§ MR. WARTONsaid, the first Amendment which stood in his name was to omit in page 43, line 3, the words "of Members and." His object was to follow the course which had already been taken in regard to the Sixth Schedule. The Sixth Schedule was described as containing the Number, Names, Contents, and Boundaries of Divisions; whereas the Seventh Schedule purported to give the Number of Members and Names and Contents of Divisions. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had been good enough to accept the Amendment he (Mr. Warton) had moved in the title of the Sixth Schedule, which Amendment altered the word "name" to "names." But there still remained a curious difference between the titles of the Schedules. He (Mr.Warton) thought it showed how carelessly the Bill had been drawn, and that no regard had been paid to symmetry. He might be told that there was no harm in that, as the Bill was capable of amendment. No doubt, there was no harm in it; but it occasioned inconvenience and waste of time; and he maintained that the objects mentioned in the title to the Sixth Schedule should also be the objects mentioned in the Seventh, or the objects mentioned in the Seventh should have been equally provided for in the Sixth. The proposal in the Sixth Schedule was to divide the boroughs, and under the present Schedule it was to divide the counties. He did not know what view the right hon. Baronet would take of the matter; but he proposed to omit 1501 the words "of Members and," as the first step towards making the Schedule similar in its terms to the one which had already been passed. He might be told that this was not a similar case, and if the right hon. Gentleman could show that there was any distinction he would be perfectly satisfied.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 43, line 3, to leave out "of Members and."—(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 opposite (Mr. Warton) was quite right in stating that there was a difference between the Sixth and Seventh Schedules in regard to the point to which he had alluded. But there was necessarily a difference, because if the hon. and learned Member looked at Clause 9 of the Bill he would find that it enacted that each of the counties at large named in the Seventh Schedule should return the number of Members named in the said Schedule; whereas, if he turned back to the 6th clause, which dealt with the division of Parliamentary boroughs, he would not find that that was the case. The reason was, that the number of divisions in the boroughs was very small, whereas in the counties it was very large, and provision was made in other Schedules for the altered representation of boroughs. In fact, from the way in which some of the counties were divided, it was necessary to give all the details as to the divisions in the Seventh Schedule. All the counties in England, with the exception of Rutland, and some of those in Wales, were divided, whereas a good many of the boroughs remained in their present position. That was the reason why the title of this Schedule had been varied from that affixed to the Sixth Schedule. It was considered that that was the most convenient form in which to arrange the matter.
§ MR. WARTONsaid, that after the explanation of the right hon. Baronet he would withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. WARTONsaid, he proposed in the next Amendment to leave out the second word "and" for the purpose of subsequently inserting the words "and 1502 boundaries." He did not know any reason why they should not have the boundaries of the divisions inserted in the title in connection with the counties as well as in the boroughs. He saw no necessity whatever for a difference, and it was strictly in accordance with the 8th and 9th clauses of the Bill, each of which, in the 2nd sub-section, specified the boundaries. If the two clauses had been differently drawn for any special reason he could see the force of an objection similar to that which the right hon. Gentleman had raised in connection with the last case. He admitted the full force of what the right hon. Gentleman had said there; but the same ground did not apply to the boundaries which were specially mentioned in both clauses.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 43, line 3, leave out the second "and."—(Mr. Warton.)
§ Question proposed, "That the second 'and' stand part of the Schedule."
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the boundaries were not, technically speaking, described either in regard to the boroughs or counties either in the previous Reform Act, or the later Act relating to boundaries. The description was rather in the nature of contents than boundaries, and included Petty Sessional divisions, and so on. Therefore, he thought the phrase "contents" in the Bill was the better phrase, although there was certainly no very serious objection to the insertion of the word "boundaries."
§ MR. WARTONsaid, he quite admitted that a question as to contents might arise; but his only object was to make the Schedules consistent with the clauses of the Bill. There was certainly a number of cases in which the description contained in the Schedule might be looked upon as contents of divisions rather than boundaries. For instance, this phrase was frequently employed—"Including certain parishes." But if the right hon. Gentleman would look at the borough divisions specified in the Sixth Schedule, he would find that precisely the same circumstance arose; and yet the term "boundaries" was contained in the title, and no mention whatever was made of the line being drawn at the contents of the divisions. He did not, however, wish to press the 1503 Amendment against the objection of the right hon. Baronet. He would only ask the right hon. Gentleman to turn his attention to the previous Schedule, where he would find a great number of boroughs in the same condition as the county divisions, in regard to which the word "boundaries" was made to apply.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he would prefer the phraseology of the Bill as it stood.
§ MR. HICKSsaid, he would suggest to the right hon. Baronet a reason why he should accept the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Warton). By the Bill, as drawn, the counties were divided into Petty Sessional divisions, and he took it for granted that it was the intention of the Government that all the parishes included in those Petty Sessional divisions should remain as parts of the several divisions of the county as long as the Bill remained an Act. But as the Schedule was now drawn without the addition of the words proposed to be inserted by his hon. and learned Friend, he (Mr. Hicks) thought they might find themselves involved in this difficulty—that a Petty Sessional division might be altered, and by that means the boundary of the division, so far as the county was concerned, might be changed also. He did not know whether that was so; but it struck him it was possible that a difficulty might arise hereafter which would be prevented by the insertion of the word "boundaries."
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that no difficulty of that kind would arise. The future boundaries of each division were provided for by the Bill. As to the second point raised by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Hicks), if that were not so, the insertion of the word "boundaries" alone would not cure the evil.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. WARTONsaid, the next Amendment was consequential, and, therefore, he would not move it.
§ MR. RAIKES,in moving, as an Amendment, in page 43, line 8, after the word "The," to insert "Northern or," the object of which was to provide that the first division of the county of Bedford, instead of being designated "The Biggleswade Division" should be 1504 named "The Northern or Biggleswade Division," said, the Amendment which stood in his name at that particular stage of the Bill was the first of many, the object of which was to restore the former nomenclature of the constituencies to something rather more closely approximate to what had hitherto been the case, according to the custom of the country, at least since the Act of 1832. That Act dealt with the divisions of counties, and in every case it attached to the different divisions names in accordance with the points of the compass—for instance, North Lancashire, South Leicestershire, or any other practical division, by which a positive idea was conveyed to the minds of hon. Members of that House, and enabled them at once to realize the fact that an hon. Member who was alluded to under that designation was the Representative of a constituency which in past times returned such and such men who had been more or less distinguished. By the Instructions given to the Boundary Commissioners, and given, he thought, in consequence of the pledge which had been made by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board in regard to the county divisions, they were particularly requested to take into consideration the claim of any borough disfranchised under the Bill, and merged in another constituency, in order to see whether the rude blow inflicted upon that borough might not be in some degree softened by introducing its name into the county division of which it was henceforth to form part. He had nothing at all to say to the course taken by the right hon. Gentleman in framing the Schedules of the Bill, because it certainly was in accordance with the statement which he had made in that House. Still less had he any fault to find with the course taken by the Boundary Commissioners in carrying out their Instructions; but he thought there was this noteworthy fact to be considered in connection with the subject—that in Scotland and Ireland, where these particular Instructions had not been given to the Boundary Commissioners, they had, in almost every case, adopted the points of the compass as the best means of designating the boundaries to which the new divisions applied. Whenever it was left to their own unassisted judgment, or to the advice taken on the spot, 1505 the Commissioners had followed that course, and had proposed to constitute the divisions of the Scotch and Irish counties exactly in accordance with the ancient practice in regard to the English counties in connection with the representation of the people. That being so, he ventured to ask whether this was not the time for the Committee to consider how far it was desirable to depart from that ancient practice in regard to England and Wales? They were to have the North Donegal Division in Ireland, and the Eastern Division of the county of Perth in Scotland; and nearly all the other divisions in the case of Scotland and Ireland were to be named in accordance with the points of the compass. Why, then, should not the same rule be followed in regard to the English counties, and instead of having, in this case, the Biggleswade Division and the Luton Division, why not have North Bedfordshire and South Bedfordshire, so that they might carry out the system with which all of them were familiar? There was another point which deserved consideration in connection with this question, and it was this—they had been constantly told by the Government that this was not a Bill for the purpose of establishing electoral districts, and that, whatever other objects the Bill had, it did not aim at the establishment of electoral districts. The Prime Minister himself had laid considerable stress upon that point in one of his earlier speeches, either upon this Bill or the Franchise Bill. Then, if this was not a Bill to establish electoral districts, he (Mr. Raikes) thought it was desirable that the fact should be marked by the adoption of a particular sort of nomenclature which would show that they were dealing with a county in the one case and with a borough in the other, and that they were not naming a constituency in a way that would lead to endless confusion between the counties and boroughs hereafter. He did not wish, in any way, to criticize the work which had been done by the Boundary Commissioners. He thought that, on the whole, they had performed a difficult task with signal success; but he was bound to say that the names which had recommended themselves, or which had been recommended to the Commissioners, seemed almost to be a 1506 burlesque upon our system of Parliamentary representation. He did not know whether hon. Members had made this question a study; but it was worth while to point out how, in the future, Members who rose to address the House might be designated. He had ventured to make a list of a few of the remarkable examples of nomenclature adopted in this Schedule. If any hon. Member happened to be at a distance from England in the course of next year or the year after, and were to take up a newspaper, he might find that an animated discussion had taken place on the Motion of the hon. Member for Ramsey, seconded by the hon. Member for Eddisbury; that an acrimonious speech was delivered by the hon. Member for Brixworth, supported by an equally strong harangue from the hon. Member for Morley; that a judicial summing-up was delivered by the Representative of St. Clears, and suggestions made by the hon. Member for Pudsey. The person who for the first time heard of these designations would imagine that he was rather dealing with one of Dean Swift's interesting attempts to represent the usages of this country when transferred to another planet than the state of public opinion in a great and historic country like this. If he (Mr. Raikes) were to attempt to examine hon. Members of that House as to where these places were to be found, he undertook to say that, in the majority of cases, no hon. Member, unless he happened to belong to the particular county in which the place referred to was situated, would be able to give an answer. He would like to know whether any hon. Member not belonging to the actual county in which it was situated could say where the division of Bromfield was to be found? Was there any hon. Member, who did not possess exceptional geographical attainments, who could say where the division of Barkston Ash was to be found? He thought there were a good many hon. Gentlemen who would be content to remain in ignorance as to where Llandilo, Eivion, Thornbury, Bedwelty, Wansbeck, Rushcliffe, Pirehill, Buckrose, Colne Valley, King-swinford, and Osgoldcross were to be found. When they had long had before them an ancient and a well-known system for the sub-division of counties, 1507 according to the points of the compass, he could not help thinking that the Government would do well to consult the natural sentiments of the House in dealing with the matter. However highly they ought to esteem the opinions of others, even Members of Parliament had some feeling and some right to be considered in a question like this. He was quite sure that if it were left to hon. Members now representing the counties, they would, by a great majority, prefer to continue to represent a constituency bearing the name of the county, rather than a local division, as proposed by the Bill. He believed that that feeling was not at all confined to either side of the House. He had no wish to detain the Committee by speaking at any greater length upon the question; and he would, therefore, simply move the first of the Amendments which stood in his name. At the same time, he did not think that the question would be necessarily concluded by any decision which the Committee might arrive at on this particular Amendment, because there were special circumstances in almost every county which might require further consideration when they came to deal with it in its turn. If, however, the Government were at the present time prepared to consult what he thought was the evident sense of the Committee, he would be extremely happy to leave to the right hon. Baronet the task of revising the Amendments he (Mr. Raikes) had placed upon the Paper, with a view of seeing whether, although he might not agree absolutely with the particular geographical designations he (Mr. Raikes) hard endeavoured to allot to particular constituencies, he would, at any rate, accept the principle of these Amendments. If the right hon. Baronet would do that, he thought he would greatly accelerate the progress of the Bill through Committee; and he trusted that the great good sense and moderation which had characterized the action of the right hon. Baronet in dealing with the Bill throughout its progress in Committee, up to the present moment, would again be exemplified by his acceptance of a principle which he (Mr. Raikes) believed would be acceptable to the Committee, and not very likely to be objected to, or made a subject of dispute outside the walls of Parliament. He begged to move the Amendment.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 43, line 8, after the word "The," insert the words "Northern or."—(Mr. Raikes.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the right hon. Gentleman was quite right in stating that the Government were under a pledge in this matter as regarded the merged boroughs; but no similar pledge had been given with regard to other places.
§ MR. RAIKESsaid, he had not stated that the Government were under a positive pledge, but rather a less definite engagement.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, there was a pledge by the Prime Minister in answer to a distinct inquiry. But although there was a pledge as regarded the merged boroughs, there was no similar pledge with regard to other places. It was true that in Scotland and Ireland the Boundary Commissioners had followed a different rule from that which they had pursued in England; but it had not been universally followed, although it was followed generally. The reason why they had selected the points of the compass as the names for the divisions of counties in those two countries was that in many cases in Scotland and Ireland there were no towns or well-known places in the divisions from which to name them. In England there were in nearly all the divisions of the different counties either merged boroughs, or municipal boroughs, or local government districts, or localities, commonly known as hundreds, or Petty Sessional divisions, or Poor Law Unions, from which to name them. That was the ease, indeed, in regard to the first division in the Schedule—the Biggleswade Division of the county of Bedford. It was the name both of a Poor Law Union and of a Petty Sessional division, and was, therefore, well known in the county. Then, if the Government were now to change the system of the nomenclature of the divisions, and were to alter in that House the names which appeared in the Bill, even if the alterations met with the general assent of hon. Members, they might expose themselves to a very general attack from persons outside the House. It would be said that if there had been the slightest idea that any change was to be made from 1509 the proposals of the Bill, great protests against such change would have been made; and he was bound to say that a general assent to the change on the part of the House might have very little effect. He believed that the names given to the divisions by the Commissioners had been pretty well received in the counties—perhaps better received in the counties than in the House of Commons, and he thought there had been more opposition or resistance to names within the House than throughout the counties themselves. Generally speaking, throughout the country the names appeared to have been well received. ["No, no!"] That, at all events, was his impression, and he had had a good opportunity of judging the matter, having received a good many communications upon the subject. He was bound to say that any change would occasion much disappointment to a great number of persons throughout the country. The right hon. Gentleman proposed the much milder course of applying to the new divisions names signified by the points of the compass. Now, there would be some difficulty in applying the points of the compass as names for divisions, because it would introduce confusion between the new, and the old, and well-known divisions of the counties—for instance, a voter would say—"I am an East Sussex voter;" but he would not know whether he was speaking of the old division or the new division of the county, and by that means a considerable amount of confusion might be created if they continued to use the name for a county division which was altogether and completely different from that to which the name formerly applied. As to the use of the alternative, he thought they would run the risk of creating a considerable amount of confusion by adopting that plan, in addition to which there would be a risk of error occasioned by having double names, and much additional trouble. In practice, two names were not likely to be used, and one or other would very soon be suppressed; while, at the same time, it would be necessary to use the whole of the name in all legal documents. If the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman were carried, in each case the legal name would be the whole name, and in the "Writ the division would have to be called the Northern or Biggleswade Di- 1510 vision. That might occasion confusion, trouble, and difficulty, and it certainly would entail the risk of error. Having stated these views to the Committee, he had no wish to express himself strongly upon the matter, either one way or the other. His own view was that it was not important by what name the division was known, inasmuch as hon. Members were likely to be called by the name of the county, one of the Members of which they were, rather than by the name of the division of the county for which they sat. He had already stated that opinion in the course of the debates upon the Bill. In many cases it was clear that the names of the divisions could not be taken from the points of the compass, because the county divisions were too numerous to allow that to be possible. In Lancashire and Yorkshire, as well as some other counties, there were so many divisions, and the counties were so largo, that it would be absolutely necessary to give the divisions distinguishing names. If, therefore, they were to give distinguishing names in some instances, and in others to call divisions after the points of the compass, the Bill would have a certain patchiness which would be undesirable. It was perfectly true that that argument was to a great extent met by the fact that patchiness, to a certain extent, existed as between Scotland, Ireland, and England. The whole question was, however, one of convenience; and if any general feeling was shown by the Committee on this matter of alternative names, he would reconsider the question before the Report. There would be certain other difficulties in the adoption of the points of the compass, arising from artificial distinctions, which had been established by the Boundary Commissioners themselves. There was more than one case on the Paper already in which it was proposed to give different names for one and the same division; and there would be considerable liability to confuse the arrangements if any alteration were made in the names selected by the Commissioners. When they named a county division after a district, town, or place they ran no risk whatever; but in many counties there would be great difficulty, even if the county were only small, in designating one or other of the artificially shaped divisions by a compass name. The right 1511 hon. Gentleman himself admitted that it was desirable to have certain differences of treatment in regard to the matter, because he had not only inserted borough names, but in some cases he had left in the name proposed by the Bill, while in others he proposed to substitute an alternative name, showing that he had himself followed some of the considerations which he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had endeavoured to place before the Committee. He would repeat that if there was any general or strong opinion upon the subject, he would reconsider the matter before the Report stage of the Bill; but, as at present advised in regard to the feeling of the Committee, and still more from what had reached him from correspondents in the country, he felt disposed, on the whole, to adhere to the scheme of the Boundary Commissioners.
§ MR. JAMES HOWARD,as Member for the constituency affected by the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Raikes), said, he rose to say that he entirely concurred in the views which the right hon. Gentleman had expressed. He was strongly of opinion that geographical divisions would be much more advantageous and more appropriate than the designations contained in the Bill. In this particular instance nothing could be more inappropriate than to turn the Northern Division of the county of Bedford into the Biggleswade Division. The town was in the extreme east of Bedfordshire, on the confines of Cambridgeshire. Then, again, he preferred the geographical division, because it followed the established practice. Hitherto every county in England which had been divided had been subjected to designations in accordance with the points of the compass; and why there should have been any reason for departure from that established practice he failed to understand. Considerable feeling was manifested in favour of geographical divisions when the Boundary Commissioners visited Bedfordshire. The sitting Members, however, by previous arrangement, abstained from taking part in the proceedings before the Commissioners. He should certainly, but for that understanding, have supported the application for geographical divisions. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had suggested 1512 that the course pursued in the Bill was generally popular; but he (Mr. Howard) was persuaded that geographical divisions would have been more popular.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he agreed very much in what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman opposite; but, at the same time, he was bound to say that he had himself received a considerable number of communications from different parts of the country with regard to the Bill, and there was considerable difference of opinion among his correspondents upon this particular point. While some expressed an opinion in favour of retaining the names proposed by the Boundary Commissioners in preference to geographical divisions, for one letter he had received in that sense he had received three or four in the opposite sense. If they were to go through, all the names which had been suggested by the Boundary Commissioners, he was afraid they would find themselves engaged in a good deal of discussion, in the course of which there would probably be some heated expression of opinion in regard to the claims of one place over another. He felt that the proposal of his right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Raikes) ought not to be made absolute in every case. It might be that taking the points of the compass would not always be the most convenient plan. There were certain counties in which, as the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had truly said, such a mode of division would not conveniently apply, and he should have felt that a serious difficulty, if it were not that his right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge proposed an ingenious method of meeting the difficulty, by giving an alternative. It seemed to him that, on the whole, to give an alternative was the best way of dealing with the matter. No doubt it involved the inconvenience of giving a long title; but, after all, it was only seldom that it would be necessary to make use of that title. It would generally be the case, as the right hon. Baronet had pointed out, that in speaking of one another they would use the name of the county which was represented. For instance, one Member would be spoken of as the Member for Bedfordshire, and others for whatever county they happened to represent. It would 1513 only be occasionally that any necessity for being more particular would arise, or that it would be necessary to refer to the particular division of the county for which the Member sat. He did not feel very strongly upon the subject himself; but he was inclined to think that, as far as the evidence went, there was a balance of testimony in favour of the alternative proposal.
§ MR. WALTERsaid, that, as his county (Berkshire) was affected by the Amendment of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Raikes), he merely rose to say that he was glad the subject had been brought under the consideration of the Committee. At the same time, as far as his own observation went, he felt bound to say that while he had received no expression of opinion in favour of the plan adopted by the Government of giving the names of towns instead of the points of the compass to the divisions of counties, he had received a good many expressions of opinion of an opposite character. Although he quite admitted the impossibility of attempting to apply the rule universally of what sailors called "boxing the compass," especially in the case of large counties, yet where it was practically easy, in counties like Bedfordshire or Berkshire, to take the compass points it would be preferable to do so, instead of taking the names from some unimportant towns. He thought the geographical was the better plan, and that was certainly the case in his own county. He would, therefore, support the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman.
§ MR. FLOYERthanked his right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Raikes) for the able manner in which he had brought the matter forward. Although it was not of vital importance, it was still a matter which was considered to be of some little importance to the counties; and in discussing the Amendment he thought that hon. Members might have a little more latitude than in ordinary circumstances, and that they might be allowed to go a little beyond the point they would be strictly confined to in the case of an ordinary Amendment, seeing that it was an Amendment which applied not to one particular case, but to a whole series of cases. His right hon. Friend had raised the whole question of county divisions, in bringing this Amendment 1514 before the Committee; and, therefore, hon. Members ought not to be considered bound to confine themselves strictly to the consideration of the case of the county of Bedford, when they were really dealing with a much larger question. It would possibly save a good deal of time if, upon the present Amendment, the Committee were allowed to discuss the way in which the counties generally were affected in the matter. The right hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had stated that all the representations, or a great majority of them, which had been made to him, had been rather in the direction of keeping the designations proposed by the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman said that, as far as he knew, there was no great objection to these designations, and that the particular occasion for discussing all these points in connection with the recommendations of the Boundary Commissioners was when the Commissioners paid their visits to the different counties. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to think that that was the proper time for those who took a particular view to express their opinion, and that they ought to have gone before the Commissioners. As a matter of fact, they had gone before the Commissioners, and when they had stated their views they were met by the statement that the Commissioners had been instructed to adopt the nomenclature from the extinguished boroughs. In his own case, in regard to the county he had the honour to represent (Dorsetshire) there was this little difficulty. The Bill of the Government, unfortunately, had been so very destructive in the West, and the boroughs had been so largely extinguished, that when they came to consider the necessity of fixing a name from that of some extinguished borough, they found that there were two or three deceased boroughs, or boroughs in the process of dying out; and, consequently, they had two or three boroughs competing for the honour of designating the new division of the county. What was the consequence? So far from everything being harmonious, and so far from everybody being agreed, as the right hon. Gentleman seemed to think, in the new nomenclature, each borough naturally wished to perpetuate its existence, as far as it could, in the nomenclature 1515 of the new division. Each borough was anxious to get its name attached to the division. No doubt the Commissioners carried out their work with the greatest urbanity, and expressed a wish to please all parties. In his county they proposed to give a sort of double name to the division. In the first instance it was proposed by the Commissioners, although the scheme had since been altered—he presumed by the right hon. Baronet—that the division in which he (Mr. Floyer) had the honour to live should be called the Dorchester and Weymouth Division. It would seem that the right hon. Baronet had demurred to that, not wishing to have a long title of that kind. Then, again, with regard to the Wareham Division, it was originally proposed to designate it as the Poole and Wareham Division. What was the consequence? When the Bill came to be examined, they found that in some cases the right hon. Baronet had retained the name of one borough, while that of the other had altogether disappeared. That course had given rise to great dissatisfaction; and the only way in which they could now remedy the grievance was, he humbly submitted, to support cordially the proposition of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Raikes). Certainly, the only way in his own county of dealing with this little difficulty was to adopt the points of the compass. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote), whose lead they were happy to follow on that side of the House, had said very truly that they could not have a fixed rule for all counties. But, at all events, in Dorsetshire they were better situated than some other counties in regard to this question. He did not think that the youngest scholar in one of the elementary schools would be at any loss in dividing the county, seeing that there was only one part of it naturally North, another naturally South, a third part naturally East, and a fourth naturally West. The county, therefore, would easily be divided; there was no geographical difficulty whatever; and, under all the circumstances, without losing sight of what his right hon. Friend had so happily put before the Committee, he thought the old traditions of that 1516 side of the House—and the traditions of the counties were not the least of England's great traditions — should be preserved. He, therefore, sincerely trusted that the old names of the counties would be preserved; and, although he was afraid that "the knight of the shire" would hardly appear again in that House, still some of the descendants of those who had enjoyed that title might in future years represent divisions of the old county under the old county name, without the county being absorbed in the name of some extinguished borough, however important that borough might be. He therefore cordially supported the proposition of his right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge; and he hoped that the evident sense of the Committee, which had already been distinctly shown, would induce the President of the Local Government Board to accept the proposal.
§ SIR HUSSEY VIVIANsaid, he had also to thank his right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Raikes) for having brought this matter so clearly and forcibly before the Committee. The county of Glamorganshire, which he (Sir Hussey Vivian) represented, could be very easily divided by the four points of the compass, seeing that it lent itself geographically to such a division. He thought he might safely say that there was a general consensus of opinion in that county in favour of the points of the compass being adopted instead of the names now proposed in the Bill, which did not in any way represent the divisions to which they were to be attached. The names were those of very small places, and did not strictly or accurately, in any way, represent the divisions to which they were supposed to be applied; whereas, on the other hand, the points of the compass would strictly and accurately represent those divisions. There was a very strong-feeling on the subject in Glamorganshire. They had not the least desire to lose their old name, of which they felt very proud. He had a letter in his pocket from the Chairman of the Quarter Sessions—a gentleman who did not agree with him in politics, but on this point he was very strong—and he said that he was himself decidedly of opinion that they ought to sail under the old flag. He (Sir Hussey Vivian) certainly could not understand why these fancy 1517 names should have been introduced into the Bill contrary to the feeling of the counties. Surely the county feeling ought to prevail in matters of this kind. There was nothing depending on the name in a political sense, and all political Parties were agreed as far as his county was concerned. He therefore trusted that the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) would give way in the matter, and that he would not postpone the question until the Report. Why should it be postponed until the Report? He (Sir Hussey Vivian) had already expressed a strong opinion before the Commissioners, and he had received many intimations from persons who belonged to the county that there was a general desire to adopt the points of the compass; whereas, on the other hand, he had not received a single communication in opposition to that plan. Under such circumstances, why should the consideration of the matter be postponed until the Report? Why should they not settle the question now? If they made any mistake they could easily rectify that mistake hereafter. Surely the Committee stage was the proper stage for dealing with a question of this kind. The object of the Report was to enable the House to set right any mistake which might have been made in Committee, or for reconsideration of any point. Under all the circumstances, he trusted—and he would urge it very strongly upon his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board—that he would allow the Committee to adopt, in the case of the counties, geographical designations.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that after the appeal which had been made to him by the hon. Baronet who had just spoken (Sir Hussey Vivian), as well as by the right hon. Baronet the Leader of the Opposition and others, he felt bound to give way. He hoped that hon. Members would help him in bearing the brunt of the disappointed localities. He proposed to adopt the alternative names in certain cases—in such cases, in fact, as were contemplated in the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment.
§ MR. DODDSsaid, he was extremely glad that his right hon. Friend in charge of the Bill (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had yielded to the evident sense of the Committee; but he trusted that no arbitrary rule would be applied to every case, but 1518 that each case would be dealt with as it arose upon its own merits. For instance, in his (Mr. Dodd's) own county of Durham, there were three or four special names which might be preferred to the points of the compass. If each case was dealt with as it arose, he thought that no practical difficulty would be found; and, under the circumstances, he was glad to support the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman opposite.
§ MR. DUCKHAMsaid, he wished to say a word in support of the Amendment which had been moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Raikes). In the county which he represented (Herefordshire) there had been a great deal of correspondence in the county papers respecting the coming Election; but nobody ever dreamt of calling the divisions by the names selected by the Commissioners. The designations "North" and "South" were invariably preferred; and he was satisfied that the Amendment suggested by the right hon. Gentleman would be entirely acceptable in his county.
§ MR. FREMANTLEsaid, he was also in favour of the Amendment. There was a strong feeling that the county he represented should be known by geographical names — such as North and South Bucks, rather than as the Buckingham, Aylesbury, and Wycombe Division. That opinion was almost universal. A Memorial of some importance and weight was presented to the Commissioner in favour of that course when he visited the town of Aylesbury; but, of course, the Commissioner was obliged to abide by his instructions. The divisions would go by the names of North, Mid, and South Bucks, whether those were the official names or not. He (Mr. Fremantle) sincerely trusted that the county of Buckingham, as well as others, would have the benefit of the alternative suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University.
§ SIR HUSSEY VIVIANsaid, he wished to guard himself against its being taken as satisfactory by himself and other Members of the House that the points of compass should only be alternative names. Many thought the names originally proposed should be omitted, and that the points of the compass should be adopted per se. When 1519 the proper time came he should be ready to move an Amdndment to that effect as far as his own county was concerned.
§ MR. RAIKESsaid, he was sure the House was much indebted to the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Charles W. Dilke) for having so speedily caught the evident sense of the Committee. He (Mr. Raikes) wished merely to ask the right hon. Gentleman what course he proposed now to adopt in regard to the Amendments? He (Mr. Raikes) had placed a large number of Amendments on the Paper which the right hon. Gentleman was now good enough to say that he would accept, in the main, very much as they stood. He wished to know if the right hon. Gentleman desired that he (Mr. Raikes) should postpone them for the present, or was he prepared to go into them at once? It appeared to him that it would be the most convenient course to take them as they were arrived at on the Paper.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he had already stated that he would accept the principal part of the Amendments; therefore the best course would be to proceed with them at once. He had already proposed to deal with the matter on the Report; but he gathered it to be the evident sense of the Committee that the matter should be dealt with now.
§ MR. WARTONsaid, he wished to make a very small suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Charles W. Dilke), who had displayed his usual wisdom in accepting at once the evident sense of the Committee. His suggestion had reference to the mode in which they were to deal with the points of the compass—whether they were to use the terms "North," "South," "East," and "West," or "Northern," "Southern," "Eastern," and "Western." He did not know whether it was necessary to have any Amendment upon that point; but he would like the right hon. Gentleman who had moved the present Amendment (Mr. Raikes) and the right hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill to consider the matter. All through the Sixth Schedule, wherever they had to deal with the points of the compass, they used the words "North," South," "East," and "West;" and he wished to know whether the right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Raikes) and the right hon. Baronet would prefer in regard to the counties 1520 the terms "Northern," "Southern," &c.?
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, the Amendment, as he understood his right hon. Friend (Mr. Raikes), was as alternative proposal. He (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) quite agreed with the hon. Baronet the Member for Glamorganshire (Sir Hussey Vivian) that there should be no alternative at all, but that the names attached to the divisions should be in accordance with the points of the compass, and that the names of the local towns should be omitted altogether. In that case it would be necessary to leave out the word "or," and he would therefore propose to amend the Amendment by omitting the word "or."
§ Amendment proposed to said proposed Amendment, to leave out the word "or."—(Sir Michael Hicks-Beach.)
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'or' stand part of the said proposed Amendment."
§ MR. RAIKESsaid, he objected to the proposed alteration. In including the word. "or," he had done so because it was necessary to fit his Amendment to the county divisions as proposed by the Bill. He understood there were a great many hon. Members who were prepared to accept the alternative proposal, but who would not go so far as to obliterate altogether the particular names of certain localities inserted by the Government in the Bill. His own view was strongly in favour of the points of the compass, and he was grateful to those hon. Members who had been good enough to come there to support his proposition. But if he were now to go further than the original proposition he had submitted to the Committee he might be accused of a breach of faith. He would, therefore, be glad if his right hon. Friend the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) would be content to leave the Amendment as he (Mr. Raikes) had proposed it, and allow any further matter to remain over for consideration upon the Report.
MR. P. A. MUNTZsaid, the Committee were, very much indebted to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Raikes) for having brought the question forward. Although he (Mr. Muntz) had no connection with Biggleswade, he had placed an Amendment on the Paper in reference to the county which he had the 1521 honour to represent. He was, however, quite prepared to accept the right hon. Gentleman's alternative Amendment, although he should not be prepared to accept an additional Amendment which proposed to leave out the alternative, and merely to give the points of the compass. He saw no objection to the suggestion of the right hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill (Sir Charles W. Dilke), that they should take these alternative Amendments now. But he thought there might be a grave objection made in various counties if they were to leave out the designation of the names of towns merely in favour of adopting the points of the compass. The manner in which the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman had been supported by the Committee conclusively proved that the geographical knowledge of hon. Members was not sufficiently extensive to enable them to know the localities in which all the small boroughs whose names were mentioned in the Bill might be situated.
§ MR. JAMES HOWARDsaid, he hoped that the alternative proposal would not be disturbed. For instance, in the Southern Division of the county of Bedford there was a very important town and a very important industry associated with that town. He referred to the town of Luton, and he knew that the people of Luton held strongly to the view that the name of their town should not be entirely got rid of. He would, therefore, prefer the alternative proposed by the right hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Raikes).
MR. FLOWERsaid, he fully concurred with what had fallen from his hon. Friend (Mr. James Howard), and he accepted the alternative proposed by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Raikes) with the same pleasure with which he believed the people of Luton were ready to accept it. He admitted the desirability of attaching the points of the compass to the county divisions; but, at the same time, it would be advantageous to abide by the alternative contained in the Bill, which gave the distinct designation of different localities.
§ MR. WHITBREADsaid, that he also supported the view which had been expressed by his hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire (Mr. James Howard). He quite thought that it would give rise to a good deal of disappointment if the 1522 alternative name was not adhered to. He supported with pleasure the Amendment which had been made for inserting the points of the compass; but he hoped the other alternative names would also be allowed to stand. In so doing no injustice would be done to anybody.
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACHsaid, he really did not wish to put the Committee to the trouble of a division, or to raise any lengthened debate on the subject. After the concession which had already been made by the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) he was quite willing, as far as he was personally concerned, to leave any further matter over until the Report.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that in reference the observations which had fallen from the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) he might state what the principle adopted in the first Reform Bill was in regard to the use of the term "North" or "Northern." In the Act of 1832 the words were "Northern" or "Southern," and so forth; but in the Reform Act of 1867, and in the Boundary Act of 1868, although the counties were divided into North, South, West, and East, the West Riding was divided into the Northern, Southern, and Eastern Divisions. In other cases, such as Lancashire for instance, the divisions were North, North-East, South-East, and South-West.
§ MR. RAIKESsaid, they were always in that House in the habit of speaking of hon. Members as, for instance, the hon. Member for North Norfolk, South Norfolk, or West Norfolk; yet he believed that the proper designation in the issue of a Writ was the Northern, Southern, or Western Division. He believed that was the practice created by the Reform Bill of 1832, and it was a practice quite in agreement with grammar, as well as geography; and he, therefore, in moving his Amendments, proposed to adhere to it.
§ MR. WARTONsaid, he thought that the words "Northern" and "Southern" were certainly better than "North" and "South." It was not necessary to go back to the first Reform Bill, when in the 6th Schedule of the present Bill they had inserted throughout the words "North" and "South," although, for himself, he preferred "Northern" and "Southern." What he wished to guard 1523 against was the mixing up of the two terms.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEremarked that in the Acts of 1867 and 1868 both terms were used. It was not, however, a matter of any very great importance.
§ Amendment to said proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Question, "That the words 'Northern or' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
§ MR. WARTON,in moving as an Amendment, in page 43, line 11, to leave out the word "and," and at the end of line 12 to add the words "in the Sessional Division of Ampthill," said, the paragraph in the Schedule would then provide that the Northern or Biggleswade Division should consist of the Sessional Divisions of Bedford, Biggleswade, and Sharnbrook, the parishes of Ampthill, Claphill, Cranfield, Hawnes, Houghton Conquest, Lidlington, Marston Mortaine, Moulden, and Millbrook, in the Sessional Division of Ampthill, and the municipal borough of Bedford.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 43, line 11, to leave out the word "and."—{Mr. Warton.)
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'and' stand part of the Schedule."
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the first of the two Amendments of the hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. War-ton) was undoubtedly right. The second was right to a certain extent; but it was proposed to be inserted in the wrong place. He agreed to the first Amendment.
§ Question put, and agreed to; word left out accordingly.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that before the hon. and learned Member moved the next Amendment, he wished to point out that the right place for it was before that in which it was proposed to insert it—namely, in line 11, before the word "parishes." He would propose to amend the Amendment by inserting the words "in the Sessional Division of Ampthill" at the commencement of line 11.
§ MR. WARTONsaid, he would accept the proposed Amendment.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 43, line 11, before the word "the," to insert the words "in the Sessional Division of Ampthill."—{Sir Charles W. Bilks.)
§ Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to; words inserted accordingly.
§ On the Motion of Mr. RAIKES, the following Amendment made:—In page 43, line 14, after "The," insert "Southern or."
§ MR. WARTON,in moving, as an Amendment, in page 43, line 16, to insert "and Luton," said, this was a verbal correction rendered necessary by the extraordinary way in which the Bill had been printed. It would appear that the Sessional Divisions were intended to comprise Luton; but that was not perfectly clear owing to the way in which the Bill had been drafted. He would, therefore, move an Amendment to correct the error.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 43, line 16, after the word "Woburn," to insert the words "and Luton."—{Mr. Warton.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he presumed the objection of the hon. and learned Member was to the three columns, instead of two, which appeared in connection with this division.
§ MR. WARTONreplied in the affirmative.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he was not responsible for that; but he was afraid that if they were to attempt to amend the Schedule in that respect they would run the risk of creating some inconvenience. He hoped the hon. and learned Member would accept his apology, and would not press the Amendment.
THE CHAIRMANsaid, he understood that it was quite unusual to alter the printing of a Bill, except for the purposes of amending it. The Bill had been committed to the House for the purposes of amendment; and it was not the custom, in amending it, to alter the mode in which it had been printed.
§ MR. WARTONsaid, the explanation was quite satisfactory, and he would not press the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. WARTONsaid, there was another Amendment which was not on the Paper. In the last column were the words— 1525
So much of the Sessional Division of Ampthill as is not comprised in Division No. 1 as herein described.He proposed to omit those words in order to insert the names of the different localities from the map. His object in moving the Amendment was to call attention to what seemed to him to be an error in the mode in which the divisions were described.So much of the Sessional Division of Ampthill as is not comprised in Division No. 1 as herein describedwas certainly a very clumsy way of avoiding the difficulty that might be involved in giving part of a sessional division in one portion of the Schedule, and the remaining part in another portion. In using the words "so much of a particular Sessional Division" as was not already contained elsewhere, what might happen was this—that after the parishes comprised in one part had been gone through, it was quite possible that some parish or other would find its way into the division of the county in which it was not intended to be placed. He maintained that in regard to both divisions there ought to be an exact statement of the parishes comprised within it. They had already inserted the names of the parishes contained in the Northern Division, and he thought they ought to take a similar course in regard to the Southern Division. He should like to know from the right hon. Baronet if this was the form in which the division was set out by the Boundary Commissioners, and whether they had put down carefully in each case what the districts were? If that were so, and he believed it was, he could not understand why the Bill had not been drafted in the same manner. The only object in putting downSo much of the Sessional Division of Ampthill as is not comprised in Division No. 1 as herein describedcould have been to save trouble. He thought it was of great importance, in order to prevent mistakes, that this Amendment should be made, because, if it should so happen that someplace or other was omitted in a particular division, it was quite possible for it to be placed in a wrong division altogether.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 43, line 16, to leave out the words "so much of the Sessional Division of Ampthill
1526
as is not comprised in Division No. 1 as herein described."—(Mr. Warton.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, this Amendment raised the same question they had discussed upon a former occasion. He could not answer the question of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Warton) as to the form in which the recommendation was received from the Boundary Commissioners, or whether it had been changed in the drafting of the Bill. As a matter of fact, the boundaries were set out in accordance with the Ordnance Survey. All the Petty Sessional divisions had been gone through and settled before the draftsman drew up the Schedule; but what the actual points were that were agreed to between the Commissioners and the draftsman he was unable to say. He understood, however, that they were quite satisfied with the way in which the Schedules had been drawn up.
§ MR. WARTONasked if the Schedules were submitted to the Boundary Commissioners after the Bill had been drafted?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the Commissioners told him they were of opinion that the Bill had been properly drawn up.
§ MR. WARTONsaid, that under those circumstances he would not press the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. RALKESmoved an Amendment in page 43, line 24, to describe the Abingdon "Division as the" Northern or Abingdon Division."
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 43, line 24, after the word "The," insert the words "Northern or."—(Mr. Raikes.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, it was right he should point out to the Committee that the case for the use of the word "Abingdon" was stronger than that in the previous instances, seeing that Abingdon was the name of an extinguished borough.
MR. CREEMER CLARKEsaid, that the Government had accepted the prin- 1527 ciple of the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman, and he must submit. Had it proposed to leave out all reference to Abingdon he should have been compelled to have opposed the Amendment.
§ Question put, and agreed to; words inserted accordingly.
§ MR. RAIKESmoved an Amendment in line 1, page 44, to describe the Newbury Division as the "Southern or Newbury Division."
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 44, line 1, after the word "The," to insert the words "Southern or."—(Mr. Raikes.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEasked the right hon. Gentleman whether, in regard to this Amendment, he thought the word "Southern" was better than the word "Mid?"
§ MR. RAIKESsaid, that was a question entirely for the consideration of geographers; but, judging from the map, he thought that in this case the most accurate designation was to describe the division as "Southern." He had no objection, however, to call it "Mid," or "Western." Perhaps the most convenient course for the right hon. Gentleman would be to accept it in the form in which the Amendment now stood upon the Paper; and if he subsequently thought proper to vary the description, the alteration might be made on the Report.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he certainly could not call this the "Western Division," because it did not contain the most westerly portion of the county. The most westerly portions were in the Northern Division. In order, however, to save time, he would accept the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman.
§ Question put, and agreed to; words inserted accordingly.
§ MR. RAIKESsaid, he had one more Amendment with regard to the Berkshire Division—namely, in page 44, line 10, to describe the Wokingham Division as the "Eastern or Wokingham Division."
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 44, line 10, after the word "The," to insert the words "Eastern or."—(Mr. Raikes.)
§ Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
§ On the Motion of Mr. FREMANTLE, the following Amendments made:—In page 44, line 21, after "The, "insert "Northern or;" in line 27, after "The," insert "Mid or;" and in line 35, after "The," insert "Southern or."
§ MR. RAIKESsaid, that the next Amendment he had to move was one which raised a rather peculiar question. It was not merely an Amendment intended to introduce the points of the compass, but to change absolutely the name which the Commissioners had assigned to a particular division. The Commissioners had divided the county of Cambridge, to which this Amendment related, into three divisions, which they had named respectively the Wisbech Division, the Chesterton Division, and the Newmarket Division. Now, Newmarket was a place of some notoriety; but Wisbech and Chesterton were hardly equally well known. The division which it was proposed to name after the town of Wisbech—he wished no disrespect to Wisbech, for he believed it was a thriving and a rising town—contained a part of England which was famous in English history—namely, the Isle of Ely. The boundaries of the division were not, it was true, absolutely coterminous with the Isle of Ely; but he believed there was an Amendment on the Paper intended to bring them into closer uniformity with that particular district. At all events, the more important part of North Cambridgeshire would be the Isle of Ely; and he had reason to believe, from what he had been able to gather in the county, that there was a very strong feeling in favour of retaining the name of the Isle of Ely. The Commissioners had decided to adopt the name of the Isle of Thanet as a designation of an electoral district; and he could not see why the Isle of Ely, which contained rather more than the population required to form one of the new county constituencies, should not be entitled to retain that name. He did not speak as a Representative of Cambridgeshire, but as one who had considerable opportunity of learning what was the feeling of the people in that county; and he was bound to say he had found a unanimous feeling on the part of everybody connected with the county whom he had 1529 seen in favour of the name of the Isle of Ely being given to this division of Cambridgeshire. He hoped the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) would be willing to accept the Amendment as it stood. He was obliged to the right hon. Baronet for the intimation of his willingness to accept the first part of the Amendment—namely, the words "Northern or." He would move the Amendment as it stood on the Paper, and hoped to hear from the right hon. Baronet that he was willing to alter the name of the Wisbech Division to the "Northern or Isle of Ely."
§ Amendment proposed, in page 45, line 4, after "The," leave out "Wisbech" and insert "Northern or Isle of Ely."—(Mr. Raikes.)
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'Wisbech' stand part of the Schedule."
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that perhaps the more convenient course would be for the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Raikes) to move the insertion of the words "Northern or," because by the Amendment, as it now stood, they were really raising two questions.
§ MR. RAIKESsaid, he would be happy to accept the suggestion of the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke), and withdraw the Amendment as it stood on the Paper, and confine himself to moving the insertion of the words "Northern or."
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 45, line 4, after the word "The," to insert the words "Northern or."—(Mr. Raikes.)
§ Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
§ MR. RAIKESsaid, he would now move, after the word "or" to leave out the word "Wisbech," in order to insert the words "Isle of Ely." He did not wish to delay the Committee in coming to a decision upon this question. It was quite true that the division, as proposed by the Commissioners, did not include the Palace or the Cathedral of the Bishops of Ely; but it did include the town of Ely. A very trifling rectification of frontier might enable the division to include also the heart of the City of Ely, in which case they would have the whole of the Isle of Ely in- 1530 cluded within the limits of the new division. He did not intend to raise the question of the rectification of frontier; it would be better spoken to by his hon. Friends the Members for the county. He could not help thinking, however, that it would be a great pity if they were to miss the opportunity, when they were making these new divisions, of giving to the Northern Division of Cambridgeshire, which consisted in so large a part of the Isle of Ely—which had its own jurisdiction and its own custos rotulorum; and which was, to many intents and purposes, a separate county—it was extremely to be desired that this new division should have given to it a local name—a name which was familiar, historical, and respected. As he had previously said, he meant no disrespect to Wisbech; but Wisbech had not hitherto played the same part in the history of England as the Isle of Ely. He presumed the intention of the Government was to give some indication of something with which a Member could be associated; and he imagined that the Representative of the division would much prefer to be known as the Member for the Isle of Ely rather than as the Representative of the Wisbech Division of the county of Cambridgeshire. He therefore begged to move that "Isle of Ely" be substituted for "Wisbech."
§ Amendment proposed, in page 45, line 4, to leave out the word "Wisbech," in order to insert the words "Isle of Ely,"—(Mr. Raikes,)—instead thereof.
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'Wisbech' stand part of the Schedule."
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, his own personal feeling at first was rather with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Raikes); but he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) would put before the Committee the considerations which weighed very strongly with the Boundary Commissioners in this matter. He had had a conversation with one of the Commissioners, from which he was led to take their view—a view which was contrary to that of the right hon. Gentleman. As the right hon. Gentleman had said, the City of Ely itself was not in the Wisbech Division, and therefore the division could hardly be called by the name of the Isle of Ely without making an alteration of the boundaries— 1531 a course which he thought the Committee would hardly like to take. Now, this was not a case which stood by itself. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of the Commissioners having called one of the new constituencies the Isle of Thanet. In that division the whole of the Isle of Thanet was included; but this was a case of a very different kind. The Commissioners felt themselves forced, in order to effect an equalization of the population, to disregard the boundaries of the Isle of Ely. Now, he repeated that this was not a case which stood by itself. There were a great many cases of divisions of counties—statutory divisions of counties—which were sub-divided. There was the case of the Liberty of Peterborough—of the Liberty of Havering-atte-Bower in Essex—of the Liberty of Ripon—and of another Liberty in Yorkshire; and there were cases in Lincolnshire—and there were statutory divisions in the county of Sussex—all these were similar cases to the Isle of Ely. The Commissioners had thought that the disparity of population which would be created if the Isle of Ely were made one division would be greater than the intention of Parliament appeared to authorize. The Isle of Ely would be a division of between 63,000 and 64,000 people; and the other two divisions of the county would have an average population of 40,000. [Mr. BULWER: 44,000 and 42,000.] He had worked out the figures which would result from the Amendment which appeared in the name of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Hicks), and the distribution would be as follows:—The Isle of Ely would have 63,328 inhabitants, the Western Division would have 42,451 inhabitants, and the Eastern Division would have 38,937 inhabitants — that being a very low population indeed for one division, as compared with the 63,328 for the Isle of Ely. Now, the local feeling upon this subject was by no means so unanimous as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge seemed to imagine. At the local inquiry which was held by the Commissioners a very strong opinion was expressed in favour of the divisions as now proposed, and since that time the opinion had been re-expressed. That being the case, he did not like to accede to the wish of the 1532 right hon. Gentleman. He thought that upon the whole they would do well to retain the divisions of the county as proposed by the Commissioners; and if they retained the divisions they must retain also the names fixed upon by the Commissioners.
§ MR. BULWERsaid, he differed from the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Charles W. Dilke) in some respects with reference to statistics. He made the population of the Isle of Ely 63,323; of the Western Division, 42,290; and of the Eastern Division. 44,600.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he thought the hon. and learned Member would find that his total for the whole county was wrong; his numbers were certainly not correct, for the Isle of Ely, according to the last Census.
§ MR. BULWERsaid, that as to the action of the Boundary Commissioners, they, no doubt, felt that the population of the several divisions should be equalized as far as practicable. But the object of the Bill was not to introduce equal electoral districts. In the directions to the Commissioners it was laid down that each division should be laid out, if possible, according to its geographical position, and based on existing areas. The case of the Isle of Ely was unique—there was not another like it in the Kingdom. He had inquired as to what took place before the Commissioners; and he was told that there had only been one person who raised any protest against the suggestion made on behalf of those who were in favour of the retention of the Isle of Ely as a separate division. He (Mr. Bulwer) had had an opportunity of ascertaining the views of those interested in the county; and he found there were a large proportion in favour of the retention of the Isle of Ely. There were others who were indifferent; but he had not met a single person who had raised any objection to the proposal. As to the feeling of the other two divisions, the population within them was, so far as he could ascertain, in favour of the retention of the Isle of Ely as a separate division. The only thing that could be said of the division made by the Boundary Commissioners was that it equalized the population, upon which the right hon. Baronet had laid such great stress. Well, he (Mr. Bulwer) would not trouble the 1533 Committee by going into the different divisions of the whole Kingdom; but he would take, by way of illustration, the two adjoining counties. One, Bedfordshire, was to have two Members, and the population was 129,940—that was, 64,970 for each Member. That was a larger population than it was proposed to give to the Isle of Ely. The other, Huntingdonshire, was to have two Members for a population of 57,220, or one Member to each 28,610. There was no single division in Cambridgeshire, supposing the population of the Isle of Ely to be taken out, that would have a population anything like so low as 28,610. With regard to the Isle of Ely, he had in his hand two Petitions that had been presented to the House, one from the magistrates, who he believed were unanimous on the subject, and the other—which had only reached 'him that afternoon—from the inhabitants of the Isle of Ely, with the approval of the Bishop and Canons, who were all interested in the retention of the City of Ely as a portion of the Isle of Ely. Without going very deeply into Parliamentary history, he might say that the Isle of Ely was, for all practical purposes, a distinct county. Ely was formerly a county palatine. As was well known in history, it was the last stronghold in the country that stood out against the invasion of William the Conqueror; it had a special custos rotulorum in the person of the Duke of Bedford, who was appointed by the Crown; it had a separate Commission of the Peace and a separate Quarter Sessions, and formerly a Chief Justice; a separate county rate and separate Coroners; and Sheriffs were chosen alternately from Cambridgeshire, Huntingdonshire, and the Isle of Ely. Physically and geographically, the Isle of Ely was distinct from the county of Cambridge. There were, no doubt, in the Committee hon. Members who had been to Newmarket and knew the distinction between Newmarket Heath and the Fen land of the Isle of Ely. And some might also understand the feelings of the Bishop and clergy of Ely at the prospect of being added to Newmarket. But he would point out to the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) that the magistrates of the county of Cambridge had no jurisdiction in the Isle of Ely, and that the magistrates in the 1534 Isle of Ely had no jurisdiction in the county of Cambridge. What, then, would happen under the proposal of the Bill? They were going to divide the Isle of Ely into three portions. To take a simple practical question—who was to appoint the polling places in those portions of the Isle which were to form parts of the Newmarket and Chesterton Divisions? The magistrates of the county of Cambridge would not be able to do it, because they had no jurisdiction in the Isle of Ely; and if the magistrates of the Isle were to do it, they would be acting in a matter which no longer concerned them. In addition to that, he might say that on many important questions there would be likely to be great diversity of opinion between these districts. Take the great question which was before the House in the last Parliament—namely, the drainage question. That which was to the interest of those residing in the uplands, or the Newmarket Division, was diametrically opposed to that which was to the interest of the inhabitants of the Isle of Ely or the Fen country. He thought, therefore, there was a very good case to be made out why "the Isle of Ely" should be retained a so complete division by itself; and he hoped, that, as the right hon. Baronet had stated that, primâ facie, he was inclined to agree to the Amendment, the proposal would not be rejected. He (Mr. Bulwer), in this matter, was speaking against his own personal interest—because a great addition would be made to the new constituency which he aspired to represent, and he need not point out to the Committee what that would entail.
§ MR. HICKSsaid, he wished to say a word or two upon the Amendment really before the Committee, the attention of hon. Members having been lately directed to that which was practically the second Amendment, which was of a different character. The question was simply as to a name, and he would submit that as the division or district named in the Bill was entirely the Isle of Ely, and as he knew, from his own communication with the inhabitants of the place, that they wished that name to be kept up, he thought there should be no difficulty whatever in accepting the Amendment of his right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cam- 1535 bridge (Mr. Raikes) to leave out the name "Wisbech" in favour of "the Isle of Ely." The acceptance of that Amendment would not, he thought, in any way prejudice an Amendment of a very different character which stood on the Paper in his (Mr. Hicks's) own name. If the right hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill (Sir Charles W. Dilke) would accept the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge, he (Mr. Hicks) could assure him that he would not look upon it as in any way strengthening his position. He certainly thought that, taking into consideration the historical value of the name "the Isle of Ely," it would be merely an act of grace on the part of the Committee to retain it as the name of a division.
§ MR. WARTONsaid, he thought that even the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Charles W. Dilke) must be very much impressed by the number of reasons—solid and substantial reasons—adduced by the hon. and learned Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Bulwer) in support of the retention of the old name of "the Isle of Ely." He (Mr. Warton) was not going to repeat those arguments, because he was sure they could not be better expressed than they had already been by the hon. and learned Member; but he wished to call the attention of the right hon. Baronet to what appeared to him to be an inconsistency, if he might say so, on his part in fighting as he had done a short time ago—though, at last, he gracefully gave way—for the retention in the county of Bedford of such a name as Biggleswade. The attention of the Committee should be drawn to the fact that the Biggleswade area did not represent more than a fourth part of the county division, and yet it was proposed that that place should give its name to the division. Wisbech would really be composed for the greater part of the Isle of Ely; therefore, when the right hon. Gentleman had fought for the retention of the name of Biggleswade, it was straining at a gnat and swallowing the camel.
§ MR. PELLsaid, that a great many reasons had been advanced by his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Bulwer) for making this change in the name of the division; but, amongst other reasons, there was one which the hon. and learned Member omitted to mention— 1536 namely, that the Isle of Ely had been represented in Parliament in 1654, when it sent two Members to that House as a separate county division. He did not know whether that would have any weight in the right hon. Gentleman's (Sir Charles W. Dilke's) mind; but he thought it ought to have. Beyond that, there had been arguments advanced by Members of the county which were very substantial ones. He himself had some knowledge of the district, and was aware of the fact that there was a very strong feeling—not a political one, but, nevertheless, a strong feeling—in favour of making the Isle of Ely a distinct electoral division. He was quite aware of the difficulty of acceding to that request from the point of view of numbers; but he believed that the statistics that had been laid before the Committee had been over-stated. What would constitute the new Isle of Ely? He had worked the figures out very carefully; and, supposing the Amendment were accepted, the result he had arrived at was that there would be 62,540 in the Isle of Ely, whilst one division of the county would have 43,222, and the other 39,900, or not above 3,000 one way or the other. The character of that part of the county was so marked that he had thought this proposal would have had more influence than it seemed to have had on the mind of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill. The limits of it were extremely well defined, both by the river and other boundaries; whereas the district of Newmarket was extremely irregular, taking in three parishes of Ely, and running up into a point. The proposal of the Boundary Commissioners and of the Government really had regard to population alone. He was satisfied that that proposal had been made in ignorance of the real state of things that existed in the district in question; and he hoped, therefore, that having heard the arguments, the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider his decision upon the point.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he felt bound to point out to his hon. Friends that there was another principle to sustain in the discussion of these matters—one which he thought they ought to pay great attention to. The question was not only as to the position of the county of Cambridge, but as to how far they were to maintain or depart 1537 from the decision of the Boundary Commissioners. That, he must represent to his hon. Friends, was a very important point. The whole of their scheme rested very much upon this—that having established the principles upon which the divisions were to be made, it was necessary to leave the mode in which the divisions were to be fixed to the gentlemen, appointed from their known capacity and impartiality, to go down into the localities as Commissioners., and devise a proper scheme of distribution. So far as the evidence before the Committee went it showed that these gentlemen had in all cases exhibited great fairness and anxiety to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion. Of course, they might have been wrong in certain cases. There might be cases in which it was desirable that they should reconsider their decision; but he thought the Committee ought to be very slow indeed to make alterations, and to have a very strong case before they departed from the decision at which the Commissioners had arrived. If they once let go that stronghold, if they once went back upon that arrangement, they might find themselves in a very awkward position in regard to other cases that might be brought before them in the future. As a matter of name, they would, of course, all regret very much that so famous a name as the Isle of Ely should be passed over, and it might be well worthy of conderation whether that name might not be retained without altering the boundaries of the division as fixed by the Commissioners. He would ask the Committee, in the first instance, to decide the question of the boundary. On the whole, he thought it would be better for the Amendment to be withdrawn for the present, and leave the question of the name of the new division to be settled on Report.
§ MR. HICKSsaid, the Amendment before the Committee was simply as to the question of name, and the few remarks he had ventured to trouble the Committee with had been confined entirely to that question. It was perfectly distinct from the other matter, and if it were the pleasure of the Committee and of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Raikes) that the proposal should be withdrawn for a time, and the other Amendment standing in his (Mr. Hicks') name proceeded with, he should be prepared to bring 1538 forward the more serious Amendment which he bad placed on the Paper.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that with regard to the name he must point out to the Committee that a very serious difficulty would arise. As the Commissioners had divided the county, the city of Ely, which was the most ancient part of the division of the Isle of Ely, would not be in the district which would take the name of the Isle. Therefore, there could not be very much force in the argument as to the name.
§ MR. RAIKESsaid, there seemed to be some misapprehension as to the Amendment which was really before them. As had been pointed out, the Amendment had nothing to do with boundaries except incidentally; it had entirely to do with the question of the name. He felt, however, there was some inconvenience in discussing the question of name before they had decided the question of boundary; and he, therefore, thought it would be a more convenient course if the Committee would allow him to withdraw the Amendment, and so enable the question of boundaries to be taken up. If that question should be settled so as to create a district more clearly coinciding with the ancient boundaries of the Isle of Ely, the question of name could be brought on at a more convenient time.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. HICKSsaid, he now begged to move the Amendment which stood in his name. As the Bill was drawn, certain parts of the Isle of Ely were taken away and added to the Western Division, and other parts were taken away and added to the Newmarket Division. The Amendment he proposed was simply to retain these places in the Isle of Ely, and constitute the Isle an independent division of the county. There were one or two misprints in the Amendment, but he thought they would be easily corrected. The Isle of Ely had been an independent district for centuries, and it had great historical associations connected with it, and it was not right, at the mere caprice of three Commissioners, that it should be cut into pieces. Surely, the Committee was free to entertain a question of this kind, affecting, as it did, the feelings of a large number of electors, without being tied within the four 1539 corners of a rule of proportion. At an earlier part of the Sitting, he (Mr. Hicks) had had the honour to present a Petition from Ely, praying that the division might be kept as a distinct one. As had been remarked by his hon. and learned Colleague (Mr. Bulwer), the Isle of Ely had for centuries had an independent jurisdiction. It had not only had a separate custos rotulorum and magistrates, but even a Judge of its own. Prisoners of the Isle of Ely were tried by the Chief Justice of the Isle of Ely, and not by the ordinary Judges. That had continued until the year 1836; but to this day the place retained its own magistrates and coroner. It was, to all intents and purposes, a distinct county; and, to a very great extent, its interests were different to those of the rest of Cambridge. It was true that there were parts of the county which were under different drainage rates. He trusted the Committee would consider this matter seriously, and would not, for the simple object of making the numbers of the inhabitants in the three districts as equal as possible, go counter to the feelings of the mass of the population. Allusion had been made to the operations of the Commissioners generally, and to the satisfaction which their work had given, not only in this district, but all over Cambridgeshire. Well, there was no objection to the decision of the Commissioners on any political ground whatever. If the county was to be divided in regard to population, he did not know a better way of effecting the object; but the question was whether it should be divided accordig to population, seeing that in order to do that it would involve the sacrifices that had been described. The Prime Minister had spoken of the unity of municipal life. Surely, the right hon. Baronet would also respect the unity of county life; and he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would be able to accede to the reasonable prayer of the inhabitants of the whole of the Isle of Ely.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 43, line 8, at end, to insert the words "and the parishes of Granby Fen, Haddenham, Mepal. Stretham, Sutton, Wentworth, Wilburton, Wilcham, Wilchford, Ely College, Ely Holy Trinity, and Ely Paint Mary."—(Mr. Hicks.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
1540§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he had nothing to add to what he had said before in regard to the argument which had been placed before the Committee by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. He had then very frankly admitted to the Committee that if he had had to divide the county he might not, perhaps, have adopted the same plan. But the Boundary Commissioners had the question brought before them in various memorials, and they came to the conclusion that the proposal was not one which they could accept. In this, as in other cases, he felt bound to adhere to the decision of the Commissioners. He himself was quite willing, at the recommendation of the Boundary Commissioners, to introduce changes where they were generally assented to; but he knew that the change, in this instance, did not receive general assent in the county of Cambridge. Although the majority were in favour of the alteration proposed in the Amendment moved by the hon. Member (Mr. Hicks) there was a large minority who did not take that view; and, that being so, he felt bound to adhere to the decision of the Commissioners. Another objection to the Amendment was that the population of the Isle of Ely, by itself, was about 63,000, which would be above the limit settled by the Commissioners; and the population of the division, as it was set forth in the Bill, was only 40,000. There was, consequently, a very great disparity in the figures.
§ MR. BULWERsaid, he did not think the right hon. Baronet would find a single case, throughout the whole of the United Kingdom, which was on all fours with that of the Isle of Ely; and as to the great disproportion in the population pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman, there was a greater disparity in the case of the divisions in Bedfordshire, where the population of one of the divisions was much larger than that of the Isle of Ely, if the proposal of his hon. Friend (Mr. Hicks) were accepted. He had heard no answer to one difficulty which had been raised, and which he considered to be a very serious one—namely, that all the arrangements for elections must be carried out by the county authorities and magistrates in Quarter Sessions; and the magistrates of the county of Cambridge 1541 had no jurisdiction in the Isle of Ely any more than those of the Isle of Ely had in Cambridgshire.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEremarked that the Bill would not increase that difficulty.
§ MR. BULWERsaid, that it would increase it, because the right hon. Gentleman must be aware that the register of voters for the Isle of Ely, although each elector voted at present for the three Members for Cambridgeshire, was a distinct register, compiled by a different set of officers, and sanctioned by a different tribunal—the magistrates of the Isle of Ely sanctioned one list of voters, and the magistrates of the county of Cambridge another. There would, therefore, be a confusion of jurisdiction, which he did not think they would be able to get over without the passing of a special clause. He was quite ready to admit that if the object was simply to treat the Isle of Ely and the county of Cambridge as one county, the numbers and proportion of the divisions proposed by the Bill would be perfectly fair. He would, however, call the attention of the right hon. Baronet the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote) to the fact that although this was to be one of the considerations, it was, nevertheless, subject to this important rule—that the division was to be as compact as possible, and based upon well-known areas, such as Petty Sessional Divisions, Poor Law Unions, and parishes. In some instances it had been found necessary to extend a boundary; but it was laid down as essential that the additional boundary should never be allowed to intersect a parish. In this case, as a matter of fact, they were not intersecting a parish, but were destroying a county; and all the traditions of public life which had hitherto prevailed in the Isle of Ely would be blotted out. Under these circumstances, he hoped the Government would still be able to see their way to accede to the proposal contained in the Amendment.
§ MR. PELLsaid, he wished to point out another matter which he thought the right hon. Baronet ought to consider in reference to the question of population. The parishes which had been quoted in the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Hicks), Wilchford, &c, were declining in a very remarkable manner. Upon looking at 1542 the Census Returns of 1881, he found that not only had the population of these particular parishes declined, but that there had been a decrease of nearly 1,000 in the population of the Isle of Ely between 1880 and 1881. If the decrease was to go on at the same rate for the next 15 years or more, the number would be reduced to that which the Boundary Commissioners appeared to think it was desirable to fix as the limit.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 26; Noes 06: Majority 70.—(Div. List, No. 96.)
§ MR. RAIKESsaid, the next Amendment stood upon the Paper in his name, and it was a proposal, in line 9, page 15, to leave out the word "Chesterton," in order that the division might simply be described as the "Western" Division of the county of Cambridge. But after what had already passed, he thought he would best consult the views of the Committee if he ventured to move the Amendment in the same terms as previous Amendments. He would therefore retain the word "Chesterton," and insert the words "Western or," which would describe the division as the "Western or Chesterton Division."
§ Amendment proposed, in page 45, line 9, after the word "The," insert "Western or."—(Mr. Raikes.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he had no objection to the Amendment.
§ Question put, and agreed to; words inserted accordingly.
§ MR. RAIKESsaid, his concluding Amendment with regard to the county of Cambridge was in the same way to retain the word "Newmarket," and to insert the words "Eastern or," by which means the division would become "the Eastern or Newmarket Division."
§ Amendment proposed, in page 45, line 15, after the word "The," insert "Eastern or."—(Mr. Raikes.)
§ Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to; words inserted accordingly.
§ MR. BULWERsaid, he wished to call the attention of the right hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill to the fact 1543 that the parish of Thetford, with a population of 242, was altogether omitted from any of the divisions.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEintimated that if the hon. and learned Member would put him in possession of the facts, he would refer them to the draftsman of the Bill.
§ MR. RAIKESsaid, the Committee had now arrived at the county of Carmarthen, in regard to which he had proposed to amend Division No. 1, by omitting "Llandeilo," and describing the division as the "Eastern Division." Perhaps it might be found convenient, in the case of Welsh divisions which did not contain any considerable town which was not already included in a group of boroughs, to have simply the points of the compass attached to them in order to distinguish one division from another; but following the same rule which had been adopted in the case of the English counties, he proposed to retain the word "Llandeilo," and to prefix to it the words "Eastern or," which would describe it as the "Eastern or Llandeilo" division.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 45, line 22, after "The," insert "Eastern or."—(Mr. Rallies.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. WARTONsaid, he was sorry to hear the decision which his right hon. Friend (Mr. Raikes) had arrived at, because it seemed to him (Mr. Warton) to have too much the appearance of postponing a good many of these questions to the Report. When the Report was brought on, it would be found that there were many important questions to attend to; the Government would be anxious to push on with the Bill, and everything would be hurriedly disposed of in order to arrive at other important matters which had nothing to do with redistribution at all. He was therefore sorry that, in the case of the Welsh counties, his right hon. Friend proposed to give an alternative name, and had not moved at once to strike out all the local names.
§ MR. RAIKESsaid, he quite felt the force of what his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Warton) said; but he did not think it was a matter of sufficient importance to sacrifice the time of the Committee in discussing it.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he thought the right hon. Gentleman was acting wisely in taking this course. In the case of Llandeilo, it was something more than a small village. It had the rank of a county town, and was, in addition, a large Poor Law Union and a Petty Sessional Division.
§ MR. WARTONsaid, that in regard to the argument which had just been made use of by the right hon. Baronet, it was quite true that Llandeilo was part of a Petty Sessional division; but there was only one part of that division in this county. Llandovery also constituted part of the St. Clears Division, and the only Petty Sessional division which appeared to be completely within this division was that of Llanelly, which the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Sir John Jenkins) proposed, in an Amendment to be moved later on, to substitute for that of Llandeilo. He could not help thinking that the Committee were asked to shirk the matter altogether; and he would like to know from the Chairman, whether, as a question of Order, if the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman were adopted, and the words "Eastern or" were inserted, the Committee would be bound by the word "or," or whether it would be competent for him (Mr. Warton) to move the omission of the words "or Llandeilo?"
THE CHAIRMANIf the Committee decide to insert the words "Eastern or" in the Schedule, it would not be competent for the hon. and learned Member to move the omission of the word "or" for the purpose of moving another Amendment.
§ Question put, and agreed to; words inserted accordingly.
§ MR. RAIKESmoved, in the 2nd division of the county of Carmarthen, an Amendment to alter the name of the St. Clears Division to "the Western or St. Clears Division."
§ Amendment proposed, in page 45, line 29, after "The," insert "Western or."—(Mr. Raikes.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. GREGORYhoped the Government would consider the full effect of all these alternative names. By inserting the words "Western or," or some 1545 other name, they must materially affect the register. Every voter would have to be registered in this instance in an alternative way—namely, for "the Western" or "the St. Clears Division."
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEremarked that his hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Gregory) had now made precisely the same speech which he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had made at the beginning of the evening. He found, however, that the sense of the Committee was against him, and therefore he had accepted the position.
§ Question put, and agreed to; words inserted accordingly.
§ MR. JONES-PARRYmoved, as an Amendment, to change the name of the Eivion Division of Carnarvonshire to that of "South Carnarvonshire." The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Raikes) appeared to have placed a similar Amendment upon the Paper; but each had acted without the knowledge of the other. His proposal was, in page 46, line 4, to leave out "Eivion," and insert "South Carnarvonshire;" and if that Amendment were accepted, he proposed, in line 11, to omit "Arvon." and substitute "North Carnarvonshire." The reason why he desired to make this alteration was simply that these two names—Eivion and Arvon—were misleading, and really did not geographically represent the districts which from time immemorial had been called so in the county of Carnarvon. On the contrary, Eivion would include another district larger than itself, called Lleyn, and more than one-half of the northern district which it was proposed to call "Arvon" had nothing to do with Arvon. He might add that when the Boundary Commissioner, Major Tulloch, held a local inquiry at Carnarvon, a number of representatives of all shades of politics, and from all all parts of the county, north and south, attended, and a wish was unanimously expressed that the two divisions should be called North and South Carnarvonshire. The Commissioner said that, according to his instructions, he was not able to give effect to that wish, but that he would make a note of it. The two names proposed to be given by the Bill were not only misleading, but clumsy names; and, although they might sound somewhat singular and romantic, they were not 1546 easily pronounceable by strangers. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill would accede to the wishes of the inhabitants, who had unanimously expressed their feeling through the delegates they had sent to the Carnarvon meeting, to which feeling Major Tulloch, the Commissioner, saw no objection whatever. The Commissioner simply said that he was bound by his Instructions to accept nothing except territorial designations.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 46, line 4, to leave out the word "Eivion," in order to insert the words "South Carnarvonshire,"—(Mr. Jones-Parry,)
—instead thereof.
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'Eivion' stand part of the Schedule."
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he had no objection to the alternative names being given to the divisions of Carnarvonshire.
§ MR. JONES-PARRYsaid, he was willing to accept the alternative names.
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he did not think there was a greater instance in the Bill of the absurdity of the names given to divisions. These names Eivion, and Arvon, did not correctly represent the districts they purported to represent. They had only an archaeological significance, and conveyed no idea to the minds of anybody out of Wales. He should have thought that the Committee would have seen their way to accept the Amendment outright.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he did not wish to adhere to the proposal in the Bill too hardly. If the Committee generally, and the local Members in particular, were agreed upon the ad-visibility of the Amendment, he would raise no objection.
§ Question put, and agreed to; words substituted accordingly.
§ On the Motion of Mr. RAIKES, the following Amendment made:—In page 46, line 11, after "The," leave out "Arvon," and insert "Northern."
§ MR. WARTONsaid, that before they came to the county of Cheshire, he begged to move an Amendment in line 14 of page 46. The Amendment was one exactly similar to that which the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) accepted in the case of the county of Bedford, for it had reference to cer- 1547 tain parishes and sessional divisions. He desired to leave out the word "parishes," and insert "sessional divisions of Carnarvon."
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he would suggest that the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Warton) should bring up his Amendment on Report. Before accepting it, he would like to look into it. By accepting Amendments hastily, mistakes were sometimes introduced.
§ MR. WARTONsaid, that a similar Amendment, having reference to Bedfordshire, had been accepted. No great exercise of mind was required to conceive the importance of the point raised by the Amendment. As the Amendment had been accepted in the case of county of Bedford, there was no reason why it should not be accepted here. The right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) would find that in the case of Bedfordshire he (Mr. Warton) proposed to insert the words "sessional division of Ampthill."
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEthought the hon. and learned Member was right.
§ MR. WARTONI am right.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he fancied the hon. and learned Member was right. One, of course, got rather confused with the many Amendments which were proposed. [Mr. WARTON: No, no!] He did not mean that the hon. and learned Gentleman got confused, but that he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) sometimes did. If the hon. and learned Gentleman did not mind, he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) would prefer to have it put down for the Report, so that he might consider the matter carefully.
§ MR. WARTONsaid, he was willing to attend to the suggestion of the right hon. Baronet.
§ MR. RAIKESsaid, that they now came to the consideration of the Bill as it related to the county of Cheshire, and the first Amendment he had now to propose was to change the name of one of the eight divisions into which Cheshire was divided. He had tried very hard to divide Cheshire according to the points of the compass, but he confessed he had failed to do so. He could not find a satisfactory redistribution of Cheshire, according to the Commissioners' scheme, in accordance with the points of the compass; and, therefore, he had not proposed the adoption of 1548 any of the points of the compass with regard to any of the divisions of that county. But, as he happened to know something of the county, and something of the particular district to which his Amendment referred, he ventured to put his proposition upon the Paper. The county of Cheshire had, as hon. Members generally might be aware, a speciality in the shape of salt manufacture. The River Weaver was the main artery of the county by which the salt trade was carried on, and which conveyed the manufactured salt down to the Mersey, and so abroad. The division contained two towns of secondary importance—namely, Northwich and Runcorn. Northwich was a manufacturing centre, and Runcorn was a port. There was a certain amount of jealousy between the two towns. In a small way, they were like Manchester and Liverpool, and had their grievances against each other, and it was almost impossible to put forward either of them as the head of the district without causing considerable heartburning. It appeared to him that by giving to the district the name of Weaver, they would be giving to it the name of that which was the main highway of its commerce, and they would be following the example of the great county of Kent, in which there was a Medway Division, named after the River Medway. If this division were named Northwich, there would be a certain risk of confounding it with Norwich. He could not help thinking that the name of Weaver was certainly a better name for the district than the name which was proposed by the Commissioners; but he was quite content to leave the matter in the hands of the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke), who, he thought, was quite able to appreciate the consideration which he (Mr. Raikes) had ventured to put forward. He begged to move the Amendment which stood in his name.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 47, line 10, after "The," leave out the word "Northwich," and insert the word "Weaver."—(Mr. Raikes.)
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'Northwich' stand part of the Schedule."
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he feared he could not agree to the suggestion the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. 1549 Raikes) had made. If the right hon. Gentleman left the matter to him, as he very kindly suggested, he would feel himself obliged to return a negative answer. The Commissioners were of opinion that the adoption of the name Weaver would be unpopular in the district. The town of Northwich was the centre of the salt industry, and there appeared to be a pretty general feeling in the division that the name of the central town should be given to the division. The town of Northwich had between 12,000 and 13,000 inhabitants, so it was itself a considerable place.
§ MR. RAIKESRuncorn has far more inhabitants.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that Runcorn, no doubt, was the port of the salt industry. The understanding arrived at, at the local inquiry, was decidedly in favour of Northwich, and there was a sort of general feeling in favour of that name. He had every reason to suppose that the proposed change would be generally unpopular.
§ MR. RAIKESsaid, that after what the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had said, he begged to ask leave to withdraw' the Amendment.
§ MR. H. TOLLEMACHEsaid, that perhaps he knew a great deal more about the neighbourhood covered by the Amendment than either of the right hon. Gentlemen who had just spoken. The adoption of the Amendment would be extremely unpopular. He had communicated with the Chairmen of the Local Boards of the three principal towns—Northwich, Winsford, and Middlewich—and they all told him that the proposed Amendment would be most objectionable and very unpopular indeed. Besides, the River Weaver ran through no less than three districts in Cheshire; therefore, they might as well call the Eddisbury district, which he hoped to have the honour of contesting at the next General Election, the Weaver Division. He thought it necessary also to point out that the town of Runcorn had nothing whatever to do with the shipping of salt. Runcorn—unless the scheme with which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Raikes) was connected—namely, the Runcorne Brine scheme, succeeded—would have nothing whatever in the future to do with the salt trade of the district.
SIR E. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that perhaps he knew as much of Northwich as anybody in the House, for he had lived close to it for a very long time. He entirely agreed with what had fallen from his hon. Friend the Member for West Cheshire (Mr. H. Tollemache) and he wondered that his right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Raikes), who had taken so much pains about this Bill, did not use the really only strong argument he could have said in favour of his Amendment—namely, that the town of Northwich was so rapidly sinking, owing to the salt manufacture carried on, that it would very shortly altogether disappear.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. COURTNEYsaid, he had now to move the first of a series of Amendments, intended to apply the principle introduced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Raikes), to the county of Cornwall. He (Mr. Courtney) thought that the names he had to propose for the new divisions of Cornwall were suitable, and that they would commend themselves to the Committee at large. He thought, also, that they would be found to be supported by the Representatives of Cornwall in the House. His first Amendment was to insert, on page 48, line 17, after the word "The," "Western or," so that the line would then read "The Western or St. Ives Division." Perhaps he might be allowed to mention the names he proposed to give to the other divisions of the county, in order that the Committee might see the scheme as a whole. He proposed to call No. 2 Division, on line 21,"The North-Western or Camborne Division. "That division ran along the coast of Cornwall, and was quite correctly described as the North-Western Division. No. 3 Division, on line 25, he proposed to call "the Southern or Truro Division." That division included the Lizard and the more southerly part of the county. Then, he proposed to call No. 4 Division, on line 33, "the Mid or St. Austell Division." That division ran right across the county, and divided it nearly in half. The 5th Division, on line 37, he proposed to call "the South-Eastern or Bodmin Division." That division was correctly de- 1551 scribed as regarded the points of the compass. And the 6th Division he proposed to call "the North-Eastern or Launceston Division"—a description which was perfectly correct. The alterations commended themselves to the minds of the Members for the county, and he thought they were acceptable to the people of the county generally. He apprehended there would be no difficulty in the acceptance of them, and he therefore begged to move to insert, on line 17, after "The," "Western or."
§ Amendment proposed, in page 48, line 17, after "The," to insert the words "Western or."—(Mr. Courtney.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he had no objection to the first Amendment, though he could conceive some objection to the second and third Amendments.
§ Question put, and agreed, to; words inserted accordingly.
§ MR. COURTNEYsaid, that, as a matter of Order, he desired to point out that his hon. Friend (Mr. Borlase) proposed to make a considerable alteration in the No. 2 Division of the county of Cornwall, and the hon. Gentleman proposed to describe the division as the Helston Division. Perhaps it would be well that his hon. Friend should propose to insert the word "Helston," so that the whole question might be raised.
§ MR. BORLASEsaid, he would propose to substitute the word "Helston" for "Camborne." Perhaps it was well, however, that the position of matters should be made clear. He understood that, in moving that the word "Helston" be there inserted, he was only following out what it would be necessary to do in order that his hon. Friend's (Mr. Courtney's) Amendment might be taken. His (Mr. Borlase's) Amendment was of an altogether different kind to that they bad just adopted.
THE CHAIRMANsaid, he understood the hon. Gentleman was about to move that the word "Helston" be inserted instead of "Camborne."
§ MR. COURTNEYasked if he might be allowed to explain the position of matters? His hon. Friend (Mr. Borlase) proposed to alter No. 2 Division, by calling it the Helston Division, instead of 1552 the Camborne Division, and then he proposed to make some subsequent change in the division. He (Mr. Courtney) proposed to alter No. 2 Division, by inserting, after the word "the," "North-Western or." Of course, if "North-Western or" be inserted, the Amendment would not agree with the alteration his hon. Friend (Mr. Borlase) proposed to make. It would, therefore, be most convenient, as a mere technical form, that his hon. Friend should move to insert "Helston" simply. If that word be rejected, he (Mr. Courtney) would then be able to move his Amendment.
§ MR. BORLASEsaid, that the Amendment which he had the honour to move was, as he had just stated, different in character from the ones they had just been considering. It was one which affected the county as a whole, and that more than in a name. He wished at once to state what the effect of the Amendment would be. Its effect would be, not to define any new boundaries, but simply to return to those boundaries which were represented by the original scheme of the Commissioners. Now, the reasons for doing that were three. The first one was, "because"—to quote the words of the Instructions to the Commissioners—"the alteration produced in one of the two districts"—namely, the Helston and Truro one—"grave inconvenience, and involved boundaries of a very irregular and objectionable kind." The second reason was, that the notion of forming a so-called mining constituency, whose Member should be the Representative of mining in the whole of Cornwall and Devon, would be in distinct opposition to the best interests of that industry, and would be contrary also to the wishes of the mining population both within and without the proposed district. The third reason was, that the evidence produced before the Commissioners at Bodmin was unauthorized by those who were most deeply interested in the subject, and was in itself inadequate. Now, in the first place, he would consider the matter from a geographical point of view. Cornwall was a county which, considered as a geographical whole, presented a very striking contrast to its inhabitants in the rugged-ness of its exterior and physical characteristics. So extremely irregular was the 1553 natural outline of the county of Cornwall, that it was to be supposed that the Commissioners, when they came to deal with any artificial system of internal boundaries, would have endeavoured to make those boundaries as regular, as simple, and as comprehensive as they could possibly be. The original scheme which was submitted by the Commissioners was as regular, simple, and comprehensive as it could possibly be; but it was altered after evidence had been taken before one of the Commissioners, Mr. Pelham, who sat at Bodmin. Now, he (Mr. Borlase) was afraid that, for a moment, he must weary the Committee by saying something about what the size of these respective districts was, in order to contrast the old scheme with the one which had now been proposed. The size of the proposed Helston District, in the original scheme, by which the town of Camborne was joined to the town of Helston, was 15 miles from cast to west, and 23 miles from north to south. The size of the Truro Division, in the same scheme, would be 15 miles from east to west, and 14 miles from north to south. Now, the towns, as grouped under it, were completely accessible by railway. Redruth and Truro were already joined by railway, and, as his hon. Friend the Member for Helston (Mr. St. Aubyn) knew very well, there was already a scheme, which had progressed some way, and which, no doubt, would be carried out, for connecting by rail the towns of Helston and Camborne. Redruth and Truro were eminently fitted to be joined together, since they had many interests in common, as anyone who travelled by rail between the two places could see, particularly on market days, and when there was any mining interest or market business to be attended to. He did not wish to enter into any political matter, but he might remark that the divisions, as they were originally proposed by the Commissioners, were eminently fair from that point of view. The Helston District, at the present moment, returned a Conservative Member to the House. Helston was the centre of a large Conservative district. The Camborne District was Liberal. The city of Truro, on the other hand, returned his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir James M'Grarel-Hogg), who was a Conservative, and that city was to be joined to the Liberal town of Redruth; 1554 so that politically everything might be said to be just and proper. Now, he asked them to contrast these divisions as they were first of all proposed with what the Commissioners had since caused to be done. In the present scheme, the Camborne District was to be a very small district indeed; it was to be 13 miles by 10 miles, and was to contain nine parishes. The object of making this little district was that there should be a mining division; but out of the nine parishes, three were purely agricultural. Now he came to the question of this mining district, which had been formed in order to give the miners what was supposed to be an inestimable blessing, but one which, in reality, they themselves did not want. The part of the county on both sides of Truro had absolutely been cut into ribbons in order to attain this result. The new constituency of Truro, instead of containing nine parishes, was to contain 35. It was to be 31 miles long; in the centre it was only to be two miles wide, expanding to 10 miles wide on the north, and 12 miles wide on the south. It was like a wasp in shape, or figure of 8, with a small and narrow connecting centre and two broad ends. From an electioneering point of view the constituency would be unworkable, for the reason that the ends were almost inaccessible to each other, having no railway communication. The two parts were utterly unknown to each other, and were cut in two by a creek. A candidate starting from Truro, to go over the district westward, would have to proceed down the line 21 miles into a totally different division, and then drive eight or nine miles. Similar difficulty would have to be encountered in order to get to some of the eastern parts of the division. From Truro, a candidate would have to go 10 miles by rail into the borough of Penryn, and to drive 18 or 20 miles. Again, the arrangement would be unfair to the agricultural parishes of Gwythian, Grwinear, and Phillack, in the mining division, whose inhabitants had recently held a meeting at Hayle, and unanimously passed a resolution which they had transmitted to him, saying that if their Member was to be supposed to devote his attention entirely to mining, they would be utterly unrepresented. It would be unfair to the parish of St. Agnes, which 1555 had everything in common with Truro, and whose overseers had sent him a Petition against it from their Vestry, on the ground that they had always been identified with Truro, which Petition he had, unfortunately, not been able to present, owing to a technical flaw in it, but which conveyed their meaning none the less for that. He came now to the second reason — namely, the mining reason. It was said that the arrangement had been effected in order to create a mining division, and because the miners wished it themselves. He denied that the miners wished it. On the contrary, they were utterly opposed to it. Why was it that they did not wish it? Why, because mining, being co-extensive with the boundaries of the Stannaries, extended all over Cornwall and into Devonshire, as everyone should know, and as certainly the Boundary Commissioners ought to have known. The Western mining interests of England had hitherto been represented by 15 Members. Every one of the Members for Cornwall had considered himself, and had been considered by his constituents, a Representative of mining, and not only had that been the case with the 13 Cornish Members, but the two Members for Devon within the Stannaries had also been Representatives of mining. And there was another reason why no small division could ever be made a mining centre in Cornwall, and that was because there Was no industry in England so fluctuating as Cornish mining. At one time one place was the centre, and at another time another. There were at least six districts of Cornwall in which copper and tin mining was pursued, and each of which had at one time been the mining centre. Evidence had been given before the Boundary Commissioners sitting at Bodmin by a gentle-man named Chilcott in favour of the adoption of this mining district, which was, indeed, his (Mr. Chilcott's) own conception. This gentleman had advocated the adoption of this place as the mining centre, because, he said, it had been such for centuries. Would Mr. Chilcott be surprised to hear that a quarter of a century ago, a local landowner, who had left behind her an honoured name (Lady Basset), maintained the principal mines of the district in question at her own expense? Would he be sur- 1556 prised to hear that 10 years ago, this particular district was not the centre of Cornish mining, and that, in all probability, 10 years to come, it would not be? There were at present in Cornwall and Devonshire—or, rather, there were at the end of 1883, for, unfortunately, the statistics for last year had not been published—103 tin mines at work, within the limits of the Stannaries, of which 62 were out of the proposed district, whilst only 41 were in it. In 1883 there were raised out of that district nearly 4,000 tons of tin—namely, 3,667 tons—valued at £192,000. Were the interests of all the miners employed in these works to be represented by one who lived at a distance, in some cases, of 60 or more miles from them? As to copper mining, he was sorry to say there was very little of that now; but in 1855 the copper raised out of the district was of the value of £559,000. Last year the amount raised was, in one district, of the value of £59,546, and in another, £26,940. If that was the case, it might well be asked what induced the Commissioners to come to the decision they did arrive at? It was because of the evidence taken at Bodmin. The evidence in favour of this mining constituency was given by two gentlemen, one of whom had no connection with mining whatever, and the other of whom lived far out of the district, and had nothing to do with it— who, in fact, lived down in the St. Ives district. Mr. Chilcott was asked by the Commissioner—
Are you making these proposals on your own behalf, or who do you represent?Mr. CHILCOTT: I suppose I may claim to be a Cornishman.The COMMISSIONER: I simply wish to know whether you are representing anyone?Mr. CHILCOTT: I represent the Conservative Association of West Cornwall.Now, he (Mr. Borlase) ventured to protest against that kind of evidence, whether it came from a political agent of the Ministerial or the Opposition side of the House. Mr. Chilcott, as he had said, was a man wholly unconnected with mining—the paid agent of a Party. He did not mean to say that the evidence of such persons should not have been heard by the Commissioner; but what he did contend was that their evidence should be taken with the same reserve as that with which, when they sat on Committees upstairs, hon. Mem- 1557 bers wore wont to receive the evidence of specialist witnesses. Such men should have very little weight in enabling a man to form a judgment of a question of this sort—a man who, like the Commissioner, had no personal knowledge whatever of the district with which he was dealing. In common with the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Raikes) he gave all credit to the Boundary Commissioners for the work they had done in so short a time. But the time had been short. They had only been able to give one day to Dorsetshire, another to Devonshire, and another to Cornwall. In the latter case, they had had to mark out their boundaries in a less number of hours than there were districts to be adjusted. It might be asked how the Commissioners had come to arrive at the conclusion to which such strong exception was taken on the spot, and how it was that so little conflicting testimony was brought before them? Well, it was owing to a mistake. Some of the gentlemen who had given evidence had to travel some 50 miles. A telegram was sent by a body of gentlemen to Bodmin, asking that this particular district should be postponed until a later period in the day, when they would be able to arrive in the town. That telegram was never handed to the Commissioner; the case was closed, and it was only on sufferance that, later in the day, the Commissioner was good enough to hear the evidence of these gentlemen. Well, in the evidence the Commissioner then received, Captain Josiah Thomas said that he was the manager of the largest mine in the county. He had never heard any wish expressed by the mining community to be represented by a special Member; neither had the matter been mentioned in connection with the Mining Institute of Cornwall—an Institution which watched over the mining interests of the county. The mining industry was pursued in all parts of the county, and, if the scheme as laid down by the Commissioners was adhered to, it would still be represented by the whole of the Members. Evidence came from several other gentlemen directly connected with mining. Mr. Lanyon, for instance, complained that—In the absence of himself and other gentlemen who had previously spoken, the proposal to create a mining constituency had been brought forward by a gentleman who did not 1558 represent the mining interest at all. As one largely interested in the mining industry, and a member of the Mining Institute, he was prepared to state that the matter had never been broached to the mine managers or adventurers, and had not, therefore, received their approval. He again asserted that the proposal had been brought forward by those who had no interest whatever in mining, and added that it had only received the support of one gentleman, who was an intruder, for a gentleman belonging to the Penzance Division had no right to interfere with those of Helston and Truro.Since that time this question had been opposed by every mine manager, and every miner in the county, and in particular by those in the very two towns mostly affected—namely, Redruth and Camborne. In both of those towns meetings, which were by no means Party meetings, but meetings of the inhabitants, had been held to consider this subject. The oldest and most experienced miners in the county had attended these meetings. They had come together to protest against the present scheme. At Redruth, a resolution to that effect was passed almost unanimously—that was to say, only one hand was held up against it; and at the Camborne meeting a similar resolution was passed absolutely unanimously. A unanimous meeting had similarly been held at Helston. At Truro there had been three to one in favour of an alteration of the scheme, showing that this was a county matter, and in no way a political question. In 11 other places, affected by the proposal, unanimous meetings of the inhabitants had been held. This being so, he had ventured to approach the right hon. Baronet the Leader of the Opposition (Sir Stafford Northcote) and the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill (Sir Charles W. Dilke), to see whether it could not be arranged that the county of Cornwall should be represented as it ought to be. In both instances they had given him to understand that he had a good case; and he now appealed to them once more, as to the two judges who had to decide the question, sitting on the Front Benches in the House, to set the matter right. If they could not do so now, he would ask thorn to give him a promise that, in consideration of the merits of the case he had made out, they would request the Commissioner to reconsider his decision before Report, since the matter was one, as he thought he had clearly 1559 shown, which deeply affected the interests of the greatest industry in the West of England, and the convenience of the inhabitants of the county.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 48, leave out lines 21 to 32, both inclusive, and insert,—
§ "No. 2.—The Helston Division.
§ The Sessional Divisions of Kerrier West and Kerrier East (except the parish of Gwennap).
§ The Municipal Boroughs of Helston, Penryn, and Falmouth; and the parishes of Camborne, Crowan, Gwinear, Gwithian, and Phillack.
§ No. 3.—The Truro Division.
§ The Sessional Division of Powder West (except the parish of Ladock).
§ The Municipal Borough of Truro; and the parishes of Gwennap, Illogan, and Redruth."—(Mr. Borlase.)
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'Helston' stand part of the Schedule."
THE CHAIRMANsaid, that as there was another Amendment by which it was proposed to alter the name of the division, he had put the Question, "That 'Helston' remain part of the Schedule," so that the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) might have the opportunity he sought.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he thought that this proposal was practically to revert to the original scheme of the Boundary Commissioners—that was to say, the scheme prepared before they had made their local inquiry. He need hardly point out to the Committee that the original schemes were drawn up in London, before there had been any opportunity of consulting local feeling, and before the Commissioners had had an opportunity of looking thoroughly into the question, and gauging it as it appeared after local inquiry, to see whether it came under the terms of their Instructions that changes could be made in the original scheme. In some cases parts of the original scheme might have told in one direction in a Party sense, and other parts in another direction. The present instance was one in which it was believed by the local leaders of the Liberal Party that the change would be detrimental to their interests, and which should be reversed. He knew that feeling generally prevailed amongst Cornish Liberals. But surely, when an impartial body of Commissioners, representing both sides of 1560 politics, went into a district entirely unknown to them, and consulted with persons of both political Parties of whom they knew nothing, and came unanimously to a conclusion, after local investigation, that it was desirable to create a division of a certain kind, it would be monstrous for the Committee to reverse that decision. It would be monstrous, he contended, for the Committee now modelling the Bill to reverse the view of such a Commission, on the strength, not of a general opinion in favour of such reversal, but only of a feeling in the county on one side. It must be borne in mind that the final scheme was not proposed in accordance with the Report of those who had made the local inquiry, but after repeated reconsideration of the matter. The Commissioners had changed their provisional scheme after repeated consideration of the Report of the Visiting Commissioner by the whole Commission, and each time they had confirmed their previous decision. He knew that the whole of the Commission had considered this case in that way, as well as the case of Cheshire and one of the Scotch cases. They had been aware that there was great opposition to the scheme, and were familiar with the line of argument that was adopted in the locality on the one side and on the other; and, therefore, as he had said, they had considered and reconsidered the matter, and had adhered to their original decision. Under the circumstances, it was clear that he had no alternative but to ask the Committee to support the decision of the Commissioners. The argument which had weighed with the Commissioners was this—that, on the whole, the arrangement they proposed would have the effect of grouping together persons of similar pursuits, both in this mining district and in the neighbouring district, which was mainly agricultural. The Commissioners were aware that there were large mining interests scattered through the whole of Cornwall, and conceived it to be impossible to throw the whole mining population into one division. There were mines all over the county. The Commissioners had effected this—they had created a division, mainly mining, and had constituted by the side of it a division mainly agricultural, and they believed that in so doing they had strictly adhered to their Instructions. The pro- 1561 visional scheme would have drawn a line between Redruth and Camborne, and would have cut in two what was virtually one town; because the Camborne and Redruth people worked together, were associated in their pursuits, and had common interests and wants. This was so, notwithstanding that many of the miners had to travel considerable distances to their work. [A laugh.] The hon. Member (Mr. Borlase) laughed at that; but he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) was as familiar with the case of Redruth as anyone in that House. He had happened to be a Member of a Royal Commission whose duty it had been to examine witnesses from that district upon these subjects, and in the course of their investigation the Commission had elicited from local witnesses in detail the fact of the distances they had to travel to their work.
§ MR. BORLASEsaid, he should like to explain why he laughed. "When the right hon. Baronet had referred to Redruth and Camborne being so identical as to be almost one town, he (Mr. Borlase) had remembered that there were no two places in the Kingdom which worked so badly together. The Redruth and Camborne people were too close neighbours to be good friends.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that, as he had stated, these places were virtually one town. The line drawn by the provisional scheme would have severed that which, for mining purposes, must be considered as one community. Therefore, for all these reasons he would ask the Committee to reject the Amendment; and he had no doubt that the Committee would feel that, where the whole Boundary Commission had been unanimous on the point, it was the duty of those in charge of the Bill to maintain the opinion of the Commission.
§ MR. C. ROSSsaid, that he should like to address a few words to the Committee on this occasion, as the subject was one with which he was somewhat familiar. In the first place, he would venture to thank the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) for the speech he had just made. He (Mr. Ross) could assure the right hon. Baronet that by a large number of people in the county his words would be read to-morrow with sincere pleasure. The right hon. Baronet had disposed of the main points of the speech of the hon. Member (Mr. 1562 Borlase). However, he did not think that that hon. Member's speech ought to be allowed to go out of the House without having a few points in it flatly contradicted. He (Mr. Ross) did not propose to inflict a lengthy effort of oratory upon the Committee such as the hon. Member (Mr. Borlase) had just uttered; but he had taken a few notes of the remarks which had fallen from the hon. Member in the course of his remarkable speech, and these, with the permission of the Committee, he would now go over. As he saw the junior Member for West Cornwall (Mr. A. Vivian) in his place, he might say that, whatever the hon. Member who spoke last might say about the strong feeling existing in the county in regard to this mining division, there was at least one Comishman in the House who did not agree with him; for no sooner was the final scheme of the Commissioners brought before the country than the junior Member for West Cornwall had seized the opportunity to hurl an address at the heads of what he hoped to be his future constituents. He did not know whether or not the hon. Member (Mr. A. Vivian) now agreed with the hon. Member for East Cornwall (Mr. Borlase), and, if so, the Committee would be at a loss to know what had made him change his mind. Possibly he had found another constituency, or had discovered, for some other reason, that he did not want to represent this constituency. Possibly the hon. Member had discovered what he (Mr. Ross) was afraid was a more likely thing—namely, that the proposed new constituency did not want him. The hon. Member for East Cornwall had said that one of the strong objections to the new revision was that it was, from a geographical point of view, very badly laid out; but he (Mr. Ross) could only say that the hon. Member must know as well as he that the new district of Launceston was a verymuch more inconveniently mapped district than the new district of Truro. One point to which the hon. Member had referred was as to the evidence given before the Commissioner. He (Mr. Ross) should just like to remind the Committee of what had taken place at the inquiry before the Commissioner. The Committee would remember that, according to the old scheme, the mining division was to be cut in two. When 1563 the Commissioner came down to Bodmin, two gentlemen representing the Conservative interest addressed him, and laid the facts of the case before him. They showed him how the formation of this mining district would be distinctly carrying out, both in the letter and in the spirit, the Instructions given to the Commissioners. The Commissioner was very much impressed with what these gentlemen said. Later on, he was addressed by no less than seven Liberal gentlemen, all of whom inveighed against the new scheme; and yet, so cogent were the arguments of the two Conservatives as against the arguments of the seven Liberals, that the result was the formation of the new district, which everybody except those who were extremely violent partizans believed would work excellently in Cornwall. He (Mr. Ross) had it on very good authority that a well-known gentleman very much interested in this question on the Liberal side had declared that the mining district it was proposed to form would be a very good one, although he was afraid it might give the Conservatives a chance of winning a seat. No doubt, that very accurately described the attitude of the Liberal Party with regard to this matter in Cornwall. He thanked the Committee for having given such patient attention to his remarks; and he could only express the hope that in the division which would take place the Committee would support the right hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill, and would see the fairness of giving the miners of Cornwall one district in the county which really depended upon the mining industry—would see that it was only fair, when a district like this could be so easily mapped out, that those who were so largely interested in the industry should have a special Representative.
§ Question put, and negatived.
§ MR. COURTNEYI beg to move that "North" Western "be inserted in the place of "Helston."
§ MR. BORLASEI rise to Order. I wish to know whether now is not the time to take my Amendment? It was, "Schedule 7, page 48, leave out lines 21 to 32, both inclusive, and insert, No. 2. The Helston Division, &c."
THE CHAIRMANI explained some time ago to the hon. Member that the 1564 Question put would be that the word "Helston" stand part of the Schedule, because it was necessary to give the hon. Member for Liskeard an opportunity of moving his Amendment. The word "Helston" has now been negatived, so that the hon. Member for Liskeard has the opportunity he seeks to bring forward his proposal for a geographical division.
§ MR. COURTNEYI propose to insert the words "North Western or," in place of "Helston."
§ Amendment proposed, in page 48, line 21, after the word "The," to insert the words "North Western or."—(Mr. Courtney.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words 'North Western or' be there inserted."
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he presumed that this Amendment had the approval of the Committee, the hon. Member's wish being to insert this description of the Helston Division as corresponding to the description of the Camborne Division.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ MR. COURTNEYsaid, that in page 48, line 25, after the word "The," he wished to insert the words "Southern or."
§ Amendment proposed, in page 48, line 25, after the word "The," to insert the words "Southern or."—(Mr. Courtney.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words 'Southern or' be there inserted."
§ MR. EDWARD CLARKEsaid, that he thought that the course the hon. Member had taken would very likely lead to some inconvenience and some discussion upon this question on Report. There was no county in England which it was more difficult to divide according to the points of the compass than the county of Cornwall. There was no reason in the world why this division should be spoken of as the Southern Division.
§ MR. BORLASEsaid, that the hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. E. Clarke) should have raised this question earlier.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that the first division was at the extreme West of Cornwall, and the division they were now discussing contained the ex- 1565 treme South, though it was true it might run up to the North.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 47; Noes 154: Majority 107.—(Div. List, No. 97.)
§ MR. COURTNEYsaid, he thought there would be no objection to the three remaining Amendments he had to move, the first of which was to insert before the words "St. Austell Division" the words "Mid or."
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 48, line 33, after the word "The," to insert the words "Mid or."—(Mr. Courtney.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. EDWARD CLARKEsaid, if there was any strong opinion in favour of the term "Mid Division," he would not divide against it; but he thought the title would be better left alone, remaining as the St. Austell Division. From the configuration of the county, Cornwall was not suitable to such modes of division. For the "Western Division" something, perhaps, might be said; but in no sense could the arguments be used in favour of a Mid Division.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, as the Committee had inserted the "Western Division," he thought they had better put in the distinction "Mid."
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 48, line 37, between the words "The" and "Bodmin," to insert the words "South Eastern or."—(Mr. Courtney.)
§ Amendment agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 49, line 1, between the words "The" and "Launceston," to insert the words "North Eastern or."—(Mr. Courtney.)
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ MR. RAIKESsaid, it would be more convenient to the Committee if he moved his Amendments following the addition of the words "Northern," "Western," and so on, as Amendments to the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he was willing to move his Amendment with the addition suggested by the right 1566 hon. Gentleman, after "The," in line 9, to add the words "Northern or."
§ MR. AINSWORTHsaid, he should not object to those words; but he should object to the words following, because they would not really describe the district. The Eskdale, best known, was in what would be called the "Southern" Division, the valley of the River "Esk." The omission of "Eskdale," and other Amendments he had put down, were proposed in consequence of an universally expressed wish of persons in the county to have as far as possible a geographical definition. At the meeting of the Boundary Commissioners at Carlisle both political Parties were represented, and the Lord Lieutenant of the county took the opportunity of drawing the attention of the Commissioners to the desirability of having the true geographical names, and the names suggested by his Amendment were those approved at the meeting. The description "Cockermouth Division" was approved; no alternative geographical name was suggested. At present he should object to the Amendment proposed; not that he objected to the word "Northern," but he wished to have "Eskdale" left out.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 49, line 9, to insert the words "Northern or."—(Sir Charles W. Dilke.)
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, his Amendment would then run on in form, substituting the names now proposed for those in the Bill. The Clerk of the Peace for the county gave the names in a Return furnished last August; but it appeared now the names were not correct, and so the Clerk had sent the legal names, which he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) proposed by his Amendment to substitute for those given in the Schedule. It seemed that in the county of Cumberland one set of names was used by custom, but another set was used in all legal forms.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 49, line 10, to leave out from the word "of" to the word "Carlisle," in line 14.—(Sir Charles W. Dilke.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
1567§ MR. WAUGHsaid, he must object to the word "Eskdale Ward;" it was a misnomer. Up to the year 1841 it was quite right; but since then Eskdale Ward had been divided into the two divisions "Brampton" and "Long-town," and all processes were issued out of the Brampton Division, not "Eskdale." Allerdale Ward below Derwent, also, would be in three divisions. It must lead to a good deal of difficulty to give the names as proposed. The Clerk of the Peace had given the names as they existed up to 1841, not taking into account the alterations made since. There could be no doubt the right names for the divisions were "Brampton" and "Longtown."
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the hon. Member assumed that the names had been altered since 1841, but he was wrong; custom had brought about a change of names; but if the Clerk of the Peace was right, the names in use in 1841 were the legal names known at Quarter Sessions.
§ MR. PERCY WYNDHAMsaid, he was conversant with Quarter Session proceedings, and the only names known there were "Brampton" and "Long-ton;" he had never heard of the "Eskdale" Division.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, in practice no doubt such was the case; but a most careful examination had been made by the Clerk of the Peace, who was distinctly of opinion that no order of the Court had changed the names. If the Clerk of the Peace could be shown to be in error, he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) would be glad to have an alteration made on Report.
SIR. E. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he supposed it might be taken for granted that by the Amendment no alternative would be made in the boundaries; as shown on the map of the Commissioners, it was simply a change in description.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that was so.
§ MR. WARTONsaid, it seemed to him, from what he had gathered from Cumberland Members, that there had been some division of Eskdale Ward, whether legally or not he did not know, and Eskdale seemed to contain "Brampton" and "Longtown." It seemed to him curious that in stating the divisions "Eskdale" and "Longtown" should both be mentioned, and not "Bramp- 1568 ton." Were both these parts of what was called "Eskdale," whether that was a legal definition or not? Why had they the whole inserted, and also one of the two parts of which the whole consisted? Why was the word "Brampton" omitted?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the name did not occur in that division.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the Clerk of the Peace had written saying that the Boundary Commissioners in their letter asked him to give them the legal names of the several Quarter Sessions and Petty Sessional districts; he did so, and also searched the records of the Quarter Sessions, and sent a copy of the Order of June 29, 1841. He could find no Order altering the names. He (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had nothing to do with the practice of Petty Sessions in the matter; he wished he had, and must repeat that the Clerk had put down the names as settled at Quarter Sessions.
§ Question put, and negatived.
§
Amendment proposed,
After the word "Division," to insert the words—
The Sessional Divisions of,—
Eskdale Ward,
Cumberland Ward,
Longtown, and
Allerdale Ward below Derwent (except so much as is comprised in Division No. 2 as herein described);
and the Municipal Borough of Carlisle.
—(Sir Charles W. Dilke.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. WAUGHsaid, the Allerdale Ward below Derwent extended into three other new divisions. The name of "Allerdale below Derwent" without "Ward," was its proper designation.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, on this Amendment perhaps he might be allowed to say that he knew nothing of the matter, and was not in a position to speak, except so far as he could judge from the letter of the Clerk of the Peace. He was bound to take the view of the Clerk of the Peace; but if his hon. Friend was clear that that gentleman was wrong, and could induce others to take that view, and produce a general impression in that direction, he would 1569 reconsider the matter on the Report stage.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ MR. RAIKESproposed to add, after "The," in page 49, line 15, the words "Eastern or," so that the line would read the "Eastern or" Penrith Division.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 49, line 15, after the word "The," to insert the words "Eastern or."—(Mr. Raikes.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words 'Eastern or' be there inserted."
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEremarked that this was another example of the difficulty of naming constituencies after points of the compass. The right hon. Gentleman proposed to call the division "Eastern," while another hon. Gentleman preferred "North Eastern."
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes G2; Noes 130: Majority 68.—(Div. List, No. 98.)
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.