§ MR. WARTONsaid, that, before moving the first Amendment which stood in his name, he wished to say that there were several others which he had put 1339 down for the purpose of rendering this clause more intelligible.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he accepted the Amendment the hon. and learned Member was about to move.
§ MR. WARTONsaid, that, before moving the Amendment, he wished to call attention to the extraordinary and singular manner in which the Bill had been printed, especially in reference to the Schedules. Sometimes they had a page which read on in ordinary lines; while, in another case, the Schedules were cut up into columns; and sometimes the pages consisted partly of lines and partly of columns. The result was that hon. Members, in putting down Amendments, found it difficult to understand in what form they were to move them. He had proceeded on the ordinary plan of making his Amendment refer to the lines of the page; but it would be found that some of his Amendments referred to the first column, and others to the second. He thought it would have been better if the printers had followed the advice of Sir Benjamin Backbite in the School for Scandal, and allowed these trivial defects to be mended before the provisions of the Bill were submitted to the public. Whether they took the Schedule by the line or the column, or in some cases referred both to the column and the line, they would be led into confusion in consequence of the absurd way in which the draftsman or the printer had arranged the clause. As a point of Order, he would now move the first Amendment which stood in his name upon the Paper for the purpose of asking what the opinion of the Chairman upon the subject was?
THE CHAIRMANIt seems to me that it would have been more convenient if both the columns in the Bill had had lines attached to them. It would then have been more easy to follow them; but I do not see that it is at all impossible, in consequence of the way in which the Bill has been printed, to discuss the Amendments of the hon. and learned Member, or any other Amendments which appertain to the Bill. As to the course I propose to take, I shall take the lines and follow them in dealing with the provisions of the Bill. I do not apprehend there will be any difficulty in doing so. I have paid attention to the matter, in consequence 1340 of an observation which fell from the hon. and learned Gentleman; but although I think it would have been better for the lines to have been numbered, I do not think any difficulty will arise in following the Amendments.
§ MR. WARTONsaid, he would move the first Amendment as it stood upon the Paper—namely, to leave out the word "name," in line 3, and insert "names."
§ Amendment proposed, in page 25, line 3, leave out the word "name," and insert the word "names,"—(Mr. Warton,)—instead thereof.
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'name' stand part of the Schedule."
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he accepted the Amendment.
§ Question put, and negatived; word "names"inserted accordingly.
§ MR. WARTONsaid, his next Amendment was to leave out "No. 1, and No. 2," in page 25, column 1, line 9. This Amendment was of very considerable importance. He was glad to have received the direction of the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair as to the mode of procedure, and this was a case which applied to that point. Something of a similar nature applied to both columns of the same line.
THE CHAIRMANThe first Amendment of the hon. and learned Member relates to the first column, and the course I shall take will be to put the Question, "That the words 'No. 1,' in page 25, column 1, line 9,"be omitted. The other Amendment, with regard to the words "No. 2," will come subsequently.
§ MR. WARTONsaid, he had followed the lines, and the words he proposed to omit appeared in the same line, but in both columns. He gathered, however, from the ruling of the Chairman, that he must move first the omission, in line 9, column 1, of the words "No. 1," and that it would be necessary, afterwards, to move the omission of the words "No. 2," in the second column?
§ MR. WARTONsaid, he now fully understood the course which the Chairman proposed to take. This Amendment involved a very important question indeed, and he hoped to receive the same assistance in regard to it from the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the 1341 Bill as he had received upon his first Amendment. He saw no necessity-whatever for retaining the numbers which were inserted to signify the different divisions of the same borough. In the present instance, he was dealing with the new borough of Battersea and Clapham, which was divided into two divisions, each returning one Member. Surely the people of this country were not such children, or such savages, as not to be able to divide two without the words "No. 1 and No. 2" being added to the separate divisions. No confusion could arise as to the number of Members; there was no necessity why any distinctive number should be given; and, therefore, it would be better if the numbering were done away with altogether. If the numbers were retained, it might appear that some preference was given to one division over another. Everything in the shape of an invidious distinction would be avoided by dealing with the divisions as they were treated in the case of Lambeth and other boroughs—namely, by describing them as the Eastern or Western Divisions, or North and South. No difficulty would arise in that case, because it was only usual to give precedence to the North over the South, and the East over the West. He must again say that the Bill had been drawn up in an exceedingly slovenly manner, and the draftsman appeared to have preferred the stereotyping of these divisions as "No. 1 and No. 2,"rather than saying" Battersea Division, "and" Clapham Division. "The districts included in the division would be clearly explained, as, for instance, in the case of the Clapham Division, which was to consist of" the parish of Clapham, No. I ward of Battersea parish, and No. 4 ward of Battersea, except so much as is comprised in Division No. 1 as herein described," and this system of numbering would be found to run entirely through the Schedule. In his opinion, it was entirely unnecessary to specify the divisions by numbers, whatever might be the case with regard to the wards. There could be no necessary or natural precedence of one division of a borough over another, and it was reducing the divisions of a borough to the level of wards to describe them as "No. 1,"and"No. 2."He had no objection to the insertion in the Schedule of words 1342 describing a particular part of the division as "No. 2," or "No. 3 "ward of Clapham; but he did object to the divisions themselves being described as "No. 1, the Battersea Division," and "No. 2, the Clapham Division." The best plan was to number the wards, and name the divisions. It was of no importance to any voter to know that he lived in No. 1 or No. 2 Division, because, after all, he would be connected with either the Battersea or the Clapham Division, and he might be found in either, as the case might be; whereas it might be difficult to find him as a voter in "No. 1" or "No. 2." It might be considered that this was a small matter; but he did not think so. He regarded it as a very important matter indeed. It had an extremely dangerous tendency, because it went in the direction which, he was sorry to see, too often prevailed, of trying to obliterate anything like local feeling. When a man became a convict, he lost his name, and was known as convict No. 1, or convict No. 2, and he thought it was not creditable on the part of the Government to reduce the divisions of a borough to the position of convicts by designating them "No. 1 and No. 2."Why should there be an attempt to hide respectable names under No. 1 and No. 2,"not making that distinction which, he thought, ought to be made between the dignity of the borough and the lesser dignity of the ward? He was satisfied that the voter in a respectable borough would be much more fond of local names than of being called an elector for No. 1 or No. 2 division. There was no earthly reason why these numbers should be given, except to save the trouble of writing down the name of the division wherever it was used. In order to relieve the Committee from any difficulty, he had taken pains to go through the Schedule, and if the present Amendment were accepted, he proposed to move a number of others, by which, in every case, names would be substituted for the numbers which at present appeared in the Schedule; and he was certain that the adoption of his proposal would have the effect of rendering the Bill more palatable in a good many quarters. Even the right hon. Gentleman himself must prefer to be Member for the Chelsea Division, rather than be known as the Representative of "No. 1" or "No. 2" Division.
1343 In obedience to the ruling of the Chairman, he would now move his first Amendment in this form—Schedule 6, page 25, column 1, line 9, leave out the words "No. 1."
§ Amendment proposed, in page 25, column 1, line 9, to leave out the words "No. 1 "—(Mr. Warton.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Warton) had explained that his object in proposing his Amendment was to make the Bill more respectable. He could not, however, accept the Amendment, or treat it with the same consideration which he had given to the first Amendment moved in this Schedule by the hon. and learned Member. The object of referring to a division by numbers was to secure accuracy, and it had been done in the drafting for the purpose of avoiding future complication and error. He had discussed the matter at considerable length with the draftsman of the Bill, and he had arrived at the opinion that the danger of error would be greatly increased, if he were to accede to the Amendments of the hon. and learned Member. When the Schedules were framed by the draftsman, there was an objection made to the way in which some of the divisions of counties were described, and probably many of the names would be altered as the Bill passed through Committee. Thatremark, however, applied more particularly to Schedule 7, which was the County Schedule. It was obvious that if the name of a division was altered, all the references to that name would have to be altered also; and not only might mistakes be made, but mistakes which might have very serious consequences afterwards. He was further informed that considerable difficulty might arise in carrying out any alteration, having regard to the Forms of the House. For instance, he would take the case of Carnarvonshire. In that instance, "Division No.l—"the Eivion Division—was to consist of the sessional division of Carnarvon, "except as much as is comprised in division No. 2, as herein described—Eifionydd and Portmadoc, and Pwllheli, and the municipal borough of Carnarvon." If this Amend- 1344 ment were made, it would be impossible to go back upon any previous references to this division in the earlier parts of the Schedule. Supposing that in regard to a borough a similar instance to that of Carnarvon were to occur—
§ MR. WARTONsaid, he had said nothing whatever about Carnarvon.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he was only giving the ease of Carnarvon as an example of the manner in which the proposed Amendment would apply, because it was not at all likely that the House would take one course in regard to this matter in Schedule 6, and a different course when they came to deal with Schedule 7. Therefore, he cited the case of Carnarvon as a good illustration of what he meant. Then, again, changes might be made in such matters as this in "another place," and probably, either from hurry or some other cause, there would be a possibility of serious errors creeping in in regard to names. He could not but think that the intention of the draftsman—for it was a purely a draftsman's question-was one which every experienced man would appreciate. An hon. Friend near him called attention to the case of Liverpool, where there were nine divisions, and several references in particular divisions to districts comprised in other divisions. He had been distinctly informed that there would be the greatest possible amount of inconvenience if the change which the hon. and learned Member proposed were made. The hon. and learned Member said that a question of dignity was involved as between one number and another—that No. 1 Division would be considered more important than No. 2, or other divisions. He did not think that was likely to be the case. These numbers were not to be permanent designations at all. They were only designations in the Bill, and the names were what the divisions would be known by. The difficulty of finding all the references involved in making the proposed alteration would be very considerable, and even the hon. and learned Member, notwithstanding the great trouble he had taken with the Schedules, had not himself entirely avoided error. He only mentioned that fact, in order to show the difficulty of making all the consequential arrangements which would arise from some of the Amendments pro- 1345 posed to be made in the Bill. It must also be remembered, as a reason against changes of this kind, that persons locally interested in the Bill had read those parts of it which affected themselves with great care. It might, therefore, be assumed, as a matter of course, that if there were any error in the Bill, it would have been pointed out in the great amount of correspondence which had taken place in regard to the measure. Of course, every change of this sort would involve a liability to introduce fresh errors. For all these reasons he would ask the Committee to reject the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member.
§ LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, that the careful answer which had been made by the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Charles W. Dilke) showed that the question was one which deserved serious consideration. He was glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that this sort of designation by number was only to be temporary, and that it would not be heard of after the Bill had been passed into an Act. He would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it would be possible, before the Bill became an Act of Parliament at the last stage of all, to excise these figures, which he agreed with his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) were more or less unsuitable and annoying. The division which he hoped to have the honour to represent was called "No. 1;" but he thought it was a distinction which ought not to exist; and he quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that it ought not to be permanent. If, however, these numbers were permanently attached to the divisions upon the Statute Book, it would be hard to say that they would not be heard of again. Could the right hon. Gentleman tell the Committee whether on an ultimate stage in this Bill, in "another place," facilities would be afforded for excising the figures to which his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bridport took exception?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he would consider the question; but, of course, if it was practical, it could only be acted upon by general agreement in "another place." If it could be done without risk, some such course might be taken; but he must remind the Com- 1346 mittee that it would be necessary to make an immense number of Amendments—several hundreds—of this kind, and it might be found that there was great practical difficulty in the way. There was another suggestion which occurred to him—namely, that on the Report words might be introduced into the Bill to say that the numbers should not be applied after the passing of the measure.
§ MR. TOMLINSONsaid, that if it was necessary to avoid errors, the sooner they devoted themselves to the task of correcting them the better, by striking out all extraneous matter. The more rapidly they set to work in that direction, the more likely would they be to avoid error hereafter. It, therefore, appeared to him that the best course would be to begin now. He saw no reason for supposing that any difficulty would arise in consequence of adopting the designation which his hon. and learned Friend proposed to substitute for the numbers now contained in the Bill.
§ MR. WARTONsaid, he was extremely obliged to the noble Lord the Member for North Leicestershire (Lord John Manners) for the support he had given to the Amendment. With all respect to the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke), he (Mr. Warton) must say that the arguments the right hon. Gentleman had brought forward against the Amendment were very weak indeed. He could not say that the right hon. Gentleman had paid him any high compliment in preferring the draftsman to him; and with regard to what the right hon. Gentleman had said in reference to the danger which was likely to arise, he maintained that no confusion whatever would occur owing to cross references from one column to another. The only correction that would have to be made would be in the striking out of "No. 1" or "No. 2," and substituting the name of the particular division referred to. The right hon. Gentleman had alluded to the case of Liverpool; but he presumed that this applied to Liverpool as well as to every other borough in the list. No harm could arise, because there were no cross references as between different boroughs; and every correction it would be necessary to make in consequence of the adoption of the Amend- 1347 ment would be within the four corners of the particular borough that was dealt with. It was not a case of mixing up a number of boroughs with each other. On the contrary, it was a very simple matter indeed, and the consequential Amendments could very readily be effected. The right hon. Gentleman had commented upon the desirability of avoiding mistakes, and yet be suggested that the final decision of the matter should be left over until the Report stage. He (Mr. Warton) was afraid that many of the blunders which were frequently seen in Acts of Parliament arose from the bad habit of postponing difficult matters until the Report. When they reached the Report, there was a disposition to throw the whole thing off over to the other House, in order that the House of Lords should consider what ought to be done. At the present moment, the right hon. Baronet was perfectly able to put all these matters right. It was exceedingly slovenly work to speak of the divisions of a borough as "No. 1 and No. 2." They had already laid down one principle in regard to the population of a borough limited to 15,000, and another in regard to boroughs with 50,000 population. In point of fact, the Bill appeared to be drawn upon the principle of being rendered as confusing as possible. "When they were able to give a name, whether it applied to a borough or to a horse, or to anything else, the best course was to give that name. Confusion only arose when they attempted to give two names to the same thing; and he challenged the right hon. Gentleman to show what harm could possibly arise from giving the name of the division instead of the number. The object of the Amendment was to rescue the Committee from the danger of enacting a number of absurd distinctions that were not necessary. In the interests of accuracy, it was far better to have the names properly given. All that need be done was to strike out "No. 1 and No. 2," wherever those words appeared in the Bill, and to substitute the name of the division—such as "Battersea Division" or "Clapham Division." No confusion could then arise. The right hon. Baronet had accepted the first Amendment he (Mr. Warton) moved, thereby admitting that the Bill had been drafted in an extremely careless manner. If he received any support 1348 from the Committee, he should certainly press the Amendment to a division.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ MR. WARTONsaid, the next eight Amendments were to the same effect as the one which had just been disposed of. He would therefore pass over them, and go on to the Amendment in page 26, column 1, line 32, to leave out the word "Mid," and insert the word "Central."["Oh, oh!"]
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he would consent to the adoption of the Amendment.
§ MR. WARTONsaid, it would appear that the only Members of the Committee who were allowed to be disorderly were the Members of the Government. He was glad that this Amendment would be accepted; but the right hon. Gentleman was desirous that it should be accepted before hon. Members had an opportunity of knowing what they were doing. It would be found all through this Schedule, with this one exception, that when a mid or central division was constituted, the word "central" was used throughout. In this case—namely, the case of Birmingham, the division was spoken of as the Mid Division. He thought it would be wrong to run the pen through the word "central," in order to insert the word "mid" in other cases; and, therefore, he had raised the question in order to give the Committee a chance of saying whether they preferred the word "mid" or the word "central." Personally, he did not strongly press either the one word or the other, because he thought that a fair argument might be raised on both sides. On the one hand, the word "mid" might be the right one, as it had now been consecrated by 17 or 18 years of Parliamentary usage in reference to the counties; but, on the other hand, it might be thought that the better word was the word "central." Then, again, it might be considered proper to confine the word "mid" to the counties, and to use the word "central" in connection with the boroughs. He, therefore, did not wish to have the Amendment too readily accepted, and he was sorry that it had been jumped at so quickly by the right hon. Gentleman. He trusted that the Committee would not accept the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman before they knew 1349 what they were doing. Either course would be agreeable to him. All that he desired was to secure uniformity in drafting, and that they should not have in one place the word "central" and in another the word "mid." He did not care which word was taken; but he desired to ascertain which of the two the Committee preferred. On the one hand, they knew something of the word "mid," as they had now had it in existence for some years; but it had been confined to counties, and "central," which was rather an un-Parliamentary word, might be confined to the boroughs, or got rid of altogether. For the sake of bringing the question fairly before the Committee, he would move in page 26, column 1, line 32, to leave out "Mid," and insert "Central."
§ Amendment proposed, in page 2G, column 1, line 32, to leave out the word "Mid," and insert the word"Central,"—(Mr. Warton,)—instead thereof.
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'Mid' stand part of the Schedule."
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he had thought that he might save the time of the Committee by agreeing to the Amendment at once. He did not think it was a very important matter. There were several Mid Divisions in the case of counties; and in this instance, which applied to the town of Birmingham, the third division appeared to be included in the Bill under the title of Mid Division. As the hon. and learned Member had pointed out, this was an exception to the rule in regard to boroughs, and he thought it would be better to make the Schedule uniform; and, therefore, he was quite ready to accept the Amendment. As the phrase "mid" would probably always be used in reference to county divisions, it might be desirable to retain that word in connection with the counties; but, in the boroughs, it would be more desirable to make it "central." He had, therefore, no objection to the change proposed by the hon. and learned Member.
§ Question put, and negatived.
§ Question, "That the word 'Central' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
§ MR. WARTONsaid, the rest of the Amendments which appeared on the Paper in his name were all consequen- 1350 tial, or had been settled by previous decisions.
§ MR. LEWIS FRYsaid, he had placed an Amendment upon the Paper to substitute the words "Bristol West" for "The West Division," in page 27, column 1, line 24. There were three other similar Amendments, a little lower down on the Paper, with regard to the North, the East, and the South Divisions. He brought all these Amendments forward at the request of the Corporation of Bristol. They were very simple, and would not affect the other provisions of the Bill in any respect. The Corporation of Bristol were desirous that the four Parliamentary divisions into which that City was in future to be divided should be known as Bristol North, South, West, and East respectively. It was considered desirable that the four Members sent from Bristol to the next Parliament should be looked upon as Members for the borough generally; and the Corporation of Bristol were of opinion that that idea would be more fully expressed if the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Charles W. Dilke) would accept the designations which he had placed upon the Paper for the four Bristol divisions. The citizens of Bristol were in favour of the change, and the heads of both political Parties had made the suggestion to the Boundary Commissioner, who had received it favourably. He did not know whether his right hon. Friend objected to the Amendment on the ground of uniformity; but, as a matter of fact, the divisions in the Bill were not uniformly named—for instance, in the case of Swansea the new divisions were not spoken of as divisions at all, but one was called "Swansea town," and the other "Swansea district." Therefore, the provisions of the Bill were not strictly uniform. The question was not one of vital moment: but he would express a hope that the right hon. Gentleman would be able to accept the Amendment.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 27, column 1, line 24, to leave out the words "The West Division," in order to insert the words "Bristol West,"—(Mr. Lewis Fry,)—instead thereof.
§ Question proposed, "That the words 'The West Division' stand part of the Schedule."
1351§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, this was the only case, as far as he knew, in which exception had been taken by any borough or body to the course proposed to be taken in the Bill. There were numbers of cases similar to this in the Bill; and if an attempt were made to introduce uniformity in the nomenclature of the Bill in the direction of the Amendment a great number of alterations would have to be made. He thought it was not sufficiently remembered by hon. Members in dealing with the names that all the Representatives would be Members for the whole borough, whatever division they might take their seat for. At present, when there were more than one Member for a borough, one was usually described as the senior, and the other as the junior, Member for the borough. In future, when it became necessary to refer to one of the Members for Bristol, the hon. Member who desired to make the reference would consult his Bod, and state what division the Member for Bristol referred to represented. The hon. Member did not propose to leave out the description of the division as North, South, East, or West; but simply, in each case, to prefix the word "Bristol." He certainly thought the best plan would be to adhere to the proposal contained in the Bill.
§ MR. ACKERSsaid, he had the honour of representing a large number of persons who would come into two of the divisions of Bristol; and he believed there was a unanimous feeling on the part of both political Parties, and also on the part of those who were at the present moment outside the boundaries of the borough, but who were, under the present Bill, to come within the boundaries, that each division should be known by the name proposed to be given by the hon. Member for Bristol (Mr. Lewis Fry). The adoption of the Amendment would make the nomenclature shorter and easier. The argument of the right hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill was that the Amendment would interfere with uniformity. He would ask the right hon. Baronet whether the Bill was not filled with anomalies from beginning to end? The object of the Bill was to preserve and create anomalies. He would ask the right hon. Baronet to consider the Amendment as one which, although a small matter, so 1352 far as the drafting was concerned, was of great importance from the point of view of local feeling.
§ MR. WARTONsaid, that in view of the local feeling in this matter, which had received expression on both sides of the House, he thought the Government might yield to the proposal of the hon Member opposite (Mr. Lewis Ery). For his own part, he was strongly in favour of consulting local feeling in matters of this kind; and why the Government should oppose that feeling in the borough of Bristol, or any other borough, he could not conceive. Everyone, he thought, ought to entertain a feeling of pride towards his county, borough, or parish; and although he did not profess to understand the exact amount of local feeling in this instance, he said, if the people wished to apply to any division of their borough a particular application, by all means let them do so, especially when their wish met with approval on the Liberal, as well as on the Conservative, side of the House. He could not but feel that the Committee were suffering too much at the hands of the draftsman—that unknown person who seemed to pull the strings from behind. He did not think that the difficulty which the right hon. Baronet apprehended from the adoption of the Amendment was at all likely to arise. On the contrary, seeing that there were to be a large number of Members representing some boroughs, as in the case of Liverpool, which was to have nine, and Glasgow seven, it would be necessary to discriminate, in some way or other, in referring to them, for it would require a wide stretch of the imagination to regard any one of them as the "hon. Member for Liverpool," or the "hon. Member for Glasgow." He was obliged to regard this proposal of the hon. Member for Bristol as an effort to escape from the difficulty in which, by using the terms "number one" and "number two," this matter had been entangled.
§ MR. LEWIS FRYsaid, he regretted that the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) could not accede to his proposal; but the question was one upon which he (Mr. Lewis Fry) did not feel justified in occupying the public time by dividing the Committee, and he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.
§ MR. ACKERSsaid, he was obliged to own that he had not the same kindly feeling which the hon. Member for Bristol had with regard to saving the time of the Government in this matter. He had no wish, however, to waste one moment; still, he regarded this proposal as so reasonable that he must press upon the Government the right of his constituents to ask this simple concession from the Committee. He was aware that under the present arrangement, and in view of the Government majority, nothing could be done unless with the goodwill of the Government; and, therefore, he would again appeal to the right hon. Baronet to make this concession as one which could do no harm, and which local feeling was decidedly in favour of. Under the circumstances, he felt it his duty to press the Amendment to a division.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 65; Noes 19: Majority 46.—(Div. List, No. 91.)
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Verbal Amendments made.
§ On the Motion of Sir CHARLES W. DILKE, the following Amendment made:—In page 28, line 37, leave out "East," and insert "South."
§ MR. WARTONsaid, he had an Amendment to propose in page 29, line 15, with reference to the borough of Kensington. When there was already a clear definition of a thing, as in the case of Kensington, it seemed absurd to say—
So much of the Parliamentary borough of Kensington as lies to the north of a line drawn along the centre of the Uxbridge Road.If those words were retained the locality would be ill-defined, whereas the nomenclature which he proposed would exactly describe the borough. There was nothing in the Schedule to show what the Parliamentary borough was. Here, again, the work of that accomplished draftsman was to be found who defined a certain division to be so much of a Parliamentary borough as lay at the north of a road, or so much as did not. He was convinced that that great master of logic, the Prime Minister, would understand his (Mr. Warton's) meaning in saying that not only was 1354 this absurd in itself, but that it left the Committee completely in the dark as to an important provision of the Bill; therefore, he thought that they should put into the Schedule a definition of the Parliamentary borough of Kensington by inserting the words of the Amendment which he begged to move.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 2, column 1, line 16, to leave out the words "the Parliamentary borough of," in order to insert the words "the parish of Saint Mary Abbott's, Kensington,"—(Mr. Warton,)
—instead thereof.
§ Question proposed, "That the words the Parliamentary borough of' stand part of the Question."
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he had considered the point of the hon. and learned Gentleman with regard to Kensington, which he also raised further on in the case of West Ham. He thought it best to retain the present description, which was in accordance with the precedent supplied by the Act of 1832.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, he should give his support to the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) on this Amendment. In the Irish section of the Bill, also, there was extreme haziness as to the borough boundaries. He thought that when he had paid 1s. 2½d. for the Bill, he ought to have in it every proper information relating to the places referred to. But that was not the case; for, in addition to the cost of the Bill, he would have to buy the Report of the Boundary Commissioners in order to find out what it was that formed any particular borough or division. If hon. Members would turn to the Irish portion of the Bill, they would find on page 101 the names and contents of the divisions of the county Londonderry. The Schedule had it—
§ "No. 1.—THE NORTH-WEST LONDONDERRY DIVISION.
§
The Baronies of—
Keenaght, North-East Liberties of Coleraine, North-West Liberties of Londonderry (except so much as is comprised in the Parliamentary Borough of Londonderry), and
Tirkeeran (except so much as is comprised in the Parliamentary Borough of Londonderry).
§ He knew that this was supposed to be drafting of the most refined character; but, in his opinion, it was more correctly described as "scientific misleading," and 1355 therefore he thought it required amendment at once. He intended, as the hon. and learned Member for Bridport had done, to put down a series of Amendments to deal with points of this kind in connection with the Bill. He thought that a man ought to find in the Bill everything necessary from a geographical point of view; but that was not so, and if that kind of information was wanted he would have to invest a further sum of 17s. 6d. in the purchase of the Report of the Boundary Commissioners. Take the case of Donegal. It was divided into four divisions; and in order to find out exactly how much was comprised in a particular division one must turn to the Boundary Report, where would be found whole pages of description which could not be obtained otherwise than by the payment of the 17s.6d. referred to. He certainly thought that the Bill should give more information than it did. It might be the height of science to describe a portion of a borough or county as "so much as is not comprised in the other portion of it;" but it was not, he ventured to think, the height of common sense. He trusted the Government would accept this Amendment, because, although he did not always agree with the hon. and learned Member for Bridport, he was entirely with him on this question.
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, the Government would consider the proposals of the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) when they came forward. With regard to the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton), if the hon. and learned Member would turn to page 16, line 56, he would find the division of the borough of Kensington referred to as Saint Mary Abbott's, Kensington.
§ MR. WARTONsaid, he could not but think that the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) had either misapprehended his point, or failed to understand the argument used by the right hon. Baronet the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke). Hon. Members would find the substance of the answer given by the right hon. Baronot on pages 16 and 17. The right hon. Gentleman might not be able to perceive the absurdity he (Mr. Warton) complained of; but it was sheer nonsense to say "so much is to be 1356 the division that is not the other part." One would have thought that the genius of the Postmaster General, united to that of the President of the Local Government Board, would have had a more marked effect upon the drafting of the Bill.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, he entirely agreed with what had fallen from the hon. and learned Member for Bridport. It was a little matter, but one of extreme importance, that the boundaries of divisions in Ireland should be set out as clearly as possible in a Bill of this character. The cost would only be that of a few leaves of paper, and a great deal of difficulty would be avoided in having to hunt out the information required in the Report of the Boundary Commissioners.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, with regard to the question of the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan, he could only repeat the answer given by his right hon. Friend the Postmaster General—namely, that the point should be considered when it arose. He was, for the reasons already stated, unable to agree to the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Bridport.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 51; Noes 17: Majority 34.—(Div. List, No. 92.)
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he would move the two Amendments in his name, the object of which was to correct a discrepancy and bring about a necessary transposition.
§
On the Motion of Sir CHARLES W. DILKE, the following Amendments made:—
In page 30, column 2, leave out lines 35 to 37, inclusive, and insert "Bramley Ward, except so much as is comprised in Division. No. 5 as herein described;
In same page and column, leave out lines 42 to 44 inclusive, and insert "so much of Bramley Ward as is included in municipal polling district No. thirty-five.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, that in the course of the discussions which had taken place before the Easter Recess he had brought under the attention of the Committee, and of the right hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill (Sir Charles W. Dilke), the desirability of making some provision in the Bill for the representation of the Irish minority in England and Scotland, amounting to some 1357 2,000,000 of people. He had pointed out that the whole scheme of the Irish portion of the Redistribution Bill was to give adequate representation to the minority in Ireland, altogether apart from mere consideration of numbers. The Government, in discussing the Irish portion of the scheme, had declined to enter into the question of numbers at all. In dealing with Dublin University, the Government had not contended that the 4,000 voters of Trinity College were entitled to two Members on the ground of numbers. The defence of the Government and their suggestion was, that these two seats were required in order to preserve to the minority in Ireland some portion of the representation of the country. Well, he had put a question to the right hon. Baronet the President of the Local Government Board with regard to the provision it was proposed to make for the representation of the Irish minority in England, and the answer of the right hon. Gentleman was brief, but very significant. It was that the provision for the representation of minorities would be essentially the same in the Three Kingdoms. That was the principle on which he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) was willing that his Amendment should be judged. He wished the Irish minority in England and Scotland to get as much representation under the Redistribution Bill as was given to the minority in Ireland under the same measure. That and no more. Well, he was sorry to say that, so far as he had been able to discover, the Boundary Commissioners did not take this question of nationality at all into their consideration in dealing with the Bill. They had confined themselves to a somewhat narrow interpretation of the rules laid down for their guidance; and he ventured to think that they would have acted more in the spirit of the principle of the Bill if they had taken this question of nationality into their consideration. He had pressed this question very strongly on the attention of the right hon. Baronet in a discussion which had taken place before the Easter Recess. He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) did not suppose his arguments were capable of changing the right hon. Gentleman's views upon the question; but he had been glad to observe that the right hon. Gentleman had accepted the general principle that he had laid down— 1358 namely, that the Irish, as a minority in England, were entitled to the same representation as the minority in Ireland had obtained; and the right hon. Baronet, whilst accepting that principle, had said that the question was one the working out of the details of which would cause some difficulty. He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) had understood the right hon. Baronet by that to imply that the Irish in England were so scattered that it would be very difficult indeed to give them anything like a representation for themselves. He had accepted that principle entirely, and the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee would be perfectly entitled to reject his general principle, if he were not able to lay before them a scheme which would be in accordance with the other principles laid down for the guidance of the Boundary Commissioners. Now, he thought he had succeeded in doing that, not according to the Amendment he had on the Paper, but according to a modification of it which he proposed to move. He very much regretted that he had not been able to put his proposal on the Notice Paper, so that every Member would be able to see it in print. He had not expected the matter to come on so soon, and had hoped to have been able to make some local inquiries which would have necessitated some delay. However, he had given a copy of the Amendment to the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill, another to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, and he had intended to give one to the noble Lord the Member for Liverpool (Lord Claud Hamilton), only that his stock had become exhausted. He had given one to the hon. Member for Liverpool sitting on the Ministerial side of the House (Mr. S. Smith). He must say a word or two with regard to the boundaries of Liverpool as they were at present. The only two constituencies he proposed to touch were Exchange and Abercrombie. Those who were acquainted with the subject knew, and those who would cast their eyes over the Boundary Commissioners' map of Liverpool would see, that the Exchange Division was very peculiarly constructed indeed—that it jutted out as a sort of peninsula into the Abercrombie Division. That, at first sight, gave to the division an extremely awkward appearance, and deprived it of that 1359 geographical compactness which it had been the desire of the Boundary Commissioners to secure on every possible occasion. That was the first objection to the boundary as at present arranged. The second was this—it was made up of heterogeneous classes, and of people of heterogeneous pursuits. One of the main principles of the Redistribution Bill was that persons of similar pursuits should be as much as possible joined together in the same constituency. That was not the case here. The Exchange Ward consisted largely of the working classes, while Abercrombie Ward, on the other hand, largely consisted of gentlemen engaged in mercantile pursuits; in fact, Exchange Ward was a working class division, and Abercrombie was a mercantile division. The division made by the Boundary Commissioners violated the principle he referred to, inasmuch as it dragged out of the Abercrombie Ward a considerable section of the persons engaged in mercantile pursuits. That portion of Exchange Ward which formed the peninsula jutting into Abercrombie Ward was inhabited by persons engaged in mercantile pursuits; and he believed that some of the gentlemen representing Liverpool themselves regarded this as a not altogether satisfactory arrangement. He thought there was a feeling that the arrangement of the Boundary Commissioners was rather an abnormal and unnatural division of the constituency. His proposal was this—to take out of Exchange and put into Abercrombie Ward that portion of the constituency which would begin at Moss Street in the north, and would then go down and exclude Lime Street Ward, for a considerable portion of it, and a considerable portion of the Exchange Ward for the Exchange Division. He would read out the Amendment, which would render the matter more intelligible—
Schedule 6, page 31, line 42, column 2, add, after 'Lime Street Ward,' the words 'except that portion bounded by Moss Street, London Road, and William Brown Street.He would move to add after "Exchange Ward" the words—Except that portion of Exchange Ward bounded by a line beginning at the junction of Moorfields and Dale Street, thence proceeding along Tithebarn Street, Old Hall Street, Union Street, Lancelot's Street, and that part of Prince's Lock in Exchange Ward.The boundary he proposed would, he 1360 thought, have the advantage of being perfectly clear and intelligible, because it practically went almost in a straight line from the north to the south of the Exchange Division. He knew there was an objection, and a very strong objection, to this scheme, and that was that it divided up two wards; but his defence in regard to that matter was this—in the first place, it was the only way in which he could make anything like an intelligible proposal; and, secondly, Exchange Ward was a very peculiar ward in this respect—that a portion of it belonged entirely to the mercantile classes, and that a portion of Abercrombie Ward belonged entirely to the working classes. His defence for dividing up Exchange Ward was that he took from it the mercantile portion and put it into the mercantile ward of Abercrombie, and that he left the working class portion in the working class Exchange Division. He hoped that was clear to the Committee. The defence for the course he had taken in dividing Lime Street Ward was this—that he took that portion of it which was occupied by well-to-do shopkeepers and put it into the well-to-do division of Abercrombie. Generally speaking, his defence of his proposal was that it equalized the population. The disparity of the population in the two wards, according to the plan of the Boundary Commissioners at the present moment, was very startling. In Exchange Ward there was a population of 72,000, whilst in the Abercrombie Ward there were only 67,557. Although that might not be a great disparity between two London constituencies, he thought it was a very great disparity indeed between the populations of two Liverpool constituencies. If the proposal he made were adopted the result would be this—he did not know that he could give the exact figures; but, roughly speaking, the result would be, that Exchange Ward, instead of being as it was, would have about 68,000, and Abercrombie Ward would have about 70,000—that was to say, there would be a difference of only 2,000, instead of the difference being between 72,000 on the one hand and 67,557 on the other. Now, he thought he might put his scheme in opposition to that of the Boundary Commissioners as justified on three grounds: first, that of equalization of population—because his plan would equalize the population more 1361 nearly than the scheme of the Commissioners; secondly, that it would make the division—geographically—more correct; and, thirdly, that it would keep people of similar pursuits more together—throwing the wealthy merchants of Exchange Ward and Lime Street into the wealthy ward of Abercrombie. He had kept his main reason to the last. If the change he now advocated were made, the Irish voters would be put far more compactly together than they were at present, which, he thought, was very desirable in the case of Liverpool. Subsequently he should make a similar proposal in regard to Manchester, which, he believed, would be desirable in the interests of both the English and Irish inhabitants of that City. In the first place, he thought it most desirable, on the highest grounds, that the Irish population of this country should learn to take an interest in the affairs of the country; and the real way to give them that interest was to let them feel that in this, the highest Court of Appeal in the Realm, they had their own Representatives elected by their own votes—Gentlemen representative of their interests and of their suffrages. It was desirable, for the sake of the English themselves, that the Irish should be, so to speak, segregated into a constituency of their own. Nothing was more confusing, and nothing could be more demoralizing, than to have the Irish vote continually appealed to at English elections. They saw a sort of Dutch auction constantly going on in regard to the Irish vote between the candidates of the different parties. Pledges were made which sometimes were kept and sometimes were broken, and in place of there being a fair-and-square stand-up fight on purely English principles they saw a kind of triangular duel constantly taking place, leading to much confusion and demoralization in the bid for the Irish vote on both sides. He was desirous of seeing that sort of thing put an end to. He was anxious that the Irish people in England should know that they had an interest in the affairs of this House by having their own Representatives, and that the English candidates should be saved from the temptations and penalties to which such gentlemen putting up for the representation of places containing a large number of Irish voters were at the present moment exposed to. He 1362 had now said all that he had to say on the matter. He hoped the Committee would excuse him for not having put his Amendment on the Paper; and he confidently appealed to the right hon. Baronet, if he could not accept the proposal now, at least not to discourage his (Mr. T. P. O'Connor's) efforts to accomplish an object which he thought would be equally advantageous both to the Irish and English people of this country.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 31, line 42, column 2, add, after "lime Street" Ward, "the words" except that portion hounded by Moss Street, London Road, and William Brown Street."—(Mr. T. P. O'Connor.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that as the hon. Member opposite (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) had told the Committee, he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had already spoken upon the general question now raised. The Amendment, he thought, could only be accepted by the general consent of the Committee. At present the general feeling would be that it would be impossible to fully consider the arrangement until it had been put into print, and had been some time before them. The hon. Member would feel that himself, he was sure. He (Sir Charles W. Dilke) therefore hoped that the hon. Member would not press his Amendment on the present occasion, but would put it on the Paper, so that it might be considered before Report. Though the proposal might not satisfy the feelings of some hon. Members, he himself was favourably disposed towards its principle. He rather approved of the Amendment which stood on the Paper in preference to that the hon. Member now submitted; but, whatever form the Amendment might take, if it were conceived in the spirit of the hon. Member's observations, there might not be any great difficulty in its being favourably entertained by the Committee. For the reasons he had stated, he trusted the hon. Member would allow this, with other proposals, to remain open for consideration on Report.
§ MR. WADDYsaid, that there was one observation which arose with regard to the division of these various boroughs viewed relatively to each other. He 1363 would, with the consent of the Committee, make that observation now with a view to its being considered, because, if it were regarded with favour, it was possible that the Government might deem it necessary to alter the Bill itself as a matter of detail on Report. The point was this—these boroughs—Liver-pool being one—were at present undivided. By the Bill they were to be separated into divisions, each division being a separate borough. By the law, as it now stood, a man had a vote if be had not a residence, but premises in a borough, and if he had resided not necessarily in the borough or on the premises, but "in the borough, or within seven miles." Now, there was no provision in the Bill that he was aware of which dealt with this question. How were they henceforward to measure the seven miles?
§ MR. WARTONI rise to Order. This has nothing to do with the Amendment before the Committee.
THE CHAIRMANI think the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Waddy) has misapprehended the Amendment before us. The observations be is now making are not at all germane to this Amendment.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, that although he always objected to leave matters to be decided on a later stage of a Bill, be thought that on the present occasion his hon. Friend (Mr. T. P. O'Connor), whose Amendment was not on the Paper, would do well to leave the matter over for the consideration of the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) until the Report stage. While be would advise his hon. Friend to withdraw, for the present, his Amendment, he (Mr. Parnell) might take this opportunity of expressing his entire concurrence with the views his hon. Friend bad put forward. There could be no doubt that the Bill as it stood left the Irish minority in England almost entirely unrepresented. A claim had been made for the separate representation of the English minority in Ireland, and the Committee was aware that the Bill gave that English minority a representation which had been variously estimated at from 23 to 27 Members. But the English minority in Ireland was not at all as numerous as the Irish minority in England and Scotland. It was calculated there was an Irish population, either by descent 1364 as regarded the first generation, or by birth, of very close upon 2,000,000 in England, and Wales, and Scotland, and nobody had ever claimed that the English minority in Ireland amounted to more than about 1,250,000; but while a large representation of 23 to 27 Members had been given to that minority in Ireland, they found that under the Bill, as it stood, under no possible circumstances could the Irish minority in England obtain a representation of more than two or three Members. This, therefore, was a matter for the very serious consideration of the Government; and be hoped that they would see their way, between this and Report, to accede to the able arguments of his hon. Friend (Mr. T. P. O'Connor). As regarded Liverpool, at all events, he hoped the Irish Representatives would be met by the Government in a fair spirit.
§ MR. WHITLEYsaid, be had listened carefully to the observations of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway; but be could not share their view—that mere nationality should be represented. He had always looked upon the citizens of Liverpool as a united people, and he had felt that while representing the interests of the other sections, he had also represented the interests of the Irish section. He should regret very much if a line of demarcation were drawn between English and Irish living together in the same city. With regard to the proposals of the Bill, he was bound to say that, as far as Liverpool was concerned, the Commissioners Report was accepted by all the leading Parties. They gave a great deal of attention to it, and, as far as be knew, all parties were struck with the admirable manner in which the Commissioners discharged their duty. He believed it would be found that all sections of the Liverpool people would be represented by the Bill as it stood. He did not think it possible for the Commissioners to have arrived at a more satisfactory result. He was afraid the hon. Gentleman (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) was wrong as to the alterations of the population. The matter was very carefully considered, and he believed the populations of the Exchange and Abercrombie Wards were correctly stated. He was afraid the proposition of the hon. Gentleman would, instead of equalizing the population, 1365 make a greater difference than there was at present. On the whole, the divisions as proposed by the Commissioners were loyally accepted by the city at large, and any alteration of them would meet with disapproval.
§ MR. JACOB BRIGHTsaid, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill (Sir Charles W. Dilke) would seriously consider the proposition of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor). His (Mr. Jacob Bright's) object in rising was to say that, so far as he had learned in Manchester, if the Government found it practicable to adopt the view of the hon. Member for Galway, very little opposition would be offered in the city. If it were practicable so to arrange an electoral district that the main body of the Irish electorate should inhabit that district, it might happen that they would have an Irish Representative in the House. He, for one, should not be sorry if some of our large Irish populations in England did have Irish Representatives; indeed, he agreed with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Galway that it would be better both for the Irish population and the English population that that should be so. He hoped this question would be fairly considered by the Government, and that, if possible, the Amendment would be adopted.
§ LORD CLAUD HAMILTONsaid, he entirely disagreed with what had fallen from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester (Mr. Jacob Bright). He cordially endorsed the view of his hon. Colleague (Mr. Whitley) that it was the desire of the people generally to keep the divisions of the city as they had been arranged by the Boundary Commission. There was a great desire among all classes in Liverpool that there should not be a hard-and-fast line of demarcation drawn between the English and the Irish population, as suggested by the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor). It was felt that the enmity which had existed at times between the Irish and the English people in the city was dying out; and efforts were being made in Liverpool, as elsewhere, to promote the most kindly feeling between the two races. He could not help thinking that any attempt to sharply separate the two peoples, such as was contained in the proposal of the 1366 hon. Member for Galway, was likely to be mischievous in its results. He trusted, therefore, that both in the interests of public policy, as well as in the interests of the convenience of the people of Liverpool, who cordially approved of the divisions which had been made by the Government, the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) would adhere to the scheme, and that he would, after the consideration he had promised to give to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Galway, be able to announce his resolve to make no alteration in the Government proposal.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, it was to be regretted that the admirable sentiments of the noble Lord (Lord Claud Hamilton) appeared to be addressed entirely to one country. The noble Lord did not see the logic of his remarks as applied to Ireland, because, while one, the Irish portion of the Bill was under consideration, the Committee constantly heard from the noble Lord and his hon. Friends of the difference between Protestants and Catholics.
§ LORD CLAUD HAMILTONLoyalists and Nationalists; I never mentioned Protestants.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, that what he wished to point out for the consideration of hon. Gentlemen was that the Catholic population of England numbered 2,000,000, and that it was extremely desirable they should have some representation in the House of Commons. At the present time, there was only one Catholic representing a constituency in Great Britain, and he had only been returned within the last few years. It certainly was not a credit to the generosity or spirit of fair play of the people of England that the fact of a man being a Catholic was sufficient to deprive him of any right to sit in the House of Commons. The Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) was intended to put an end to the present state of things; and he (Mr. Healy) did not think it laid in the mouth of the noble Lord (Lord Claud Hamilton), who was extremely anxious, by means of the most extraordinary jerrymandering, to secure the representation of the minority in Donegal, to object to an alteration of the Exchange Division of Liverpool which would enable the Catholios to obtain a Representative. The noble Lord occu- 1367 pied a very curious position when he objected to the proposal of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Galway. This was not at all a matter between the English and Irish races. The question of education entered into it to a very large extent; and he (Mr. Healy) was surprised that Gentlemen who, like the noble Lord, supported denominational education, should be found denying that Catholics were entitled to some distinct representation. He (Mr. Healy) could not help placing the statesmanlike attitude of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester (Mr. Jacob Bright) in contradistinction with the attitude of the noble Lord. The Amendment was distinctly against the interest of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester. The hon. Gentleman was well known to be in favour of secular education; yet, in a spirit of fair play to all classes, he was willing to accept an Amendment which would give the Irish or Catholic population of Manchester a Member. Hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway on the Opposition side of the House were altogether opposed to the acceptance of any such Amendment. Considering the way in which the 1,000,000 of so-called Loyalists of Ireland had been treated, it was not too much to expect that the 2,000,000 Catholics of England should have some special representation under the Bill. The noble Lord evidently did not seem to agree that what was sauce for the goose was sauce for the gander. The Loyalists of Ireland, who were composed of magistrates, deputy lieutenants, landlords, and other persons of great distinction and quality, were to have ample representation in the House of Commons; but the unfortunate Irish people of England, who, as a rule, belonged to the lower classes, and who from that very fact were entitled to every protection from Parliament, were to be deprived of representation. If the noble Lord would only turn over in his own mind the extraordinary conflict there was in the attitude he took up between England and Ireland, he would see the absurdity of the position he assumed. He (Mr. Healy) was very glad indeed that the hon. Member for Manchester had supported the Amendment; and he trusted that the anxiety of the Government that minorities should find representation in the House would prompt 1368 them to accept the proposition. He hoped that, at the next General Election, it would not come home to the Irish in England that the persons opposed to the representation of Catholics were Members of the Tory Party, and that the persons in favour of it were the Members of the Liberal Party. He assured the noble Lord and his Friends that it would be an evil lesson to teach the Irish working classes that it was he and his hon. Friends who were opposed to their obtaining separate representation, whereas it was the Liberals who were anxious that justice should be done them. He feared the speech of the noble Lord would have an unfortunate effect in many districts of the country. Of course, the noble Lord's official Leaders were conveniently absent, and the matter admitted of reconsideration by the Conservative Party. He (Mr. Healy) trusted that both the Liberal and Conservative Parties would see it was undesirable that the conflict on Irish questions, which were totally distinct from English questions, should be introduced into English politics. Candidates of each school of politics found it extremely inconvenient when they heard so much of the undesirability of the Vaccination Acts; how much more undesirable would it be to have the Irish masses raising their war cry and thrusting themselves into English affairs? He trusted the Government would see their way to accept the proposition of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Galway.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he had no reason to be dissatisfied with the reception that had been given to his Amendment, especially by the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill (Sir Charles W. Dilke). He joined his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) in sincerely thanking the hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester (Mr. Jacob Bright) for his kindly and wise words with regard to this question. On the other hand, he regretted the attitude taken by the noble Lord (Lord Claud Hamilton) and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Liverpool (Mr. Whitley). He was glad, however, to hear the noble Lord say that he was desirous to see the relations between the Irish and English in this country improved and made more kindly. He was glad to learn that the relations between the Irish and 1369 English working classes in Liverpool were kindly, and he hoped they would so remain. But he ventured to present to the mind of the noble Lord this view of the question—that the best way, after all, of creating and fostering a kindly feeling between the different classes of the population was to give each class of population an idea that it had its full share of rights; and he did not think that a minority numbering 2,000,000 people, of a distinct nationality and creed, could be said to have a sense of having its full rights as long as they were practically debarred from representation. He felt that the fact of the Irish in England having their own Representatives in the House to counsel and control them would be the best means in the world of bringing about that kindly relation between the Irish and English races which all desired to encourage. He hoped that before the Report stage the noble Lord and the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Whitley) would reconsider their position, and be able to view the matter a little more favourably. If need be, he would be willing to make some alteration in his Amendment. He might have based his Amendment on considerations altogether apart from nationality. He might have based it on the greater equalization of population, or on the similarity of pursuits. He felt it desirable, however, to state to the Committee his view upon the question of nationality. He did not propose, after the favourable reception his proposal had met with, to divide the Committee upon it. He would now ask leave to withdraw it, promising that if he got anything like encouragement from the Conservative side of the House he would re-introduce it on Report.
§ LORD CLAUD HAMILTONsaid, he wished to say, before the Amendment was disposed of, that hon. Members had somewhat misrepresented what had fallen from his hon. Colleague (Mr. Whitley) and himself. He (Lord Claud Hamilton) was under the impression they were discussing the arrangements with regard to Liverpool, and these arrangements alone. He did not allude at all to the general arrangements as to the representation of the Irish in England, or on the other side of the Channel; he simply directed his remarks to what was before the Committee—namely, the representation of Liverpool. He and 1370 his hon. Colleague had been given to understand that the divisions made by the Commissioners gave satisfaction not only to the Liberal and Conservative Parties, but also to the so-called Nationalist Party in the city. His own belief was that the Nationalists of Liverpool were perfectly satisfied with the arrangements; but a few exceedingly astute and clever agents from the headquarters of the organization, which was so admirably represented by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) and his hon. Friends, paid a visit to Liverpool, and it was through their agency that these new proposals were made. He was convinced that the arrangements made by the Government were, on the whole, the fairest that could be made, and he sincerely trusted they would be adhered to.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, that his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) had nothing to do with the Irish organization in England or Scotland. He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) was sorry to say he had the entire responsibility of that organization. The proposals which he now submitted were practically the same proposals as were made by the Nationalists before the Commissioners at the local inquiry. The Nationalists in Liverpool were quite astute enough to manage the matter for themselves. The only thing that the Central Association in London did in the matter was to ask the local Representatives what their proposals were. He now asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. WARTONsaid, he proposed to insert, after the words "Walton-on-the-Hill," in page 31, column 1, line 11, the words "hereinafter called the starting-point." The starting-point of the district was often referred to; and therefore, for preciseness and general accuracy, it was well that it should be properly specified where it was first mentioned.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 31, column 1, line 11, to insert, after "Walton-on-the-Hill," the words "hereinafter called the starting-point."—(Mr. Warton.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
1371§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he saw no objection to the Amendment.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ MR. SAMUEL SMITHsaid, he proposed, in page 32, column 1, line 1, in the title, to leave out "Abercrombie," and insert "Central." The object of his Amendment was a very simple one; it was to give a more appropriate title to what was really the Central Division of Liverpool. The title "Abercrombie" was a very unhappy one. It had no relevancy to that part of the city. It only applied to a small area called the Abercrombie Ward, and it was not at all suitable to designate the great bulk of the division. As far as he had been able to ascertain, the present title did not give satisfaction to the people; they would like some designation more appropriate and suitable to the most important part of the city. The district contained no less than sis wards, and it bore the same relation to Liverpool that the City of London bore to the Metropolis; the bulk of the commerce of Liverpool centred in this division; it contained all the banks of Liverpool, the larger part of the commercial community, and a very large population engaged in business. It also contained, he believed, the greatest rateable value of any district of Liverpool; and, upon the whole, he thought most persons would agree with him it was really the most important division in Liverpool. It certainly was entitled to a designation more suitable and appropriate than the one chosen by the Commissioners. The one he suggested was a very suitable one. He could see no reasonable objection to call it the Central Division, and he hoped it would find acceptance at the hands of the Government. He need not go into much detail; but there was just one consideration which he wished to urge, although it might be called a sentimental one. A valid reason, in his opinion, why the division should be given a commanding designation was that it contained the birth-place of the Prime Minister. He thought that the portion of the city which had the honour of giving birth to the greatest statesman of modern times should be called Central Liverpool. He felt sure the designation he suggested would give general satisfaction to the people of Liverpool.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 32, column 1, line 1, in the title, to leave out the word "Abercrombie," in order to insert the word"Central,"—(Mr. Samuel Smith,)
—instead thereof.
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'Abercrombie' stand part of the Schedule."
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he should have been glad to accept this Amendment; but it had been found, upon inquiry, that it did not command general assent. In the absence of that, he thought it would be unwise to change the name of the division, although the point was one to which he did not attach the same amount of importance as the hon. Member who moved the Amendment.
§ MR. WHITLEYsaid, he was bound to confess that he did not view the change proposed as one which would give general satisfaction. If, his hon. Colleague had proposed that there should be North, South, East, and West Wards, he should have entertained no objection whatever to the proposal; but he did not think it would give satisfaction to the inhabitants to call the ward the Central Division. It was in this ward that the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government was born; and if his hon. Friend were to propose to distinguish it by the name of the right hon. Gentleman, he should, of course, have no objection to that. This question had been duly considered when the Boundary Commissioners met; and until he had seen the Amendment of his hon. Colleague on the Paper he had no idea that any change would be proposed; and he was obliged to confess that he thought that the alteration in question would be objectionable to the people of the ward.
§ LORD CLAUD HAMILTONsaid, he agreed with the hon. Gentleman who had justspoken (Mr. Whitley) that if the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) could see his way to distinguish the other Liverpool divisions by the words "North, South, East, and West" there would be no objection to his calling the Abercrombie Division the Central Division. But he did not otherwise see why they, in Liverpool, should, so to speak, revolve around the hon. Member's central point. Liverpool was, no doubt, 1373 proud of being called the birth-place of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister; but he had always noticed that, when speaking in different parts of the Kingdom, the right hon. Gentleman did not give any confirmation of the idea that he was born at Liverpool; on the contrary, he referred to himself in Scotland as a Scotsman, and in Wales as a Welshman. That being so, he began to have some doubt as to whether the right hon. Gentleman was born in Liverpool at all. With regard to the Amendment, he repeated that there would be no objection to Abercrombie Division being called the Central Ward if the others were described as "North, South, East, and West."
§ MR. HEALYsaid, his attention had been directed to the names of some places in Ireland which were mis-spelt in the Bill. He rose to ask whether the spelling of the names of places would be carefully revised and correctly given in the Act? It was likely that a question of law might turn upon the point as to whether the name of a place was correctly given or not; and he thought that it would, perhaps, be well to give power to one of the Judges to settle any such question in accordance with the general principles of the Act. There were geographical considerations involved here, and it seemed to him a serious thing to pass the Bill without taking power of reference to some tribunal in cases where mistakes were made in the spelling. There were many errors with regard to the spelling of Irish names at once apparent on the face of the Bill which involved power of reference to a tribunal in case of need.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan was important, and his suggestion should be considered.
§ MR. SAMUEL SMITHsaid, he believed that the alteration he proposed, if adopted by the Government, would be acceptable to all parties concerned in the matter. The division in question differed from the other divisions of Liverpool in not having a local designation. All the other divisions had names of old standing which everyone knew, which were accepted by all, and which were perfectly intelligible. The designation "Abercrombie" had no relation whatever with the greater part of the division, and it would be a long time 1374 before it was recognized by the inhabitants. He was by no means opposed to the town being divided geographically, and he would be glad if, before the Report, some satisfactory arrangement could be arrived at in the meantime.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Verbal Amendments made.
§ VISCOUNT LEWISHAMsaid, the series of Amendments which he had placed upon the Paper all depended one upon the other. There was a strong feeling among a considerable section of the inhabitants of Wolverhampton that the scheme of the Commissioners was not a satisfactory one; and at the time when the Commission was held at Wolverhampton considerable opposition was expressed to the proposed arrangement. The Committee would understand that, at the present time, the borough of Wolverhampton consisted of five parishes—Wolverhampton, Willenhall, Sedgley, Bilston, and Wednesfield; and although, at the last Census, the population was not quite up to 165,000, yet, considering that it was still increasing, he thought that the town was fully entitled to a third Member. It was proposed to divide the borough into three divisions—West, East, and South. As to the South Division, he had little or nothing to say, because he believed the arrangement gave satisfaction to everyone concerned, except so far as concerned an Amendment that would become necessary if the proposal was agreed to. In line 33, page 38 of the Bill, in connection with the words "the parish of Bilston, except so much as comprised in Division No. 1 as herein described," it would be necessary to substitute for "Division No. 1," "Division No. 2." It was difficult to see how, with regard to the East and West Divisions, the Commissioners had, in the scheme which they proposed, carried out the instructions issued to them at the commencement of their operations. The proposal of the Commissioners was that the West Division should consist of St. Mark Ward, St. Paul Ward, St. John Ward, St. George Ward, St. Matthew Ward, and so much of the parish of Bilston as is known as Ettingshall New Village. The Eastern Division was to consist of St. Mary Ward, St. James Ward, St. Peter Ward, 1375 and the parishes of Wednesfield and Willenhall. Amongst the points to be considered in the Instructions issued to the Commissioners, the two most important were that they should have regard to the equalization of population, and to the similarity of pursuits in the different districts. The population of the Western Division was 55,167, and that of the Eastern Division 53,742, the difference between them being 1,725. But, while considering this point, they must also take into consideration the fact that the larger number was given to the increasing division of the West, and not to the decreasing division in the East; and, therefore, he thought they would be justified in considering that in the course of another 10 years the difference would be considerably larger than it was at present. Now, the alternative scheme, which he proposed, would give to the Western Division a population of 54,298, and to the Eastern Division, which would include the wards of St. George and St. James, and a portion of the parish of Bilston, a population of 54,199, which would make a difference between the two divisions of 99 only. He thought that, so far as the equalization of population was concerned, his scheme was preferable to that of the Commissioners; but there remained, of course, the more important question as to the pursuits of the inhabitants of the two divisions, and that he thought was worthy of consideration. By the Commissioners' scheme it was proposed to take St. Peter's Ward out of the centre of the town, and to group it with outlying villages with which it had no connection whatever. He did not wish to say one word in depreciation of the inhabitants or their pursuits in the parishes of Willenhall and Wednesfield; because he was aware that they carried on a useful industry which took the form of the manufacture of steel locks and rat-traps. But the pursuits of the inhabitants of St. Peter's Ward were mechanical and professional. His contention was that the important ward of St. Peter's ought not to have been taken out of the Western Division. It contained all the principal municipal buildings; and although that did not carry with it any right with regard to the franchise, yet he thought that some consideration ought to be given to the fact. It appeared to him that it was 1376 hardly in accordance with the Instructions issued to the Boundary Commissioners that St. Paul's Ward should be taken out of this division and grouped with the outlying districts named. Again, a comparison of the numbers of high and low rated houses in the respective divisions afforded, in his opinion, a clear proof that the pursuits and occupations of the two districts under discussion were not in any way similar. It was very difficult to understand what had guided the Commissioners in putting forward this scheme; and the only thing-he could find that gave any kind of clue to their line of action was the rule laid down by themselves, that in the case of important rural towns the uniform division of the wards should, if possible, be preserved intact. No doubt that was an excellent rule; but he thought that the case of Wolverhampton, now under consideration, was the exception which proved the rule, and he considered that two rules laid down in the Instructions issued to the Commissioners should have more weight than this one self-imposed rule. Again, on geographical grounds he thought the scheme which he proposed was in every way more compact and more suitable, there being a very good natural boundary to the proposed division of two wards formed by the canal. For the reasons he had given, and because he believed that his proposal was far preferable to the scheme of the Commissioners in the three points—equalization of population, similarity of pursuits, and geographical position—he begged to move the Amendment standing in his name.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 38, column 1, line 21, after the words "West Division," to insert the words "Saint Peter Ward."—(Viscount Lewisham.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he was sure the noble Viscount would forgive him if he did not argue this matter upon its merits. His reason for that was that he was speaking in the presence of both of the hon. Members for Wolverhampton, who were more capable of arguing the question on its merits than he was. Without going into the scheme of the noble Viscount he might say that it was one which cut up the wards to a 1377 very considerable extent. It was one of the two schemes brought before the Commissioners by Liberals and Conservatives, both of which schemes they rejected in favour of a scheme of their own to which they adhered. The scheme embodied in the Bill was framed by General Carey, one of the most competent engineers of the Local Government Board, after careful inquiry on the spot, and it was subsequently adopted by Mr. Henley, the Boundary Commissioner. The entire Commission considered the recommendations of Mr. Henley and also adopted the scheme. Now, the authority he had named was so high that, for his part, he should be disposed not to go into the merits of the matter, but to pin his faith to the decision arrived at, which he thought the Committee would adopt.
§ VISCOUNT LEWISHAMsaid, he did not wish to impugn the authority of the right hon. Baronet; but he thought the Committee would be glad to know the reasons that guided Mr. Henley and induced him to recommend the scheme adopted by the Commission. He was bound to say that his own alternative scheme appeared to be superior to the other.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the main ground on which Mr. Henley advised the scheme was the general rule that, in boroughs, it was desirable to follow the wards, and which, in the absence of evidence the other way, he thought ought to be adhered to.
§ VISCOUNT LEWISHAMsaid, he should have thought that the two rules laid down for the Commissioners would have had precedence over a rule laid down by themselves.
§ MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, if they were to discuss the decisions of the Boundary Commissioners in the case of one borough, they would have to discuss them with regard to every borough and every county. He thought that if the Government had delegated an inquiry of this sort to a body of able men who had discharged their duties to the satisfaction of both political Parties, the decision arrived at by them ought to be accepted. But the noble Viscount opposite (Viscount Lewisham) had given a very defective, if not a very inaccurate, account of the circumstances. He was bound to say that so far as having regard to the pursuits of the inhabitants 1378 and population, the Boundary Commissioners had, in his opinion, rigidly followed their Instructions in dividing the borough as appeared in the Schedule. The population of Wolverhampton consisted largely of the artizan class, and it could not be divided as in the case of London or Manchester. That would be seen by hon. Members from the fact that the constituency of Wolverhampton, which before the Reform Bill was passed numbered 4,000, was now 24,000. He had himself pointed out to the Commissioners at Wolverhampton that, with the exception of St. Peter's, to which the noble Viscount had alluded, there was no single ward in the borough in which the majority of houses were not valued under £10 a-year. He did not profess himself to be altogether satisfied with the division of Wolverhampton as adopted by the Commissioners; but a more grotesque piece of jerrymandering than that put forward by the noble Viscount could not be conceived, and if it were laid upon the Table of the House, he believed the noble Viscount would be the first to say that it was impracticable. The schemes put forward by the Conservatives and Liberals had been rejected by the Commissioners in favour of their own. General Carey was in the town two days, and, after making very careful inquiry, he devised a scheme which was carefully considered by Mr. Henley, and then by the Boundary Commissioners, who unanimously approved it. Under the circumstances, he thought the Committee would embark upon a difficult and unwise course if they were to attempt to reverse the decision at which the Commissioners had arrived. He considered it, on the whole, a fair and just decision, and one which carried out the Instructions given to the Commissioners.
§ MR. TOMLINSONsaid, he thought the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. H. H. Fowler) was really one in favour of the proposal of the noble Viscount. He had said that there were two schemes fairly supported, neither of which was adopted by the Commissioners. But the scheme of the Commissioners, which he thought unsatisfactory, was the one before the Committee. If it was not satisfactory to the hon. Gentleman himself, it would be equally unsatisfactory to the Party of 1379 which he was a distinguished Member in that House. Beyond that, it appeared to have nothing upon its own merits to support it. He had the plan of the Commissioners before him, which showed one division as having a very curious shape, with a piece cut out of it apparently for no reason. But if the ward of St. Peter were added, as proposed by the noble Viscount, instead of having an awkward boundary it would have a regular appearance. Therefore, he was favourably impressed by the proposal of the noble Viscount; and he thought that when a question of this kind was before the Committee, it was upon its merits that it should be considered by the Committee. The hon. Gentleman said that if they questioned the decision of the Commissioners, they would have to do the same in the case of every borough in the Kingdom; but he (Mr. H. H. Fowler) had told them himself that Wolverhampton presented special difficulties. Certainly, from the map of the Commissioners, it appeared to him (Mr. Tomlinson) that Wolverhampton was presenting exceptional difficulties in division. That being so, it was an argument, not for accepting en bloc the conclusions come to by the Boundary Commissioners, but for endeavouring to apply themselves to the merits of the question brought before them. He was sure it must be a gratification to the Committee to see in his place the right hon. Gentleman the senior Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. C. P. Villiers), who had been for so long a distinguished Member of the House. That right hon. Gentleman had known Wolverhampton probably for a longer period than anyone else in the House, and it was to be hoped that before the question was disposed of the Committee might have an opportunity of hearing him upon it. On a primé facie view of the case—which was all he (Mr. Tomlinson) had had of it—the scheme proposed by his noble Friend was a much more reasonable one than that of the Boundary Commissioners; and if he went to a division on it, he should, unless some reasons were given tending to show that it would not work, support him.
§ MR. WARTONsaid, he hoped the Committee would have the pleasure of hearing the right hon. Gentleman the senior Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. C. P. Villiers) on the subject. If he 1380 (Mr. Warton) understood rightly, what the junior Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) had said was that the houses which were above £50 rental were not equally distributed over the different wards of the town; and if he (Mr. Warton) rightly understood the noble Viscount's point, it was that he objected to the grouping of St. Peter's Ward with Wednesfield and Ettingshall New Village. It was clear that in St. Peter's there were a large number of houses of over £50 rental, and only 68 of £5; that in Wednesfield there were no houses of over £50, and 916 under £5; and that in Ettingshall there wore 1,120 under £5, and only 37 of over £50. [Mr. H. H. FOWLER, dissented.] The hon. Member opposite shook his head; but he (Mr. Warton) maintained that his statement was accurate. Did the hon. Member deny all the figures, or any of them; and, if the latter, which of them? Did he mean to say that the two statements as to St. Peter's Ward were not correct; that in Wednesfield there were houses of over £50 rental, and not 916 of under £5; and that in Ettingshall there were not 1,120 of under £5, nor 37 of over £50? The shake of the head might apply to only one or two of these propositions. He must ask the hon. Member not to shake his head at all these propositions, but to confine himself to shaking his head at one or two at a time. Here were six propositions, and he trusted the hon. Member would be kind enough to give the Committee some further information, and not drive them into the very painful position of going through a solemn farce. They were now considering the houses in the borough, and it was necessary that they should have proper material before them to guide them. He did not wish to appear discourteous; but he certainly thought that all through the proceedings of this Committee there had been a sort of apathy amongst hon. Members, instead of a real, intelligent apprehension of the matters brought before them. They had all paid compliments to the right hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill (Sir Charles W. Dilke). They all knew his ability, and the able manner in which he had piloted the measure through the House. They were all prepared to do him justice in this respect; in fact, he (Mr. Warton) was afraid they did him too much jus- 1381 tice. He thought they ought not to leave to the right hon. Baronet the settlement of all these difficult points. Hon. Members should respect their own judgment; and if this was the way they were to hurry through the consideration of these matters, the Committee stage on the Bill was nothing less than a gigantic farce. This should be a slow, solemn, intelligent, deliberate, procedure, and they should care for the opinions of no one but themselves. In his opinion the noble Viscount had made out an unanswerable case. This borough of Wolverhampton, for some reason or other he could not understand—with a population of 105,000—had been singled out for three Members, an honour conferred on no other borough of the same size. He could not imagine how this arrangement had been decided upon, unless it had been generally believed at the time it had been entered into that there was some mode of dividing the borough which would warrant it. There was, he thought, some reason in the back ground not yet explained. He did not wish to suggest it; but when they were driven to the authority of the Commissioners, or anyone else, and these matters were not explained as they ought to be, it seemed to him that they had reason to find fault with the course that had been taken. The Committee should show itself in earnest in this matter.
§ MR. C. P. VILLIERSI do not wish to waste the time of the Committee, but only desire to say a word or two in support of everything which has been stated by my hon. Colleague (Mr. H. H. Fowler) in favour of the arrangement made in this Bill for redistribution. What my hon. Friend has stated is strictly true—that the division of the borough was not sought by the borough itself, and that he was not particularly in favour of it. The policy of the Bill is to divide the great towns, and to give each several Members, and when it was laid down that Wolverhampton was to be divided the question was considered in the borough. There were, of course, parties interested, for the future, in the result of the division, and they each prepared their plans. These were laid before the Boundary Commissioners when they came down, and it would have been impossible for anyone to have bestowed greater care and attention upon an inquiry than these gentlemen gave 1382 to the consideration of the proposals of the one Party and the other. I think I recollect that that was admitted at the time. They rejected the propositions of the two different Parties, and proposed one of their own, which they considered more strictly in conformity with the Instructions they had received; and I am bound to say that I think their plan was accepted by both Parties. At any rate, if it has not been accepted by each Party, the Party I feel the greatest interest in withdrew its opposition, and submitted to the plan of the Commissioners, for the reason that those gentlemen seemed to have conducted the inquiry in such a fair and impartial manner. I remember, myself, being asked about these Commissioners—being questioned as to who they were, and whether they could be trusted. I found them to be gentlemen opposed in opinion to myself, but willing to do their duty in a most fair and impartial manner, and I urged my friends to lay all the facts of their case before them, and to submit to their judgment. That, I believe, has been done. There was another plan laid before the Commissioners; but I believe its rejection was not submitted to with the same patience that was exhibited in the other case. The decision of the Commissioners, however, was entirely free from political or Party opinion. They declared when they came into the town that they would not permit any political motives to influence their decision; they faithfully adhered to that rule, and the borough has submitted respectfully and quietly to their decision, which was arrived at after hearing the evidence adduced and carefully weighing and considering that evidence. So far as I understand the matter, the noble Viscount opposite (Viscount Lewisham) has made a statement, which is not exactly evidence, upon the strength of which he asks the Committee to reverse the decision of the Commissioners. He does not impugn the conduct or motives of these gentlemen, nor does he show any reason for believing that they followed any opinion but their own. I do; not ask what the Committee will do. If they accept the judgment of the Commissioners in this case, well and good; but if they do not accept it, they will have no argument in principle when asked to adopt a similar course in many other cases. (So far as I know, the 1383 unanimous opinion of the borough.—not only of those who support the Commissioners, but of those who have had the decision given against them—is that that decision is fair. I ask what ground is there for disturbing the arrangement—and, of course, the noble Viscount proposes to disturb the judgment of the Commissioners. I own I know of none. I am not particularly wedded to the system which involves the division of the borough, and I do not particularly approve of the single Member system; but I do think we should submit to certain rules or judgments when they are laid down on sufficient authority. I repeat that I do not think the noble Viscount has any ground for his proposition.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he wished to say a very few words on this subject. His noble Friend (Viscount Lewisham) had made a very able speech, and had brought out some very important points for their consideration; but he (Sir Stafford Northcote) thought the Committee should bear in mind that one cardinal point in the arrangement on which the Bill was founded was the delegating to the Commissioners, carefully selected without reference to political Party, and very competent men, the task of making local inquiries, and arriving at awards in the matter of the revision of boundaries. He thought it was unanimously agreed that these gentlemen, though they might have made mistakes—for as all men were fallible, so they were fallible also—had yet discharged their duties with most perfect fairness, and most perfect abstinence from anything like political jobbery or improper conduct. It was, therefore, of considerable importance that they should—unless some very strong reason was shown to the contrary—support the decisions to which the Commissioners had arrived. He would remind his noble Friend—no; he could not do that, as the noble Viscount was not in Parliamentary life at the time—but he would tell his noble Friend that on the occasion of a former Reform Bill Boundary Commissioners were appointed, and took a great deal of trouble to carry out the duty confided to them, but that after proposing various boundaries their work was overthrown by the House of Commons. It had always been the subject of remark since that that was a very 1384 unfortunate and unfair way of treating the Commissioners. That had not occurred on the present occasion; in fact, there was a general desire to abide by the decision of the Commissioners. If the House had undertaken—which, of course, it might have done—to arrange the boundaries itself, it would have been much more convenient to act by moans of Select Committees than by a Committee of the Whole House, for in that way it would have been easier to sift these matters. Instead of that, however, the duty had been relegated to a body of gentlemen who had visited the localities, and fully considered the question of the boundaries on the spot. He thought, then, that unless there was strong reason to think that the Commissioners had not had all the facts brought before them, or that by some unfortunate circumstances they had been in some way or other misled—unless they had evidence of that kind, he thought it would be unwise, and would be laying up for themselves a great deal of trouble in the future discussions of the Bill, if they departed from the recommendations of the Commissioners. The question was not as to the laziness of the Committee, but as to how far the Committee was competent to deal with a matter of this sort in a proper and satisfactory way. His noble Friend must bear in mind that if he were successful in upsetting the decision of the Commissioners, they would find that many other decisions would be challenged, and they, on the Opposition side of the House, would most probably not profit by the re-opening of questions to be decided by the majority that happened to be in the House at the time. Therefore, with an acknowledgment of the ability with which the noble Viscount had brought the question forward, and admitting that he had made some points in a very ingenious manner, he (Sir Stafford Northcote) hoped that the Committee would adhere to the decision of the Commissioners.
§ VISCOUNT LEWISHAMsaid, he should not trouble the Committee to go to a division. The Committee would excuse him for having introduced the subject, seeing that they had had the pleasure of listening to the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. C. P. Villiers). He (Viscount Lewisham) should like to say that he had no intention whatever 1385 of uttering a word against the manner in which the Commissioners had done their work, and simply desired to base his case on the two points laid down in the Instructions to those gentlemen—namely, the equalization of population, and the similarity of pursuits. He should like to tell the hon. Gentleman the junior Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) that he certainly should not have quoted the figures he had given if he had not been pretty certain that they were correct. The hon. Gentleman had rather impugned them, but had never said anything to prove them wrong. He (Viscount Lewis-ham) was certainly fully under the impression that both the facts and figures he had used were absolutely correct, and till he had evidence to the contrary he should continue to do so. If the Committee would allow him he would withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. WEBSTERsaid, he rose to move the Amendment he had given Notice of, namely—
Schedule 6, page 39, line 3, leave out from 'Aberdeen' to 'polling district,' in column 2, line 12, both inclusive;and, in doing so, he would endeavour to state his grounds for bringing forward the proposal as concisely as he could. At the same time, as the question had enlisted the anxious interest of the City of Aberdeen, he hoped the Committee would extend to him that indulgence which they always granted to a constituency complaining of hard treatment under a Bill. The object of the Amendment was to withdraw Aberdeen from the list of those important cities which had to be divided, and to include it among those having now two Members, and which were allowed to remain undivided, so that each Member represented the whole constituency. Now, he wished to remove a possible misconception at the outset, by asking the Committee to bear one or two points in mind. The proposal he was now making was not made at the expense of any other constituency. It did not affect the number or the distribution of the Members proposed by the Bill. It afforded no precedent for similar demands, for he would show that there was no two-Membered city constituency, in the same position as Aberdeen, which would be 1386 able, on a decision in favour of Aberdeen, to set up in consequence the same claim for itself. Further, let him just say that the Amendment involved no political interest for either Party, for he was bound to say that he believed no division and no manipulation of the constituency of Aberdeen would shake its steady political allegiance to the Liberal Party. The grounds, then, upon which he submitted the proposal to the Committee were these—that it was in harmony with the main lines of the Bill as regarded constituencies of the same class and character as Aberdeen. In proof of that, he desired to refer to the words of the Premier (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) himself, which, with the permission of the Committee, he would now read. The right hon. Gentleman, in introducing the Redistribution Bill, said—We have arrived at the conclusion that, upon the whole, the best and fairest method of dividing the electoral areas would be to adopt, not absolutely as an uniform, but as a general and prevailing rule, the system of what is known as one-Member districts,"—(3 Hansard, [294] 380.)as to which he made explanations. He then proceeded—We propose, however, certain exceptions. The first and most distinguished exception is that of the City of London…Another and more extensive …exception to the rule of one-Member districts is to be found in the case of those towns, not in the Metropolis, but outside, which now exist as Parliamentary boroughs having dual representation, and which is not to be increased or diminished…Towns between 50,000 and 165,000 having, and continuing to have. two Members, we propose not to divide. As I have said, towns below 50,000 are to be diminished to one Member, and towns above 165,000 are to be increased by one Member. Towns between these limits having, and continuing to have, two Members, we propose shall not require to be divided."—(Ibid. 381, 382.)These were the grounds on which the right hon. Gentleman proposed the exception to the general rule in the case of all two-Membered boroughs having and continuing to have two Members. He said—There is, undoubtedly, in many towns, a unity of municipal life which, except for some great object, it is not desirable to violate or impair by severance.He also said—I think there are something like over 50 seats which would be affected by this exception," and "I do not say that there may not be any other exceptions which might not be devised 1387 in the course of the discussions on the details of the Bill."—(Ibid.)The right hon. Gentleman again, on the 13th March last, explained and enforced the principle of this exception of large and ancient distinct towns, in the debate on giving Members to the City of London. He said—The hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) complained that we were inconsistent in refusing to give four Members to the City of London, while boroughs of small population were retaining their separate representation. I suppose he referred principally to boroughs of 15,000 and upwards. [Mr. GORST: Boroughs having two Members.] But why is that done? It has been done because in those cases where towns have constituted historical communities, with a distinct local and municipal life transmitted through many centuries, it has been thought wise to sanction that principle, and to allow that element of common life, as well as the element of population, to enter into the consideration."—(3 Hansard, [295] 1160.)In the debate on the 17th of March last, on the Amendment of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie) to divide these two-Membered towns, the right hon. Gentleman laid down the same principle. He said—We have been desirous of striking a fair balance between two principles, which, no doubt, conflict up to a certain point with the principle of respecting the unity of common municipal life transmitted through many generations."—(Ibid. 1456.)These words contained the policy upon which the Prime Minister had introduced an exception from what was the general, but not uniform, rule of one-Member constituencies, and he (Mr. Webster) appealed to the Committee to support him in his contention that every word in those expressions of the Prime Minister applied to his constituency of Aberdeen in the same way as they did to York, Norwich, or Southampton. There were no fewer than 24 of these two-Membered civic constituencies, with a separate corporate unity and life, to all of which the privilege of remaining undivided was to be continued, so that in truth the exception was so large that it became the rule, and there was absolutely no two-Membered city save that of Aberdeen which was to be severed. The only ease which appeared to be of something of the same character as Aberdeen was Swansea, where two Members were to be returned by a divided constituency, and Swansea was the only other borough constituency possessing one Member 1388 which was now to have two. A close examination, however, would show that the cases were entirely different, because Swansea was a group of six unconnected and separate boroughs, which had no other connection except that they were artificially included in an electoral arrangement. The case of the constituencies of the Metropolis to which two Members were nominally given by the Bill, and which were artificially created out of the great mass of Metropolitan life, with no historic or other connection except at an election, was not a case in point. Now, he had said that every word the Premier had used applied to the case of Aberdeen. It had been a historical city for seven centuries, associated with the political history, the literature and art of Scotland as probably no other city except Edinburgh had been during that time; it had possessed a municipal goverment of its own, a distinct local and common life with common interests and character, and its people were proud of that unity and history. What was there, he asked, in the case of Norwich, York, and Southampton, which were to remain undivided, which did not equally exist in the case of Aberdeen? His hon. Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie), in a recent debate, had pointed out that it was impossible to draw any distinction between the case of Dundee and that of Aberdeen, and had asked why should the corporate life and unity of Dundee be preserved, and that of Aberdeen be destroyed? It was impossible to find any satisfactory answer to that question. The only answer then made to it by the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill (Sir Charles W. Dilke) was not even plausible, or, at all events, it was not satisfactory. He said, in substance, that the difference was that Dundee had gained no advantage by the Bill, that it had two Members before, and that it had preserved them; whilst Aberdeen had only had one Member before, and now obtained a second under the Bill. That was really no answer at all. It implied that the giving of an additional Member to Aberdeen was a matter of grace and favour, which justified some condition being attached to it; but he denied that it was any matter of favour. The Bill conferred no favour upon his constituency. The giving of an additional Member to Aberdeen, which it should have had long 1389 ago, was no matter of favour to which a consideration should be attached, but was a matter of right and justice demanded by the common interests of the nation, and was bestowed on that principle alone. Aberdeen had 105,000 inhabitants, was the capital of the North-East of Scotland, and was growing in population in a more rapid ratio than any other large town in Scotland, with one exception—namely, Leith. The claim of Aberdeen to a second Member had long been acknowledged. It ought to have had the addition in 1868, when an additional Member was given to Dundee; there was no reason in point of principle why it should not have in 1885 what was given to Dundee in 1868. Aberdeen was within an ace of getting its second Member in 1868, and if the Liberal Party had had its own way it would have got the addition. A Motion had, indeed, then been made to give an additional Member to the city, and it had failed through what might almost be called an accident—because, at that time, it was decided to give seven and not 10 new Members to Scotland. There was no principle in refusing the undoubted right of Aberdeen merely on the ground that the one city had happened to get its additional Member in 1868, whilst the privilege was not bestowed upon the other until 1885. But the ground on which the Prime Minister had put the case to the House was not so narrow as that. He had put it distinctly on the principle he (Mr. Webster) had read—namely,In those eases where towns have constituted historical communities, with a distinct local and municipal life transmitted through many centuries, it has been thought wise to sanction that principle, and to allow that clement of common life as well as the element of population to enter into the consideration.—(3 Hansard, [295] 1160.)It was impossible to deny that every word of that description applied fully to the case of the city which he (Mr. Webster) had the honour to represent. One word more and he would sit down. Great stress had been laid in every debate on this subject on the question of the wishes of the constituency interested, if those interests did not cross the interests of other constituencies, and were not opposed to the main lines of the Bill. If that feeling was to be consulted, it was impossible to suppose a case where there was a stronger aversion, dis- 1390 taste, and repugnance towards this division than existed in Aberdeen. He had presented a Petition from the magistrates and Town Council of the city, pointing out how adverse the feeling of the community was to the proposed division. A Petition against it had also been presented from a public meeting of Liberals held in Aberdeen—a meeting convened not by circular, but by advertisement. A more united, unanimous, and enthusiastic meeting could hardly be imagined. He had presented Petitions to the same effect from two other Liberal bodies of Aberdeen; and, finally, with regard to the feeling of the working classes, that was expressed in a Petition which the Trades Council, who represented and embodied their wishes, had unanimously signed to the same effect. He asked the Government and the Committee whether it was worth while to thwart the manifest wish of the community of Aberdeen? And, if it had been thought wise to respect that local feeling and perpetuate the principle of unity in all the other cases of two-Member boroughs, was it wise or just to destroy it in the single case of of Aberdeen?
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 39, to leave out all the words after the word "Scotland," in line 3, to the words "polling district," in column 2, line 12.—(Mr. Webster.)
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'Aberdeen' stand part of the Schedule."
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he feared he could not assent to the Amendment of his hon. Friend; and he was also afraid that the statement he had to make would not carry conviction to the mind of his hon. Friend, who had complained, in reference to a previous statement of his (Sir Charles W. Dilke's), that it was no answer to his views. As he had to make exactly the same statement that evening, he could not suppose that his argument would have any weight with his hon. Friend. He felt bound in honour to oppose this Amendment, on the ground, amongst others, that the Government had obtained the support of several hon. Gentlemen opposite, who were in favour of the universal application of the single-Member system, against the Amendment of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. 1391 Ritchie), who proposed that Dundee and other burghs which were left alone by the Bill should be divided. After that, Aberdeen being the first borough with respect to which the exception asked for applied, the Government could not go back and make any further change. Therefore, without going into the question of population or the arguments which his hon. Friend had put before the Committee, he felt bound to disagree with the proposed Amendment.
§ DR. FARQUHARSONsaid, the remarks he was about to make were not offered with the expectation of convincing the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke), but merely as a protest against the decision at which he had arrived, because, after the statement of the right hon. Baronet, it might appear almost unnecessary to continue the discussion. He (Dr. Farquharson) was most anxious to support, as far as he could, the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Webster), although he was bound to say that he had put forward his case so ably and fully in the Committee that he had left very little to be said upon the subject by those who followed him. The proposal of his hon. Friend was not, after all, a very drastic one, or one which would in any way disturb the sweet serenity which, during the progress of the Bill, had been observable on the two Front Benches. His hon. Friend had expressed satisfaction that Aberdeen was to have another Member; he had not suggested any re-arrangement of the boundaries or areas; he had merely put forward a claim that the Aberdeen of to-day, with its two Members, might be allowed to remain in the same political position as the Aberdeen of the past, when it had one Member. The additional Member for Aberdeen was, no doubt, deserved, because there was a great unanimity of political life there; the working classes in Aberdeen had a great interest in political affairs, and social difficulties had been so far smoothed down that it had led to all classes in the community working together for the public good. It was in that satisfactory state of things that they feared the harmonious arrangement he referred to would be broken up by the proposal now made in the Bill. He confessed that he shared the apprehensions of his hon. Friend the Member 1392 for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) that this process of single-Member constituencies would not improve the political life of the country. It was evident that in some large towns something of the kind must be done; some provisions must be made, and those had worked very well in Scotland. But the case of Aberdeen was different from that of other towns. Aberdeen was the only serious exception to the rule that towns of its character, like Dundee, were to remain as at present, and, although returning two Members, were not to be cut up into two constituencies. In other words, Aberdeen got a position invidious and somewhat mysterious in this matter, because, while other towns were to remain as they were, she alone was, politically speaking, to be cut into two. They all regretted deeply that his hon. Friend who moved this Amendment was not again to take charge of the representation of Aberdeen, when it would in future return two Members, because he was bound to say that the constituency had never been more thoroughly represented than by its present Member, and there was a fear lest it might not always be so well represented—that a Faddist or a Tory might come down to Aberdeen and be elected—an event which an hon. Friend suggested was just possible when the Bill became law. They had been told—and the statement on the part of the Government was, of course, final—that the compact which had been made between the two Parties, and from which very considerable benefit had been reaped, forbade the adoption of the Amendment of his hon. Friend. He admitted that considerable benefit had been gained by the compact; and although it had prevented discussion on the Bill, and it was said that it also prevented any alterations being made, he hoped that was not so. The Prime Minister had indicated that some exceptions might be made, and he had hoped that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House would have united, in this instance, in order to meet the fully and adequately expressed wishes of the people of Aberdeen, who had at several large and representative meetings—meetings of all classes of the community, including working men of all shades of political opinion—protested against the proposed division of the burgh. Of course, he did not expect on that occa- 1393 sion to convince the right hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill (Sir Charles W. Dilke), and he had simply risen to express his regret at the proposed arrangement, and to enter his protest against it.
§ MR. DALRYMPLEsaid, that, as often happened amongst hon. Members opposite, the two hon. Members who supported the Amendment had given entirely different accounts of the same thing. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment (Mr. Webster) said that in no possible circumstances would Aberdeen depart from its allegiance. He did not say its allegiance to what; but he (Mr. Dalrymple) understood what he meant. The hon. Gentleman who had supported him said, if the Amendment were not accepted, and the constituency remained divided, a Faddist or a Tory might hereafter represent the town. He (Mr. Dalrymple) did not contemplate a anything so serious. For his own part, he agreed with the hon. Member who moved the Amendment; but he wished to understand from the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) what was meant by saying that he could not yield to the proposal of the hon. Gentleman, because of the support which he had received on a former occasion on that side of the House in reference to the Motion of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie)?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKENo; not that only. I said it was a portion of the agreement with the other side.
§ MR. DALRYMPLEPart of the agreement between the Heads of Parties?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEYes; and consequently I feel bound to resist the Amendment, unless relieved from the agreement.
§ MR. DALRYMPLEsaid, that, of course, when they came across that they knew exactly where they were. That was more serious, perhaps, than a Tory being returned for Aberdeen. He desired to say that he considered the proposal of the hon. Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Webster) an essentially fair one. He confessed that he did not understand what he meant by—
A violation of the ancient character of the place, and a violation of the municipal institutions which had continued through so many generations;but still he did not see why, if there were exceptions to this rule, Aberdeen 1394 should not be one of those exceptions. It seemed to him (Mr. Dalrymple) that it might be so, just as well as the place which the right hon. Gentleman had mentioned. He had received a number of communications upon the subject, and he joined with the hon. Gentleman opposite in remarking that on many occasions the feelings of particular places often rested on very shadowy grounds. But on this occasion he thought that the feeling of an important place like Aberdeen might receive some attention at the hands of the Government: and unless they were actually to understand that this would lead to a conflict between the Heads of the two Parties, he thought Her Majesty's Government might give the matter a little further consideration. If the hon. Gentleman obtained no satisfaction from Her Majesty's Government, and in view of the feeling at Aberdeen being so strong against the Government proposal, he would make the suggestion that Aberdeen should resign one Member, and he could point to more than one place in Scotland on which the surplus resulting from the hon. Gentleman's liberality might be bestowed.
MR. JOSEPH COWENsaid, he had been interested in the Motion of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie), which had been withdrawn on the distinct understanding that the Government would consider special cases. The Prime Minister further said that when they came to deal with the details of the Bill, the Government would be prepared to give and take in matters of local interest. That was a distinct understanding. His hon. Colleague (Mr. John Morley) and himself were both in their place to support the Motion of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets; but they had withdrawn their support, because they understood that special cases would receive consideration. He now made this proposal to the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke)—not to divide Aberdeen, but to divide Newcastle, which need not interfere with any other arrangement.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that in the absence of general consent on the part of the Committee, he felt himself bound to adhere to the position which he occupied with regard to this Amendment.
§ MR. GREGORYsaid, he understood that one of the principles of the Bill was that boroughs like Aberdeen should be divided. He thought that nothing had been advanced in the case of Aberdeen which would not apply also to a large number of constituencies throughout the country. It was alleged that its large population entitled this borough to additional representation some years ago. The same thing might be said of Leeds, Sheffield, and other boroughs in the Kingdom; and if they once admitted the principle in the case of Aberdeen that because it had an increasing population, it should have another Member, the question would be raised that no borough ought to be divided, and that each borough ought to be presented by a certain number of Members. As he understood it, one of the leading features of the Bill would be put an end to, and the whole question re-opened. He thought, however, that they ought rather to insist that the principle on which the Bill was to a great extent founded should be carried out.
§ MR. BUCHANANsaid, he thought the Committee were still a little in the dark with regard to the answer given by the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Webster). He was bound to say that he did not take the reply of the right hon. Baronet on the first occasion of his speaking in quite the same sense as that in which he subsequently referred to the splitting up of new constituencies such as Aberdeen as being within the contract between the two Front Benches. He thought, therefore they might receive a further statement from him for the satisfaction of the Committee; and he was also of opinion that it would tend to clear up the matter under consideration if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote) would give his opinion as to whether the case of Aberdeen came or did not come within the terms of the contract between the Leaders of the two Parties. He would also like to know whether, when the Prime Minister, on the Amendment of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie), said that the retention of the dual vote on the 23 seats was "a fair compromise between two principles" he meant to 1396 include in that compromise the case of Aberdeen, which now for the first time obtained dual representation? He remembered also that the right hon. Baronet had said on the Amendment referred to, that he agreed to what was stated—namely, that the case of these boroughs returning two Members by a dual vote was a compromise, but that if there was local feeling and a consensus on both sides of the House opposed to it, he was quite willing to agree to an alteration. The present case of Aberdeen surely satisfied all these conditions. Local feeling was entirely on one side. And if the hon. Baronet considered that he was not specifically bound by the terms of the compact, it seemed reasonable that, in view of the strong feeling testified to by his hon. Friends in favour of the Amendment, the Government might adopt it.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Buchanan) had referred to him, he would like to say a few words on this question. It had always been, in the discussion of the Franchise Bill and the Redistribution Bill, a question of considerable interest as to whether any attempt should be made, in view of the new power to be introduced to the electorate, to provide for the representation of minorities. When they came to discuss the principle on which the Redistribution Bill should be founded, the proposal which they made in that matter was that there should not be anything in the nature of direct representation of minorities, except in the way of division, as far as possible, of all constituencies into single-Member districts; and it appeared to them that this would, on the whole, give that sort of representation to minorities which would be adequate to the occasion, and which would afford a prospect of durability. That was, therefore, the principle on which the whole scheme of the Bill was understood to be founded. There were certain boroughs, 25 in number, each represented by two Members, with regard to which no change was proposed; and it was a matter of compromise that those 25 boroughs should be left as they were, and no change made with respect to them. In other words, they would return their two Members each en bloc, as before, instead of being divided; but where there 1397 was such, a change, the principle of division into two or more constituencies was to hold good, and each constituency would return a single Member. Aberdeen was one of those cases in which an addition was to be made to its representation, and, that being so, it was necessary that there should be a division into districts. That principle was distinctly part of the foundation. of the Bill—it was not an accidental provision, it was part of the basis on which it rested, and in that way it ought to be represented. Of course, there was nothing in the Bill which might not, with the general consent of the House, be changed; but no reason had been shown sufficient to justify the alteration now proposed in the case of Aberdeen. He therefore replied to the arguments of hon. Gentlemen on the other side—that all the evidence which he had seen on the subject tended to convince him that the right principle to maintain, here and "elsewhere," was to keep the two divisions separate, each division returning a single Member. However, he was not disposed to stand in the way of the consideration of the Amendment.
§ SIR ALEXANDER GORDONsaid, he greatly regretted the decision of the Government in this matter. He had never known a case in which the political feeling of a constituency was so unanimous as it was upon this question. The right hon. Baronet the Leader of the Opposition (Sir Stafford Northcote) and the right hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had both treated this matter as one of principle; they had made no attempt to look at the merits of the case. He thought sufficient grounds had been shown for re-opening the case of Aberdeen, and making the alteration which his hon. Friend proposed. If his hon. Friend (Mr. Webster) divided the Committee, he should certainly support him.
§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, he regretted very much to hear what had fallen from the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Charles W. Dilke), and he thought it was also to be regretted that any compact should have been made which prevented the voice of the people being heard on a question of this kind. He fully realized it was no use contesting the matter any further.
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, the case of Aberdeen was really an isolated one. It was practically the only urban constituency whose representation was to be increased to two Members, and which it was proposed to divide into two parts. He could understand it if this were the result of a general rule agreed to by both sides of the House. He thought the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Stafford Northcote) and the right hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill (Sir Charles W. Dilke) should reconsider the question as to whether it was absolutely necessary to insist upon this rule being applied to an individual case, when the local feeling concerned was so strongly opposed to it. He thought the Leaders on both sides might agree to concede what was asked by the hon. Member for Aberdeen.
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, that as Aberdeen was going to get two Members instead of one. the inhabitants ought to be exceedingly thankful for this redistribution scheme. The town was to be in two divisions, one of which was Liberal, and the other seemed to contain a small majority of Tories, who would have the power of returning a Member to Parliament, so that, from the point of view of both Parties in the place, it would be fairly represented. He thought that hon. Gentlemen opposite ought to be satisfied with having stated the case, and not put the Committee to the trouble of a division.
§ MR. TOMLINSONsaid, he fully sympathized with the view taken by hon. Members from the North of Scotland who had argued against the division of this borough, because he knew that there would be in his own constituency a strong feeling against division, and that would, doubtless, be so in all cases where it was proposed to divide boroughs which had been incorporated from ancient times for local management. Therefore, he repeated that he personally sympathized with hon. Gentlemen opposite. Still, he could not but feel that two-Member constituencies were in a minority, and, in all probability, a diminishing minority. He did not think the time far distant when these constituencies would be broken up; and therefore he, for one, did not think it desirable to increase the number of them. He believed it would be found that the convenience of managing 1399 a single Member would preponderate over other considerations. For those reasons, notwithstanding his sympathy with hon. Members opposite in this matter, he could not support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Aberdeen.
MR. DICK-PEDDIEsaid, the right hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill (Sir Charles W. Dilke) having said that he could not agree to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Webster), the only hope of those who supported him lay in an appeal to the right hon. Baronet the Leader of the Opposition. But he also had declined to concede the point. He (Mr. Dick-Peddie) again urged on the right hon. Baronet that the feeling in favour of the Amendment of his hon. Friend was unanimous, which he thought constituted a good reason why, in the present case, an exception should be made. Fortunately, there was an appeal from the Front Benches to the country at large, and he hoped it would be seen that this matter was not one to be settled by a compact between those Benches, but by the House.
§ MR. WEBSTERsaid, he was profoundly dissatisfied with the decision to which the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had come. ["Oh, oh!"] How could he be otherwise than dissatisfied? There had been no reason assigned for the exception made in the case of Aberdeen. They had nothing but the sic volo, sic jubeo of the two Front Benches. What, he asked, had become of the promise of the Prime Minister, and what were the exceptions to which he looked forward as possible in the case of other two-Member constituencies which might remain undivided?
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 57; Noes 26: Majority 31.—(Div. List, No. 93.)
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Verbal Amendments made.
§ On the Motion of Sir CHARLES W. DILKE, the following Amendment made:—In page 41, line 24, after "Limestone Road," insert "and continued in a straight line to the centre of York Road."
§ MR. SEXTONsaid, he rose to move the first of the Amendments which stood 1400 in his name upon the Paper, and which were contingent on Amendments that had been negatived or withdrawn. By the first of these Amendments he had proposed to give five Members to Dublin City; and by the second to alter and extend the boundaries of the borough. The Government had stated that they could not assent to any proposal to give five Members to the City of Dublin, and the reason they assigned for this refusal was that if they were to allow Dublin to return five Members, that would necessitate an increase of the boundaries proposed for the borough; and they had also refused to extend the boundaries of the borough on the ground that if the boundaries were extended it would be necessary to increase the number of Members to five. Consequently, Dublin was in this position—that it was not to have five Members, because the boundaries would thereby have to be extended; and it was not to have its boundaries extended, because that would necessitate its having five Members. He did not think that this would be considered a very satisfactory method of argument. But coming to the Amendment he was about to propose, he would say at once that he did not seek to disturb the number of Members named in the Bill, nor to alter the proposed Parliamentary boundary—
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he was sorry to interrupt the hon. Member; but he saw by the Paper that the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) had put down two Amendments that took precedence of the Amendments of the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton). To the Amendments of the hon. and learned Member for Bridport it was his intention to agree; and, therefore, he would call upon the hon. Gentleman to move them.
§ On the Motion of Mr. WARTON, the following Amendments made:—In page 42, line 3, leave out "and," and in same line, after "contents," insert the word "boundaries."
§ MR. SEXTONsaid, the hon. and learned Member for Bridport had not displayed his usual acuteness in bringing forward his Amendments at the proper moment; but he (Mr. Sexton) was not sorry for the interruption of the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. 1401 Dilke), as he hoped he might draw some encouragement from it. Only a short time ago the right hon. Gentleman had accepted a number of Amendments in order to save the time of the Committee, and when he again intervened, for the purpose of enabling the hon. and learned Member for Bridport to make good his Amendments, he (Mr. Sexton) was disposed to hope the right hon. Baronet was in a conciliatory mood, and would be inclined either to accept the Amendments about to be moved, or offer some compromise that would save the time of the Committee, and produce a feeling of satisfaction in the City of Dublin, where the proposed revision of the Parliamentary boundaries, founded on the Report of the Commissioners, had provoked the widest discontent. As he had already stated, the Amendment he now proposed accepted the allocation of four Members to the City of Dublin, and also accepted the general boundary line laid down in the Bill as that of the future borough; but it proposed to alter the divisions the Commissioners had recommended as those for which the four Members should be elected. And not only did he propose to alter the divisions contained in the Schedule, but likewise to alter their names. The Commissioners proposed to call the several divisions of the city by the points of the compass—namely, the North-West Dublin Division, the North-East Dublin Division, the South-West Dublin Division, and the South-East Dublin Division. Now, not only were these names cumbrous, but they were inaccurate, and did not, with any satisfactory amount of exactitude, define the divisions it was proposed to make. What he proposed to do was to adopt the principle that had been already, to some extent, adopted in the case of other cities, and to call the four divisions of Dublin after historical sites or areas, at the same time preserving the points of the compass in the city, instead of confusing them by calling them North-East, South-West, and so on. With that view, therefore, he proposed to name the different divisions of the city—the Four Courts Division, the Rotunda Division, the St. Patrick's Division, and the College Green Division. The name of the first, or Four Courts Division, would be that of the historic seat of justiciary in Ireland; that of the second, or Rotunda Division, 1402 would give prominence to a building of great historic repute; that of College Green, or the third division, was equally well known for its historical associations; while that of the fourth division, St. Patrick's, was not only the name of the ancient Cathedral of Dublin, but it was also that of the patron Saint of the country. He believed that two of the divisions of London were to be called after St. George, who was the patron Saint of England. The plan which he proposed came before the Committee recommended by the fact that it was the one proposed by the Corporation of Dublin. That body had taken great pains to inquire into the merits of the present question. They had conferred, in the first instance, with the Assistant Commissioner; they had also been before the Boundary Commissioners; they had spent a good deal of time and money over the matter, and they had produced a pamphlet which dealt very clearly and, at the same time, very carefully with the whole question. Moreover, he had the boldness to assert that the plan he now offered for the acceptance of the Committee was one which, in every particular, much more closely followed the Instructions issued to the Commissioners by the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) than did the plan agreed upon by the Boundary Commissioners themselves. Let him (Mr. Sexton) bring to the recollection of the Committee what those Instructions were. The first Instruction was that the Commissioners should, as far as possible, approximately equalize the populations of the different divisions. This was the dominant rule prescribed for the direction of the Commissioners; and such being the case, he hoped to be able to show the Committee that the plan suggested by the Corporation was far more in accordance with this primary Instruction than that which the Commissioners had agreed upon. The population of the City of Dublin was 273,000, and of these something like 6,000 were paupers or inmates of the workhouses; so that, deducting those in receipt of parochial relief, there was a net population of 267,000, which, for the four divisions into which the borough was to be divided, would give an average of 66,800 for each division. Now, one of the divisions proposed by the Corporation would contain a population of 66,900; while another would have a 1403 population of 66,800; so that they not only approximated to equalization, but to all intents and purposes actually hit the ideal unit of the borough from the point of view taken by the Instructions issued to the Commissioners. Of the two other divisions suggested by the Corporation, one would have a population of 66,200, and the other a population of 68,300; so that two of the divisions thus proposed almost exactly hit the rule laid down in the Commissioners' Instructions, while the greatest difference between any two of the four divisions was considerably under 3,000. He would now ask the Committee to consider what was the case under the scheme presented by the Commissioners. In one division there would be a population of 61,700; in another the population would number 69,100; in a third the number would be 64,700; while the fourth would contain a population of 67,000. Thus it would be seen that, while the greatest difference between any two of the divisions suggested by the Corporation was considerably under 3,000, there was, between two of the divisions proposed by the Commissioners, a difference of nearly 4,400; so that, according to the Instructions issued to the Commissioners, as laid down by the right hon. Baronet, there was nearly double the disparity between the divisions suggested by the Commissioners and those proposed by the Corporation of Dublin. Therefore, he submitted that, in moving the Amendment he was about to propose, he was entitled to the support of the right hon. Gentleman. But, in addition to the Instruction as to the equalization of populations in the divisions fixed by the Commissioners, they were also instructed to have regard to compactness of area. Now, that was a question of maps, and if the Committee would take the trouble to look at the map of Dublin, as showing the Commissioners' boundaries, and compare it with the map he had in his hand, showing the divisions suggested by the Corporation, it would be seen-—and the point was one he would not argue at any great length—that the four divisions proposed by the Corporation were much more regular in outline and more compact in area than those proposed by the Commissioners. The first division proposed by the Corporation took the whole of the city at both sides of the Liffy 1404 north of the Four Courts, and divided it by an almost straight line. Two of the other divisions suggested by the same authority took the city and divided it to the north and south of the Liffey, while the fourth division took the central wards on the south side of the Liffy, and made them into one division; and he had to add that not only was that division drawn out with regular boundaries, and formed into a compact area, but it followed the Instructions given to the Commissioners by the Government to a much closer degree than the division suggested by the Commissioners, whose divisions were certainly of a less satisfactory character than those of the Corporation, as being less on an equality in point of population and much more straggling in the lines of their boundaries. And not only was this the case, but the Corporation plan possessed this additional recommendation—it would preserve every ward of the city intact. The City of Dublin had 15 wards, and not one of these was broken into by the plan submitted by the Corporation; while by the plan of the Commissioners no less than three of the wards would be broken into. On this question of preserving the integrity of wards, he would remind the Committee of what was stated in the Report made by the Boundary Commissioners. They said, with respect to boroughs, it appeared to them that the best area to be taken as the basis of division would be the wards formed for local elections under the Municipal Corporations Act, and this was the conclusion they had come to after they had inspected every city and borough in the country. The Commissioners also stated, as the result of the inquiries they had instituted, that there was a strong desire in every borough that in forming the divisions of the boroughs the wards should, if possible, be preserved intact; and in deference to this feeling the Commissioners had allowed a larger disparity in the populations of several of the divisions than they would otherwise have recommended. Thus it would be seen that the Commissioners were so determined to preserve the boundaries of the municipal wards for Parliamentary purposes, that even where, in order to do this, they were compelled to make unequal divisions of the population, they preferred the latter alternative to that of breaking up the 1405 integrity of the wards. How was it that the Commissioners accounted for this extraordinary procedure? They stated that they had given to their plans the greatest amount of compactness they could obtain consistently with the equalization of the population, and a due observation of the pursuits of the people. Now, he (Mr. Sexton) had already shown the Committee that the plan submitted by the Dublin Corporation gave a greater equality of population to the different divisions of the borough than that prepared by the Commissioners; and with regard to the further argument of the Commissioners, that they had been obliged to depart from the principle of compactness because they wished to observe the pursuits of the people, he could say, from his knowledge of the City of Dublin, after a residence in it of 16 years, that it was not a city to which the principle of having regard to the pursuits of the people could be made to apply in such a manner as to overturn the principle of compactness of area. Dublin was a city in which the pursuits of the people were few. The population of Dublin was composed of the professional and official class, the merchant and trading class, which included a large number of shopkeepers, and the working or labouring class. The professional and official class was so few in number that no sort of arrangement could make a Parliamentary division of them; while the trading and labouring classes were so intermixed throughout the city that it would be absurd to suppose that any particular areas could be carved out of the city with anything like due regard to regularity or uniformity of pursuits. There might be uniformity among the residents] in Fitz-William Square, Merrion Square, and a couple of streets besides; but outside the limits of these two squares and two streets, the pursuits of the people were so mixed and so heterogeneous that it would be impossible to map out any particular area that would represent any special peculiarity of occupation or mode of life. Therefore, he made bold to assert that it was the duty of the Commissioners not to have followed an untenable principle by endeavouring, in the case of Dublin, to achieve a segregation of the people by mapping out special areas according to uniformity of pursuits. 1406 The Commissioners stated that they had given some effect to the idea of observing the pursuits of the people by acting on the principle of combining the people carrying on kindred nautical pursuits on the opposite banks of the River Liffey navigable below the bridge. That was certainly about the most absurd statement that could possibly be made with regard to the City of Dublin. There was only one portion of it that was true, and that was that the River Liffey was navigable below the bridge; there was nothing else in it that was accurate or which possessed an element of truth. If the Commission had been comrposed of foreigners who had never seen Dublin before, and who had not gone into; the unfashionable parts of the city, he could have understood their making such a statement; but the Commission was composed of gentlemen who must have been well aware that there was not a shadow of foundation for the assertion that the population of the two shores of the river below the bridge were engaged in kindred pursuits. He would remind the Committee that the population on the Southern Quay below the O'Connell Bridge consisted mainly of shopkeepers and small traders, the remainder of the residents being of the artizan class; but what was the character of the population on the other side of the river? That was a non-residential district, there being very few residents on the quays to the north of the Liffey below the O'Connell Bridge. The buildings there were chiefly occupied as shipping offices, Custom House offices, and stores, together with the offices and wharves appertaining to the different Railway and Steamship Companies trading to Dublin. The people who occupied these places on the northern bank of the river were only engaged in their offices there during the day, and in the evening retired to their residences outside the city; and there was no possible Comparison in point of pursuit between these persons and those resident on the southern bank, consisting, as he had already stated, of small traders, shopkeepers, and artizans. Moreover, on the northern side of the Liffey there was not a particle of anything answering to the description of nautical pursuits. He would, therefore, ask the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Sir 1407 Charles W. Dilke) how he intended to deal with this part of the case? There was not one iota of proof in support of the statement of the Commissioners that there was a similarity of pursuits between the people on the north and south sides of the Liffey below the O'Connell Bridge. He (Mr. Sexton) maintained that the true reason for the extraordinary conformation of this South-Eastern Division of the borough was to be found in the explanation furnished by Lord Salisbury, when he had stated that the fate of the Irish Tory Party would depend on the spirit in which the Boundary Commissioners performed their functions. In the plan at first put forward by the Commissioners, those gentlemen were satisfied with cutting off from the South-Eastern Division all those parts that were occupied by the poorer class of people who might be supposed to be in political sympathy with the popular Party led by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell); but it subsequently occurred to them that they had not with sufficient completeness jerry mandered the division; and consequently, in their final plan, they not only cut off the poorer people from the division and threw them across the river into another division, but they also put into the South-East Division Trinity College, with its 400 residential Tory voters; and they actually went away from the locality south of the River Liffey and took the fishing village of Ringsend and the marine villages of Irishtown and Beggar's Bush, and plunged them into a political area with which they could have no conceivable connection. In point of fact, the conformation of the South-East Division of the City of Dublin was one of the most laborious, one of the most obvious, and one of the most discreditable examples of jerrymandering that appeared on the whole surface of the record of the Boundary Commission. There was one other point to which he wished to draw the attention of the Committee. He had already referred to the Report in which the English Commissioners laid it down that the ward boundaries ought to be followed as far as possible in the divisions of the boroughs, and in which they also said they had found there was a strong desire in every borough that the ward boundaries should 1408 be observed. Now, if there was one city in Ireland in which the ward boundaries were distinct and adapted to form the boundaries of Parliamentary divisions, it was the City of Dublin. They were the units of the Municipal and Poor Law elections, and also for the jury panels, and were well known in connection with all the proceedings in the Courts, besides being familiar to all who were engaged in the elections and the preparation of the list of voters. The Commissioners, however, appeared to have adhered so little to their obvious duty that, in their first scheme, they actually broke up four out of the 15 wards, and in one case they had actually adopted the old Protestant parishes of the city as the boundaries of a division. He believed that not one person out of a hundred in the City of Dublin, whether Protestant or Catholic, was able to follow the boundary lines of the existing Protestant parishes. Those boundaries had become so antiquated and obsolete that they had disappeared from the face of the map, and the result was that in their first scheme the Boundary Commissioners had actually proposed divisions which ran through the rooms of certain houses. Of course they were unable to maintain so manifest an absurdity, and in their second scheme they had withdrawn the lines which ran through different houses; but they had adhered—and he strongly protested against such adherence—to the divisions by which they broke up the municipal wards. Why, he asked, had they disregarded the Circular of the 22nd of December, by which they were directed to have regard to the boundaries of the municipal wards; and what was their reason for acting contrary to the opinions of the English Commissioners that the municipal boundaries of wards should, as far as possible, be preserved intact? What they were doing for Dublin was not only to arrange unreasonable boundaries, but to create a permanent source of worry, perplexity, and trouble in each of the city wards, where the number of electors in each averaged 12,000. There was no real necessity for breaking up the ward boundaries, all of which were well known, and the result would be that, if the plan of the Commissioners were adhered to, there would be a great increase in the number of voters' lists that would have to be prepared every year, a con- 1409 siderable augmentation of expense and trouble would be imposed on the various public bodies in the preparation of those lists, and a large addition made to the difficulty and worry thrown on the Revision Courts. And what was the object of it all? It was simply that by a purely arbitrary arrangement of boundaries certain portions of the City of Dublin might be so cut off as to shut out from their legitimate political action those persons who would be likely to sympathize with the views of the Party led by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell). One result of such a plan would doubtless be to produce a feeling of cohesion among that Party in Dublin that would go far towards defeating the scheme. He had looked through the Reports of the Commissioners who had been engaged in arranging the divisions of the British boroughs, and he would make bold to say that the only cases in which they had ever broken up the boundary of a ward were instances in which they were compelled to do so in order to produce equality of population. Was the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) prepared to dispute this statement? If so, he would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the case of the London boroughs, and that of Islington and Mile End Old Town. Not only had the Commissioners in those cases respected the existing wards, but the Commissioners stated that the divisions they recommended were based on the boundaries of the municipal wards, and in every case where they had felt obliged to break up a ward, they stated that they were compelled to do so because, if they had not taken that course, the division of the population would have been very unequal. There was no case in Dublin for breaking up the boundary on the alleged ground of difference of pursuits. There was no case to warrant the right hon. Baronet in departing from the principle followed with regard to England and Scotland. He would again challenge the right hon. Gentleman to produce a single case in either of those countries where the wards of a borough had been broken up unless for the purpose of producing equality in point of population. The plan now put before the Committee would equalize the population and give compact areas and regular boundaries. It was as perfect in 1410 regard to the pursuits of the population as the plan of the Commissioners; it would retain the boundaries of the municipal wards of Dublin which had been familiar to the people for many years, and it would enable a general revision to take place with a minimum of expense and loss of time. He maintained that the right hon. Baronet was bound either to accept this plan, which would make the Bill more workable than that of the Commissioners, or to cast discredit on his own Instructions.
§
Amendment proposed,
In Schedule 6, Part 3, leave out from "Borough," in line 1, to end of the Schedule inclusive, and insert,—
§ Borough of Dublin.
§ Four Members. Four Divisions.
§ No. 1.—The Four Courts Division.
- Arran Quay Ward.
- Town Quay Ward.
- Usher's Quay Ward.
§ No. 2.—The Rotunda Division.
- Mountjoy Ward.
- North Dock Ward.
- North City Ward.
- Rotunda Ward.
§ No. 3.—The Saint Patrick's Division.
- Fitzwilliam Ward.
- Mansion House Ward.
- Merchants' Quay Ward.
- Wood Quay Ward.
§ No. 4.—The College Green Division.
- South City Ward.
- Royal Exchange Ward.
- Trinity Ward.
- South Dock Ward.
- Township of Pembroke.
§ So much of the parishes of Booterstown and Monkstown, in the Union of Rathdown, as is comprised within the present boundary of the Parliamentary borough.—(Mr. Sexton.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he would put aside the question of the names of the divisions for the present; but he was bound to say that when he had considered the Amendment and the scheme of the Corporation of Dublin earlier in the day, and had considered the line of argument in the spirit of the hon. Gentleman's third Amendment, he had assumed that the hon. Gentleman would move his Amendments in the form in which they had been placed on the Paper. He had expected that the names would be considered either as they stood in the Bill, or in the form in which the 1411 hon. Member had placed them on the Paper.
§ MR. SEXTONsaid, he thought the right hon. Baronet was labouring under some misapprehension in this matter. The third Amendment contained the proposed new names.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that no doubt the fact was as the hon. Member had stated, and that if he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had made a mistake it, was his own fault. He was not now prepared to discuss the names, being unable, on the spur of the moment, to say whether or not it would be best to take them in the form suggested by the hon. Member. It would not be unreasonable to ask the Committee to take the names on Report; and if they were allowed to remain as they were he would carefully consider them, and, if possible, meet the hon. Gentleman's view with regard to them. Therefore, he put the question of names aside for the present. As to the boundaries, the scheme of the Corporation, which was rejected by the Commissioners, had been very carefully considered by them before they took that step. The same thing happened with regard to Belfast—it had unfortunately happened that in the case of both the great cities of Ireland the schemes prepared by the Corporations had been rejected by the Commissioners. The Commissioners had, under the circumstances, felt themselves bound to bring forward schemes of their own; and, knowing the Commissioners as he did, the very fact that they had done this convinced him that they must have had good reason for rejecting the Corporation proposals. The hon. Member said he knew cases where similar departures from the scheme of the Commissioners to that he now proposed had taken place; but the only argument the hon. Member had put forward in favour of his scheme was that it would avoid breaking up any of the wards. The hon. Member had challenged him to show any case in England in which the wards had been broken up, except for the purpose of equalizing the population. There were a great many cases in England in which the Commissioners found themselves obliged to break up the wards. He found, on referring to the case of Leeds, that the Commissioners intersected wards in that borough in consequence of the great difference in the character of the population in dif- 1412 ferent parts of the same ward. It had been claimed that, so far as regarded substantial equality of population, the balance would be in favour of the Corporation scheme; but omitting inmates of workhouses, asylums, and prisons, and military barracks, the highest population of a division under the Commissioners' scheme was 67,416, and the lowest 62,287. In the Corporation scheme the highest was 67,287, and the lowest 62,152. The greatest differences in population of the divisions under the Commissioners' scheme was, therefore, 5,129, and under the Corporation scheme 5,135; so that there was, practically, no advantage in one over the other. He did not lay any great stress upon attaining absolute equality of population; but merely pointed out the facts of the case. The question of the merits or demerits of the schemes was one it was almost impossible to satisfactorily discuss in the House of Commons, and he felt the difficulty of making such cases clear. It was a question of authority against authority, and it would be impossible for hon. Members to make up their minds upon it unless they either studied the subject for themselves, or accepted one authority or the other. He was willing to admit that the scheme of the Corporation had its merits as well as its demerits; but the chief objection to it was that it made no attempt to group persons or pursuits. It withdrew two wards—namely, Fitzwilliam Ward and Mansion House Ward, which, by the admission of the hon. Member, were important, residential, and professional.
§ MR. SEXTONNo; they are unimportant, and of small area.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEWell, a portion of them was important. These wealthy districts were taken out of the South-Eastern Division, which was largely residential, by the Corporation scheme, and united with some of the poorest parts of the city. It also withdrew some of the riverside population; but the Commissioners' scheme brought together that class, and also the residential and professional population. Those were the two objects it accomplished. The; Commissioners stated that the main objection to the provisional scheme had been that it intersected four of the municipal wards, one of them being divided into four parts; and a further objection was that in some instances obsolete parochial boundaries had been 1413 adopted. But one of those objections had been entirely removed, and the other partially, for now only three wards were intersected. A question had been raised, not only in regard to Ireland, but in reference to other places—for instance, in the case of Aldershot—as to the necessity, in estimating the numbers, to leave out of the population classes of persons who could not exercise the franchise. On applying that principle to the present case, it was found that there were outside those classes from whom voters would bedrawn five or six classes of persons, including paupers, soldiers, and inmates of asylums and prisons. As he had said, omitting these classes, the highest population under the Commissioners' scheme would be in the North-Eastern Division, where the number would be 67,416, and the lowest—namely, 62,287, in the Southwestern Division. He had stated the greatest differences in population of the divisions under the Commissioners and the Corporation schemes, showing that they were almost exactly the same, but just turning the scale as against the Corporation scheme. He did not attach so much importance as some did—perhaps not so much as the Commissioners did—to the (question of the exact equalization of population. He cared little about it, and attached no importance to the argument, believing it without force either way. No doubt the strong point in favour of the scheme of the Corporation was that it did not cut the wards; but, on the whole, he thought the Commissioners had made out a fair case for cutting them, as was Proposed. While he should be prepared to do all he could to meet the desire of the hon. Member (Mr. Sexton) on Report as to the names he could not accept his proposal to alter the boundaries.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, he looked upon this discussion as flogging a dead horse, although the Irish Members owed it as a duty to their constituents to bring the matter forward. The right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Charles W. Dilke) was in a more unfortunate position even than the Irish Members, because over and over again he had used arguments which it was evident he had not the smallest confidence in, because they were all referable to the compact, and had no reference whatsoever to the Amendments or the arguments which had been ad- 1414 dressed to the Committee in support of them. This showed the unfortunate position in which the Committee was placed. Of course, it was not the fault of the right hon. Baronet; but he (Mr. Healy) could only extend to him the same commiseration which they themselves were entitled to. There was one point in regard to which he thought the Corporation of Dublin were entitled to some sympathy from the right hon. Baronet, for he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) put aside the question of the splitting up of wards as a very light matter. [Several Irish MEMBERS: NO, no!] At any rate, the merit of not cutting up the wards was not the strongest argument in favour of the scheme of the Corporation. It would prove economical. Did the right hon. Gentleman know that its adoption would save the Corporation of Dublin hundreds a-year—did he understand that by this bogus jerrymandering scheme, which would do no one any good, that the Corporation would have to incur an additional expenditure for the preparation of the lists of voters? He was reminded by the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) that already it had to pay an extra charge in regard to Pembroke and a portion of Black-rock in a most unjust manner. Did the right hon. Baronet propose to relieve the Dublin Corporation of the additional expense which this division of the wards would throw upon them out of Imperial sources? He (Mr. Healy) was sure he did not. The Corporation was not to be relieved of the extra expense which this jerrymandering proposal, which they had had nothing to do with and which they had protested against so strongly, would entail on the ratepayers. They had never yet had any experience or experiment in regard to this single-Member system, and still less had they had any experiment of the breaking up of wards for those purposes. Therefore, he (Mr. Healy) could not form the remotest conception of what would be the state of disorder into which the lists would be thrown when they came up for revision next October. He was appalled at the prospect. No one knew what would be done or what to do. There were to be the Trinity Ward, the Rotunda Ward, the South Dock Ward in the different constituencies. The collectors who would have to deal with 1415 them would belong to the Collector General's Office. Now, the Collector General's Office was unpopular to a frightful extent. Every single individual in it was an Orangeman and a Freemason. There was not a single Catholic in it. He was happy to say he had been instrumental in getting the former Collector General, Mr. John Byrne, sent about his business, and other hon. Members had also been successful in disturbing other officials of the Office. Well, it would be to these gentlemen, so unpopular in their antecedents, to whom would be confided the preparation of the lists. What would hap-pen? Why, they would make mistakes, and would call them accidental—would say they could not help it. In Ireland they were not used to this system of splitting up wards. The collectors when they had made mistakes would say—"Why did Parliament throw on us this Herculean task, for which we are not equipped, and in regard to which we have made no experiment?" And if they were complained of they would say—"The blame must rest upon the shoulders of Parliament and the Legislature. "There would be no remedy whatever against these men. Look at the character of some of them—of the late Collector of Pathnames, the Clerk of the South Dublin Union, for instance, who, in 150 cases, had put on the rate-books the names of persons who had never lived for an instant of their lives in the places for which they obtained votes, and who had no more right to vote for those places than had the Emperor of Russia. They were simply bogus, straw voters who did not exist. This roguery had been detected, and yet the Government—the Local Government Board—had condoned it. Questions, however, were put in the House, he (Mr. Healy) having interested himself in securing the dismissal of one collector, and the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) having taken a similar interest in another on altogether different grounds. If that was the state of things under the old £12 occupation franchise, what would it be under the new franchise? People who had in the past been tolerably well able to protect themselves would, under this system of split wards, be for some time powerless under this Orange-Freemason machinery. They would have these people disfranchished, 1416 not in files, but in battalions. He did not mean to say that they would be struck off the lists; but they would never be put on, and the Irish Members would next year be coming to the House with their fingers in their mouths complaining of the ruffianly conduct of the officials under this Bill. The Government would be laughing in their sleeves, saying, after the elections were over—"We will give you a remedy—we will dismiss these people." That was the system the Government were pursuing. The Irish Members thoroughly understood it. The right hon. Baronet said these questions involved considerations which could not be discussed with advantage in the House, and that the Commissioners were aware of all the local circumstances and arguments. What satisfaction was that to the Irish Members? The Irish Members understood the question. The right hon. Baronet did not. The Irish Members knew the motives which had existed in the minds of the people who made this proposal—they were familiar with the whole thing from garret to basement. They knew the arguments in support of the Commissioners' scheme were as frivolous as they were mechanical, and that they were not based on the good sense of the right hon. Baronet. It was most unfortunate that they seemed to be able to make no appeal whatever to the good sense or logical faculties of the Committee. He had known the time when the House, bad as it was, would listen to an argument addressed to it, and when the Treasury Bench could be got to accept an Amendment. In the present case, however, there was no chance of anything of the kind. They had their minds made up; they were armoured in triple brass from Arlington Street. The Irish Members knew it was no use coming down to the House to ventilate their grievances in regard to this Bill; but he would suggest to hon. Members on the Irish Benches, and to hon. Members in other parts of the House who had grievances under this Bill, the desirability of combining against the Government. Do not let them remain in such a complete state of disorganization. On one occasion it had been said by an hon. Member that if certain little insects were unanimous they might pull a person out of bed. So in the case of hon. Members 1417 who had grievances in connection with this measure. If they would all unite, each would be able to carry his point; but, as it was, they scattered themselves, enabling the Government to meet each discontented section separately, and defeat it easily. [Laughter.] He observed that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Webster) was smiling. He (Mr. Healy) had voted for his Amendment a short time ago, but he would not ask the hon. Member to vote for the present proposal: but he desired to impress it upon the mind of the Committee that the Government by this system he had described were able to beat down all opposition to the measure. If they went to units in the House, they would find that almost everyone had some objection to the measure. But it was unnecessary for him to dwell on this matter, and he would only say that the right hon. Baronet had used one argument which was peculiar. He had said it was most unfortunate that in the only two cases in Ireland in which the Corporation had put forward schemes the Commissioners had not acted upon them—that was to say, in the cases of Belfast and Dublin. The right hon. Gentleman had said that in all the other cases the Commissioners would have been most anxious to have accepted the views of the Corporations; but these two were the only places affected by the Bill where the Local Authorities could put forward schemes. It was by arguments of that kind that they were attempted to be met; and really, in his judgment, the degradation of Parliament had never sunk lower than it had done under this Redistribution Bill. They were going through a farce which took all the life and heart out of debate. It might be asked, why did the Nationalist Members go through with it? They did it for this reason—they did not believe that the Bill would lead to any finality whatever, and they were anxious not to allow it to go by default, so that it might be said, when a new Bill was introduced to deal with the subject, that they had had nothing to say upon the old one. He would make this suggestion to the Government—that they should make this scheme provisional so far as it affected Dublin. They should pass it for, say, four or five years, and then, if it was found that the Tories kept their one Member, well and good; but, if not, let the old posi- 1418 tion be restored. That was a fair-and-square proposal. Let them pass the Bill as it stood, and the Nationalists would put up with it for the present; but it should be provided that in the year 1890 this scheme should stop and the matter should come up for review, and the public should be made certain that the arrangement was not to continue in sæcula s æculorum. The Nationalist Party in Dublin ought not to be paralyzed 10, 20, or 30 years hence, because of the freaks and vagaries of the Boundary Commissioners in 1884–5. If the Nationalists proved, as they would do at the General Election, that they could carry every one of these four divisions, then the wards ought not to be split up, but should be left as they stood at present. Those wards were the units of the Municipal Poor Law, and for Grand Jury, rating, and every other purpose connected with civic life. They ought, then, to be preserved for Parliamentary purposes also. Why was it proposed to destroy them by this Bill? It was for selfish, improper, and disgraceful objects—to give Party advantages which they would not otherwise have to the Tories of Dublin. Those Gentlemen had already two seats for the University, and it was now proposed to give them three. They had two seats out of six already; it was now proposed to give them three out of six. Could anybody say that the Tories formed half the population of Dublin? What was the aim and object of the Bill? The Tories would have a third of the representation of Dublin already, by means of the two Members for Trinity College. It was now sought by this Bill to give them one-half; and the Nationalists were asked to submit tamely to this proposal. The splitting up of the wards was a rank absurdity. They were told that the riverside population should be kept in one division; but that was simply ludicrous, as anyone who knew Dublin and remembered Mountjoy Square would admit, for that square was situated in the same area which contained this alleged riverside population. It was proposed to put all the riverside population into one area; but why were Mountjoy Square and other places of that kind to be thrown in with this quay-side population? Anyone who knew anything about the selfish scheme of the Commissioners knew that it was condemned and damned on the face of 1419 it; and the inquiry which took place on the subject—an inquiry which he attended professionally—was little better than a farce. The whole of the Commissioners appeared to have made up their minds beforehand; and that was proved by the fact that when the next morning' arrived. without any debate or discussion, the Emergency Association handed in their plan, and it was at once accepted. Everybody regarded the latter scheme at the time as a joke and a farce; and that was the way in which the people of Ireland were treated by the Government who appointed these Commissioners. The people had never yet been able to trust a single official appointed under these circumstances; and he must say that this business would have much more serious consequences than its simple relation to the Bill, for it had sown the seeds of distrust in regard to everything connected with Committees of Inquiry and Royal Commissions. The people had now come to know that such things were a mere sham—that the Government only appointed people of a certain kidney to carry out schemes in the interests of the Tory and landlord class. So long as the Bill existed in its present form—so long as the divisions of the City and County of Dublin were continued in the manner now proposed—so long would they be monuments of the shameful way in which Lord Spencer, acting on the advice and stimulated by the wishes of the Freemason and Orange class, had ordered the Commissioners to carry out a plan which would give the Tories an extra vote in addition to the two they already possessed for Dublin University.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, he had thought that they would have had some better defence on the part of the Government than the very perfunctory one offered by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke). The case which had been made out with regard to the jerrymandering of the South-Eastern Division of the City of Dublin was a very complete one. Two wards in that division had been split for the purpose of obtaining if possible—though it was a vain and useless attempt—representation for a very small section of the population in that district. That section was composed of land agents, Government offi- 1420 cials, landowners, and so forth, nearly every one of whom had votes in other constituencies throughout the country; so that it was, practically, an attempt on the part of the Government to give to a number of men who resided for a portion of the year in the City of Dublin—a number of fagot-voters in other parts of Ireland—a special representation of their own, carried out of the City by means of the most extraordinary system of jerrymandering, of a kind of which the right hon. Baronet had only been able to find one instance in connection with all the borough constituencies of England. The right hon. Baronet had told them that, in casually going over the whole of the borough constituencies in England, he had been able to find one example where wards had been divided—the example of Leeds—to the same extent as they had been divided in the South-Eastern district of Dublin. But they knew very well that the right Baronet had produced the only example that he was able to produce out of all the borough constituencies of England. He (Mr. Parnell) did not wish to venture upon an estimate of the number; but they must, at least, be 200. The right hon. Baronet had only been able to give them one example where the wards had been split, as they had been split in the case of Dublin—that was to say, he had only been able to give them an example amounting to ½ per cent upon the whole number of cases. But what was the case in Ireland? There were only two borough constituencies in Ireland which were affected by the redistribution scheme in the sense of being divided, and in which it was possible for the Commissioners to jerrymander in this way by cutting the wards. In one of those two cases they had cut the wards—that was to say, 50 per cent of the Irish borough constituencies affected by the Bill had been jerrymandered by the cutting of the wards; whereas in the case of England only ½ per cent had been so jerrymandered. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir Charles W. Dilke) admitted that this was a very strong proceeding, because the only argument he had offered against the force of the opposition to it had been this single example of Leeds. Before he left this part of the question he (Mr. Parnell) must allude to the principle which was steadfastly and 1421 constantly maintained and kept before their eyes by the English Commissioners in reference to this matter of keeping the wards intact. In their Report they declared that with regard to boroughs it had appeared to them that they were not susceptible to division either by parishes or by aggregates of parishes, and that the best areas to be taken were those of the wards formed for local elections under the Municipal Corporations Act. Further on, they stated that there was a strong desire in every borough that in forming the divisions the wards should, if possible, be preserved intact; and they added that in several divisions they had allowed, in deference to this feeling, a disproportionate boundary to that which they would otherwise have recommended. The English Commissioners had therefore adopted a converse course to that which had been followed in Ireland, for they had allowed a disproportion to exist in several divisions—even a regrettable disproportion—rather than cut the wards. But in the case of Dublin they bad produced a disproportion in the population, in order that they might cut the wards. The volume containing the Report with regard to England was full of examples. Of the borough of Marylebone, for instance, the Commissioners said in their special Report that the divisions as proposed by them were based entirely upon the wards into which the borough was divided under the Act, for it was apparent that the disproportion could only be obviated by a very inconvenient division of the wards. Again, in the case of the borough of Paddington, it was stated that the divisions as proposed by the Commissioners consisted entirely of the wards into which the borough was divided under the Metropolis Management Act. In the case of Shoreditch. they stated that the divisions as proposed consisted entirely of wards, and that there was a disparity of population between the two divisions which could only be remedied by dividing some of the wards. The wards, however, were not divided. These were cases which he had collected at random, and they showed the converse action taken by the English Commissioners to that taken by the Irish Commissioners, and that in the English boroughs the Commissioners had distinctly refrained from dividing the wards, although they might have 1422 remedied the disparity of population in the various divisions if they had divided the wards. The volume containing the Report of the English Commissioners was studded with cases where they had avoided dividing the wards, and where they had specially and consistently held in their mind's eye the principle and duty of refraining from cutting the wards. He wished now to refer to an argument of the Irish Commissioners which had been repeated by the right hon. Baronet the President of the Local Government Board. The right hon. Baronet had no special local knowledge whatever of the City of Dublin, or of the way in which its population was distributed; but the Commissioners knew very well that they were jerrymandering this South-Eastern Division. They knew very well that the result would come before a tribunal which had no special knowledge—no knowledge whatever, in fact—of the local circumstances, but which was absolutely ignorant of the city. And he declared that the audacity of the Irish Commissioners in making such an assertion to that House as that which had been repeated by the right hon. Baronet that night in defence of the Government plan was of the most unblushing character. The Commissioners stated that they had regard to the character and pursuits of the population when they crossed the river, and that they kept the riverside population on both sides of the river in the same division. But what was the case with regard to this riverside population? It was only to be found on one side of the river. A residential riverside population had no existence on the north side of the river. The north side of the Liffey was composed of manufacturing establishments, large wharves, the Custom House, the railway stations, steamship depots, and all those great buildings which were only occupied in the day time, and which were used as part of the necessary adjuncts to quays and wharves where the trade of the City was received. The north side was not an inhabited side. It had about the same relation to the south side of the river that the City of London had to Westminster. The City of London possessed a day population, but not a night population: and the English Commissioners might just as reasonably have grouped together the City of London and 1423 Westminster on the ground that the pursuits of the population were the same, and might just as reasonably and consistently have presented to Parliament a Report recommending the justice of such grouping as the Irish Commissioners had acted in recommending Parliament to adopt their grouping for Dublin on the ground that the riverside population on the north of the Liffey was the same as the riverside population on the south. The fact was that the two sides of the river had no characteristic in common. The real object was to cut away from this South-Eastern District, which the Commissioners, he believed unavailingly, had attempted to keep as a preserve to the landlord and official class in Ireland—to cut away the large riverside population which undoubtedly did exist on the south side of the Liffey, and to throw it into the North-Eastern Division, where there would have been no riverside population at all if it had not been for this extraordinary example of boundary manufacturing on the part of the Commissioners. It was difficult to convey to English Members an adequate notion of the extraordinary steps which had been taken by the Irish Commissioners to serve their own Party. The original plans were not so bad; but those original plans were undoubtedly arranged in England; and it was not until the work was handed over to the permanent Government officials in Ireland that this jerrymandering came into play. This, of course, was the first example that he and his Friends had been able to unfold in detail to the House of Commons; but it would, unhappily, be their duty to trace the operations of the Commissioners in the Northern counties, where they would be able to show that the same precedent had been followed and the same unusual exertions made for the purpose of giving the official and the landowning class in Ireland a representation to which they were not entitled. The City of Dublin had had a history which entitled it to better treatment at the hands of the Government. Originally the "City of the Pale," up to the end of the last century no Nationalists—none but the Garrison Party—were allowed to own property or carry on trade in the city. It was the preserve of the Orange and Garrison Party in Ireland. He was happy, however, to say that the vitality 1424 and industry of the Celtic race had now enabled them to take possession of the whole of Dublin, and that, with the exception of this one little ward, in which such unusual methods had been resorted to for the purpose of maintaining the power of the Ascendancy Party, there was no part of it which could be looked to for any help in the system of English misgovernment in Ireland. He doubted whether even the attempt which the Boundary Commissioners had made—the strenuous and barefaced attempt—to jerrymander would be of any avail. The Catholics of Ireland had taken possession of Dublin; they had peopled it, and filled it with their works and their industry in a way which had even been admired by an illustrious visitor on a recent occasion. He (Mr. Parnell) felt confident that, notwithstanding the way in which the Government had played into the hands of the agents of misrule by this Boundary Commission, and even should the House refuse to lend any assistance to redress the inequality and injustice which had been committed, the attempt would not bear the fruit which was hoped for; but the majority of the people would be able at the forthcoming General Election to assert their principles, and to return their Representatives for every division of the city.
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that hon. Members below the Gangway had addressed themselves to this case with ability, fluency, and some strength of language; and the gist of their case was that the Commissioners had endeavoured to jerrymander the wards of Dublin with a view to the return of Members of their own class. But, almost in the same breath, those hon. Members had declared that there was no prospect whatever that that measure would be successful.
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) had been very strong upon the point.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORI never opened my lips.
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) declared before the Commissioners at Dublin that he was there in the interests of the Nationalists, and that, in reference to this matter, it 1425 made very little matter whether the proposed divisions were adopted or not, as they could carry the whole city.
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, it was clear, then, that the hon. and learned Member, while complaining of the jerrymandering of the wards, with a view to return one Member of a particular political complexion, was still of opinion that the process would not be successful. That appeared to him (Mr. Shaw Lefovre) to show a very imperfect knowledge of what the Boundary Commissioners were doing. If they were influenced by the motive attributed to them, and were unblushingly trying to jerrymander, surely they might have jerrymandered to some better purpose.
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREwent on to say that he had understood the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) to declare that the population of Dublin was such that the principle in reliance upon which the Commissioners had acted would not work. The hon. Member appeared to think that there was only one single case in all the English borough constituencies where the Commissioners had divided the wards.
§ MR. PARNELLI said to the same extent.
MR. SHAW LEFEVERsaid, there were many cases in England where the boundaries of the wards had been cut.
§ MR. SEXTONI said that in England, where they divided the wards, they did so in order to produce equality of population, and that in some cases they put up with inequality of population rather than divide the wards.
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, there were many eases in which the Commissioners had sub-divided wards. His right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had mentioned the case of Leeds. He (Mr. Shaw Lefevre; might mention the case of Birmingham: because in Birmingham, as well as in Leeds, regard had been had to the equalization of the population, and also to the pursuits of the population. He had no doubt there were other cases of the same kind. He maintained that the scheme of the Corporation did not carry out the principle which had been laid down by the Government with respect 1426 to the pursuits of the population. The scheme of the Commissioners divided the riverside population and the residential population, whereas the Corporation plan mixed up the two populations. What was really the principle involved in the two competing schemes? On the one hand, the Commissioners had followed the directions of the Government, and had endeavoured to take into consideration the pursuits of the population as well as the question of the boundaries of wards; while, on the other hand, the scheme of the Corporation mixed up the two populations, although they were quite distinct from one another. The real point was, whether the Corporation scheme or the Commissioners' scheme had most regard to the pursuits of the population; and, in the opinion of the Government, the Corporation scheme was deficient in that particular. No doubt, it would be desirable not to interfere with the boundaries of wards; but the Commissioners were bound by their Instructions to take into account every principle which was laid down, and one of the chief of those principles was that they should have regard to the pursuits of the population. Personally, he did not believe that any political interest was involved in this matter. He quite agreed with hon. Gentlemen opposite that the Nationalists would have a great advantage in all the four divisions of the city. He heard from every source that there was little hope of any other Party getting even one of the four seats. Those considerations, however, did not enter into the minds of the Commissioners; they were bound to have regard to the pursuits of the population, and they faithfully carried out their instructions.
§ MR. GRAYsaid, it was not a sufficient argument against their contention and their accusation that the Commissioners had attempted jerrymandering for the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) to say that even if the Commissioners had made the attempt they had not succeeded. They blamed the Commissioners for making the attempt; and if the right hon. Gentleman considered that they had not been successful in the attempt, he (Mr. Gray) asked him not to visit the Commissioners with any great amount of censure; because, undoubtedly, they had done their best to bring about the 1427 return of a Conservative for the city. If there were not a sufficient number of Nationalists found in any one division of Dublin—no matter how the divisions were manipulated—to return a Conservative, it was not the fault of the Commissioners. The right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General had acknowledged that the Corporation scheme had one very strong point; but he entirely failed to show that the scheme which had been adopted in substitution for it had any strong point at all. The right hon. Gentleman said that this necessarily was a matter of conflict of authority. Now, he (Mr. Gray) invited the Committee to consider what authority was in evidence before them on this subject. They had a number of Irish Representatives, who ought to know something about the subject, making definite assertions upon the one side. There was not one single Member from Ireland who ventured to stand up and make an assertion upon the other side of the question. No person who knew anything whatever of Dublin—no person who had ever passed through Dublin—would be caught by the specious argument about the river population. Everyone knew, as had been asserted in the able speech of his hon. Friend (Mr. Sexton), and, later on, by the hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Irish Party (Mr. Parnell), that there was no river population on the north side of the city. Everyone acquainted with Dublin knew full well that the north side of the river was occupied by great warehouses and large offices, and that there was no residential population there at all. Of course, to English Members who knew nothing of the circumstances, and who might imagine that the navigable river in Dublin corresponded to some navigable river in England with which they might be personally acquainted, it might appear a very plausible and reasonable argument to speak of the riverside population on the north side of the river; but to Irishmen such an argument had no meaning whatever. Irishmen knew that the riverside population of Dublin was all upon one side of the city. Every person in Dublin knew thoroughly well that when the Commissioners' scheme was propounded it was a mere device to go as far as they could, quite irrespective of reason and common sense, to divide the city so as to secure one seat 1428 for what they called the Anti-Ireland Party. The Press, and, indeed, everyone in Dublin, discussed the subject from a political aspect. No one in Dublin ever spoke of the riverside population; indeed, any person who did so would be laughed at. Conservatives justified it on the ground that it was an attempt to give the so-called Loyalist Party in the city a Representative. It was contended that their wealth and intelligence, and their former services to the English Government, and their loyal proclivities, entitled them to a Representative. He really did not think that the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) himself would venture to stand up and say that political considerations had not entered into the division of the city. His hon. Friend the Member for Sligo had left very little to be said on the subject. He (Mr. Gray) felt it was natural for a subject of this kind to be discussed, although the conclusion was, no doubt, foregone. He could not help regretting that the subject should be discussed under circumstances such as the present. For a considerable time the Opposition Benches had been very sparsely tenanted; now they were absolutely tenantless. Although the conclusion might be foregone, and the contention of the Irish Members hopeless, it was none the less their duty to put the facts before the Committee, and to protest against the manipulation of the constituency. There was not the slightest doubt that the Commissioners, instead of dividing the population with regard to their pursuits, had endeavoured to divide them with regard to their politics. It was notorious that the Commissioners had attempted to do this, and they had certainly gone as far as they possibly could in that direction. He (Mr. Gray) was not quite so sanguine as some of his hon. Friends that the Commissioners might not succeed in giving an artificial representation to the Tory Party in the South-Eastern Division of the city. Their intention was made plain by their original scheme, for in that scheme they set aside all natural divisions, and went so far as to divide houses and rooms so as to give the Tories a chance. He protested against the enormous inconvenience and trouble and heavy expense which would be permanently placed on the city in consequence of this most preposterous scheme. The 1429 ward was a unit in Dublin, more essentially and more completely, probably, than it was in any other part of the United Kingdom. The electoral lists were made out by the Collectors General of Rates; and it would be a source of great inconvenience, as well as great expense to the city, to depart from the natural division and adopt the artificial one proposed by the Commissioners. He supposed there was no use in he and his hon. Friends doing anything' more than protesting. Again, he drew attention to the fact that the right hon. Baronet stated that questions of this kind—questions of detail—must necessarily depend upon the weight of authority. Now, if the Committee voted on this Amendment according to their convictions, and according to the arguments which had been adduced, and not in fulfilment of the compact which had been arrived at by the Leaders of the two great Parties in the House, he asked upon which side success would lie? On the one side they had hon. Members asserting that the present division was an artificial one, a most unnatural one, a most inconvenient one, and a most unreasonable one; and on the other side they had only got two Gentlemen who, from their official position, were driven to defend the scheme—Gentlemen who had said a few perfunctory words on the subject, scarcely dealing at all with the arguments which had been adduced against the scheme. There was not a single Irish Member—no. not even the Members for the City of Dublin itself—found ready to come forward and say one word in. favour of the scheme of the Commissioners. The right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) had been able to ferret out another case in England, in addition to that of Leeds, in which wards had been sub-divided. Now, he (Mr. Gray) had looked at the case of Birmingham, and he found that all that the Commissioners had done was to divide one ward. That was a manifestly exceptional case, and he supposed it was justified on the ground of the pursuits of the people. Everyone who knew Birmingham knew that large masses of the population followed particular trades, or trades very much allied one to the other; but a person knowing anything about Dublin would not say that that was the case there. Indeed, no one having any ac- 1430 quaintance with the city had said so for a moment; but two Government officials had read out some observations with which they were supplied by the Commissioners, who, of course, were bound to defend their indefensible conduct. He supposed the Committee would deem it to be their duty, in accordance with some secret agreement arrived at, to adhere to the scheme. He (Mr. Gray) and his hon. Friends, however, deemed it their duty to protest against what had been done.
§ MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDpointed out that in Manchester the Commissioners had divided two wards, and in Salford one ward, distinctly with a view to the equalization of the population. It was admitted by the Government that in this case the division of wards had been made in order to separate the pursuits of the population. He (Mr. Arthur Arnold) distinctly disagreed with that suggestion. He thought the pursuits of a population was not a matter which should have been regarded; and he should certainly vote in favour of the scheme of the Corporation of Dublin, as a protest against separation on the ground of the pursuits of the population.
§ MR. SEXTONsaid, he would only ask the Committee to divide upon that part of the Amendment which related to the division of the city. With regard to the question of the nomenclature of the divisions, he would, in conformity with the desire of the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke), suspend that part of his Amendment until Report.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEPerhaps the hon. Gentleman would consider the matter himself.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 42, line 4, to leave out the words "The North West Dublin Division," in order to insert the words "The Four Courts Division,"—(Mr. Sexton,)
—instead thereof.
§ Question proposed, "That the words 'The North West Dublin Division' stand part of the Schedule."
§ MR. CALLANsaid, that it had been alleged that the city had been divided in this peculiar fashion in order to bring the riverside population together. Looking casually at the map, however, he 1431 found there was only one bridge connecting the riverside population on the East side of Dublin with the district South of the Liffey. Looking to the North-West and South-West of Dublin, where no amount of jerrymandering could affect anybody, he found that the boundary was the river, although there were seven bridges connecting the riverside population. On the East side, where apolitical object could be obtained by a little bit of judicious jerrymandering, and where there was only one bridge across the river, the two sides had been grouped together. In his (Mr. Callan's) opinion, it was a piece of effrontery, and an insult to the intelligence of the Committee, to defend the scheme of the Commissioners on the ground that it was desired to keep the riverside population together.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 47; Noes 16: Majority 31.—(Div. List, No. 94.)
§ Question, "That Schedule 6, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.