HC Deb 03 December 1884 vol 294 cc556-8
MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD

Owing to the very peculiar circumstances under which the second reading of the Parliamentary Elections, Redistribution, Bill is to be brought forward to-morrow, and the pressure of time, and also with reference to the Notice given yesterday by the hon. Member for the Haddington Burghs (Mr. Craig-Sellar), I beg to give Notice that at the proper time I shall move— That it be an Instruction to the Committee that, instead of adding to the number of the House, they have power to disfranchise boroughs in England and Wales having, by the Census of 1881, fewer than 25,000 inhabitants, and to take one seat from each of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether there are not errors—or, at any rate, one error—in the printed copy of the Redistribution of Seats Bill with reference to one of the boroughs in England?

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, that was the case. The Bill was printed so rapidly that at the last moment the borough of Warwick was found to be omitted from the list of boroughs which were to lose one Member. It was proposed to unite Warwick with Leamington, so that it should return one Member. That, he believed, was the only mistake which had been discovered up to the present time in the Bill; but in the print of the letter from himself to the Home Secretary, containing the instructions to the Boundary Commissioners, the word "intersect" had been misprinted "intercept."

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Return which he promised yesterday in reply to my noble Friend the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) will be laid on the Table in dummy before the adjournment, so as to be circulated as soon as possible after the second reading; and whether the Return will be accompanied by the map which he promised?

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

Certainly, Sir, the Return will be laid on the Table; but, as to the map, I can give now no decided answer as to whether it will be included in the Return until I communicate with one or other of the Boundary Commissioners as to the form in which the map should be given. The noble Lord has promised to communicate with me privately on the subject; but he has not yet done so. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will also communicate with me, as I am not quite clear what it is that is wanted.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

Then I understand that a map will be presented with the Return.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

I have no objection whatever to present the map asked for; but it is extremely probable that the Boundary Commissioners may wish their Report to be accompanied by a map in certain cases.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

With regard to the instructions of the Boundary Commissioners, there appeared to be power to appoint Sub-Commissioners; but I presume the intention is that the boundaries are to be considered by the Commissioners themselves, upon whose responsibility they will be decided?

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

Certainly; there can be no doubt upon that point.

DR. LYONS

I wish to ask whether Sligo has been omitted by accident from the list of Irish boroughs that will have the right to return a Member? I am aware that the right of the borough has been suspended; but I do not think the seat has been abolished by law.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

I think it will be found that Sligo was disfranchised by law, and that it stands in that respect in the same position as Cashel, Beverley, and Bridgwater.

DR. LYONS

said, Cashel was mentioned in the list, while Sligo was not.