portant measures that ever came under the consideration of Parliament. They related to the Constitution of the country, and yet their Lordships were told they were not to introduce any Amendments into them. Now, why had not the Boundary Bill been sent up from the House of Commons at an earlier period? Because, he would reply, the Opposition had taken up the time of the House with the consideration of another uncalled-for and totally useless measure. Their Lordships were now told, however, that the Bill could not be altered, because it was of great importance that the elections should occur in November; but was that object of such vital importance as to call for the passing through their Lordships' House without any discussion of a measure effecting the representation of the people? To compare the two things was what no statesman ought to do, and what no man, with any regard for the country, could do. Why should not this Bill be amended? The Scotch Bill had been amended, and there would nevertheless be time for its being rediscussed in the other House. It seemed to him that the question of passing a good Boundary Bill was of much more importance than whether the elections took place in November or not. He could not understand, therefore, why the Amendment of the noble Duke the Postmaster General volved in this question; and if the noble Lord pressed his Amendment to a division he should feel it his duty to vote in favour of it. THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH said, the proposal of the Government that no alteration should be introduced into the Boundary Bill was made simply because it was desired to have the dissolution in November; and the 20th July was the last day for sending in claims for the county votes. Under the circumstances the Government felt bound to abide by the pledge which they gave to the House the other evening. EARL GRANVILLE: Nobody can complain of the course which the three independent Peers have taken this evening. Although, in discussions which were certainly carried on with great spirit, to say the least of it, on both sides, we complained of the course which Her Majesty's Government seemed inclined to take, we never pretended to impugn the right of the House to act as it thought fit. To-night Her Majesty's Government have behaved in a most honourable way; and I may add that I believe my noble Friends opposite are incapable of intentionally acting in any other way. jority, 18. Resolved in the Negative. Bill to be read 3a To-morrow. Bristol, M. CONTENTS. On Question? their Lordships divided: with regard to Glasgow was not to be en-Contents, 9; Not-Contents, 27: Matertained. The addition of it would not lead to more than a couple of hours' discussion, which would cause no delay whatever. He hoped that on the third reading that Amendment would be moved; for he be lieved that the arguments in favour of extending the boundary of Glasgow were unanswerable. The independence of their Lordships' House was concerned in this matter. Even now Amendments might be introduced into the Bill, and yet they were told not to make them, as there might be some bazard about the proceeding. Now, the House of Commons might discuss the Amendments in the same time their Lord ships would probably take in inserting them. If the House of Commons accepted them, well and good; if they rejected them it would then be the duty of their Lordships to determine whether they would insist upon them, or whether they would consent to withdraw them in order to prevent further delay. For these reasons he should certainly vote in favour of the Amendment of the noble Lord. LORD COLCHESTER said, that a most important constitutional principle was in Colchester, L. Fitzwalter, L. Redesdale, L. [Teller.] NOT-CONTENTS. Cairns, L. (L. Chancel- Halifax, V. Buckingham and Chan- Clifford of Chudleigh, L. Normanby, M. Clinton, L. Colville of Culross, L. Farnham, L. Foley, L. L. [Teller.] Silchester, L. (E. Long- Sundridge, L (D.Argyll) PARLIAMENTARY REFORMREPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (SCOTLAND) BILL.-(No. 192.) (The Lord Privy Seal.) REPORT. Amendments reported (according to Order). THE DUKE OF ARGYLL explained that the Amendments for which he was responsible had been introduced with the sanction of the noble and learned Lord upon the Woolsack, and were not intended to delay in any way the passing of the Bill. LORD REDESDALE said, that if any Amendments whatever were introduced the effect must be to send back the Bill for re-consideration to the House of Commons. He was unable to see any difference in principle between the consideration of one Amendment and another; and therefore he begged to give Notice that upon the third reading he should move the Amendment of which Notice had been given with regard to the city of Glasgow. Further Amendments made: Bill to be read 3 To-morrow; and to be printed as amended. (No .220.) House adjourned at a Quarter before * Report Ecclesiastical Buildings and Glebes (Scotland) (re-comm.)* [150]; Court of Justiciary (Scotland) (re-comm.)* [174]; Municipal Elections (Scotland) [189-211]; Contagious Diseases Act (1866) Amendment [193]; Petit Juries (Ireland) (re-comm.)* [209]; Indorsing of Warrants* [208]. Considered as amended Metropolitan Police Funds [132]; Assignees of Marine Policies [203]. Third Reading Registration [190]; Ecclesiastical Commissioners [168]; Poor Law and Medical Inspectors (Ireland)* [183]; Fairs (Metropolis) [205]; Clerks of the Peace, &c. (Ireland) * [194], and passed. Withdrawn Lands Clauses Consolidation Act (1845] Amendment* [176]. PUBLIC DEPARTMENTS.-QUESTION. MR. PARRY said, he wished to ask the First Commissioner of Works, Whether it be the intention of the Government to take any steps, during the present Session of Parliament, to carry out the recommendations in the Report of the Commismissioners appointed in November 1866, to inquire into the question of the accommodation of Public Departments? LORD JOHN MANNERS said, in reply, that it was not the intention of the Government to take any steps during the re mainder of the Session to carry out the recommendations of the Commission appointed to inquire in 1866 into the subject of the accommodation of Public Departments. It was, however, intended to give at the proper time the usual notices for the acquisition of property in order that there might be legislation in the ensuing Session. METROPOLIS-HYDE PARK IMPROVE MENTS.-QUESTION. MR. W. B. BEAUMONT said, he wished to ask the First Commissioner of Works, Whether he proposes to cut down any more trees near the monument to the late Prince Consort; if so, how many; and generally what are his intentions as to laying out Hyde Park in that neighbourhood? LORD JOHN MANNERS stated, in reply, that he did not propose to cut down any more trees of the slightest importance in order to make a drive to the south of the Albert Memorial in Hyde Park this year. As to what was intended to be done generally with respect to the laying out of the Park in that neighbourhood, he could only repeat the answer he had already given to the right hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Cowper). It was proposed to make this year a drive to the south of the Albert Memorial, and it would be necessary to build a new lodge at the Exhibition Road Gate, as well as at the other side of Queen's Gate. There would, also, be a drive made from the Serpentine to the Exhibition Road. Those were the entire of the works with which it was intended to proceed this year. Next year it would, he thought, be necessary to take a Vote for the purpose of re-laying and re-forming the ground to the north of the Albert Memorial. MR. TITE said, in reply, that at the time when the Act was passed the Metropolitan Board were in rather happier circumstances than now appeared to be the case, inasmuch as Government had undertaken to defray half the cost of the Park. A very charming site was pointed out at Hornsey Wood House, where there was a beautiful lake with a very fine view. In consequence of the opposition of the House of Commons to the first Vote of £50,000 for the Park, the Board of Works had an extremely difficult task cast upon them in the creation of a Park of such extent, as well as the keeping it up, as the whole expense fell upon the ratepayers. subject was discussed at great length by MR. MONSELL said, he would beg to the Board, and the result was that they ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, determined to "cut their coat according When the volumes of original Orders of to their cloth," and to purchase 130 inthe Lord Lieutenant and Council, 1592- stead of 250 acres. That they had done, 1615, and of Kings' Letters, obtained from and the ground was now being enclosed. the Philadelphia Public Library, will be The total expense incurred up to the present to Dublin; and, whether these Papers sent was £94,000, and the cost would exare to be calendared in the series of Calen-ceed over £100,000 before the scheme was dars of Irish State Papers, under the direction of the Master of the Rolls? IRELAND-IRISH RECORDS. QUESTION. THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, in reply, that the volumes of original Orders of the Lord Lieutenant and Council, 1592-1615, and of Kings' Letters obtained from the Philadelphia Public Library, were now in the hands of the bookbinders for the purpose of being handsomely bound. They would, he hoped, be ready to be sent to the Public Record Office in Dublin in a very short time. Copies would be taken for the use of students in this country There were other Papers of great importance relating to Ireland being calendared, and these would take precedence of the Papers to which the right hon. Gentleman's Question referred in that respect. METROPOLIS-FINSBURY PARK. QUESTION. MR. TORRENS said, he wished to ask the hon. Member for Bath, Whether the Metropolitan Board of Works, having power under "The Finsbury Park Act, 1857," to purchase 250 acres of land, have purchased only 130 acres; and, whether the said Board propose to sell for building purposes twenty acres of the reduced quantity-being nearly the whole of the frontages-whereby the benefit and use intended for the public will be further and most seriously prejudiced? The completed; in addition to which the Park would have to be kept up. Under these circumstances the Board had deemed it right to utilize portions of the land which lay at the lower part of the Park, and that might, he thought, be done without damage to the large area remaining, and the burdens on the ratepayers thus diminished. racks, and whether there is any truth in | SIR JOHN PAKINGTON said, he that Report as to the bad state of the Bar- would cause inquiries to be made on the racks? subject. He would also take the present opportunity of informing the House, with regard to what was reported to have occurred at Portsmouth a few days ago that a strict investigation was now going on under the superintendence of a General Officer. SIR JOHN PAKINGTON, in reply, said, he had seen the Report in question, which made very favourable mention of the Windsor Cavalry Barracks in some, although it complained of their condition in other respects. The chief points of complaint were the failure of certain modern inventions for the promotion of cleanliness, the absence of sufficient accommodation for the families of married men, and the want of water. As to the first say point, he could only say that the inventions to which reference was made were not, he believed, always found to be successful. There were complaints on the subject last winter, and a medical officer, in conjunction with an officer of Engineers, had been sent to visit the different barracks to ascertain the real state of the case. The Report of those gentlemen had not, however, yet been received, and he could not, therefore, give a decided answer with respect to those mentioned. The complaint in reference to the accommodation provided for married soldiers he must he looked upon as somewhat unreasonable. It was well to bear in mind the position occupied by married soldiers ten or twelve years ago, when they and their wives were obliged to occupy the same rooms with single men. During the last twelve years £240,000 had been expended in providing quarters for them; and the expenditure for the purpose of providing the married soldiers and their wives with separate rooms was going on at the rate of £30,000 or £40,000 per annum. It was now, however, made matter of complaint that a married soldier with a family of five or six children was not provided with two rooms; but he thought that single rooms ought to be provided before such complaints could fairly be indulged in. As to the want of water, he had merely to to state that the Windsor Barracks had a water company to supply them, and that he could not understand why they should suffer any inconvenience in that respect. ARMYARTILLERY PRACTICE AT DOVER, &c.-QUESTION. MAJOR DICKSON said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is true that a Schooner had been struck in Dover Roads by a 68pounder shot? ELECTRIC TELEGRAPHS BILL. QUESTION. COLONEL FRENCH said, in the absence of his hon. Friend Mr. DILLWYN, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is true that negotiations, contingent upon the passing of the Telegraphs Bill either in this or the next Session of Parliament, for the purchase of their interest in Telegraph Companies by the Government have been entered into by the Post Office authorities with certain Railway and other Companies, notwithstanding that a Select Committee of this House is now conducting an inquiry into the whole question of the expediency of the Government's taking up the Telegraphs; and, if so, whether he will lay a Copy of the suggested form of Agreement upon the Table of the House? THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE QUER replied that agreements had been entered into with the telegraph and railway companies who were opposing the Bill, subject to the approval of the Select Committee. These agreements would be scrutinized by the Committee, and should they recommend the Bill the House would then, of course, have an opportunity of expressing its opinion upon them. REGISTRATION BILL-[BILL 190.] (Mr. Secretary Gathorne Hardy, Sir James Fergusson.) THIRD READING. Order for Third Reading read. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."-(Mr. Gathorne Hardy.) MR. CANDLISH said, that he did not wish to retard the progress of the Bill; but he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department a Question touching a decision given by the Court of Common Pleas on Saturday last. It would be in the remembrance of the House, that the Representation of the People Bill was intended to enfranchise a very large class of persons who occupied parts of dwelling houses. By the decision which had been come to, it now appeared that a great number of those people were not liable to be rated nor entitled to the franchise. The effect of the decision would be to disfranchise not fewer than from 100,000 to 200,000 persons whom it was intended to enfranchise by the Act. In the borough which he represented, from 3,000 to 4,000 persons who had been rated, but who the decision stated had been illegally rated, would be disfranchised; and at Newcastle-on-Tyne, he believed, from 5,000 to 6,000 would be disfranchised in this way. Probably not more than half those who were to be enfranchised by the Act of last year would get the franchise within these boroughs. He presumed that it would be impossible to deal with the matter by the Bill now before the House, but to-morrow he would ask whether the Government would introduce a short Bill to give effect to what was undoubtedly the intention of the House when they passed the Reform Act last year, namely, to confer the franchise on the occupiers of parts of houses when separately occupied. MR. NEWDEGATE asked whether there was any limit to the number of persons resident in one house who might be enfranchised under the provisions of the Reform Act of last year relating to lodgers? He was informed that in some places attempts were made unnaturally to crowd houses with a number of families which the houses were quite unable to contain properly, and this was supposed to be done with the view of giving the franchise to the residents in those houses. MR. GATHORNE HARDY said, he conceived that the question to be decided would not be how many persons were in a house, but whether the persons in it were or were not bond fide lodgers, and the only limitation was that each occupancy must be of the value of £10 a year. SIR GEORGE BOWYER said, he regretted that the Select Committee on this Bill, of which he was a Member, had not taken evidence as to the possibility of it being carried into execution without great inconvenience. He had suggested that some Revising Barristers, election agents, and other persons officially connected with the matter, should be examined; but this was negatived, and they had to proceed with very imperfect in formation. The question was whether this Bill would work properly. If it did not they would have a House returned that did not represent the country; and this would probably lead to there being an early dissolution. There would be an enormous crop of Election Petitions. He had heard Revising Barristers, returning officers, and election agents say that the system contained in this Bill would break down. A few nights ago he had a conversation with the town clerk of one of the great towns, and he said that the list could be prepared, no doubt, but it could not be done properly. He (Sir George Bowyer) also thought that it should be fully considered whether time should not be given for appeals to the Court of Common Pleas before the elections took place. November was the time for Municipal Elections all over the country; and the two kinds of elections taking place about the same time would produce much inconvenience and disturbance. The Municipal Elections would no doubt all be party fights, and the Parliamentary Elections would most probably be conducted with more than the usual bitterness. He should not, however, vote against the third reading of the Bill. Bill read a third time, and passed. ELECTION PETITIONS AND CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS (re-committed) BILL-[BILL 63.] (Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Gathorne Hardy, Sir Stafford Northcote.) COMMITTEE. [Progress 25th June.] Bill considered in Committee. (In the Committee.) Clause 5 (To whom and by whom Election Petition may be presented). Question again proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." MR. BOUVERIE said, he strongly objected to the new procedure with regard to Election Petitions sketched out in this Bill. The remedy proposed with respect to corrupt practices was simply as to the mode of proceeding. It entirely destroyed the existing system, which retained the jurisdiction in Committees of the House, subject to the general supervision of the House itself, and gave it to a Judge of the Court of Common Pleas. The remedy |