§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, he wished to ask the President of the Local Government Board a Question of which he had not been able to give him Notice—namely, Whether he could furnish, in the form of a Return, the population in all the constituencies named in the 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th schedules of the Redistribution Bill inclusive; and, whether he could, in the 5th schedule, give the population with they additions to the constituencies that would be made? He also asked whether the House could be furnished with an electoral map showing the new county districts and the urban constituencies in them?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE, in reply to the first part of the Question, said, he thought there would be no objection to lay on the Table the Return of population for which the noble Lord asked. With regard to the second part of the Question, he presumed that the noble Lord referred to the preparation of a map after the Boundary Commissioners had completed their work.
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, ho did not mean that.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that, in that case, the noble Lord referred to a map to be prepared in advance of the rearrangement. Such a map might, undoubtedly, be prepared; but it would, of course, cost money, and it would be a difficult one to prepare.
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLasked whether it would be possible to circulate the population Return before the second reading of the Redistribution Bill?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKESeeing that the second reading is to be taken on Thursday, it will be impossible to do so.
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he would state what was the uniform rule of the Redistribution of Seats Bill as regarded increase of Members to constituencies exceeding 165,000 population? For instance, what was the rule by which the county of Lanark, which in 1881 had a very rapidly increasing population of 387,000, was to have only six Members, while County Cork, which then—including the boroughs to be abolished—had a rapidly decreasing population of 391,000, was to have seven Members; County Tyrone, which—includingDungaunon—had then a rapidly decreasing population under 200,000, was to have four Members; County Armagh, which—including the town of Armagh—had a rapidly decreasing population considerably under 105,000, was to have throe Members; and Glamorganshire, which had a population of 235,000, was to have five Members?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEIn determining the number of seats to be allotted to counties, we have been guided by the general principle of dividing the county populations into equal divisions of between 50,000 and 60,000. In the case of Lanark we had to take into consideration the total number of comity seats in Scotland; and, owing to the number of small counties in Scotland—no less than 13 of them having a population under 50,000, the lowest on the list having only 20,861—a further increase to the representation of Lanarkshire was not practicable without taking away some of the seats from the smaller counties by grouping coun- 444 ties. If this is generally desired by the Scotch people, a proposal to that effect might be, of course, made in Committee.
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLHas the Government taken into consideration the number of small counties in Ireland—smaller than those in Scotland—having two Members, and which are to retain their seats?
§ SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSasked, when the instructions to the Boundary Commissioners would be in possession of the House?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he hoped that they would be circulated tomorrow.
MR. GORSTasked, whether the Report of the Boundary Commissioners would be laid before the House and circulated amongst Members as in 1868?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEYes, Sir; certainly.
§ MR. D. GRANTasked, whether the whole of the constituencies of London would be single-Member constituencies?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that they would be, as had been stated by the Prime Minister last night, with the exception of the City of London.
§ MR. BORLASEasked the President of the Local Government Board, whether, with the view of making the unit of Parliamentary representation and Local Government as far as possible one and the same, it might be an Instruction to the Boundary Commissioners so to adjust the limits of the several county divisions as to make them coterminous with those which would be best suited for Local Government districts?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEThe Commissioners have been instructed to adjust the divisions of counties in conformity with well-known existing areas, such as Petty Sessional areas, and to take care that no division should intersect a parish. Sanitary districts, which often overlap counties, have never formed the basis of county divisions; and if it wore intended that the inquiry of the Commissioners should extend to the question what were suitable areas for sanitary and other local purposes as well as for representation, there would be no possibility of completing the inquiry in any reasonable time.
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLgave Notice that, in consequence of the reply of the President of the Local Govern- 445 ment Board, from which it appeared that the uniform rule had not been applied to all the divisions of the Throe Kingdoms, he should strenuously oppose all those portions of the Bill which dealt unfairly with Scotland.
§ MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the Prime Minister, whether he could inform the House which of the points in the Redistribution Bill which the right hon. Gentleman had sketched last night were to be considered vital?
MR. GLADSTONEIt has never been customary in this House, as far as I know, especially in the early stages of a Bill, and before its provisions have come under discussion, to press the Government to state what points are, and what are not, to be considered vital. The reason for that practice is obvious enough, and it is this—that different points have a bearing one upon another; and it is perfectly conceivable that some point that might be vital if the House took a certain course with regard to it would not be vital if the House took another course; and I therefore hope that the hon. Member will not think me discourteous if I decline to make any statement in detail now. But the House entirely understands that the Bill is, in the view of the Government, vital to their existence.
§ MR. TOTTENHAMasked why the Isle of Wight was not mentioned in the Schedules?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEIt is not disturbed. None of the counties which are not disturbed are mentioned there.
§ SIR JOHN HAYpointed out that Newport was a town of more than 10,000 inhabitants.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEConsidering the disproportion of county Members in the South-West of England, we have not seen our way to give a second Member to the Isle of Wight.