§ MR. WIGGIN,in moving, as an Amendment, in page 17, line 43, to leave out "Harborne," said, he had been strongly urged by his constituents 493 in the parish of Harborne to resist its proposed annexation to the county of Warwick. The parish of Harborne had hitherto been considered a part of the county of Stafford, and it was situated at the south-west border of that county, and had been truthfully and graphically described by Elihu Burritt as one of the green border lands of the Black Country. "When this Bill was printed a second time, to the amazement of almost everyone acquainted with the district, it was found that Harborne was to be annexed to the borough of Birmingham. Meetings were held, and resolutions proposed by the Chairman of the Liberal Association and seconded by the Chairman of the Conservative Association were passed, unanimously condemning the proposed arrangement which, as a matter of fact, was opposed strongly by everyone in the parish, Conservative, Liberal, or Radical. Deputations had waited on the Commissioners at Birmingham and Stafford; petitions were signed by every householder in the place; but the only answer returned to them was that the Commissioners regretted what had been done, but that the tranference having been scheduled they were powerless to give any relief. He (Mr. Wiggin) had ascertained the fact that, so to speak, Birmingham did not want Harborne, and that Harborne did not want to be transferred to Birmingham, although, no doubt, it might be considered by some that it was an improvement for it to become part of the great borough of Birmingham. He confessed that it was to him most extraordinary that this disturbance of existing arrangements should have been proposed. The parish was to be divided into two under the present scheme, the Petty Sessional arrangements were to be changed, and the inhabitants were to be politically separated from their own people. The population of Harborne was partly rural, and partly engaged in Birmingham and in the iron industries of South Staffordshire, and why they were to be taken from Staffordshire and united with Birmingham they were unable to conceive. All they asked, whether Conservatives, Liberals, Radicals, Churchmen, or Dissenters, was that Harborne should remain as it was at present, and it was in order to effect that, that he moved the Amendment.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 17, line 43, leave out the word "Harborne."—(Mr. Wiggin.)
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'Harborne' stand part of the Schedule."
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he had great difficulty in rising to reply to an hon. Member of such overwhelming popularity as the hon. Member for East Staffordshire (Mr. Wiggin); but he was bound to put before the Committee certain considerations against the Amendment, which, looking at the reception they had given to his hon. Friend's speech, he was sure would be necessary to enable them to make up their minds in an impartial manner. In dealing with the suburbs of Birmingham, various courses had been considered. It had been considered how far they could be constituted separate boroughs, how far they could be dealt with as single-Member county divisions, and how far they ought to be annexed to the borough of Birmingham. Harborne was not large enough to be made a new borough; neither was it connected with any urban district in the same county, except as connected with Birmingham; and from its own county it was almost entirely detached. In fact, a right hon. Friend of his had suggested that if the Committee would look at the map of Staffordshire in the Boundary Commissioners' Report, they would see that Harborne, "like a rich jewel in an Ethiop's ear" hung like a pendant to the county by a very narrow thread. It was connected, as the hon. Gentleman had said, with the Smethwick division of Staffordshire. He would ask the Committee to glance at the map to see how the parishes were connected. They were connected by the narrowest strip, and he could not help thinking that it would be inconvenient to throw this particular parish in with Smethwith for Parliamentary purposes. If the map of the borough of Birmingham were glanced at, it would be seen that the four districts in question were all of them completely within the natural boundary of that borough, and that if they were left out, the borough would resemble more than anything else a salmon over which the others had had a good fight. He held a sketch map in his hand which fully illustrated this, and which he should be glad to hand to 495 any hon. Member who wished to see it. The hon. Member had proposed to make this change without carrying out corresponding changes in other districts, and that, no doubt, made his case very much more easy than it would have been if he had proposed to make corresponding changes in the various divisions of the county of Stafford. But could the Committee make this change, and be content with making this change alone? That was one of the matters which were essential in the consideration of this case. As regarded the town of Birmingham, the change, no doubt, could be effected. He agreed with his hon. Friend, that it would be possible to leave Harborne out of that borough and yet to make no other change; but, in regard to the county of Stafford, he feared that that could hardly be the case. If the proposed change were carried out, hon. Gentlemen who had already spoken to him on the subject would press for similar changes in the county of Stafford, and it would be hard to resist the corresponding changes which would be proposed. It so happened that the district out of which Harborne would come would then be the smallest in the borough, and that into which it would go would be the largest in the county of Stafford. The division of Birmingham which comprised Harborne had a population of 60,000, and that in a borough which was rather well represented in proportion to its numbers. The Handsworth division of Staffordshire had likewise a population of over 60,000, and it was a very large division, the division having been made large on account of the difficulty which had been found in getting a good boundary for it. The 60,000 was a population outside the borough, south of Walsall, Wednesbury, and West Bromwich; there was an additional 190,000 within those boroughs, the total population within the area of the county division being 250,500. All the freeholders of the 190,000 would vote in the Hands-worth division, so that the electorate of the division would not only be taken from this population of 60,000, but would also include the freeholders from the population of 190,000. To this district outside the boroughs which, without counting the freeholders, would have a population of over 60,000, the hon. Member would add 6,500. He would 496 add that number to a district suburban in its character, closely connected with Birmingham in its interests, and adjoining Edgbaston. The result would be the formation of a district larger than any other in the county of Stafford, even without the freeholders. If they assented to the proposal, he did not see how they could resist proposals to re-divide the rest of Staffordshire; therefore, as there would be great difficulty in doing that, the Committee would, he thought, probably hesitate before it sanctioned the change proposed by the present Amendment.
MR. STAVELEY HILLsaid, that, judging from the map which the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had been kind enough to hand across to them, if Harborne was separated from the county, or, rather, only connected with it by a narrow strip, it was only connected laterally with the borough of Birmingham. It stood outside it, and in all other respects was entirely connected with Staffordshire. It had existed without Birmingham hitherto, and he was not surprised at the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Staffordshire (Mr. Wiggin) having great dread of its entering the borough of Birmingham in any way and for any purpose. Those of them who lived anywhere near Birmingham knew what this meant—knew how, from the point of view of local government, anyone interested in Harborne would do his best to prevent its coming into any sort of connection with so heavily rated a borough. The hon. Member for East Staffordshire would not advise any poor man to live inside the borough of Birmingham if he could live outside it. The right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had spoken about the freeholders who would come into the borough. He (Mr. Staveley Hill) would remind the Committee how that matter stood. Reference was made to a number of different divisions in the county of Stafford, and it had been said that if Harborne was to go into the division represented by the hon. Member, there would be a considerable number of freeholders added to the 60,000 population who already constituted the division, and this population had been contrasted with the 46,000 of another division, the 49,000 of another, and so on. But let them look at South-WestStafford-shire. Into that would come the whole 497 of the freeholders of the borough of Wolverhampton and West Bromwich, and its population would be raised in a far higher degree than would the population of the Eastern division by the inclusion of Harborne. He was sorry to hear the right hon. Baronet arguing that if this one point were granted it would bring about a general disarrangement of the scheme of the Commissioners. The right hon. Baronet threatened them that if Harborne were thrown into the Eastern division of the county, Rushall might have to be thrown into the Lichfield division. But hon. Members were not afraid of that. If the right hon. Baronet thought that could fairly be done, let it be done; but do not let them do an unfair thing to Harborne, because of the danger of some other district asking for what it considered fair play. The district of Rushall was a mining district, and had nothing to do with the district of Lichfield. In the same way, Harborne had no connection with Birmingham. It had no desire to be thrown into Birmingham, and he trusted the Committee would allow it to remain in the county of Stafford.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEI have paid a great deal of attention to this question. Several of my hon. Friends in different parts of the House have spoken to me with regard to it; and, moreover, I have communicated with the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Staffordshire (Mr. Wiggin) on the subject. That hon. Gentleman has explained the matter to me, and I am free to confess that what I have heard from him, from my hon. and learned Friend behind me (Mr. Staveley Hill), and others with whom I have spoken on the subject, I should be disposed to agree to the proposal made, if it could be treated as one standing entirely by itself. I feel, however, that it would be most undesirable to break into the scheme of the Boundary Commissioners, and that if we do break into it we must be prepared for the consequences. So far as I am able to understand the matter, there is very little doubt that if Harborne is removed from its connection with Birmingham, and thrown into a division of Staffordshire, each division will have to be revised, and a proposal will be made—in fact, Notice of such a proposal has been already given by the 498 hon. Member's Colleague (Sir Arthur Bass)—to remove the district of Rushall from the Eastern division of Staffordshire, and to throw it into the Lichfield division. I find there is as much, or even more, objection to that change, as there is desire for the removal of Harborne from Birmingham. I think, therefore, our safest course is to stand on the divisions as they are in the Bill. If it could be shown that the Harborne case would stand alone, and that we should not have other changes forced upon us, it would make a great difference, no doubt, in our position; but, as at present advised, if the change were subject to other alterations to be hereafter made, I believe it would entail the alteration to which I have referred, and which would cause great inconvenience, and, therefore, I am not prepared to support the Amendment.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 104; Noes 50: Majority 54.—(Div. List, No. 78.)
§ Amendment negatived.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he had placed the following Amendment on the Paper for the purpose of correcting an oversight:—
In page 18, line 8, at end, insert 'and also excluding there from a part which, is situate on the north side of the borough, and was formerly included in the parishes of Skirbeck and Boston within the borough, but has been added by-Orders of the Local Government Board to parishes not situate within the Parliamentary borough, namely, one part thereof to the parish of Sibsey, and the remaining part thereof to the parish of Frithville, all which said parts are in the Sessional Division of Spilsby, in the parts of Lindsey.'
§ Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
§ SIR CHAELES W. DILKEsaid, he would now move the next Amendment standing in his name on the Paper; and here, again, his object was to supply an omission. It had been agreed to extend the boundary, but the necessary words had not been inserted in the Bill.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 18, line 38, at end, insert as a sepa-rate paragraph,—"And so much of the municipal borough of Darlington as is not above specified, and is not included in the said Parliamentary borough."—(Sir Charles W. Dilke.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
499§ MR. SEXTONsaid, it appeared to be quite a matter of course that, in England, when the inhabitants of a district desired to have the municipal boundary extended, it was extended for them.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEThe same thing which will be effected by this Amendment was done in the case of Ireland by a general provision in 1868—a provision which does not apply to England.
§ MR. SEXTONHow about the case of Dublin, about which we have been arguing most part of the evening?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEIn the case of Dublin, the Parliamentary boundary was in question. In the present case, it is only an extension up to the municipal boundary, whereas the Parliamentary borough of Dublin already comprises all the area of the municipal city and more besides.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ MR. PICTONsaid, that in the absence of his hon. Colleague (Mr. Alexander M'Arthur) he begged to move the next Amendment—namely, to leave out from "Leicester" to "Soar," in line 13 of page 19. There was a considerable consensus of opinion in favour of the Amendment, both in the town of Leicester and in the district of the county affected by this portion of the Bill; therefore, he begged the Committee to allow him to say a few words on the subject. The object of the words in the Schedule was to add to Leicester the district now included in the place called Belgrave, containing at the last Census about 7,000 inhabitants. The number of inhabitants in the borough of Leicester, where the municipal and Parliamentary boundaries were now identical, was, at the last Census, a little over 122,000, thus, the Committee would perceive, giving one Member to a little over 61,000. Now, the town of Leicester was a rapidly growing town. Within the municipal boundary there had been considerable additions made to the population; in fact, it was believed that many thousands had been added since 1881. Within his own recollection of Leicester, about 50,000 people had been added to the town, and now the vote in the county, with Belgrave included, was worth far more as an instrument of political power than the vote in the town. According to the arrangement 500 of the county in the Bill, there was not one division which had a population of much more than 50,000. There was, therefore, in the county one Representa-tive to rather less than 50,000 people, on the average, while in the borough the proportion was, as he had said, one Member to 61,000. Now, he asked why the Committee should increase that disproportion, which was already a considerable one? He thought it would be most unfair to this large manufacturing town. But there were other reasons besides those of justice which ought to induce the Committee to adopt the Amendment which stood on the Paper, for the proposal to include Belgrave within the town of Leicester sinned in other respects against the directions given to the Boundary Commissioners. For instance, it divided a parish. The parish of Belgrave extended to both sides of the River Soar; but, under the Bill, only the part of the parish east of the river was included in Leicester. The proposed boundary of Leicester was not at all compact. The boundary of Leicester, which at present was the same for municipal and Parliamentary purposes, was approximately circular; if Belgrave were added, an enormous extension was given in one direction, and in one direction only. Again, the proposal sinned against the directions given to the Boundary Commissioners, inasmuch as it forced together populations having very different interests—populations which within the last few years had contested together several points of interest in the neighbourhood, and were likely to do so again. He must say that the Local Board of Belgrave were strongly against their inclusion in the town of Leicester, and the people of Leicester were equally opposed to the change. There had been strong public expressions of opinion in both localities against the proposed extension. In conclusion, he asked the Committee to beware of one mistake which was naturally made when the name of Belgrave was mentioned. He found that it was commonly supposed that Belgrave was only an outgrowth of the town of Leicester, and that it had received its name of Belgrave in imitation of that given to a fashionable part of London. It was far more likely, however, that Belgrave Square and Belgravia in London had derived their names from Belgrave, near 501 Leicester, which was the only original Belgrave in the country. The place was mentioned in the Domesday Book, under the name of Merdegrave, and in a Charter granted in 1082 it was mentioned by the name of Belgrave. In Nichols' History of Leicester, the family which settled there and took the name of Belgrave was traced to other places, and amongst others to the West End of London, and from that fact the fashionable quarter of Belgravia had derived its name. He mentioned this, not as of any antiquarian interest, but to show the locality had an independent history and existence of its own, and that it was not to be imagined that it was an outgrowth of Leicester. He was sorry that the time at which this Amendment had come on was such that many hon. Members of the House who were interested in the locality were not in their places. He believed he was right in saying that the noble Lord opposite (Lord John Manners), who had so long represented North Leicestershire, would, had he been present, have expressed his approval of this Amendment. He hoped, therefore, that no difficulty would be felt about making the very slight alteration proposed, which was only a measure of justice to what he thought a large and important town.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 19, line 11, leave out from "Leicester" to "Soar," in line 13, both inclusive.—(Mr. Picton.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Leicester (Mr. Picton) had referred to the absence of the noble Lord the Member for North Leicestershire (Lord John Manners). His noble Friend had been obliged to leave London that day on business, and he did not expect that this Amendment would have been reached; but he thought it quite possible, and he therefore requested him (Sir Stafford Northcote), in case of its coming on in his absence, to do that which he would have done himself—that was to say that he was entirely in favour of the Amendment which had now been proposed. He (Sir Stafford Northcote) was afraid it was not in his power to go into the details which his noble Friend would 502 have so well handled. The general feeling of his noble Friend was that this was not a political question, but merely a question of the convenience of the formation of the borough of Leicester. The noble Lord considered that the boundaries, as proposed, would be of very awkward and inconvenient form, and that the proposed alteration would greatly improve the arrangement of the borough. He (Sir Stafford Northcote) only rose to say these were the opinions of his noble Friend, and to express regret on his part that he was not able to be present.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, in face of the general agreement with which this proposal seemed to have been received, he would not object to the change; at the same time, he must make his reply in the same form to that made just now in another case—leave it as a matter for reconsideration on the Report. So far as the Committee stage on the Bill was concerned, he would not propose to make any consequential Amendments. His impression was that the Loughborough division of the county would bear the additional population of Belgrave; but he would consult his Advisers on the point, and on Report he would be prepared to state whether, in their opinion, it was necessary to make the change in the county division. At that stage of the Bill he would accept the Amendment conditionally. If, however, it was the general wish of the Committee to deal now with this particular point, he would prefer to alter the form of the Amendment by leaving out the whole of the lines 11, 12, and 13. He thought that if the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Picton) withdrew his Amendment, and allowed him to substitute what he suggested, the object would be effected much better.
§ MR. PICTONasked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 19, to leave out lines 11, 12, and 13.—(Sir Charles W. Dilke.)
§ Question, "That the lines proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule," put, and negatived.
§ VISCOUNT EMLYNsaid, he wished to bring under the notice of the Committee the manner in which the borough of Pembroke, concerning which he had 503 given Notice of an Amendment, was dealt with under the Bill. He thought that by merely reciting the facts of the case, he should be able to show to the Committee that Pembroke was to be dealt with in an entirely different way to any other borough in the whole of the United Kingdom. He did not hesitate to say that the treatment of Pembroke was absolutely contrary to the principles laid down by the Government in regard to boroughs; and he should endeavour to show that it would be undesirable in any case to deal with Pembroke in the way proposed. The constituency of Haverfordwest was composed of the boroughs of Haverfordwest, Fishguard, and Narbeth, and the total population was now 9,107. That constituency, of course, under the Bill, lost its separate representation. Now, the constituency of Pembroke was also a group of boroughs, and included the Dockyards of Pembroke. Pembroke had a population of between 25,000 and 26,000; and therefore, under the Bill, it was entitled to separate representation. For some time, while the discussion upon the Scotch groups of burghs was proceeding, it was really very difficult for ordinary Members to ascertain on what principles the Government intended to deal with borough groups; but, at the close of the discussion, there was no doubt at all as to what the Government held to be one of the principles of the Bill, and part of the agreement made with the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Opposition Bench (Sir Stafford Northcote), for they stated, as far as his memory carried him, that with regard to groups of boroughs they had come to the conclusion, he presumed, though of course he did not know it for a fact, after representation from the Leaders of the Opposition, that there could not be any merging of boroughs in any part of Scotland. There had been no merging of groups of boroughs in any other part of the country, and, therefore, he maintained that the present proposals of the Government were absolutely contrary to the principles of the Bill. He had endeavoured to guess at what might be the reasons for this proposed straying away from the principles of the Bill, but he had been unable to discover them. He might be told that the reason for this change was that the numbers did not work out so 504 nicely as they might, unless the change was made. If the Committee would bear with him, he would put before them one or two figures upon the point. The total population of the borough of Pembroke, as he had said, was 25,618. Now, out of that number, no less than 16,000 belonged to the Dockyard of Pembroke alone. Now, in Milford, a town very deeply interested in questions affecting Dockyards, there was a population of 2,000; in two other districts there were 4,000 inhabitants, and a small country district brought up the total population of the borough of Pembroke to 25,600. He wished to point out to the Committee that the bulk of that population was a Dockyard population, distinctly interested in Dockyard and navigation questions. Now, what was proposed to be done was to add the 9,177 of Haverfordwest, which was not a population of one town, but a population of three towns in three different portions of the county—towns which, he might say in passing, had no manufactures of any sort or kind—at least, they were in no sense manufacturing towns, two of them being purely country places -it was proposed to put this 9,000 of population into the borough of Pembroke, raising the population of that borough to 34,795. It might be said—"Oh, you have got in the county of Pembroke, without the population of Haverfordwest, 57,000, and therefore it is perfectly impossible to throw this extra 9,000 population into Pembroke, because then you would make it too large for one Member. "He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Charles W. Dilke) was going to advance that argument; but, if so, he would like the right hon. Gentleman to cast his eye to the next county to Pembrokeshire. If he did, he would find that, in Cardiganshire, there was a population of 70,000, with only one Member. That argument, therefore, was not a very strong one; but he did not wish entirely to build upon the population of Cardiganshire. If the right hon. Gentleman would only glance over the list of the populations of the different counties, he would find an enormous number with very much larger populations than 57,000. Take the divisions of Durham and Kent, for instance. In Durham there were eight divisions, and every one had a larger 505 population than57,000. There were eight divisions in Kent, every one of which had a larger population than 57,000. There were six divisions in South-East Lancashire, four in North-East Lancashire, and no less than seven in the West Riding of Yorkshire, and every one of these had more than 57,000 of population. Under these circumstances, he maintained that the case he had brought before the Committee was a very exceptional one. In his opinion, there ought to be no exception to the principles of the Bill, unless the very strongest grounds could be shown. No such grounds existed for dealing with the borough of Pembroke in an exceptional manner; indeed, the whole burden and weight of evidence was exactly the other way. Now, there was only one further argument he wished to put before the Committee, and it was this—that when one looked at the combination of the Pembroke boroughs, he could only feel that all it was necessary and desirable to preserve was the representation as affecting the Dockyard and the Haven. He might be told there was a scattered population in the different districts. It was true there was one district in the Pembroke group of boroughs which had only a population of 717 persons. He would not in the least mind wiping that away, if that had been the principle on which the Government had set to work. In his opinion, however, it would be most unwise to weaken the direct representation of this Dockyard, by throwing into its numbers three other towns in three entirely different parts of Pembrokeshire, towns which had no interest in the Dockyards, which were not connected with them in any shape or form. He trusted that if the Government were true to the principles of the Bill—if they were true to what they said was part of the compact with the Front Opposition Bench in regard to their method of dealing with groups of boroughs—they would accept the Amendment which he now proposed.
§ Amendment proposed,
§ In page 20, line 20, to leave out lines 34 and 36,—
| "Pembroke | The present Parliamentary borough and Pembroke, and the present Parliamentary borough and Haverfordwest." |
§ —(Viscount Emlyn.)
506§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the noble Viscount (Viscount Emlyn) had made out a very good case for his Amendment, as, indeed, he did for anything he moved in the House. He (Sir Charles W. Dilke) should have thought, however, from what they had heard on previous Amendments, that it was rather contrary to the general principles of the Party opposite to try and merge into county districts a borough of the size of Haverfordwest. The groups of Welsh boroughs, with very few exceptions indeed, were county groups; ever since the time of Henry VIII. they had been treated mainly as county groups. One of the groups ran over three counties, and that had been merged altogether under this Bill. In what the Government proposed to do in this matter, they were only following the general, though not quite universal, Welsh system. As regarded the size of the constituency, the noble Viscount had anticipated his (Sir Charles W. Dilke's) argument on that point. He did not wish to press the matter too much, because, of course, there were cases where the disproportions were greater than those created by the noble Viscount. Taking this county by itself, however, there would be a much fairer distribution of population under the Bill than under the proposal of the noble Viscount, Under the Bill the county would have a population of 57,000, and the boroughs a population of 35,000; under the scheme suggested by his noble Friend the county would have a population of 66,000, and the boroughs only a population of 26,000. On the whole, he thought that the balance of convenience was in favour of the proposal contained in the Bill, and, therefore, he was not inclined to disturb it.
MR. GORSTsaid, the noble Viscount (Viscount Emlyn), in proposing his Amendment, made a distinct and lucid speech, not only because the noble Viscount always did make a clear and lucid speech, but because he had, in this instance, an exceedingly good and strong case. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had made an extremely confused speech, not because the right hon. Gentleman could 507 not make as lucid a speech as the noble Viscount when he chose to do so, but because, on this occasion, he had got an extremely bad case. What was the sole answer the right hon. Gentleman made to the noble Viscount? Why, that the Welsh groups were county groups. What on earth was meant by the Pembroke Dockyard being a county group? That was exactly what it was not. If the Pembroke boroughs consisted of a number of agricultural and rural boroughs, without any manufactures—if they were of a strictly urban character, there might not be much harm in adding a few more boroughs to them; but Pembroke was an important borough constituency—it was a Dockyard constituency—a constituency which had a distinct life of its own, distinct interests of its own, it was of great importance, and it contained not only one of Her Majesty's Dockyards, but it contained also a part of Milford, which had a seafaring population who ought to be represented in the House of Commons. It was quite evident that the purpose of putting Haverfordwest into this urban group was to endeavour to swamp the Dockyard and seafaring interest. It was as clear a case of jerrymandering as any to be found in the Bill. He remembered that when, a few nights ago, the system appertaining to the grouping of Scotch burghs was under discussion, his right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Wigtown Burghs (Sir John Hay) challenged the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke) upon this very case. His right hon. and gallant Friend said—"What account do you give, if these are your principles, of putting Haverfordwest into the Pembroke boroughs?" The right hon. Gentleman was then unable to give an answer; and he was unable to give an answer now. He (Mr. Gorst) thought it was quite possible that the noble Lord the Member for Haverfordwest (Lord Kensington) was the author of this singular manœuvre. If so, the Committee, no doubt, would like to know the noble Lord's views upon the subject.
§ LORD KENSINGTONsaid, he hoped the Committee would excuse him if he troubled them with a few words. He wished, in the first place, to disclaim the authorship which the hon. and learned 508 Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gorst) had assigned to him; he quite agreed with the course pursued by the Government, but he was not the author of it. The hon. and learned Gentleman had said that the Pembroke boroughs were not a county group; that they formed a Dockyard constituency, pure and simple; that they were entirely different from the boroughs he (Lord Kensington) had the honour to represent; and that, therefore, Haverfordwest ought not to be thrown into Pembroke. Pembroke, no doubt, did contain a very large Dockyard element; but the rest of the boroughs which formed the group were a great deal more similar to the composition of the boroughs he (Lord Kensington) had the honour to represent than his boroughs would be to the county. Pembroke Dock was the largest constituency by far, and, of course, had the largest electorate in the group. Pembroke town, however, was a purely county town; there were no manufactures in the town any more than there were in the boroughs he represented. Milford was a small town, and was composed chiefly of residences for many of, the Dockyard labourers, who came over the Haven in boats. Milford had nothing whatever to do with the Dockyards of Pembroke; it had only to do with the docks that were in course of formation on its own shore. Tenby was a seaside watering-place, and could in no sense be regarded as a manufacturing place; it was inhabited in the summer by a great many visitors, and most of the people there were not a bit more urban in their habits, or more connected with Dockyard interests, than the people of the boroughs he represented. He did not think that the noble Viscount opposite (Viscount Emlyn) would assert, for a moment, that there was a very large urban constituency in Wiston. The Wiston district was a very scattered one, and only contained a population of 1,717. Now, Haverfordwest had a town population, pure and simple, and except on market days, when people came in from the country districts, the occupations of the people were town occupations. Fishguard had a seafaring population, and he really failed to see that the noble Viscount had made out a case why the Haverfordwest and Pembroke boroughs should not be grouped together. He had never himself heard 509 any objection to the proposal put forward in the Bill.
§ SIR HARDINGE GIFFARDsaid, the noble Lord (Lord Kensington) had mentioned the names of several places; but he had not given the Committee the information they might have expected with reference to their situation towards each other, and any community of interest which might exist between them. What relation had Fishguard to Tenby, and what relation had any of the villages which the noble Lord represented to the borough of Pembroke? Fishguard was 15 miles to the north of Haverfordwest, and Pembroke was 10 miles to the south-west. Any number of villages might be got to form into a borough. He believed there had been no map presented to the Committee—nothing by which persons not familiar with the neighbourhood could see the the absolutely monstrous nature of this proposal. These villages could not be made into a group of boroughs at all. When, for some reason or other, the arrangement was made to form the borough of Haverfordwest by collecting these different villages together, it was supposed that they had an identity of agricultural interest, and that there would be a community of interest among them; but the putting together of Pembroke and Haverfordwest—an arrangement entirely outside the general scheme of the Bill—was only to be reconciled with the notion that some Party advantage was to be gained by it. No doubt, Haverfordwest had latterly been entirely faithful to the noble Lord; but Pembroke had been much more fickle, and had altered its political views from time to time, and it was supposed that this arrangement would give a tendency to Pembroke which it did not entirely possess before. He thought the Committee were entitled to some further explanation on this point. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had given them no explanation of the meaning of the proposal. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of a county group; but he (Sir Hardinge Giffard) would like him to explain what he meant by that. The right hon. Gentleman illustrated the county group by the Cardigan boroughs; but was there a single county group in Wales which, in respect of distance, community of interest, and the representation of the same class of 510 people, would compare in the smallest degree with the united borough of Haverfordwest and Pembroke? He challenged the right hon. Gentleman to bring forward a single instance, and he thought some explanation ought to be given to the Committee of the reason for this extraordinary exception.
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREThe hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down (Sir Hardinge Giffard) asks us for some example of the present proposal. Well, I should say the case of the Flint boroughs, where small towns are grouped together, is a similar case to this. Or you may take the case of the Montgomery boroughs, where there are no less than six different small boroughs grouped together. In the case of Pembroke, there are two groups of boroughs, and it is now found that one of these groups is to be disfranchised. The question is, whether the places so dealt with and disfranchised should be placed in the county or added to the other existing group. It is more in conformity with the practice, and the way in which we have dealt with other cases, to add these small places to the existing group which is to be continued in the county of Pembroke, than it would be if we were to merge them in the county. I need not go into the figures of the population; but when the hon. and learned Member asks what relation there is between Haverfordwest and Pembroke, I would answer by asking what relation there is between Tenby and Milford and Pembroke? There is precisely the same difference or similarity between the once case and the other. But we say that the convenience of the population is, on the whole, better considered by adding these places to the existing group than it would, be by projecting them into the county. The only other Welsh county which at all approaches this case, is the county of Cardigan. With that exception, all the other Welsh counties have between 45,000 and 50,000 people. If you make this exception, you would give Pembroke county a population of 60,000, which would be rather large for one Member.
§ MR. HICKSsaid, he wished to know who was the author of this extraordinary provision; and he also wished to draw the attention of the Committee to certain figures which might perhaps throw some 511 light upon it. He found that, at the last election for the borough of Pembroke, the present Whig Member for that borough was returned by a narrow majority of 33. Seeing the great changes which had taken place of late in the way in which the majority of electors had chosen their Representatives, and particularly within the last few months, he thought there was some reason to imagine that the majority at Pembroke at the next election might go the other way. But when he turned to Haverfordwest, he found that in a very much smaller constituency the majority was 164; and, therefore, if these two boroughs were added together, the Liberals would get a majority of 200, which it might be difficult to shake. These figures might perhaps enable the Committee to arrive at some conclusion upon the extraordinary divergence from the principles of the measure which had been introduced in this particular case. As the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) had drawn the attention of the Committee to the Flint boroughs, he (Mr. Hicks) would remind the Committee that all those eight boroughs which constituted the group had been part and parcel of the same borough for many years, and were not a fresh creation under the Bill. Taking all the circumstances into consideration, he trusted that the Committee would act fearlessly and impartially, and that they would adopt the Amendment of the noble Viscount (Viscount Emlyn).
§ MR. LEWISsaid, he thought that after the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) the Committee would be wondering what was the real reason that impelled the Government to make this change. All that the matter came to, according to that right hon. Gentleman, was this—that, on the whole, the Government thought it would be more convenient to attach Haverfordwest to Pembroke than to merge it in the county. He (Mr. Lewis) would ask the Committee to remember what had been the one constant strain throughout the whole of these proceedings—that no addition to existing groups of boroughs should be made, and that any proposal to create a new group should not receive any sanction or encouragement. Why was this change proposed now? Was not this proposal a piece of pure and unadulterated 512 grouping, such as the Government had, all along, been arguing against to the very utmost? It was, perhaps, unpleasant to refer to the extremely pertinent instance which had just been produced by the hon. Member who last addressed the Committee (Mr. Hicks); but when they saw that this particular case was to be made an exception, they were driven to the conclusion that there might have been some little slanting of the eye and divergence of the pen when this portion of the Government scheme was taken in hand. As for Pembroke, it could not be said that it was an insignificant borough in itself. If it could be said that it was an insignificant borough for England or Wales, there might be something in the argument; but when they turned to the statistics of the Welsh boroughs, they found that there were no less than three groups of boroughs which were less in point of population than the borough of Pembroke, for Pembroke had 26,000 inhabitants, while the Flint boroughs had 24,000, the Denbigh boroughs 22,000, and the Montgomery boroughs had only 19,000. It could not, therefore, be suggested that Pembroke needed the stimulus of additional population. They had learnt from the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General, and also from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke), that the Government, in placing this proposal before the Committee, had proceeded upon no principle, and were not even actuated by any feeling in the matter. Then why did they not relinquish it? It was suggested that if the proposal was not carried out, the county of Pembroke would be made inconveniently large; but when the hon. and gallant Member for South Ayrshire (General Alexander) complained of a population of 89,000 as being too large, and asked to have a group of boroughs constructed, the suggestion met with the most strenuous opposition from the Government. He thought the Committee ought to ask for a little consistency in these matters, and that they should, ask the Government for a little fair play. It was impossible for any Member of the Committee who had heard the facts to come to any conclusion in favour of this most exceptional way of dealing with the representation of these small boroughs; 513 and when they looked at all the circumstances it would be impossible to rest satisfied with a division which might defeat the Amendment. They must, therefore, fight this matter out on Report, if they could not dispose of it now. He entreated the Government to consider whether it would not be fairer and more satisfactory to give way to what was really a fair and reasonable, and, at the same time, a strenuous opposition.
§ MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, he wished to add his protest against this most jerrymandering proposition on the part of the Government. The Pembroke boroughs were notoriously a purely Dockyard constituency, and it was proposed to add this rural constituency of Haverfordwest to them. The Postmaster General was responsible for an extraordinary statement, for he had drawn an analogy between the Monmouth boroughs and this proposal to join Haverfordwest to Pembroke. The distances in the one case were much greater than in the other, and the analogy failed altogether. The proposal to join a Dockyard constituency to the rural constituency of Haverfordwest, which had been for some time represented by a leading Member of the Ministry in that House, was clearly made in order to turn the natural tendency of Pembroke from one side to the other; and for that reason he thought it should be opposed by every Member of the Committee who had any interest in maintaining the purity of constituencies.
§ SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSI wish to say one word, because it is quite clear that we are now outside the agreement. It gives one great pleasure to be able to speak outside the agreement, and I have already spoken once or twice. But I would rather appeal to the Government to consider this case, because it is clear on their own showing that this is an exception; and, as a general rule, an exception ought not to be pressed upon the House without the very strongest possible ground for it. From the very fair speech which has been made by the right hon. Gentleman who has charge of the Bill (Sir Charles W. Dilke), it is clear that he wished to leave this as an open question; and he said very fairly that, on the whole, he thought the preponderance of opinion was one way. But it is perfectly clear that he will be satisfied with the decision of the Committee 514 whichever way it goes; and what I want to impress upon the Committee is this—that no special grounds have been placed before us to show why an exception should be made of this particular case. Throughout the whole Bill I have never dwelt on political matters at all, and I do not want to do it now. I would much rather exclude them, and consider the convenience of the electors generally outside political grounds, I would put the matter upon this ground—that, so far as I have learnt from the speeches which have been made in the course of this discussion, it seems to me that no fair case has been made out for adding the Haverfordwest boroughs to the constituency of the Pembroke boroughs. The right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General referred to a considerable number of other places in Wales, and he talked of the boroughs and localities; but he took great care to say nothing about the constituencies. If he went into that matter, he would find that in all the instances quoted there is not the least analogy with the present case. I would strongly appeal to the Committee, if the Government do not give way, as I hope they will, either now or on Report—I would strongly appeal to the Committee to express their opinion that the case put before as by the Government is an exceptional case, and that no good grounds have been submitted to us to show why it should be dealt with in the manner proposed.
§ LORD KENSINGTONsaid, he wished to add another word, in consequence of what had fallen from the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett). So far as he could catch the hon. Gentleman's words, he understood him to say that Pembroke had always been a pure constituency, and that it was now proposed to join it with the corrupt constituency of Haverfordwest. He (Lord Kensington) wished to take the plainest and most distinct exception to that accusation. He believed that both the noble Viscount the Member for Carmarthenshire (Viscount Emlyn) and the hon. and learned Member for Launceston (Sir Hardinge Giffard) would agree with him in saying that there was not a shadow of foundation for such an accusation.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEWith reference to what has fallen from the 515 right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir E. Assheton Gross), I may remark that it is true, as he said, that I did not attempt to put this matter as one of great principle; but after what he has said about it being outside the agreement I will just say how the matter stands. It has not been directly provided for in the agreement, one way or the other. But it was one of the proposals submitted to the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends, and another case was proposed to be dealt with in a similar way. Objection was, however, taken to the other case, and it was dropped; but no objection was taken to this case.
§ VISCOUNT EMLYNsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General had spoken of several groups of Welsh boroughs which he thought had been dealt with in the same manner as this particular group; and he had talked of the "Welsh practice. But surely the right hon. Gentleman must be aware that not one single group of Welsh boroughs had had its limits altered by one iota under this Bill. What, then, did the right hon. Gentleman mean by telling the Committee that the Welsh practice in regard to these groups was on the same lines as the present proposal of the Government? That was almost misleading the Committee. His noble Friend (Lord Kensington) had asked him if he (Viscount Emlyn) was not aware that Pembroke was a simple country town? He could inform his noble Friend that Pembroke abutted quite close upon the Dockyards, and a large number of the men who worked in the Dockyards resided in Pembroke itself. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board once more. He (Viscount Emlyn) had not said one word with regard to any false practice in this matter. He did not suppose that anything of the kind existed; and, so far as he had been able to watch the proceedings of the Committee, he thought the right hon. Gentleman had always seemed to meet these questions in the fairest spirit. He appealed to the Committee to say whether the impression produced had not been that if the noble Lord the Member for Haverfordwest, who was personally interested in the matter, because it affected his constituency, had not been alongside the President of the Local Government Board, that right 516 hon. Gentleman would have given way before this.
MR. GORSTsaid, he wished to say one word before the division was taken. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had himself admitted that there was a similar case to this brought forward by the Government; but when it was found that exception was taken to it by the Leaders of the Opposition it was given up by the Government. He (Mr. Gorst) appealed to the right hon. Gentleman's sense of fair play. Now that exception had been taken to this case, as it was taken to the other, ought not the Government to give way here also? He thought the conduct of the Government throughout the Bill had been singularly fair. He had always said it was a fair Bill; and he thought the Government had shown the greatest fairness in conducting it. Was it worth while to impair that character for impartiality and fairness on account of this one wretched little place? The right hon. Gentleman himself admitted that, if it had been challenged by the Conservative Leaders when the compact was arranged, the Government would have given way. Now the matter was challenged in Committee, and there was an almost universal opinion on the Conservative side of the House that the matter ought to be yielded. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to give way, and so allow the Government to carry the Bill through Committee with that high reputation for fairness and impartiality which they had so far earned.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 80; Noes 51: Majority 29.—(Div. List, No. 79.)
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEI think it would be unfair to ask the Committee to go on any longer, therefore I will now move that the Chairman report Progress.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Sir Charles W. Dilke.)
§ SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSBefore that Question is put I wish to express a hope that, after the division which has just been taken, and the strong expres- 517 sion of opinion it embodies, the right I hon. Baronet will reconsider this question on the Report. I wish, also, to call attention to the notes on the bottom of page 22, with reference to this Schedule. It seems to me that the notes belong to the category of the matter coming before the Schedule, and that they should not appear in this form.
§ SIR GHARLES W. DILKEI promise the right hon. Gentleman to consider both these points before the Report.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.