tenth of the whole of the present voters would be added to the English constituencies. The number which ought to be added to the Irish constituencies, if the English system were acted on in respect to Ireland, was 20,000; while if the Legislature were governed merely by considerations of population the addition would be 500,000. He refused, and believed the Irish people would refuse, to accept this as any thing like an adequate measure of Reform for Ireland; indeed, he would have infinitely preferred having had no Irish Reform Bill introduced at all during the present Session. In conclusion, he expressed a sincere hope that at the coming general election the people of Ireland would unanimously declare that they would no longer submit to a system of legislation which was unequal in its character and unjust to their interests.

Mr. Bagwell remarked that this was a very small and a very ridiculous measure. Hon. gentlemen on that side of the House had consented to the distribution of seats being relegated to the next Parliament, but they certainly hoped that a more extended county franchise would be at once adopted. The Irish members had just reason to complain of being basely abandoned by the English and Scotch members on that side of the House, whom they had, at the cost of much time and trouble, assisted in carrying the English and Scotch Bills. Nothing more futile than the Bill now under consideration had ever been proposed by any Ministry, and he, in common he believed with all the Irish Liberal members, entered his emphatic protest against it.

Sir Colman O'Loghlen quite concurred in the remarks of the last speaker. A majority of the Irish members were in favour of extending the suffrage in the counties, and of abolishing the freeman franchise, but the motions introduced to carry out those objects were lost in consequence of the apathy of the English members, who had neglected to come to the House to support

them.

Sir J. Gray believed that no Irish member on the Liberal side of the House was satisfied with the Bill, which both as to boroughs and counties did less for Ireland than the English Bill did for England, considering the comparative circumstances of the two countries, and that a 127. county rental in Ireland was equivalent to a 307. rental in England. The county of Clare had 20,300 electors forty years ago, and now it had 3400; and now fewer electors were added to the whole of Ireland than were formerly deducted from the constituency of this one county.

Mr. Esmonde did not regard the Bill as in any way a settlement of the question, which was sure to be reopened at the earliest opportunity.

A clause was subsequently moved by Mr. Reardon to reduce the county franchise to 67., and the borough franchise to 37., but it was rejected without a division. The same fate befell some other amendments from either side of the House, and the Bill having

been read a third time sub silentio, passed through the House of Commons.

Arriving in the House of Lords at a late period of the Session, the Bill was accepted in the shape in which it came up, though not without some strong remarks on its inadequate and defective character, but it was regarded as affording the only chance of dealing with the subject in the present Session, and therefore adopted in preference to leaving the question altogether unsettled. The Marquis of Clanricarde said that, as a measure of Parliamentary Reform, the Bill was a mockery and an absurdity. What was required in Ireland was not so much an extension of the franchise as a redistribution of seats. Anomalies existed in Ireland which could not be justified on any ground, and it was precisely because there was so much to be done in that direction that no attempt at redistribution had been made. It was evident that another Irish Reform Bill would have to be introduced next year. This measure conferred the franchise on the most doubtful class to which it could be extended in Ireland. He would not detain their lordships by going into statistics on this subject further than to refer to one or two facts which would be found in a paper laid upon the table of the other House of Parliament, showing the population and the number of the electors in the different counties and boroughs in Ireland. It was evident from this paper that there were very striking anomalies in connexion with the representation of Ireland. There were eighteen boroughs, the largest of which, Lisburn, had only 302 electors; of which one, Portarlington, had only ninety-two electors, and most of which had under 200 electors, and yet each of those boroughs returned a member; while an important county containing 1000 electors, and having within it no boroughs, returned only two members. Again, it was impossible that the populous, wealthy and increasing district to the south-east of the city of Dublin could remain without direct representation and the ninety-two electors of Portarlington continue to return a member. He had no intention of opposing this Bill, but he protested against the notion that it was a measure which would settle the question of Reform in Ireland, because he foresaw that, within a year or two, it would be necessary to take up the question of the redistribution of the representation in that country.

The Earl of Longford reminded the House that this was not the Bill originally introduced by the Government. By the Bill as at first proposed certain small boroughs in Ireland would have been abolished, and among them Portarlington, whose member would have been given to the city of Dublin. That Bill, however, met with so small an amount of favour in the House of Commons that the Government were obliged to give up that scheme of redistribution. Though in the Bill before their lordships the qualification in boroughs was named at 47., practically the borough franchise in Ireland would be the same as that in England, as in the former country premises valued at under 47. were exempted from payment

of rates. There was a lodger franchise for Ireland, as well as for England and Scotland.

Earl Russell was disposed to accept this Bill as it stood, because, notwithstanding the anomalies in the Irish representation pointed out by the Marquis of Clanricarde, he thought the measure was sufficient for the present time. His reason for saying this was that he thought it could not be said that the Irish boroughs generally had more than a fair proportion of representation. It therefore seemed to him that it would be better for Parliament to wait for some years and see whether there were not some large and increasing towns, such as Belfast, entitled to additional representation. With regard to a "hard and fast line," which was so strongly repudiated by the Government last year, he might observe that in England and Scotland we had it in respect of the county and the lodger franchises, and in Ireland it was now to be extended even to the boroughs. He was led to the conclusion, therefore, that either the pretence put forward last year was a false one, which he thought it was, or that the Government had departed from their own principles.

The Earl of Bandon said that the large county of Cork, in which he resided, contained no less than 15,995 voters, who only returned two members, while four boroughs in the same county had a collective constituency of only 814 voters, who returned four members to the House of Commons. Even under the present Bill the whole constituency of these boroughs would not exceed 1760, and, probably, would not yield more than 1300 or 1400 voters. The Irish Reform Bill of 1850 had, unfortunately, given up the principle that the county franchise should be based upon property, and he still retained the opinion which he expressed at the time that this was a step in the direction of equal electoral divisions. He looked upon the lodger franchise as applied to Ireland with considerable distrust, for he could not forget that before the Bill of 1850 the great complaint was the swearing on both sides as to the value of the holdings. He trusted that at some future time a Bill for the redistribution of seats in Ireland would be brought before their lordships' House.

The Bill was then passed.

In addition to the Scotch and Irish Reform Bills thus brought to a conclusion there was another measure which it was necessary to pass before a general election under the new law could take place, viz. a Bill for defining the boundaries of boroughs in England. Some necessary steps had been taken for this purpose in the preceding Session. By a Bill then passed certain persons therein named had been appointed Commissioners for ascertaining boundaries, and their duties prescribed and defined. These gentlemen having, with the aid of a number of Assistant Commissioners, made the necessary inquiries in the autumn of 1867, presented their Report to Parliament. It was generally admitted that they had exercised their powers with perfect impartiality and fidelity,

but some of their recommendations had for various reasons proved unpalatable to the boroughs to be affected by them. In some cases the objectors were influenced by the fear of a possible liability to increased local rates, in others they were animated by a feeling of jealousy towards the districts proposed to be annexed, and in certain instances both parties, as well as those who were to be added as the constituency to which the addition was to be made, concurred in opposing the annexation. Several of the boroughs in consequence presented petitions to Parliament, praying that the recommendations of the Commissioners might not be confirmed, and instructed their representatives to oppose their passing into a law. A notice of motion was given by Mr. Hibbert on the House of Commons going into Committee on the Boundary Bill for postponing the consideration of the scheme so far as related to the old boroughs. On this occasion a long and rather desultory discussion arose, commenced by Mr. Gladstone, who, in entering upon the subject, disclaimed all intention of casting reflection upon the Commissioners, to whose judicious and impartial discharge of their duties he paid a high compliment, but pointed out one or two difficulties in which the House was now involved from the limited nature of their instructions. Though strongly prejudiced himself in favour of making parliamentary and municipal boundaries conterminous, it was too late now to urge that arrangement; but he insisted that the disposition of the parties-of the town to be extended and the district to be annexed-ought to be taken into consideration, and the Commission had no power given them to inquire into that element. In many cases extension of boundaries would be disfranchisement, as it would deprive men of the middle classes living outside, and having their places of business inside a town, of the county vote they enjoyed, and another objection to extension would arise from the abolition of compounding. Whereever a decided unwillingness or a divided state of opinion existed, he maintained that it ought not to be overridden without examination; but there was this difficulty, that the Bill to be of use must be passed by the 10th of June, which, if each town was to be discussed seriatim, would be impossible. Under these circumstances, therefore, if placed between the alternative of passing the Bill as it stood without listening to any complaints, and of accepting the amendment of Mr. Hibbert to postpone the cases of the old boroughs, he should support the latter. But a third course, he suggested, might be struck out, by which the old boroughs which did not object might not be deprived of the benefit of an extension of their boundaries. The House might either postpone the cases of those boroughs which had signified their objections to the Commissioners' Report, or refer the schedule to a Select Committee. He pressed the Government to consent to some arrangement of the kind, protesting that he had no desire to retard the progress of the Bill, or to treat the question in a party spirit.

Mr. Disraeli acknowledged that the Bill involved numerous

difficulties; but expressed a confident belief that with temper and patience a satisfactory settlement of them all was possible. Recalling the circumstances under which the Commission was appointed, and reminding the House that it was virtually a Parliamentary Commission, he pointed out that to interfere seriously with their labours would be to make it impossible again to obtain the services of eminent men for a similar task. He did not deny, however, that their report was subject to revision, and if, as the Committee went on, such cases arose, they could be dealt with on their own merits. If it seemed desirable, they might be referred to a Select Committee, or the memorials might be referred back to the Commissioners, or some other mode of facilitating the progress of the Bill might be hit upon. This was not strictly a Government measure, for the Government had acted entirely as the trustee of Parliament in the matter, and it ought not to excite any kind of party feeling. The Government certainly would not deal with it in that spirit, and would leave their supporters entirely free. Indeed, no one could foretell how it would affect party interests. It was desirable that the Bill should be passed by June 10, but if it were not, a short Bill would be necessary to facilitate the Dissolution.

Mr. Hibbert explained that the motive of his amendment was not to deprive the boroughs which were satisfied with the Commissioners' Report of an immediate extension of their boundaries, but to give time for a consideration of the cases of those boroughs which had complained of the proposed boundaries. This could hardly be done adequately this year under the necessity of passing the Bill before the 10th of June. It was for the Government to suggest some arrangement for this purpose, and unless this were done he should persevere with his amendment.

Mr. Goldney reminded the House that the effect of postponement in the case of the Municipal Boundaries Commission, thirtyfour years ago, was that nothing had been done from that time to this.

Mr. Bass pointed out that of eighty-one boroughs the boundaries of which were altered, only fifteen had any substantial complaint to make, and he suggested that the Government should refer these fifteen to a Select Committee.

Mr. Hardy believed that there were not more than seven boroughs in which any serious difficulty would arise, and the House of Commons was perfectly competent to deal with these without the aid of a Select Committee. At least, the House ought to try before resorting to that expedient.

Sir George Grey thought that a larger number of controverted cases would be found to exist; but he advocated the referring of the subject to a Select Committee.

Mr. Bright, Mr. Roebuck, and Mr. Monk concurred in this suggestion.

Mr. Russell Gurney, who had been one of the Commissioners