HC Deb 18 May 1868 vol 192 cc426-35

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the Boundaries of the following Boroughs, as laid down by the Boundary Commissioners, and to report what, if any, alterations should be made therein:—

Birkenhead Northampton
Birmingham Nottingham
Bolton le Moors Oldham
Bristol Portsmouth
Cheltenham Preston
Chester Reading
Derby Salisbury
Gateshead South Shields
Gloucester Tynemouth
Greenwich Warwick
Hastings Wigan
Lambeth Windsor
Liverpool
Manchester ——
Marylebone Chelsea and Kensington
Newport (Isle of Wight) Darlington
Middlesborough
Newport (Monmouthshire) Stalybridge,"—

—(Mr. Secretary Gathorne Hardy.)

MR. NEWDEGATE

was pointing out that the Committee, as nominated, did not include a single English county Member, and urging the propriety of selecting one from each side of the House, when—

MR. SPEAKER

said, that although he had put the Motion as a whole, yet its parts would afterwards be put separately. The hon. Member could not canvass the composition of the Committee until it had been agreed that a Committee should be appointed, and the names were put severally from the Chair.

ADMIRAL DUNCOMBE

said, it would be invidious to object to the names of Members when they were submitted, but he would propose that the Committee should consist of seven Members.

MR. BRIGHT

I desire that we may understand the precise meaning of the words— That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the Boundaries of the following Boroughs, as laid down by the Boundary Commissioners, and to report what, if any, alteration should be made therein. I merely wish to understand that these words are not to fetter the Committee. Are they to consider the boundaries proposed by the Commissioners, and the old boundaries, and anything between the two; and will they be at liberty to recommend that any particular borough or boroughs may be postponed for future consideration? I wish to understand that the words are not to be held to deprive the Committee of free action as to what they think should be done in regard to any particular borough in this list.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

replied that the Committee would have the latitude pointed out in the first part of the Question. The only point on which he was disposed to differ from the hon. Member was as to the Report not being final. He did not think it was meant that the consideration of the case of any borough should be postponed to a future period.

MR. BRIGHT

I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman means by its being a final Report. Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that the House is to have no option afterwards but to adopt it? [Mr. GATHORNE HARDY: No.] Of course if they shall recommend that any borough shall remain as it now is, that would be a postponement for an indefinite period, and the Committee would be at liberty to make that recommendation.

MR. HIBBERT

asked, whether the Committee would have power to give effect to the recommendations of the Commissioners in regard to those places the boundaries of which they would have contracted if they had not been prohibited from restricting any boundaries. They said that these places presented anomalies which could not be rectified in any other way. Salisbury was on the list, but Wilton was not, and as the former could not be enlarged without contracting the latter, there would be a difficulty in dealing with them. Again, Rochester and Chatham, and other places named by the Commissioners, were not in the list at all. Would it not be convenient if these cases were brought before the Committee?

MR. LOCKE KING moved the omission of the words "as laid down by the Boundary Commissioners," with the view of giving the Committee greater power of action.

SIR JOHN SIMEON

seconded the Amendment, in order to insure that the Committee should have power to contract the limits of certain boroughs.

Amendment proposed, to leave out the words "as laid down by the Boundary Commissioners."—(Mr. Locke King.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

MR. H. B. SHERIDAN

suggested whether it should not he competent for the Committee to receive applications from boroughs which were not included in the list?

MR. M. T. BASS

said, he was surprised to find a borough in which he was much interested included in the list. How it got there he was unable to understand, because, so far as he knew, every one in Derby was quite satisfied with what the Commissioners had done. He suspected it was an error, and that an obscure suburb of Liverpool, called West Derby, had been mistaken for the town of Derby.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

said, that if the town of Derby was content the Committee would no doubt be glad to be released from the duty of considering its boundary. With respect to the places referred to by the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hibbert) there were no petitions or memorials from them; but there was every facility for dealing with them in the House itself, according to the recommendations of the Commissioners, who had reported all the facts, and therefore there was no occasion to refer them to the Committee.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, the question was whether the Committee was to have the power to contract as well as to extend boundaries. He concluded the intention was, that they should have the power to contract the boundary of Wilton to the extent that they enlarged that of Salisbury. Would it not be better to include Wilton in the list?

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

said, that there were Motions and also petitions respecting those two places, and he had included Salisbury according to the principles which had been laid down. He was willing to include Wilton. It would be in the power of the Committee to recommend to the House the adoption of the boundaries recommended by the Commissioners, or to make better boundaries. With respect to Derby, it did not come under the rule laid down.

MR. ROEBUCK

said, the proposition before the House was that the Committee should start from something. Now, what they would start from was the recommendations of boundaries by the Commission. Then power would be given to the Committee to make such recommendations as to them might seem fit, which meant that they might contract, enlarge, or alter. The words could not be made clearer, though they might be made less clear.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, that as he had not got the Report before him, he wished to know whether the Commission in the case of Salisbury had laid down the boundaries, because the power of the Com- mittee was confined to the consideration of boundaries as laid down by the Commission.

MR. RUSSELL GURNEY

said, he thought it would be absolutely necessary to include Wilton in the list. If Wilton were included it would be quite clear that the Committee would have the power of contraction as well as enlargement.

MR. A. PEEL

asked whether the Boundary Committee would be enabled to curtail the existing limits of boroughs (other than those newly created), even though there had been in the Commissioners' Report no recommendation to that effect? He thought they ought to have this power. If, for instance, Leamington was not ultimately added to Warwick, as recommended by the Commissioners, it might still be very desirable to consider whether the present borough of Warwick should continue to include within its area so large a proportion of purely agricultural acres.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

said, there was no petition or memorial on the subject at all; and it was only those things which were really referred to the Committee that would be taken into consideration by them.

MR. LOCKE KING

said, he would withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

said, he thought that Derby should be omitted from the list.

Amendment made, by omitting the word "Derby."—(Mr. Secretary Gathorne Hardy.)

Another Amendment made, by inserting the word "Wilton" after the word "Wigan."—(Mr. Secretary Gathorne Hardy.)

Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to. Ordered, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the Boundaries of the following Boroughs, as laid down by the Boundary Commissioners, and to report what, if any, alterations should be made therein:—

Birkenhead Manchester
Birmingham Marylebone
Bolton le Moors Newport (Isle of Wight)
Bristol
Cheltenham Newport (Monmouthshire)
Chester
Gateshead Northampton
Gloucester Nottingham
Greenwich Oldham
Hastings Portsmouth
Lambeth Preston
Liverpool Reading

Motion made, and Question proposed, That all Petitions presented to the House relative to the said Boroughs be referred to the Committee, and that the Committee have power to receive and call for Maps, Memorials, Reports, Papers, and Records concerning the said Boroughs, and to confer with the Boundary Commissioners and those employed under them in their inquiries."—(Mr. Secretary Gathorne Hardy.)

MR. YORKE

said, that no question of the contraction of boundaries ought to be entered into by the Committee; for if the Commissioners had obtained power to go into that question they would have had to inquire into the cases of a much larger number of boroughs than was proposed at present.

VISCOUNT AMBERLEY

said, when the question was discussed before he was under the impression that it was intended to refer to the Committee only such petitions sis had been presented to the House, and such memorials as had been laid before the Commissioners; but the proposal was now much wider, and therefore it would not be necessary to move the Amendment which he had put on the Paper. He wished, however, to ask what was intended to be included under the word "Papers?"

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

said, he apprehended the noble Lord or any other hon. Member might send in a memorial if he thought proper, but it would be left to the discretion of the Committee to deal with the memorials as they might think heat. If they thought a memorial improperly sent in they might object to enter into the case to which it related.

MR. A. F. EGERTON

said, he had received representations from many parties who wished to lay statements before the Committee.

MR. BRIGHT

said, that in the latter part of the Motion it was proposed that the Committee should be able to confer with the Boundary Commissioners, and those who had been employed under them. He thought the boroughs concerned and their representatives would be at a disadvantage if those gentlemen were to come before the Committee and defend the recommendations they had made. They all knew how stoutly gentlemen were apt to stand up in support of their own opinions, and Assistant Commissioners were no exception to the rule. He did not think, therefore, that it would be advisable to bring all the memorials and all the Assistant Commissioners before the Committee if no one else was allowed to be heard. Perhaps the House would think it desirable that the Committee should have power to confer with the Members for the boroughs affected, who might be able to give as good reasons for their views as the Commissioners and Assistant Commissioners.

MR. ROEBUCK

said, he would suggest, in order to meet the views of the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright), that these words should be added—"And to take further evidence if to them it shall seem fit."

MR. NEATE

said, it would occasion great disappointment and failure if the public were not to have a locus standi for the purpose of bringing before the Committee the case of any borough they might think necessary, as the Committee were to proceed in the matter upon the principle of private Bill legislation.

MR. DISRAELI

said, the Committee were not bound to confer with the Commissioners or the Assistant Commissioners, but it was a power which was reserved to them if they wished to exercise it. And with regard to conferring with Members of the House, Committees had always that power, and were very willing to exercise it. Therefore to insert the words suggested would not be necessary.

MR. SERJEANT GASELEE

said, he objected to the Committee conferring with the Commissioners and the Assistant Commissioners. He did not attribute the mistakes and errors which had occurred to the Commissioners themselves, but to the Assistant Commissioners, and unless hon. Members had an opportunity of answering them they would labour under a great disadvantage. So far as regarded Portsmouth, the Commissioners had decided contrary to the evidence. He had another objection to the course which had been pursued, and contended that the Prime Minister had no right to refuse to place the evidence before the House, for it was the property of the House and not of the Government. He suggested that one Member for each borough should have the opportunity of attending before the Committee and offering such explanations as he might consider necessary.

MR. MONK

said, he would move, in accordance with the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck), to add after the word "inquiries," "and to call for further evidence if they shall think fit."

Amendment proposed, at the end of the Question, to add the words "and to call for further evidence if they shall think fit,"—(Mr. Monk.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

said, that, in order to make the matter quite clear, be should propose to add at the end of the clause after "the Commissioners and those employed under them," the words "or with the Members for such boroughs."

MR. WENTWORTH BEAUMONT

suggested that the Members for the counties should also be consulted.

SIR ROBERT COLLIER

suggested the addition of the words "or with such other persons as they may think fit."

SIR LAWRENCE PALK

said, he hoped his right hon. Friend would not persevere with the addition he had proposed. The Committee could at all times confer with Members of the House; but an invidious distinction was drawn between borough and county Members by leaving out the latter.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

said, he would amend his proposal, which would run thus—" and with the Members of the Counties and Boroughs affected."

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made, by adding, at the end of the Question, the words "and with the Members of the Counties and Boroughs affected."—(Mr. Secretary Gathorne Hardy.)

MR. YORKE

said, he wished to move the following proviso— Provided that they shall not entertain any question of the contraction of boundaries,

Amendment proposed, at the end of the last Amendment, to add the words "provided that they shall not entertain any question for the contraction of Boundaries."—(Mr. Yorke.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

MR. CANDLISH

said, that the addition of the proposed proviso would defeat the object with which the Committee was to be appointed and nullify the inquiry.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

said, he objected to the proviso and he thought that the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Yorke) had proposed it under some misapprehension. There was a peculiarity in the cases of Salisbury and Newport in the Isle of Wight. It was necessary that the Committee should have full power of enlarging or contracting in both these cases. The Committee would have no power of contracting existing boundaries but those simply laid down by the Commissioners.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to. Ordered, That all Petitions presented to the House relative to the said Boroughs be referred to the Committee, and that the Committee have power to receive and call for Maps, Memorials, Reports, Papers, and Records concerning the said Boroughs, and to confer with the Boundary Commissioners and those employed under them in their inquiries, and with the Members of the Counties and Boroughs affected.

Ordered, That the Committee do sit de die in diem.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Committee do consist of Five Members."

MR. NEWDEGATE

reminded the House that the majority of the English people lived in the counties, and it was hardly right that this Committee should be appointed without one single English county Member being upon it. He moved, therefore, that, in order to admit two county Members—one from each side of the House—that the number of the Committee be increased to seven. He would not presume to name them, but might suggest the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Locke King) and the hon. Member for East Norfolk (Mr. Howes).

Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "Five," in order to insert the word "Seven,"—(Mr. Newdegate,)

—instead thereof.

MR. ROEBUCK

said, he hoped that the Government would oppose the Amendment. No doubt any Committee would do the work well; but what they wanted was to get through it rapidly, and he was sure that seven would make a much longer business of it than five.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

said, he preferred five Members; but the point was one entirely for the consideration of the House.

SIR LAWRENCE PALK

said, the object of the House must be to get a Committee composed of Members in whom the House had the greatest confidence, and it was quite immaterial whether they represented boroughs or counties. It seemed to him that five was a reasonable number, and that the Committee, consisting as it would do of Members of as great experience and as great knowledge as had for a long time sat in that House, was a very fair one, and he hoped the House would support the Government in restricting the number to five.

Question, "That the word 'Five' stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.

Main Question put, and agreed to.

Committee nominated:—Mr. WALPOLE, Sir WILLIAM STIRLING-MAXWELL, Mr. WHITBREAD, Mr. AUSTIN BRUCE, Mr. KIRKMAN HODGSON.