§ MR. H. S. NORTHCOTEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If the instructions to the Boundary Commis- 648 sioners preclude the possibility of their recommending the extension of the limits of any existing borough constituency; and, should this not be the case, and should they recommend such extension as would bring a borough constituency at present scheduled for total or partial disfranchisement above the 15,000 or 50,000 population limit, what course Her Majesty's Government will propose to take in such cases?
§ MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, he would also like to inquire, in connection with this Question, whether the Boundary Commissioners would be empowered, in the case of boroughs above 50,000 which retained two Members, to inquire whether the boundaries of these boroughs should be extended so as to include an urban population which, in the words of the instruction, ought to be incorporated in these boroughs?
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHwished to know whether any supplementary instructions to the Boundary Commissioners would be laid on the Table?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEThe answer to the last two Questions will be in the affirmative. In reference to the Question of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. H. S. Northcote), I have to say that the instructions to the Commissioners, which must be read in connection with the Bill, are not intended to embrace boroughs under 15,000, as they are all scheduled to be merged. The instructions, however, do not preclude an inquiry into the boundaries of the boroughs between 15,000 and 50,000 limits; but no extension of them is likely to increase the population above that of many much larger boroughs with only one Member. If the second Member were allotted to those boroughs, it could not be done without injustice to others with much stronger claims.