point out the disadvantages there would be in cases where a county town was adjoining the division, were such an Amendment enforced. A city adjoining a county could only be fixed as the polling-place in cases where the city was geographically, although not technically, within the county.

said, that the assumptions of the Government had been made upon the understanding apparently that the Returning Officers would be desirous of holding elections at places which would best suit the majority of the electors. Now, he believed that there were some places in Ireland where the opposite course would be taken by Returning Officers, who would throw every obstacle in the way of the electors.

interposing, said, he felt bound to protest against these statements. He knew several Returning Officers who were quite incapable of such action.

said, that the hon. Member must be very fortunate in his acquaintances. He (Mr. Gray) had, however, the misfortune to have had quite a contrary experience. He would ask the House to consider in the case of Cork County, in which there were seven divisions, the difficulty which might be cast in the way of the electors by an injudicious selection of a place by the Returning Officer.

said, that some portions of Cork were 80 miles distant from the City of Cork, and there being great lack of railway communication, the poor people would be put to great expense and inconvenience if their case was not considered.

said, it was preposterous to imagine that any High Sheriff would bring voters from a distance of 80 miles. As regarded the High Sheriff of the county of Cork, there was no more honourable man in the county.

said, he hoped the Government would accept the Amendment. It would do away with a possible hardship.

said, there was nothing more fatal to the cause of good government in Ireland than the opposition of the Government to the wishes of the Irish Representatives even on such small points. The great majority of the Returning Officers in Ireland were men—["Hear, hear!"] He was glad to see that his remarks elicited applause; and he would be glad to extend his remarks for the benefit of those who applauded him. Perhaps, however, before he concluded them those who interrupted him would be the worse for their interruption.

The hon. Member must continue his speech without making any threat to hon. Members of this House.

said, he hoped the Speaker would save him from interruptions. The great majority of the Returning Officers in Ireland were men who, by their character and position, were distinctly opposed to the wishes and aspirations of the people. In the case of a bye-election in one division of a county, it would be absurd and unwise to carry the turmoil of the election into another division.

said, it was possible that, for some reason unknown to him, the arrangements made under this clause might be expedient and convenient in the English counties. He only contended that they were not expedient in Ireland. In England there was no great dispute between Parties; but in Ireland there was a lasting dispute between two great Parties. The great objection, however, to the clause was that an election might take place in a division of a county which was in no way concerned in it. The passing of a clause like that as applied to Ireland could only produce inconvenience and dissatisfaction, and might also create mischief without being attended with any advantage whatever.

said, there was a practical difficulty in the working of the clause in Ireland as it stood at present, and it would prove adverse to the true and free expression of the opinion of voters at elections. The hours of nomination as fixed were generally between 12 and 3, and if the nominators and assentors were brought 30 or 40 miles to the nomination in case there was any defect in the nomination paper a serious difficulty might arise. He suggested that it might be retained for the case of England, to the circumstances of which it might be better adapted, but that it was totally unsuitable for Ireland.

said, he thought it was unfortunate that the President of the Local Government Board had not seen his way to accept the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for the county of Monaghan (Mr. Healy). He hoped, however, that the Government would reconsider the matter which had been placed before them. Every argument could be used in favour of the Amendment; and if the Government did not accept it, they would be obliged to press the matter to a division.

said, that it would undoubtedly be a very great inconvenience in large counties, if the electors were to be compelled to travel great distances. He would urge upon the Government the necessity for considering the matter.

said, that the Government would consider the matter, and confer with the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Healy) on the subject.

asked if there was any precedent for the result of an election being declared outside the constituency in which the contest took place?

said, that in cases where there was a large county town adjoining, it had been taken as being in the county for such purposes.

said, he was afraid that the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy), having accused him of mulishness, would now accuse him of pusillanimity and weakness, for he was about to surrender at discretion.

I beg to withdraw "mulishness."

said, he would consider what he could do in the matter, and he would move a Proviso at the end of the clause to provide that it should not apply to Scotland or Ireland.

said, that, in asking leave to withdraw the Amendment, he must be permitted to say that this was another instance of the value of Parliamentary pressure.

said, he had an Amendment to propose which would come before that of the hon. and gallant Member—namely, in line 41, to move the insertion of the words "Provided, That this sub-section shall not apply to Scotland or Ireland."

asked what the effect would be in reference to Ireland and Scotland?

suggested that it would be better for the right hon. Baronet to surrender the sub-section altogether. He had voted in the minority in the division which took place a short time ago, and he could not himself conceive any valid reason for taking the conduct of an election out of the division in which the Member was to be elected. He certainly knew of no division in which it would not be possible to provide a suitable building for conducting the election. It was not likely that any large number of persons would assemble.

said, the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Edward Clarke) was returning to a subject which had. already been disposed of. This was simply a matter of convenience. The Government had received representations from several localities asking for this clause. The right hon. Baronet the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote) would be aware that Exeter was a central place for the whole of Devonshire, and was convenient for counting the votes in the case of more divisions than one. The same might be said of Oxford, and several other counties; York, for instance, was very central, and most convenient on account of its railway communication. It was in consequence of the representations which had been made that the clause had been inserted.

said, he hoped the Government would not yield upon this point in regard to England as they had consented to do in the case of Ireland. Although it might be a propor mode of dealing with that part of the United Kingdom, there were a considerable number of English constituencies in regard to which it would be a grievance, if they were not able to conduct the business of the election in some places outside a particular county division to which the ballot boxes could be readily conveyed. He would instance Cheltenham, which, for all practical purposes, was the meeting place for the great Cotswold Division, although it was situated outside the division. He earnestly hoped that the convenience of the English constituencies would be consulted as well as those of Ireland.

asked whether, as the sub-section was not to apply to Ireland or Scotland, the Returning Officer would be obliged to perform his functions within the division?

Yes.

remarked, that, so far as the English constituencies were concerned, Exeter was a case in point. It was a county and a city in itself, and therefore was not included within any division of the county of Devon; but it was unquestionably the most convenient place for holding proceedings in connection with the county elections.

inquired whether, in order to make the matter perfectly clear to the Sheriffs in Ireland, there would be any objection to add at the end of the clause words to provide that all election proceedings in connection with Ireland and Scotland should be conducted within the division affected?

said, it would not be necessary to do that, as it was the law now, and must be the case.

then moved, in line 44, after "borough," to insert "or division as the case may be." His object was to insure that the election proceedings in connection with the division of a Parliamentary borough should take place within the division. He thought that was even a more important object in boroughs than in counties. In counties it might be convenient sometimes that the election should take place outside the division; but in boroughs that would be very objectionable, especially in bye-elections, where, from the excited state of public feeling, or some other cause, it would be most undesirable to take persons into another part of the borough in order to hear the poll declared. He thought it would be better to confine the election altogether to the division of the borough to which it belonged.