under the Act of the last Session, explained the spirit in which the Commissioners had endeavoured to carry out the instructions of Parliament, and pointed out, in answer to the remarks of Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Bright, that the extension of borough boundaries was not a mere transfer of voters from county to borough constituencies, for thousands of men would have no votes unless these boundaries were extended. Speaking for those of the Commissioners whom he had been able to consult, he stated that they fully admitted the right of Parliament to alter any of their recommendations, and that they would not feel aggrieved by that course. But they probably would object to having the matter referred back to them, as Mr. Disraeli had proposed. On all accounts the reference ought to be to another tribunal, but he warned the House against entering into a general inquiry, and as the Report had been three months before the country, it ought to be limited to those boroughs from which petitions had already been presented. Sir F. Crossley, who also had acted as a Commissioner, concurred entirely in Mr. Gurney's statement.

Mr. Disraeli expressed his readiness to consent to a Select Committee of five members, on these conditions:-that it should be appointed by the Committee of Selection; that it should sit from day to day; that its inquiries should be limited to boroughs from which petitions had been presented; that the evidence should be entirely documentary; and that it should have power to consult with the Commissioners.

In the course of a desultory discussion which ensued, Mr. Gladstone and other members urged that not only towns which had petitioned Parliament, but those which had presented memorials to the Commissioners, and on whose behalf notices of motion had been given by their representatives, should be considered by the Select Committee. Ultimately Mr. Hardy consented to include the last class of boroughs, and that the Committee should have power to contract boundaries.

A few days later the subject was resumed, and Mr. G. Hardy moved that a Select Committee be appointed to consider the boundaries of the boroughs which had petitioned, thirty-three in number.

It was resolved that the Committee should sit de die in diem, and consist of five members-viz. Mr. Walpole, Sir W. S. Maxwell, Mr. Whitbread, Mr. A. Bruce, and Mr. K. Hodgson.

On the 29th of May Mr. Walpole brought up the Report of the Committee thus appointed, and described the result of their labours as follows:-The boroughs had been divided into three classes. The first class comprised boroughs in regard to which the Report of the Commissioners had been recommended for adoption. They were the following:-Bolton, Chester, Greenwich, Newport (Monmouthshire), Northampton, Preston, Stalybridge, and Windsor. The second class comprised boroughs with respect to which slight modifications had been made. They were as follows:-Chelsea,

D

Darlington, Middlesborough, Newport (Isle of Wight), Salisbury, Wilton, Cheltenham, Gloucester, Hastings, and Oldham. The third class comprised boroughs the present boundaries of which were recommended to be retained-namely, Birkenhead, Birmingham, Bristol, Gateshead, Lambeth, Liverpool, Marylebone, Manchester, Nottingham, Portsmouth, Reading, South Shields, Tynemouth, Warwick, and Wigan.

A Bill was then brought in for the purpose of confirming the Report of the Boundary Commissioners, subject to the alterations recommended by the Select Committee. The proceedings on this Bill re-opened the controversy, Mr. Gorst having cast some reflection on the motives which actuated members of the Committee. Mr. Walpole (Chairman of the Committee) defended their impartiality, and said they had to deal with two classes of boroughs, the old and the new. As to the new there was no dispute; and of the old only thirty-three were referred to them. As to eighteen of these the Committee either agreed with the Commissioners or made such modifications of their recommendations that there was no substantial difference between them. Consequently, the whole controversy now related to fifteen of the cases referred to the Committee, and upon which they thought that no alteration should be made in existing boundaries. Mr. Walpole then explained the principle by which the Committee had been guided in their proceedings, and spoke strongly in support of their recommendations. Had not the Commissioners' Report been challenged he should have been prepared to say, "Accept it as the best decision to be arrived at," but, when once it had been challenged, and the House itself said that the matter must be referred to a Select Committee, if, then, the Committee did not exercise its judgment, it would be such a gross neglect of duty that he would never consent to be a party to it. If the House did not accept the Report of the Committee, all he could say was that they had lost a good deal of time.

Mr. Stopford made objections to the mode in which the Committee had conducted the inquiry, and urged the House to recur to the recommendations of the Commissioners.

Mr. Bright was entirely satisfied with the proceedings of the Committee and with the rules on which they had acted, and urged the House to accept their report, which was perfectly satisfactory to all concerned. The House, he maintained, by its original appointment of a Commission, had declared itself unfit to go into the details of this matter, and the Government, when the Committee was formed, announced that their report was to be final. This last statement, however, was disputed by Mr. Hardy.

Mr. Newdegate said that the House could not abdicate its right to review the decisions of the Committee. He argued that the recommendations of the Commissioners were to be preferred.

Mr. Disraeli denied that the Government had pledged itself to be bound by the Report of the Committee. His recommendation

now was that the House should go on with the Bill without further loss of time, and, trusting to the practical good sense which had so often been shown, he anticipated that all the difficulties of the schedules, which were not numerous, would soon be satisfactorily disposed of.

Mr. Gladstone reminded the House that the Select Committee was a tribunal of review, with better means of information, and with larger powers of judgment than the Commission. The Government had thrown over the Committee, but he hoped the House would not give its sanction to such a proceeding.

Mr. Hibbert moved an amendment in the Bill, the effect of which was to substitute the boundaries of the old boroughs, according to the recommendations of the Select Committee, for those which had been proposed by the Commissioners.

Mr. Adderley opposed the amendment, and insisted on accepting the boundaries recommended by the Commissioners. He illustrated his argument by referring to Birmingham, which had been extended beyond its boundaries into the rural districts. He said that if Birmingham were not made conterminous with the town population, thousands of persons would be disfranchised.

Mr. Bright objected to adding the suburbs of Birmingham, with upwards of 35,000 inhabitants, to an already overgrown community of 350,000, as only increasing existing inequalities. He observed that it was part of a policy borrowed by Mr. Disraeli from Lord Bolingbroke to give the landed interest an unassailable power in Parliament, which, if it were successful, must lead to electoral districts. To draw a sharp line between urban and rural districts would ultimately damage the Conservatives most of all; but he predicted that no ingenuity would be able to extract a party advantage from this Bill.

Mr. R. Gurney (one of the Royal Commissioners) stated the grounds upon which he and his colleagues had arrived at the conclusions in their report, and argued against what he termed "a wholesale disagreement with their decision." Their instructions were said to have been imperfect, but they were given them not merely by the House of Commons, but by Parliament; and it was on the faith of those instructions and the principles laid down for regulating the boundaries of boroughs that the Reform Act of last year had been agreed to. The Commissioners understood that members were to be elected for the towns of Birmingham, Manchester, and other places, and not for portions of them, and that was the principle on which they had acted. If it were not carried into effect whole districts would be excluded altogether from the franchise.

Mr. H. A. Bruce spoke on behalf of the Committee, and, refusing to shelter himself under the plea that the difference between the two authorities was owing to the variance in their instructions, freely criticized the Commissioners' Report, and pointed out various instances in which he asserted they had gone on an entirely wrong principle.

The amendment was supported by Sir H. Williamson and Mr. Osborne, and opposed by Mr. D. Bromley, Mr. Newdegate, Lord Galway, and Mr. A. Peel. Eventually it was carried on a division by 184 to 148. The success of this amendment secured the passing of the Bill. Other amendments hostile to the recommendations of the Select Committee were moved and rejected, and the Bill finally passed through Committee in a shape by which the fifteen large boroughs, about which the controversy had been raised, were retained in the position recommended by the Select Committee.

The differences which had excited a considerable amount of party feeling in the House of Commons were revived with even greater animation when the Bill came before the House of Lords. The question was again raised as to the conduct of Government in attempting to set aside the recommendations of the Select Committeee, to which it was alleged they had agreed to refer the settlement of boundaries by way of compromise. Earl Beauchamp having moved an amendment with respect to the Parliamentary limits of Birkenhead and Birmingham in accordance with the original report of the Boundary Commissioners, Earl Granville earnestly protested against this course, and appealed to the Government to withhold their support from the amendment, on the ground that Mr. Disraeli in the House of Commons had assented to the alterations suggested by the Select Committee as a compromise.

The Earl of Malmesbury observed that it was not in the power of any Ministry to control the action of the House of Lords by speeches delivered in the House of Commons.

This remark drew from Earl Russell the rejoinder that the Prime Minister had distinctly declared after the Bill assumed its present shape that the question of boundaries was settled. It would, therefore, he submitted, be a breach of faith on the part of the Government now to disturb that settlement.

The Lord Chancellor denied that Ministers were bound to accept the report of the Select Committee.

After some further discussion, Earl Granville and the principal members of the opposition party rose from their seats and simultaneously left the house.

The Duke of Marlborough emphatically declared that such a step on the part of those noble lords was unwarrantable and an insult to the House. Earl Beauchamp warmly disclaimed any intention of taking the house by surprise.

On the following day the Earl of Malmesbury referred to the scene which took place on the previous evening, when Earl Russell, Earl Granville, and other leading members of the Liberal party walked out of the house. He said that such a scene had never occurred within his memory, and it was entirely without excuse. If the noble lords believed that Government was deceiving the House they ought to have taken a different course. In order, however, to leave no pretence for such a charge, Government were

willing to postpone the Boundary Bill and the Scotch Reform Bill, and to request the independent members of the House not to press their amendments.

Earl Russell defended the conduct of himself and his friends, which he held was justified by the unusual course pursued by the Government, who might, if so minded, have proposed an adjournment, in order that the statement of the First Minister as to the sense in which he had accepted the amendment made by the Commons in the Boundary Bill might be explained.

The Duke of Montrose (who had given notice of an amendment with respect to the boundaries of Glasgow) remarked that he would never have put it on the paper if he had thought it could be regarded in the light of a breach of faith.

The Marquis of Salisbury recommended, for the dignity of the House, to let the matter rest.

The Lord Chancellor said a retractation of the charge against the Government should first be made.

Earl Granville said the course adopted by himself and his noble friends was not disrespectful to the House. The course was no doubt unusual, but its justification was shown by the fact that it had been successful. It was, moreover, the course adopted by the Government themselves, who frequently, during the Session, had walked out of the House of Commons in a body before a division, to avoid committing themselves on the eve of a general election.

The Duke of Argyll said he had from the first suspected that Government intended to move amendments which he had determined to protest against as a breach of faith.

The Earl of Derby said the discussion had been conducted with unnecessary warmth, and although the Prime Minister's statement respecting the Boundary Bill was open to some doubt, it was just as reasonable to conclude that he had committed their lordships to the Irish Church Bill because Ministers had permitted it to go through its later stages in the Commons without opposition. After the explanation of the Government he thought that noble lords were bound to express their regret at what had occurred, instead of continuing the unworthy course of imputing

motives.

The Earl of Harrowby attributed the original breach of faith to the Liberal party in the Commons, who, being dissatisfied with the conclusions of an impartial Commission, insisted on referring the Bill to a Select Committee, thus making it a question of party and local politics.

Eventually the Bill passed through the House of Lords in the same shape in which it had been sent up from the Commons.

Another measure which had been announced by the Government as necessary to complete the legislation connected with Parliamentary Reform was directed to the amendment of the law relating to Election petitions and the more effectual prevention of bribery and