MOTION FOR LEAVE. (Hansard, 9 February 1882)

MR. ASHTON-DILKE
in opposing the Motion, said, he had been in the 337 "Ayes" Lobby in the last Division, but he did not see the noble Lord there; and, therefore, he concluded that the noble Lord's enthusiasm only dated from two minutes ago. He would like to ask whether this Bill would propose the disfranchisement of the borough of Woodstock?

§ MR. H. H. FOWLER
said, he thought this Bill came within the class of Bills to which the right hon. Member for Scarborough (Mr. Dodson) had alluded. It fairly stated on the face of it what it intended to do; and the House was, therefore, not left in the dark about it. He thought the time had come when the House should pronounce a decision upon it. The purpose of the Bill was— To enable the cities of Bristol and Dublin and the boroughs of Sheffield and Belfast to return each a third Member to Parliament, and to enable the municipal borough of Accrington, in the county of Lancaster, and the parish of Battersea, in the county of Surrey, to return each one Member to Parliament. Thus, there were two things proposed—the extension of the franchise to four places, and the extension of the almost unconstitutional principle of a minority Member; and he should take the first, opportunity of dividing the House upon the Bill. It selected two fresh boroughs for representation, and he thought the House would agree with him that the counties had been forgotten. On a memorable occasion, when the Government was in a minority, and proposed to introduce a Bill dealing with vacant seats, the present Prime Minister laid down the doctrine that the filling-up of seats could only be dealt with by a Government possessing the confidence of a majority of the House, and the Bill proposed by Mr. Disraeli was thrown out. He did not think the noble Lord and his Friends possessed the confidence of the country; and as he thought this question was one with which the Government alone ought to deal, he should feel it to be his duty to divide the House.

§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL
said, he thought the hon. Member for Newcastle and the hon. Member for Wolverhampton had infused into this discussion a great deal of unnecessary acrimony. The right hon. Member for Scarborough (Mr. Dodson) found fault with him on account of an opinion he had expressed a short time ago as to the 338 opposing of Bills on a first reading; but his position was this—that if a Member voted for such a Bill, he might be misunderstood, and if he voted against it, he might feel that he was acting in a manner not quite in accordance with the course he would like to take, and he could not be supposed to have voted for the principle of the Bill. Such a Bill was the Vaccination Acts Repeal Bill. He thought the right hon. Member would see that it was perfectly easy to vote against the first reading of a Bill, and at the same time approve of the general principle of the Bill. The hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Ashton Dilke) asked whether this Bill would include the disfranchisement of the borough of Woodstock. That appeared to be a question unnecessarily wasting the time of the House. With regard to the remarks of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler), no doubt it looked, at first sight, as if there was nothing more to be said on the subject, and that the intention of the Bill was perfectly clear; but the hon. Member, he thought, was rather hasty in supposing that these five lines stated all that could be said in favour of the Bill. There were statistics as to population and the extent of towns which might be brought forward; but the hon. Member forgot that. If the hon. Member chose to press his opposition, he was at liberty to do so; and if he was supported by the Government the Bill would be defeated. But he (Lord Randolph Churchill) would accept his defeat with the greatest equanimity, for it would relieve him of a great deal of trouble.