SECOND READING.

HC Deb 02 March 1880 vol 251 cc131-47

Order for Second Beading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Fry.)

MR. WAIT

said, he rose to move that the Bill be read a second time upon that day six months. In making that Motion he must say that he was a member of the Corporation of Bristol, and he could speak from his own knowledge of the Corporation, and of the city and its interest. He opposed the present measure because he regarded it, instead of being a progressive measure, as one of a thoroughly re-actionary character. It proposed to deal with a question which he had no doubt was a real and genuine grievance—namely there arrangement of the wards of the City of Bristol. He was very far from saying that a re-arrangement of those wards was not necessary. The present arrangement was very far from satisfactory, and, in fact, a re-arrangement was absolutely neces- sary. What he objected to in the present Bill was that it was altogether incomplete in its character. There were very large suburbs of Bristol which ought to be included in any re-arrangement of the city boundaries; but the Town Council, in this Bill, had made no attempt whatever to include those outlying districts within the city. He need hardly say that when these outlying districts were included within the boundaries of the city a re-arrangement of the wards would at once become a very easy matter. What he contended was that before any re-arrangement took place these outlying districts should, in the first instance, be contained within the city. The Town Council could then proceed with a re-arrangement of the wards. If it were impossible, or even undesirable, to include these outlying districts, then, instead of opposing the Bill, he should be very glad to co-operate in supporting it; but, so far from being undesirable and unnecessary, the Boundary Commissioners, who were appointed under the Representation of the People Act, 1867, recommended, in their Report made in 1868, that the city should be extended so as to include the parish of St. George and the district of Bishopston, part of Horfield in Gloucestershire, and a further part of Bedminster in Somersetshire; but it failed to pass through Parliament, and the Boundary Act of 1858–31 & 32 Vict. c. 46—was passed, Bristol being omitted. The rates of the district in 1868 amounted to £47,877, and the population to 18,663. The rating in 1880 had increased to £95,397, and the population to 35,565; in fact, both the rating and the population had doubled within that period, and the weight of the recommendation of the Commissioners had in so far increased. The population of these suburbs was urban in every respect—urban in their employments, in their expenditure, and in their dangers. They had Local Boards of their own, and they possessed every advantage that could contribute towards the constitution of a great city. There was another great and important reason why he desired that the boundary of the city should be extended and the recommendations of the Commissioners adopted. It was, he thought, very important indeed, in a sanitary point of view, that the City of Bristol should have jurisdiction over its own suburbs. The City of Bristol had gone to great expense in regard to matters of health and improving the sanitary condition of the town; and it was in the power of one of the suburbs to be a serious source of evil and mischief and contagion to that great city. It seemed only reasonable that the city, therefore, should have control over the whole of the urban community. It was perfectly true that there was some opposition on the part of the inhabitants which he proposed to include within the boundaries of the city. A portion of them naturally wished to enjoy the advantages which were inseparable from, the neighbourhood of a great centre of industry, and they had an equally and corresponding dislike to contribute to the burden of that city. Some of them, again, were actuated by political motives, for he believed that they were nearly all of one political complexion in these suburbs; but the objections were by no means universal. There were a large number of persons who felt that their interest and prosperity would be increased if they were united to the City of Bristol. It was perfectly true that the scheme had been almost unanimously, or even largely, approved by the Town Council, and he must have been one of those who approved of it; but he was willing to admit, and he did admit in this matter, that he, with a great many others, had changed his mind, and he would rather see the Bill thrown out, so that a complete measure might be introduced, and a matter that had long been unsettled might receive a final settlement. He believed that a Memorial, which had been very extensively and widely and influentially signed, had been presented to the Local Government Board, which the right hon. Gentleman below (Mr. Sclater-Booth) presided over. Whether the right hon. Gentleman had anything to say on the subject he did not know; but the Memorial which had been presented to him expressed the sentiments of those who had signed the document, and of a great number who had not signed it. His contention was that the recommendation of the Commissioners gave that greatly increased weight, from the increase of wealth and population which had taken place in Bristol since it was first made. He did not think it would be denied by the Town Council that this Bill would hinder the development of the city; and on that ground he thought it ought to be referred back to them for amendment, and a new Bill, embracing the points to which he had referred, should be introduced. In that case, they would have a measure which would give satisfaction, he believed, to the whole of the inhabitants, and which would insure that any improvements hitherto indefinitely deferred would be undertaken for increasing the prosperity of the city. He begged to move that the Bill be read a second time upon that day six months.

Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Wait.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

MR. FRY

said, he should ask permission to detain the House but a few moments, while he endeavoured to state as shortly as possible the reasons which induced him to hope that the House would not accede to the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Wait). His hon. Friend had informed the House that the object of this Bill was to arrange the municipal wards of the City of Bristol. It was admitted by all those who had considered the subject that the object of the Bill was to remove and correct certain glaring inequalities which had previously existed. The division into wards of the City of Bristol had been made, as in other places, by the Commissioners under the Municipal Corporations Act; but it had never been looked upon in the City of Bristol as satisfactory, and it had never been confirmed under the provisions of that Act of Parliament by the Sovereign in Council. But, according to the provisions of that Act, the arrangement remained in force until steps were taken to set it aside. The House would see that in a large city like Bristol great changes must have taken place during the 45 years which had elapsed since that Bill was passed. He would not trouble the House with many observations on that point, because the condition of things in Bristol, as regarded municipal representation, was admitted to be at present far from satisfactory, and the object of the present Bill was to remedy a real and substantial grievance, and not a sentimental one. He would give the House one instance of the existing inequalities. At present, there was one ward which had a rateable value of £51,000, and contained 1,044 burgesses. That ward was entitled, under the present arrangement, to six members. But there was another vastly larger ward, with a rateable value of £126,000, and containing 6,192 burgesses, as compared with 1,000 in the small ward, yet it only returned three Town Councillors. On this part of the subject, he would only trouble the House by quoting a letter addressed by his hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester to the Local Government Board, in which he spoke of the present condition of municipal power in Bristol in these words— I believe a re-distribution of wards in the City of Bristol is a measure much needed, the present inconsistencies being quite indefensible. He could give many other instances of inequality and injustice in the present system; but he thought he had made out to the House that this Bill was intended to remedy a substantial and a great grievance. He would only detain the House very shortly with the history of the proceedings which led to the Bill. The question had been under consideration in Bristol by the Town Council and the inhabitants at large for more than five years; and, inasmuch as every Town Councillor in Bristol had been elected since the question had been before the ratepayers, he thought the House might fairly accept what he should show to be the unanimous resolution of the Town Council in favour of the Bill, as showing that the inhabitants of Bristol were also almost unanimous in its favour. In 1875, a Committee was appointed by the Town Council, and in their Report they recommended that a re-adjustment of the wards should take place. In 1878, another Committee was appointed to suggest a plan, and they reported in favour of the scheme embodied in the Bill now before the House. In 1879, a resolution was passed to promote the Bill now before the House. It was carried by the Town Council on the 29th of April by a majority of 41 to 6, showing an overwhelming preponderance of opinion in the Town Council itself in favour of the measure; and not only so, but under the provisions of the Borough Funds Act a public meeting of the inhabitants, owners, end occupiers had to be held. That meeting was held in May last, and no poll was demanded; but the resolution adopted by the meeting might be said to have been arrived at unanimously in favour of the measure. Again, no longer ago than the 28th of January last, the Bill now before the House was laid before the Municipal Council of Bristol, and was then unanimously approved. Therefore, he thought it would be impossible to make out a stronger case, showing that the inhabitants of Bristol, as represented by the Municipal Council, were in favour of the measure now before the House. He need not inform the House how difficult a matter it was to come to an agreement between political Parties in a large town like Bristol in a matter of that kind. The discussion had extended fully and fairly over the last four or five years; and although it had been attended by some difficulty, after a full discussion what was, in fact, a treaty of peace between the two political Parties had been arrived at. He ventured to assert that there was no evidence whatever of any substantial opposition to the Bill. It was true that there had been a Memorial to the Local Government Board. He had not seen the document; but it was signed, he understood, by about 90 individuals, of whom he presumed his hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester was one. But the city of Bristol contained 200,000 inhabitants, and some 24,000 burgesses; and, therefore, he did not think the House would attach much weight to a Memorial to the Local Government Board from the small number of 90 inhabitants. He had no doubt that they were respectable and influential persons, but they formed a very small minority; and he would ask why they did not come forward and petition the House in the usual way? Why, instead of presenting a Petition to that House, did they merely memorialize the Local Government Board upon the subject? Seeing that there was a meeting of the ratepayers held as lately as last year, he thought it was the duty of these gentlemen, entertaining such views, to have attended on that occasion in order to express their opinions and make an appeal to the inhabitants in order to ascertain whether any considerable number of the citizens of Bristol would support the views they entertained. So far as his hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester was concerned, it was well known by all who had the pleasure of his acquaintance that he was a prominent and popular citizen of Bristol. As he himself had informed the House, he had been a member of the Town Council during the whole period that this question had been agitated; and he must ask his hon. Friend why he did not oppose the Bill as lately as last January—six weeks ago—when the unanimous vote of the Town Council was given in its favour? The hon. Gentleman intimated that he had changed his mind. He had a perfect right to do so. Probably the man who never changed his mind was far from a wise man. But he would suggest to his hon. Friend that if he had changed his mind before January last, it was his duty to have made a representation of the fact at that time, and to have brought forward the views which he entertained against this proposition. Last year the very question now before the House was mooted in the Council, and a proposal was made to postpone any action upon the Bill until the question of the enlargement of the boundaries had been considered. It was negatived by a large majority; and in the majority on that occasion he found the name of his hon. Friend. He would now ask permission of the House to say a word or two as to the grounds of the opposition which had been raised against the Bill. So far as he understood it, their opponents did not object to the provisions of the Bill. They admitted that, in justice to the City of Bristol, the wards ought to be re-arranged; but they alleged that the municipal boundaries of the city ought to be extended at the same time. Now, he would remark that the question of Parliamentary boundaries was a question for the House itself to decide; but the question involved in the present discussion was a question of municipal boundaries, and only related to local affairs—such as sanitary affairs, and local taxation. These things were most strictly within the province of a local municipal body like the Town Council of Bristol; and he would submit that the House must attach great weight to the opinion of the Town Council of Bristol upon a matter of that kind. It was true that the Boundary Commissioners, in 1868, proposed to enlarge the boundaries of Bristol in the way stated by his hon. Friend. But the Report of the Boundary Commission, was received with great dis- satisfaction; and when the Boundary Bill was introduced in the following year to give effect to the recommendations of the Commissioners Bristol was omitted from that Bill. He had the authority of the Town Clerk of Bristol, who had been the legal adviser of the Corporation of Bristol for 40 years, for saying that the circumstances had greatly changed since 1868; and populations had grown up in other parts of the neighbourhood of Bristol than those which were considered by the Boundary Commissioners; and that, if the boundaries of the city were to be extended, the changes proposed by the Boundary Commissioners were not those which would apply now. But what he would put to the House was this—that there was an entire absence of opinion on the part of Bristol in favour of an extension of the boundaries of the city. He might even put the case higher, and say that there was a strong feeling of opposition in Bristol to such an extension. Last year a resolution was proposed in the Council that the consideration of the Bill should be deferred until the question of extending the municipal boundaries had been considered, and that proposition was negatived by 46 votes to 6. Therefore, he was justified in the assertion that there was a strong feeling on the part of Bristol against the extension of the boundaries. Then, again, what was the feeling of the outlying districts themselves? If the feeling against this proposal was strong in Bristol itself it was very strong in the outlying districts. The principal districts sought to be included were the parishes of St. George, and the district of Bishopston, in Horfield, and they had both petitioned the House against the suggested change; and not only so, but the local sanitary authorities had passed resolutions and presented Petitions to the House against any such measure being adopted. Both St. George's and Horfield had formed their own Local Boards, and were able to deal with all sanitary questions in a satisfactory manner, paying by means of their own rates for their own sanitary arrangements. They provided their own water, their own gas, and the rest of it; and he would appeal to the House that, such being the case, there was no precedent for including in a borough districts of that kind, which had their own local authorities, against their will. This was not a case in which a large city or borough came to the House and asked that surrounding districts should be included. But he had shown the House that the city of Bristol was opposed to such a change, and that the feeling of the surrounding districts was strongly, and he might say almost unanimously, opposed to it. He would submit that, under these circumstances, it would be unjust to compel a union between districts when neither of the parties desired it. His hon. Friend had intimated that he would be prepared to modify his suggestion; but the House, he thought, would agree with him that the question for consideration now was the passing of the Bill, or the rejection of it altogether.

MR. WAIT

said, that he suggested that the progress of the Bill should be deferred and the clauses amended.

MR. FRY

considered that it would be impossible to pass another Bill this year; and if his hon. Friend succeeded in obtaining what he asked no legislation could take place upon the subject this Session. He would not detain the House further. He thought he had shown the House fairly that the feeling in Bristol, and in the surrounding districts, was strongly in favour of this Bill; and he would only add a hope that in the interests of peace and good faith in the City of Bristol, and of those municipal institutions the authority and influence of which the House had always been anxious to maintain, the Bill would be read a second time.

SIR EDWARD WATKIN

said, that on other occasions he had objected to the principle which the House was asked to adopt in the present instance. Persons who had been allowed to present Petitions to the House for the introduction of Private Bills had, it seemed to him, something more than a private grievance—something amounting, to a large extent, to a Constitutional grievance, when it was proposed that the measure which they had been induced to introduce should be rejected on the second reading. It was the Constitutional right of the subject to petition that House. Private Bills were introduced on petition; and a Bill could not be read a first time except by the House granting the prayer of a Petition demanding the introduction of such Bill. For the convenience of themselves, the House referred that Bill to a Private Committee which, practically, consisted of themselves; and having allowed the Bill to be so introduced, and thus having given the promoters their sanction to what they were doing, then they turned round and said—"You shall not have a hearing." The hon. Member for Gloucester was opposing a Bill which interested the City of Bristol; but if what the hon. Member who spoke last said was correct, the hon. Member for Gloucester was himself a member of the Bristol Corporation, and in that capacity had already given his sanction to the Bill. Surely that was a very odd course of proceeding. If that were so, then, certainly, his opposition, to say the least of it, was out of place and inconsistent. The question which he (Sir Edward Watkin) wished to submit to the House was, were they to go on with this practice of practically seducing people to apply for Bills to be introduced into the House, and then turning round, and saying—"We refuse to hear your case." He thought it would be well for the House to take a decided line upon this question, and he would ask for the opinion of the Chairman of Committees upon it, though he had never yet heard that hon. Gentleman take the line which he ventured to suggest—namely, that there was something of a Constitutional question at the bottom of these refusals of the justice of a hearing to Petitioners to that House. He thought it would be most unjust to refuse to a great Corporation like that of Bristol a hearing before the House, when they had permitted the introduction of a Bill on the Petition which had been deposited.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

remarked, that he was anxious to say a few words to the House on the question, not as a Member of the Government, but as one of the Members for the county of Gloucester, which was much affected by the measure, as the House would have already learned from the able speech of the hon. Member who moved the second reading of the Bill (Mr. Fry). But he did not think it quite fair that the matter should be considered purely from the point of view in which the hon. Member had put it. He (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) had not had the advantage of hearing the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for the city of Gloucester (Mr. Wait); but he had no doubt that in his speech he had made it plain that there were many interests in the case beyond those of the inhabitants of the city of Bristol. The hon. Member for Hythe (Sir Edward Watkin) had found fault with the hon. Member for Gloucester for his action in the matter, and had treated him as if the course he had taken were absolutely unjustifiable; but he (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) might remind the House that this was by no means a new question. So long ago as the year 1867 a Commission of very high authority, charged to inquire into the boundaries of the various constituencies in England and "Wales, recommended that certain districts adjoining the City of Bristol should form their connection with the city, and be united with it for Parliamentary purposes. Well, that was a fact which had been admitted by the hon. Member for Bristol; but the hon. Member said that this was not a question of an extension of Parliamentary boundaries, but a municipal question alone. He (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) wished to treat it purely on municipal grounds, and, being interested in the county of Gloucester, he said that on these grounds it was not fair that these districts should continue to be part of the county of Gloucester, but that they should be united for municipal purposes to the City of Bristol, to which they properly belonged. If the House assented to the measure now before them, that question would be indefinitely postponed. It was a measure for dealing only with the wards within the city, whereas, if the whole question were dealt with, the municipal boundaries would be considered as well. He had figures here to show the urgent need for this consideration. He found that in 1867, when it was reported that these districts ought to be united to the City of Bristol, there were in the ecclesiastical district of Bishopston 347 houses, with a population of 1,763 inhabitants. In 1880 the number of houses amounted to 813, and the population to 4,065. In addition, he might say that between 150 and 200 houses were in course of erection, and would, no doubt, be quickly inhabited. In the parish of St. George's, in 1867, there were 2,614 houses with a population of 12,500; in the present year the number of houses was 5,179, the population 25,000. In that part of the parish of Bedminster which was defined by the Report of the Commissioners, the number of houses in 1867 was 802, and the population 4,400. This year the number of houses was 1,427, and the population 7,500. Now, what was the result of that as affecting the county of Gloucester? The result was simply this—that at every Quarter Session they had to provide for some increased expenditure for the police and the administration of justice in this part of the county, which certainly ought to be included in the city to which it belonged. He thought that the time had fairly come when the county of Gloucester should be relieved from these taxes upon it for the police force and for the administration of justice within these urban districts. For this reason, he asked the House not to sanction this imperfect measure as it was now proposed, but to express an opinion that the question ought to be dealt with as a whole, and that if the matter required consideration it should include the question of the city boundaries as well as the re-arrangement of the municipal wards.

MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN

said, he thought it was unusual for a Cabinet Minister to come down and speak against a Private Bill. He hoped, therefore, he might be excused, although he had not heard anything of the merits of the case before entering the House that evening, for taking a part in the debate. In the first place, he wished to express regret that his right hon. Friend did not announce that this question was not a question in which the Government was interested, but only, in fact, a match between the county of Gloucester and the City of Bristol. [An hon. MEMBER: He said so.] They had heard that the Municipality of Bristol, by a majority of 46 votes to 6, decided that they wished to have the question of the division of the municipal wards settled; but that they did not wish to have that question mixed with the question of Parliamentary boundaries. What they said was—"We wish to have the question of re-dividing the wards of the city settled." He would ask the House, could there be a more legitimate subject in the world for the decision of a Committee? They would be enabled to find out, by the examination of witnesses on the one side and the other, whether the wishes of the City of Bristol for a re-division of the municipal wards, or the desires of the county of Gloucester to be relieved of an additional expenditure at the Quarter Sessions by an extension of the municipal boundaries, ought to prevail. Of all questions this was the sort of one that ought to be remitted to a Committee; and he would ask hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House whether that course should not be adopted, if they were anxious to preserve their system of Parliamentary Committees? A question of this kind, could not be debated in a full House upon its merits, but must be remitted to a Committee if it was to receive fair and full consideration. If they were to maintain that principle it was for hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House to agree that on no consideration would they make that case an exception, but that they would send it to the only tribunal which could fairly consider it.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

observed, that his right hon. Friend (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) had stated that he had not had time to study this Bill, and his speech showed very clearly that he had not. The question which he said ought to be submitted to a Committee was one which it could not deal with at all; and that was the ground, and the only ground, on which the question cropped up at all. His hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Wait) did not dispute the propriety of a re-distribution of the wards of the City; but the question was whether the inhabitants of the district had a right, while proper steps were being taken for re-arrangement of the wards, to intervene and ask the House to throw out the Bill upon the second reading because it did not go further. He had no wish to take part in the discussion; but, as his name had been mentioned, and as a Petition had been addressed to him at the Local Government Board, he must take the liberty of stating that he should feel no compunction whatever in seeing the Bill extended into one for enlargement of the municipal boundaries. It so happened that some persons in the City of Bristol had addressed a Petition to him which, in his opinion, ought to have been addressed to the House. He had only got up on that occasion in order to state its contents, because he thought that they ought to be in the possession of the House, especially as they were very short. The memorialists desired that the Bill should not pass without the further extension of the municipal boundaries of the City of Bristol, so as to include certain outlying districts. The case of the Corporation of Bristol had been extremely well stated to the House by the hon. Member for Bristol (Mr. Fry), and the House had also had the advantage of hearing the hon. Member for Gloucester state the grounds of his opposition. His right hon. Friend the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) had also had an opportunity of making a statement from a county point of view; and the question now rested with the House whether they would read the Bill a second time, or reject it, or defer it in order that further time might be given to the inhabitants for making their voice heard. He might repeat again that his only object in rising was to express his opinion that, when persons desired to object to the principles of a Private Bill, they ought not to address a Government Department, but should address themselves to the House.

COLONEL KINGSCOTE

said, that he had that day, or rather the day before, presented to the House four most numerously signed Petitions from the parishes interested in this Bill against the Amendment of the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Wait.) He might also say that he was a little bit astonished to find that his right hon. Friend the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) should come down there and speak in support of the Amendment, on the ground that the Bill might increase the rates of the county. Now, by his own showing, the population of St. George's and Bishopston had of late years considerably increased, and there had been a large increase of houses and rateable value far in excess of the expenditure upon these particular districts. No one would wish less than himself to increase the expenditure of the county; but he could not see how a district in which the rateable value was constantly increasing could add materially to the expenditure of the county. St. George's and Bishopston had their own urban authorities under the Public Health Act; they had their own sewage rates, and their own gas and water rates. In point of fact they were completely small towns of themselves; and they had petitioned with one voice in favour of this Bill. An allusion had been made by his right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) to political matters. He was sorry that he had said anything upon that point; but if he wanted information he (Colonel Kingscote) could give it to him. He thought his right hon. Friend would find that the gentlemen who presided over the two meetings which had been held, and at which these largely-signed Petitions were adopted, were gentlemen holding opposite political opinions to himself. He did not see anything in that matter, and he did not ask the House to reject the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester on that ground; on the contrary, what he did ask was, that the Bill should be allowed to go before a Committee to be fairly considered upon its own merits. Nobody but his hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester, and a very small minority in the City of Bristol, had expressed any desire, and that only within the last five or six weeks, to secure the rejection of this measure. He could point out to him privately where this opposition sprung from, and he was sorry to see that his hon. Friend had lent his assistance to it.

MR. RAIKES

said, that the hon. Member for Hythe (Sir Edward Watkin) had anticipated any expression of opinion on his part in this matter, by blaming him for not laying down in the House a certain doctrine which commended itself to his mind as a Constitutional one. Now, he (Mr. Raikes) had not attempted to lay down that proposition in the House, because it appeared to him to be an unconstitutional one. The hon. Member for Hythe and anyone who thought with him were apparently of opinion that whenever a Private Bill encountered opposition in that House it was contrary to the Constitution that it should be opposed on the second or third reading, or in any other part of its progress. He could only say that he agreed with him in the principle thus enunciated; but, at the same time, there could be no doubt that as the House was well aware of the Private Bills which passed through the House the enormous majority did pass through these stages unopposed, and it was a small percentage only that was opposed. It appeared to him that Bills of this kind ought only to be opposed when they raised an important principle, or when it appeared that the course of proceeding was contrary to generally recognized precedents. If the hon. Member for Gloucester had succeeded in satisfying the House that that had been the case in the present instance, in that event, no doubt, he would carry the House with him in opposing the second reading of the Bill; but if, on the other hand, the House was of opinion that he had failed to substantiate that proposition, they would, no doubt, give the Bill a second reading, and refer it to a Select Committee. He confessed that he had sat there waiting to hear his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board speak what was the mind of the Government upon the matter, because he thought that that must be an opinion which must greatly weigh with the House. The interests involved in an extension of the borough of Bristol were of so important a character that he desired, before coming to any conclusion, that he should hear what the Government, speaking on their responsibility, had to say, and he had no doubt that the House would have adopted their view; but he did not find that his right hon. Friend had concluded by pressing any adjournment of the discussion; and therefore he took it that, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, the question of principle had not been sufficiently raised to justify them in taking any step antagonistic to the Bill. If he rightly construed this aspect of affairs, it seemed to him that a sufficient case had not been made out to justify the House in refusing to read the Bill a second time. The materials of the case were very simple and very plain; they had been justly and fairly stated by the hon. Member for Bristol (Mr. Fry), who moved the second reading of the Bill; and they were not disputed by the other side. There was no question that the re-distribution of these wards was a thing that was generally desired in Bristol; that it had been approved by the Corporation by very large majorities; that it had passed the ordeal of public meetings, and that it had been the outcome of a thorough understanding between the two Parties in that city. Therefore, there could be no question in his mind as to the propriety of reading the Bill a second time, if a larger question of general principle was not to intervene, and if no responsible authority was prepared to urge that it was undesirable to deal with the re-distribution of wards in the borough before considering the larger question of the Parliamentary boundaries. On the whole, he felt inclined to acquiesce in the course proposed by the hon. Member for Bristol; but, before he sat down, he must point out a fact that perhaps might escape the notice of many hon. Gentlemen there. When a Corporation were thus the promoters of a particular Bill, representing, as they did, the inhabitants, that fact precluded any portion of the ratepayers from petitioning against the Bill; therefore, the House must be aware that if they read the Bill a second time they were, practically, remitting it to the Committee on Unopposed Bills, because he was not aware of any interest which could appear before a Select Committee in opposition to it. The question was one of considerable gravity, and it was for the House to decide; because, in a case of this sort, they were really laying down as a fact that they thought the Bill should proceed as it stood, and that it should proceed without undergoing that sifting and examination which it would get before an opposed Committee. He wished to point out this to the House as one consideration before it. Having given the best attention he could to the subject, and having considered all the matters which had been stated on both sides, he thought the House would do well not to depart from its general custom in this instance, but to read the Bill a second time.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 163; Noes 98: Majority 65.—(Div. List, No. 31.)

Main Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a second time, and committed.