of the whole. But, of the 105 Members returned from Ireland, only 29, or little more than a fourth, came from the Northern province. If its due proportion, therefore, were allotted, Ulster should have 35 Members. Contrasted with the other provinces of Ireland, the injustice was still more striking. Ulster had a population greater by 500,000 than that of Munster, yet Ulster had only two Members additional. The population of Leinster was 1,452,000, as against 1,915,000 in Ulster; yet Leinster had 34 representatives, while Ulster had only 29. Contrasted with Scotland, the anomaly was even more striking. Un der the proposed arrangements, Scotland would, in future, return at least 60 Members; Ulster, with a population equal to two-thirds of that of Scotland, would upon that scale be entitled to 40 representatives. The people, moreover, had a common origin, and were very similar in character and pursuits. Judging by the Irish standard, Ulster would thus be entitled to 35 Members; and if the Scotch precedent were acted upon, she ought to have 40. He regretted that the system of grouping had not been introduced into the Irish Bill. That system had been found to work advantageously in Scotland and Wales, and he did not see why it should not be tried in Ireland. Under such a system several excellent districts might have been created in the North of Ireland. In Armagh, Lurgan and Portadown would have formed a good constituency, with a population of 16,000; and Newtownards and Ballymena might be similarly associated. The county of Antrim should be divided into two parts for representation, and he thought the city of Londonderry possessed superior claims to Galway in the same respect. He was of opinion that the representation of the North should be strengthened, even al though it should be done at the expense of the South. He was willing to accept the proposition of the Government with regard to the franchise. He congratulated them on not lowering the county franchise below the figure at which it was proposed to fix it. He did not quite approve the reduction of the franchise in the boroughs, as he feared it might have an injurious effect in certain towns in which disaffection was said to exist; but he did not think the Government had any choice in the matter, because it would not be possible to keep up a higher rate of franchise in a poorer county than that which had been decided VOL. CXCI. [THIRD SERIES.]

MR. PIM thought that the scheme for the re-distribution of seats was very defective; and, unless it were improved in Committee, he was of opinion that it would be better to confine the Bill to the franchise. He should have no objection to see additional Members given to Ulster, if that could be done without taking them from the other provinces. It appeared to him that the Government ought to have had recourse to the system of grouping which had worked so well in Scotland and in Wales, and which was peculiarly adapted to the circumstances of Ireland. No fewer than eighty-four Irish boroughs had been disfranchised at the Union. In many cases, probably, the disfranchisement took place with the object of bribing the owners by payment for their interest in those boroughs. He thought they ought to make use of the present opportunity to remedy the error then committed, and replace the most important of those towns in the rank of boroughs; and, by uniting them to some of the existing boroughs, form groups, which would be as valuable a portion of the Irish constituencies as they are of the Scotch and Welsh. He objected to the proposed disfranchisement of the six small boroughs, because it would weaken the borough constituencies, and thus afford a plausible argument for giving increased representation to the counties at the expense of the boroughs; and he thought it would be wrong to decrease the borough representation. The large and important county of Cork had certainly a strong claim to be divided into two ridings, and to return four Members instead of two; but no valid reason had been shown for taking these additional members from the boroughs. The electors in boroughs were generally much more independent in their action than the electors in counties; and it would therefore, be decidedly a loss to the independence of the constituencies if the borough representation was diminished. Another objection to the Government proposal as to the six small boroughs was that, supposing their plan of franchise to be affirmed, a large number of the present electors in these boroughs would be deprived of the franchise, as they would lose the right of voting in the boroughs; and their qualification is not sufficient to entitle

3 R

them to vote for the county. With regard to the county representation, he found that England had 172 county Members to 295 Members sitting for boroughs and cities. Wales-which was in very much the same position as Ireland-had 15 Members for counties and 14 for boroughs and cities; Scotland, 30 county Members and 23 borough and city representatives; while in Ireland the proportion was 64 county Members to 39 Members sitting for cities and boroughs. Surely, looking at these numbers in Great Britain, no one could think of proposing any further reduction in the city or borough representation of Ireland. He had ventured to propose a system of grouping. He would not say that it was the best that could be devised, as a private Member had not the information which the Government could command; and it was from the Government that such a proposal ought properly to come. He had proposed to group fifty-three towns in fourteen groups, each group having an average population of about 20,000, and the aggregate amounting to 289,853 persons. According to the franchise scheme of the Government these groups would probably have about 16,700 electors, and it would raise the whole civic and borough constituency of Ireland to about 1,048,000 inhabitants and 57,000 electors. He could not help expressing his surprise that the Government did not contemplate bestowing a third Member upon the thriving and important borough of Belfast-an addition which ought also, in his opinion, to be made to the representation of Cork. He desired, moreover, to call attention to the fact that it was not proposed to give a Member to Kingstown, which, if represented, would rank fifth in regard to population, and fourth in regard to wealth, of the boroughs in Ireland.

MR. VANCE, in spite of the criticism which had been bestowed upon the measure, regarded it as one which, on the whole, dealt with the question in a satis factory manner. He believed, however, that the claims of Ulster had not been fully recognized. Many of the towns in Ulster were of greater importance than boroughs in the South, with whose representation it was not proposed to interfere. If the population of Scotland were compared with that of Ireland, it would, he believed, be found that the claims of the former country had received ample acknowledgement. Yet it was proposed to give seven addditional Members to Scotland. It would,

therefore, in his opinion, be but equitable that two of those seven Members should be given to Ulster, or that the South of Ireland should make some slight sacrifices to meet the just claims of the North. Instead of adopting the principle of grouping, it would be better to give additional representation to the large towns in the North. He was unable to agree with the hon. Member for Dublin (Mr. Pim), that the town populations were more independ ent than the county populations. No doubt the people of the borough which he himself had the honour to represent were perfectly independent, because it was a manufacturing borough, and they required no extraneous aid; but this was far from being the case in other Irish boroughs. He had not long ago contested Dublin with the hon. Member (Mr. Pim), and could hardly think his supporters in that city were so enormously independent, as the accounts rendered showed that the legitimate net expenses of the hon. Member amounted to not less than 7,000 and some odd hundred pounds. That kind of thing was quite unknown in the North, where the people were characterized by the stubborn independence which they had inherited from their forefathers. In conclusion, he expressed a hope that the Government would grant increased representation to the North of Ireland.

MR. SERJEANT BARRY said, he would oppose the scheme of the hon. Member for Dublin, as the wildest that was ever invented. It deprived the counties of those independent elements which boroughs supplied, and it grouped a number of boroughs without making provision that those towns should not lose representation. As to the Bill itself, he was unable to support it, because he thought that as a measure of enfranchisement it was altogether insuffi cient. And the scheme of re-distribution was only calculated to increase the number of those who support the present Government. An £8 franchise was the very least that could be proposed for counties. The principle of the Bill was really to transfer the power to counties, which were in the hands of a few proprietors, who marched their tenantry to the polling booth, too often accompanied by Her Majesty's troops. He objected to the Bill in its two great branches, because it was not framed fairly and impartially to arrange the distribution of political power, but had been done in the interests of a particular party.

SIR JAMES STRONGE pleaded for

the independent representation of the towns of Lurgan and Portadown, in the county of Armagh, on the ground of their increased population and importance. He felt bound to insist that the representation of Ireland should be treated in the same liberal mauner as that of Scotland.

COLONEL GREVILLE-NUGENT trusting that the Bill would pass in an altered form, thought it unwise to oppose the second reading. Its provisions violated the principles of the English Bill. One was that no borough should be disfranchised; and this Bill disfranchised six. There were more borough Members than county Members for England; Ireland had sixtyfour county to thirty-nine borough Members; and yet it was proposed to reduce the borough and increase the county representation. To transfer counties to boroughs without reducing the county franchise was to restrict rather than extend the franchise. The difficulty was to lower the franchise in the poorer county to the same compara tive point as in the richer; but he believed it would be necessary to make, a considerable alteration in its provisions regarding this point.

SIR HERVEY BRUCE confessed he had no timorous feelings regarding the reduction of the franchise, and expected that, in that lower stratum, they would find an amount of support on which hon. Members opposite little calculated. It was against the elaborate scheme of grouping embodied in the Bill that he now rose to protest-a system that worked badly both in Wales and Scotland, and which he should be sorry to see forced upon Ireland. Those who represented small constituencies in Ireland like to have them to themselves, and therefore he trusted it would be energetically resisted by Irish Members. It stood to reason that a town would be better able to give expression to its own interests when it stood by itself than when it was grouped with one forty or fifty miles apart.

MR. BRADY said, he must protest against the principle of this Bill, if, indeed, it contained any principle whatever. Household suffrage was granted in Eng. land but denied to Ireland. He objected to the £4 "hard line" borough franchise. He altogether objected to the £12 county franchise, and thought it ought to be reduced to £7, because the great mass of the people lived in small tenements. He compared the different franchises existing in England with those proposed to be given

to Ireland, and contended that, in this respect, Ireland was most unfairly dealt with. Were it not for his belief that the Bill would be materially altered in Committee, he should second the Motion of his hon. Friend (Colonel French) that it should be read a second time that day six months.

MR. ESMONDE said, that in Committee he should call attention to the freeman franchise.

MR. O'BEIRNE said, as he stated when the noble Earl introduced the Bill, that he could not see that any principle which had been hitherto proposed or accepted by the IIouse had governed him in the preparation of it, he might, perhaps, be permitted, in justification of that opinion, which was expressed at the moment, to say that, having since had the opportunity of more carefully considering the clauses which referred to the re-distribution of seats, that he was confirmed in his opinion, and that he felt that that opinion could be fully sustained. They had had during the last Session, in many and protracted debates which some of them, at least, on this side of the House heard with weariness, a policy announced and insisted upon with reference to a reform of the English constituency which had been disregarded in the Bill proposed for Ireland. The House will permit him to call their attention to the comparative position of the English boroughs, as fixed by the English Bill, and the disfranchisement of the Irish boroughs and the distribution of the Members proposed to be liberated. In England there were no less than twenty-two boroughs sending Members to Parliament of a population less than 6,000. There were ten boroughs of a population less than 5,000. There were twenty-two boroughs of a population less than Bandon, eighteen less than Cashel, nine less than Kinsale, five less than Downpatrick, and four less than Dungannon. Upon what principle, then, by what mode of calculation had the noble Earl arrived at the determination to disfranchise those five Irish boroughs, and what did he do with the five Members? He gave one to the minority in Dublin. It was pretty clear what class of men that minority would return. Certainly not one who would add to the Liberal ranks in that House. He selected four baronies in Tipperary to form a new constituency--being perfectly well aware that those four baronies were Conservative, and would send a Member to aid the Conservative party to Parliament. [The Earl of MAYO said, he had heard that a

six of the very small insignificant boroughs to create some very large, influential, and independent constituencies. Surely, in a country where agriculture formed the principal staple of industry, it was reasonable to take the representatives from these small boroughs, which, if they represented any thing at all, represented agriculture, and give them to large and flourishing agricultural county constituencies. When the Government were taunted with departing in this from the principle of the English Bill, it must be remembered that the circumstances of the two cases were different. In England you had great manufacturing centres which, until last year, were unrepresented; but no places of that kind existed in Ireland. If you represented anything at all you must represent agriculture, and that could not be done more effectually than in the way proposed by the Government. It was objected that they had not drawn a line, taking all the smallest boroughs first. They had dealt with five of the smallest, and the only boroughs excepted, taking them numerically, were Mallow and Enniskillen. The reason for taking the five boroughs mentioned in the Bill was because they were situated in localities to which the representation could justly and properly be transferred, and because the Government thought it better not to attempt to move the representation from the localities, but to transfer it from the small boroughs to the agricultural constituencies around them. That principle had only been departed from in the case of Portarlington, and that was a point to be discussed in Committee, as was also the proposal to adopt the minority principle, in giving a third Member to Dublin. For his own part, he should not regret if the Committee thought fit to divide the city of Dublin and give it three Members without adopting the minority principle. But he did attach importance to giving these single Members to divisions of the counties. He thought the opinions of the electors in those districts would be much more adequately represented, and a much more satisfactory principle of representation would thereby be created, than by turning these counties into three-cornered constituencies. The House would remember that the vernment last year were no great advocates of the minority principle, and he should be sorry to see it extended to Ireland to any great extent. If a larger scheme of distribution were thought necessary by the Committee, he admitted that

a case had been made out for giving additional representation to Ulster. As it was, unwarrantable attacks had been made upon the measure, which was said to be framed for party objects. Now, of the six boroughs which were proposed to be dealt with, three returned Liberal and three Conservative Members; there was no partiality in that respect, and he had never made any inquiries whatever as to the political effect of the measure. If the scheme of the Government were adopted, he believed that the representation, in a party sense, would remain very much as it now was, and he repudiated the extraordinary statements of the Liberal Members as to the want of independence on the part of the southern constituencies. If a powerful influence were exerted in one direction, an equally powerful influence was brought to bear on the other. He was sorry that such a state of things should exist in Ireland; but it did exist, and an alteration in the fran chise was not likely to affect it materially. He hoped the Bill would be fairly considered in Committee. There was no party object to be gained by it. He believed that the principles on which it was based were sound, and the Government were only anxious to pass a measure which would render more influential and powerful in this House the representation of the people of Ireland.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a second time, and committed for Thursday next.

*

Third Reading-Local Government Supplemental (1868) * (70), and passed.