ENGLAND. (Hansard, 14 April 1885)

HC Deb 14 April 1885 vol 296 cc1639-750 1639

§ MR. AINSWORTH
moved an Amendment, inline 15, the object of which was to describe the Penrith Division, No. 2, as the "Mid Cumberland or Penrith Division."

§ Amendment proposed, in page 49, line 15, after "The," insert "Mid Cumberland or."—(Mr. Ainsworth.)

§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
said, he did not know what the local feeling in Cumberland was upon this subject; but his own opinion was that Cumberland was one of those counties which might be divided by the points of the compass. The question, however, in the case of Penrith, was whether the division ought not rather to be called "the Eastern or Penrith Division" in preference to "Mid Division?" Local opinion, he understood, was strongly in favour of retaining the name of Penrith.

§ MR. RAIKES
said, he had moved an Amendment on Monday, the object of which was to call this division "the Eastern or Penrith Division;" but that Amendment was rejected after what he considered a very inadequate discussion. He only wished to say that he was prepared to support the Amendment which was now moved by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Ainsworth) with the view of call- 1640 ing the division "the Mid Cumberland or Penrith Division," although he was bound to admit that, in some degree, they would be departing from geographical accuracy, because, although it was proposed to call it the "Mid" Division, it was, in reality, the Eastern Division. Sooner, however, than part with geographical divisions—although another designation would be more accurate—as he understood it was the desire of all persons in Cumberland to see the points of the compass used in designating the other divisions of the count, he would support the Amendment of the hon. Member for West Cumberland in giving the alternative name of "Mid or Penrith Division."

§ MR. WARTON
said, the Amendment, as it stood on the Paper, proposed to call the division "Mid Cumberland," whereas the rule in other cases had been simply to insert the word "Mid." He would suggest to the right hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill the propriety of considering whether the Amendment should not simply be the alternative of "Mid or Penrith Division."

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
said, he assumed that is was not seriously intended to adhere strictly to the words of the Amendment, and that the Amendment would be put in the form suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Britport (Mr. Warton). Otherwise it would be in conflict with every division contained in the Bill.

§ MR. GEORGE HOWARD
said, there was a unanimous opinion in the county in favour of the change proposed by the hon. Member for West Cumberland (Mr. Ainsworth). It would be most satisfactory to the people of the county generally if this change was made; and it was only because the Boundary Commissioners declined to accept the names which had been submitted to them that the Committee were troubled in the matter.

THE CHAIRMAN
asked if the hon. Member for West Cumberland (Mr. Ainsworth) proposed to withdraw his Amendment, in order that another Amendment might be moved in accordance with the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board?

§ MR. AINSWORTH
Yes.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

1641

§ MR. GEORGE HOWARD
moved, as an Amendment, to insert words describing the division as the "Mid or Penrith Division."

§ Amendment proposed, in page 49, line 15, after "The," insert the words "Mid or."—(Mr. George Howard.)

§ Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
said, the next Amendment was consequential upon the decision which had been arrived at last night. He would move, in the first place, to omit, in page 49, from line 16 to line 22 inclusive, the words— The Sessional Divisions of Keswick, and Penrith, and the parishes in the Sessional Division of Wigton, of—Allhallows, Bewaldeth and Snittlegarth, Blencogo, Caldbeck High and Low, Dundraw and Kelsick, High Bolton, High Ireby, High and Low Thurshy, Low Bolton, Low Ireby, Mosedale, Sebergham High and Low, Torpenhow and Whitrigg, Uldale, Waverton High and Low, Westward. Wigton, and Woodside.

§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."

§ MR. WAUGH
said, he wished to ask for some information upon this point. The Amendment proposed by the right hon. Gentleman was very similar to one which he (Mr. Waugh) had placed upon the Paper. The right hon. Gentleman proposed to omit from the Schedule the parishes of "Bewaldeth, Snittlegarth, and Mosedale," and to insert "Blennerhasset and Kirkland;" and the only difference between them was that he (Mr. Waugh) proposed only to include the Sessional division of Oulton, leaving out that of Dundraw and Keswick, and including Bothel and Threapland in the Sessional division of Allerdale below Derwent. He thought the places mentioned in his Amendment, as they were within a mile and a-half of the polling place, might fairly be included in the division; and the changes he proposed would give a population very nearly the same as that which was originally proposed, and of precisely the same character.

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
said, he gathered from the remarks of the hon. Member for Cockermouth (Mr. Waugh) that he intended to oppose the Amendment for the purpose of substituting his own, which he appeared to regard as 1642 forming a better division for the county of Cumberland. There was not a very large deviation involved; but, nevertheless, it was a change from the divisions proposed by the Boundary Commissioners. The hon. Member desired to make that change for the convenience of the polling districts; but the polling districts would still have to be set out in the divisions, and therefore any argument drawn from that point was not an argument which could carry any weight with it. As a matter of convenience, he thought it would be best to adhere to the proposal he had made.

MR. J. LOWTHER
said, that he understood the Amendment proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke) to be more in the character of a verbal or technical Amendment. The Amendment suggested by the hon. Member for Cockermouth (Mr. Waugh) was, however, of a more substantial character, and was, in fact, an important alteration of the arrangement as laid down by the Boundary Commissioners. He thought the hon. Gentleman had been led astray in arriving at the conclusion that there was a general consensus of local opinion in favour of the Amendment he had suggested. The information furnished to him (Mr. J. Lowther) was on all fours with that which had reached the President of the Local Government Board, and he found that there was a decided objection, in certain quarters, to the adoption of the proposal of the hon. Member for Cockermouth. He therefore thought the Government deserved the support of the Committee, and that it would be best to adopt the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman. MR. PERCY WYNDHAM said, he took exception to the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke); but with regard to the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Cockermouth (Mr. Waugh) for the Amendment of the Amendment, he was inclined to think that the alteration suggested would not be received with general satisfaction. The hon. Member proposed to leave out Blencogo, Dundraw, and Kelsick, for the purpose of inserting Bothell and Threapland, and Bewaldeth and Snittlegarth. Now, he (Mr. Percy Wyndham) thought that 1643 proposal involved a very important change. He could quite understand the point raised by the hon. Member in reference to local convenience in reaching the polling booths. But this was a proposal which would do a great deal more than meet the case of local convenience, because two parishes were proposed to be left out from this particular division, whose position was fully discussed before the Boundary Commissioners, by whom it was decided that they were entitled to be inserted in this particular division. So far as he was personally concerned, knowing as he did the local feeling in the matter, he should certainly divide the Committee against the proposal of the hon. Member for Cockermouth.

§ Question put, and negatived.

§ Amendment proposed, In page 49, after line 15, to insert—"No. 2.—The Penrith Division. The Sessional Divisions of Keswick and Leath Ward; and the parishes in the Sessional Division of Allerdale Ward below Derwent, of—Allhallows, Blencogo, Blennerhasset and Kirkland, Caldbeck High and Low, Dundraw and Kelsick, High Bolton, High Ireby, High and Low Thursby, Low Bolton, Low Ireby, Sebergham High and Low, Torpenhow and Whitrigg, Uldale, Waverton High and Low, Westward, Wigton, and Woodside."—(Sir Charles W. Dilke.)

§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

§ MR. WAUGH
said, he objected to the inclusion of the parishes of Dundraw and Kelsick.

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
said, that he had given to the Committee last night the views of the Clerk of the Peace for the county of Cumberland on this subject. If any fresh information could be brought to his knowledge before the Report stage of the Bill, he was ready to reconsider the matter; but the view of the Clerk of the Peace was perfectly clear, as was evident from the letter he had read last night.

§ Question put, and agreed to; words inserted accordingly.

§ MR. RAIKES
moved an Amendment, in page 49, line 23, the object of which was to describe Division No. 3 as the "Western or Cockermouth Division." He was quite ready to consult the wishes of hon. Members who represented Cumberland, and to substitute the "North-Western" for the "Western 1644 Division," if they so desired; but, as at present advised, he thought it would be more accurate geographically to describe it as the "Western or Cockermouth Division." He had understood the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Charles W. Dilke) last night to say that he was somewhat desirous of retaining the names of the Cumberland divisions as inserted in the Bill, on account of their intrinsic beauty; but he (Mr. Raikes) did not think that this applied to this particular division if they were to give to it an alternative name. With all due respect to the borough of Cockermouth, which he had no doubt was a very ancient and interesting place, he did not see why such a town of such very small importance should be placed in a different position from that of other merged boroughs—such as Aylesbury and Buckingham, which hereafter would only become alternative names. He begged to move the Amendment on the Paper.

§ Amendment proposed, in page 49, line 23, after "The," insert "Western or."—(Mr. Raikes.)

§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
said, that the name was given to the division, because Cockermouth was a merged borough. He should not oppose the Amendment if it met with the approval of the Committee.

§ MR. WAUGH
said, that it was the unanimous wish of the Cumberland people, at the meeting held before the Boundary Commissioners at Carlisle, that the division should be called Cockermouth only. They all knew that Cockermouth was a time-honoured name, and the proposal now submitted would not really make the division more distinctive, because, as a matter of fact, it was neither North, South, East, nor West. It was an all-round place, both in sentiment and position; and if it were desired to describe it by a point of the compass, it could be only described as rather Northern than otherwise. It would require no such name as that to distinguish the Cockermouth Division. It might be called the "Northern Division," although it was far from being absolutely North; but to call it the "Western Division" would be altogether a misnomer. He, therefore, 1645 trusted that the Committee would not assent to the Amendment. He believed it was the unanimous wish of the county that the division should be called distinctively "the Cockermouth Division," and he hoped that that wish would be respected.

MR. J. W. LOWTHER
said, he could bear testimony in confirmation of the statement of the hon. Member for Cockermouth (Mr. Waugh) as to the wishes of the inhabitants of the locality. He believed there was practically a consensus of opinion as to the nomenclature of these divisions. It was generally desired that No. 1 should be called North Cumberland, that No. 2 should be called Mid Cumberland, both of which proposals had been accepted by the Committee, that No. 4 should be called West Cumberland; but that in regard to the No. 3, there was a general feeling, not only in the division itself, but throughout the county, that it should retain the name of the Cockermouth Division, and that it should be called the "Western or Cockermouth," as the right hon. Gentleman (.Mr. Raikes) proposed.

§ MR. WARTON
said, the point of the hon. Member for Cockermouth (Mr. Waugh) amounted to this— Cockermouth is much the best, For it is neither East nor West; Nor can we call it North or South, For it is only Cockermouth.

§ MR. RAIKES
said, he wished to point out that if they had divisions in the county—Northern, Mid, and Eastern, and a fourth division was required, it would be creating an anomaly if they were not to take the other points of the compass. If, however, the name of Cockermouth was generally approved by the Committee, he did not think he would be justified in pressing the Amendment.

MR. J. W. LOWTHER
said, he would point out that if the Committee called this division "West Cumberland," it would be impossible to name a fourth division West Cumberland also, as the hon. Member for West Cumberland (Mr. Ainsworth) proposed to do, and it would be altogether inaccurate to call it South Cumberland. He believed that there was a strong wish on the part of the people of Cumberland that the Division No. 4 in the Bill, and there designated "the Egremont Division," which was 1646 largely identified with the Liberal interests of the county, should still continue to be associated with the name of West Cumberland, and a proposal to that effect would follow when this division was settled.

§ MR. GEORGE HOWARD
said, that the Cumberland people attached considerable importance to the name of "Cockermouth" in connection with this division. Cockermouth was fairly entitled to give its name to the division, seeing that before the Reform Act was passed, it was the place of voting for the whole county. It was a small division compared with the others; but he did not think there was anything unfair in making an exception in its favour.

§ MR. RAIKES
said, that, under the circumstances, he did not think it would be worth while to persist in the Amendment, and in deference to the views which had been expressed he would withdraw it.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
said, they now came to Division No. 4, the Egremont Division. He did not propose to say anything in regard to it himself; but he was prepared to hear anything hon. Members, who were interested in the matter locally, were prepared to submit.

§ MR. AINSWORTH
moved an Amendment to describe the division as that of "The West Cumberland or Egremont Division."

§ Amendment proposed, in page 49, line 26, after "The," insert "West Cumberland,"—(Mr. Ainsworth.)

§ Question proposed "That those words be there inserted."

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
said, he wished to call attention to the fact that the proposal now submitted to the Committee was to call the extreme South of Cumberland the "Western Division." They had cut out a considerable portion of the North-West, and called it "Northern;" they had also cut out the Western part of the county and called it "Cockermouth," and now they proposed to cut out the South and call that the "West." Hitherto the county had been divided into two divisions which were perfectly applicable; but now it was proposed to make the South the 1647 West, and he believed that a very small portion of the original Western Division would be included. If agreed to, it would amount to a complete disregard of all geographical accuracy. Certainly, if they adhered to the points of the compass, the proper designation of this division was South Cumberland. The one proposed was simply ridiculous.

MR. J. LOWTHER
said, he was disposed to agree very much with what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Charles W. Dilke). He thought if they adopted the compass points at all, they ought to adopt them completely. He, therefore, objected to the Amendment of the hon. Member for West Cumberland (Mr. Ainsworth), and be thought the President of the Local Government Board was quite right in saying that to call the Southern part of the county by the name of "West Cumberland" would be ridiculous.

§ MR. RAIKES
said, be should not himself have offered any opposition to the Amendment; but he quite agreed with the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) that it would be a flagrant disregard of a geographical fact to call the Southern Division Western Cumberland. But they had already disregarded geographical facts by refusing to call the Eastern Division East Cumberland; and, therefore, be did not think it was a matter of very great consequence what they did with the remaining divisions. At the same time, he thought it would be better to insert "Southern," instead of "Western;" and as be (Mr. Raikes) had spared the Committee the trouble of a division on the interesting question which had been raised by the last Amendment, he would ask the hon. Gentleman for West Cumberland (Mr. Ainsworth) if he could not see his way to withdrawing the Amendment in favour of one which would more precisely indicate the geographical position of the division?

§ MR. WAUGH
said, he was prepared to admit that, on the face of the map, this division was situated somewhat to the South of the county; but he ventured to think that there was not a single person in Cumberland who did not look upon that part of the county as West Cumberland. Whenever a man went to that part from Carlisle, he always spoke of going to the West from the East, although, no doubt, in so de- 1648 scribing his progress, he was entirely at variance either with the points of the compass, or the position of the county upon the map. At the same time, he (Mr. Waugh) was perfectly certain that the division would never be recognized as "South Cumberland," and it was much better to give it the name by which it was generally known—namely, that of "West Cumberland."

§ MR. PERCY WYNDHAM
supported the Amendment.

§ MR. AINSWORTH
said, that he had throughout been in favour of geographical divisions; but this part of the county had always been known as "West Cumberland." Whenever a man travelled across the Border, he invariably went, not North and South, but East and West. He trusted, therefore, that the Committee would accept the Amendment he had proposed.

MR. J. W. LOWTHER
said, he was sorry to intrude upon the Committee again"; but he felt called upon to say a word in support of the view of the hon. Member for West Cumberland (Mr. Ainsworth). It did not really matter whether the Bill called this division "South Cumberland" or "West Cumberland," because, whatever name was given to the division, it would always be known as West Cumberland. He therefore thought that, for the sake of simplicity, it was desirable that the Committee should accede to the wishes of the Cumberland people, notwithstanding the fact that they were a little wrong in their notion of the points of the compass, and that this division should be named West Cumberland.

§ Question put, and agreed to; words inserted accordingly.

§ MR. RAIKES
said, he was glad to say that the Committee had now left the county of Cumberland and had arrived at the county of Denbigh in Wales. That county had been divided by the Boundary Commissioners into two divisions, consisting of No. 1, the Bromfield Division, and No. 2, the Vale of Clwyd Division. He thought it desirable to give those divisions alternative names; and he, therefore, proposed an Amendment to describe the first division as "the Eastern or Bromfield Division."

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
said, he was prepared to agree with the Amendment.

1649

THE CHAIRMAN
said, he must point out that the Amendment, as it appeared on the Paper, was to leave out "Bromfield" and to give no alternative name.

§ MR. RAIKES
said, he believed it was preferred to retain the alternative name. He had had a conversation last week with the Lord Lieutenant of the county, who was strongly in favour of retaining the alternative. He would, therefore, move, in page 49, line 32, after the word "The," to insert the words "Eastern or," which would make it the "Eastern or Bromfield Division."

§ Amendment proposed, in page 49, line 32, after the word "The," to insert the words "Eastern or,"—(Mr. Raikes).

§ Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

§ MR. RAIKES
said, he now proposed, in accordance with the same principle, to move his next Amendment, which would describe the 2nd division of the county of Denbigh as the "Western or Vale of Clwyd Division."

§ Amendment proposed, in page 50, line 1, after the word "The," insert the words "Western or."—(Mr. Raikes.)

§ Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

§ MR. BARNES
said, that, in reference to the county of Derby which came next, he proposed in regard to the 5th division to move, in page 50, line 29, to leave out "Belper" and insert "Alfreton." The town of Alfreton was a much larger and more important town than Belper. It was situated in the centre of a large iron and coal district, and it formed about three-fifths of the whole division. It also formed an important part of East Derbyshire, which he had the honour to represent. The Belper Division, as defined by the Bill, would comprise from 20,000 to 25,000 inhabitants; but the town of Belper itself, according to the last Census, had only a population of 8,000 or 9,000, and had very little manufacturing interests. It was almost entirely agricultural, and why preference should be given to Belper over Alfreton he could not conceive. The inhabitants of this part of the county felt very sore upon the matter; and seeing that in reference to Cumberland the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had acceded to the 1650 wishes of the people, even although by so doing the division was named in a way that was contradictory to the geographical facts of the case, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would accede to this Amendment. It would give satisfaction to the inhabitants of the division generally, who, at present, had a very just ground for feeling dissatisfaction at the proposal contained in the Bill. Certainly, so far as its importance and the number of its population were concerned, the town of Alfreton was entitled to have its wishes consulted. He, therefore, begged to move the Amendment.

§ Amendment proposed, in page 50, line 29, leave out the word "Belper," and insert the word "Alfreton."—(Mr. Barnes.)

§ Question proposed, "That the word 'Belper' stand part of the Schedule."

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
said, he would point out that the Belper Division of the county consisted of the entire Petty Sessional division of Belper and the Poor Law Union; and as regarded the town it contained 10,000 inhabitants, while the town of Alfreton contained under 5,000. On those grounds, he thought that Belper had a strong case in favour of giving its name to the division.

§ Question put, and negatived.

§ MR. BARNES
said, he had challenged the decision of the Chairman.

THE CHAIRMAN
said, the hon. Member had challenged his decision too late. The hon. Member had himself given his voice with the Noes.

§ On the Motion of Mr. ACLAND, the following Amendments made:—In page 51, line 10, after "The," insert "Eastern or;" and in line 14, after "The," insert "North Eastern or."

§ MR. WARTON
said, before the hon. Member for East Cornwall (Mr. Acland) moved the next Amendment, he (Mr. Warton) had to propose the omission of the word "exclusive," in page 51, line 10, in order to substitute for it the word "except." He had not given Notice of this Amendment on the Paper; but he felt sure the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) would see the propriety of adopting the latter word, which had been made use of throughout the Bill.

1651

§ Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 16, to leave out the word "exclusive," in order to insert the word "except."—(Mr. Warton.)

§ Question, "That the word 'exclusive' stand part of the Schedule," put, and negatived.

§ Question, "That the word 'except' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
said, as he understood there was a general feeling in favour of naming the divisions of the county after the points of the compass—with the exception of the Torquay Division—he was, upon that understanding, ready to agree to the Amendments in the name of the hon. Member for East Cornwall (Mr. Acland).

§ On the Motion of Mr. ACLAND, the following Amendments made:—In page 51, line 19, after "The," insert "Northern or;" in line 23, after "The," insert "North Western or;" in line 27, after "The," insert "Western or;" in line 32, after "The," insert "Southern or;" and in page 52, line 4, after "The," insert "Mid or."

§ MR. RAIKES
said, he had an Amendment to move to this division, the object of which was to substitute for the appellation "Teignbridge," that of "Ashburton." He hoped that the Committee might not be indisposed to adopt the word "Ashburton," an ancient borough which, in the 17th century, returned a relative of the right hon. Member for North Devon who at that time took a prominent part in the proceedings of that House. He trusted the right hon. Baronet might think fit to restore the name of Ashburton to the annals of Parliament.

§ Amendment proposed, in page 52, line 4, after the word "or," insert the word"Ashburton."—(Mr. Raikes.)

§ Question proposed, "That that word be there inserted."

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
said, the Question before the Committee was as to whether this portion of the county should be called the Mid or Teignbridge Division, or the Mid or Ashburton Division. He believed, from the result of a local inquiry that was held in connection with this subject, that the name of Teignbridge was rather preferred in the district. The River Teign ran through 1652 the division, and the affix "Teign," was to be found to the names of several places there, Again, Teignbridge was the designation of a large Petty Sessional district of 105,000 acres, and it was also one of the Devonshire Hundreds. The right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Stafford Northcote) would probably prefer the name of Ashburton.

§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE
said, that as far as the feeling in the county was concerned, he believed that Teignbridge was the accepted name. But, personally, he had a little interest in Ashburton, which at one time returned two Members to that House. It having ceased to be represented as a Parliamentary borough, his ancestor, Sir John Northcote, who was Member for the county, by his influence obtained for it the restoration of its right of sending Members to Parliament, and subsequently sat as the Representative of Ashburton in the Long Parliament. On that ground, he should rather like the name of Ashburton to be preserved in the nomenclature of the representation.

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
said, he believed that the House would wish that the right hon. Baronet who now represented a division of the county of Devon should have the same interest in the electorate represented by the name of Ashburton as his ancestor had done formerly. He should, therefore, accept the Amendment.

§ Question put, and agreed to; word inserted accordingly.

§ Amendment proposed, in page 52, line 10, after the word "The," insert the words "Northern or."—(Mr. Raikes.)

§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

§ MR. PORTMAN
said, he hoped the Committee would be inclined rather to adopt the Amendment which his hon. Colleague (Mr. Floyer) had placed on the Paper than that of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Raikes). The feeling in the county was in favour of the designation contemplated by his hon. Colleague; and he believed that no county in the Kingdom had a stronger claim than Dorset to be styled after its simple and natural divisions of North, South, East, and West. It was in view of that fact that his hon. Friend had drawn his series of Amendments.

1653

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
said, he should not offer any opposition to this Amendment, if it were acceptable to the Committee. If the view of his hon. Friend behind him (Mr. Portman) were carried out, he thought it should not be by adopting the words "Northern or." Personally, he should have prefered the divisions known by the points of the compass absolutely.

§ MR. WARTON
said, he had not been long connected with the county of Dorset; but he was aware that the view represented by the senior Member for the county (Mr. Floyer) and by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Portman) was that of all parties in the county. He suggested that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Raikes) should withdraw his Amendment, in order that it might be made in the form suggested by the right hon. Baronet. The Committee had, in the case of Cumberland, called the divisions of the county "North," "South," "East," and "West," and there was no reason that he could perceive why they should not do the same in the case of the county of Dorset, seeing that those designations were peculiarly applicable, and that there was an unanimous feeling in favour of them throughout the country.

§ MR. MONTAGUE GUEST
said, he did not agree with the hon. Member for Dorsetshire (Mr. Portman) that all the feeling in the county was in favour of his view and that of his Colleague; on the contrary, he (Mr. Guest) believed that the borough population was very anxious that the names of the boroughs should be associated with the divisions of the county.

§ MR. RAIKES
said, he should be glad to take any line that was most acceptable to the Members for Dorsetshire. But there seemed to be some difficulty on the point, as he understood the hon. Member for Wareham (Mr. Guest) to be under the impression that the names of the boroughs would disappear. If the hon. Member for Dorsetshire (Mr. Portman) would propose to amend his (Mr. Raikes's) Amendment, by leaving out the word "or," he would then be able to obtain an expression of opinion by the Committee as to whether they wished that word to be retained, and then he could move to leave out "Shaftesbury."

1654

§ MR. MONTAGUE GUEST
said, he was speaking on behalf of Wareham, which included a large agricultural district 20 miles in length and 10 in breadth. He thought the name which had been in the annals of Parliament for many centuries ought not to disappear.

§ MR. HALSEY
said, as an elector of the county of Dorset, he wished to corroborate what had fallen from the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Portman) with regard to the feeling in the county in favour of naming the divisions after the points of the compass. As a county elector, he hoped the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) would understand that he objected to being turned into an elector for the "Bridport Division."

THE CHAIRMAN
said, it would perhaps be convenient if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Raikes) would withdraw his Amendment, when the hon. Member for Dorsetshire (Mr. Portman) could move to omit the word "Shaftesbury."

MR. RIKES
said, he rather preferred, and he thought the Committee would prefer, the alternative, although he did not think the matter of very great importance so long as they had the points of the compass. On the whole, he thought the hon. Member for Dorsetshire (Mr. Portman) would do better to move the Amendment of his (Mr. Raikes') Amendment, by leaving out the word "or," and then he might, having obtained an expression of opinion on the part of the Committee, also move the omission of the word "Shaftesbury." In that case, there would be raised the issue as between the alternative and the points of the compass.

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
said, in that case, he would move the omission of the word "or."

§ Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, to leave out the word "or."—(Sir Charles W. Dilke.)

§ Question proposed, "That the word 'or' stand part of the said proposed Amendment."

§ MR. MONTAGUE GUEST
said, that although it was not his intention to divide the Committee on the point, yet, inasmuch as the boroughs of Dorsetshire would be very much disappointed at their names not being associated with the 1655 county divisions, he was bound to make a further protest against the proposal.

§ Question put, and negatived.

§ Original Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.

§ MR. RAIKES
said, he would now propose to leave out the word "Shaftesbury" from the Schedule.

§ Amendment proposed, in page 52, line 10, to leave out the word "Shaftesbury."—(Mr. Raikes.)

§ Question, "That the word' proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule," put, and negatived; word left out accordingly.

§ On the Motion of Mr. RAIKES, the following Amendments made:— In page 52, line 15, after "The," insert "Eastern;" in line 20, after "The," insert Southern;" and in line 28, after "The," insert "Western.

MR. JOSEPH COWEN
said, he rose to move the substitution of the word "Blaydon" for "Chester-le-Street," in respect of the 3rd division of the county of Durham. He did so because there was a strong feeling in the most populous part of the district—which contained two-thirds of the inhabitants of the whole division—that the word "Blaydon" should be retained. He trusted hon. Gentlemen opposite would not object to the proposed alteration.

§ Amendment proposed, In page 53, line 10, after "The," leave out "Chester le Street," and insert "Blaydon."— (Mr. Joseph Cowen.)

§ Question proposed, "That the word proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
said, there was a great deal to be said in favour of the view of his hon. Friend (Mr. Joseph Cowen); but, on the whole, he thought that local opinion was against the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman. A part of Gateshead was in the Chester-le-Street Division, and but for the fact that there was already a Member for that constituency perhaps that would be the best name. Chester-le-Street, however, was in the very centre of the division; it was a Poor Law Union, it was a market town, situated on a main road, and it had good railway communications. Petty Sessions were held there, it was a very ancient place, and it had a popula- 1656 tion at the present time of 7,000 people. Blaydon had a population of nearly 11,000 people, and it covered a very large area. Blaydon was the name given by the Commissioners to the division in their original scheme; but Chester-le-Street was an ancient town, and its name found more favour. The Commissioners thought that although Blaydon had a larger population than Chester-le-Street, Chester-le-Street was the better name to give to the division. There was another point which he was surprised his hon. Friend did not mention in the way of objection to the name of Chester-le-Street, and that point was that the name would very much resemble that of another constituency in the country.

§ MR. RAIKES
said, he had an Amendment on the Paper, to leave out Chester-le-Street, in order to insert Ravensworth. He confessed he found it inconvenient to discover the particular spot in that division to name the division after. His objection to the name of Chester-le-Street was entirely that indicated by his hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Joseph Cowen), and to which he thought the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) was inclined to attach a little importance. It was most desirable they should avoid the selection of names at all similar to those of other constituencies. Although he (Mr. Raikes) had not at the present time the honour of representing the city of Chester, he was, perhaps, as well qualified to speak on behalf of that constituency as anyone in the House. He was quite sure there would be a very decided feeling there against this proposal, because by the establishment of a Member for Chester-le-Street there must be a certain amount of confusion in the House. He believed that all the right hon. Baronet had said as to the antiquity and historical importance of Chester-le-Street was quite correct; and, if it were not for the confusion which would be created, he (Mr. Raikes) would be content to leave the name alone. Having regard to the confusion which would necessarily arise between Chester-le-Street and Chester, he should support the Amendment of his hon. Friend (Mr. Joseph Cowen). Personally, he (Mr. Raikes) thought that Ravensworth would have been a better title for the division.

1657

§ MR. DODDS
said, he hoped the Committee would not accept the name suggested by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Raikes). Ravensworth, although it was the name of the Earl of Ravensworth, and his seat, Ravensworth Castle, was neither a parish, nor indeed a township. Between the other two names of Chester-le-Street and Blaydon a great deal was to be said, and had been said already. Now, he (Mr. Dodds) attended the local inquiry held by the Commissioners; and, on the whole, the great weight of argument was in favour of the name of Chester-le-Street being given to the division. He thought it was a good name, for this reason—that it was the older name, and that Chester-le-Street was more in the centre of the division than Blaydon. He believed that the general feeling in the division outside of the two places was that Chester-le-Street was a preferable name to Blaydon, and therefore he trusted the Committee would retain the name now inserted in the Bill.

§ MR. W. H. JAMES
thought it very desirable to avoid, as far as possible, creating local feelings of jealousy on the matter of a nomenclature of this kind. He could bear his testimony that in the division there was a strong feeling in favour of retaining the name of Chester-le-Street. No doubt, there was something in the appeal which had been put forward by his hon. Friend (Mr. Joseph Cowen); but Chester-le-Street had strong claims to give its name to the division, if only for its historical and antiquarian associations. He hoped the Committee would reject the Amendment.

§ MR. T. C. THOMPSON
said, that there need be no fear of confusing this name of Chester-le-Street with that of the city of Chester; for, in the North, the people invariably spoke of the town as Chester-le-Street, and not as Chester. Chester-le-Street had a very peculiar historical connection with the county of Durham. Chester-le-Street was the birthplace of St. Cuthbert, whose tomb was the foundation of the city of Durham, and whose body rested for many years in Chester-le-Street. He (Mr. T. C. Thompson) thought that historical associations were of very great importance indeed. It was most desirable that they should stamp upon districts—not something connected with the points of the compass—but some individuality, 1658 something which separated them from other parts of the country, and impressed them on the mind of the people of the country.

MR. JOSEPH COWEN
said, that if this were a question of archeological contention, he could call attention to matters which went much farther back than the time of St. Cuthbert. The point really was the convenience of electors, and he could say from intimate knowledge of the district—for he had lived there all his life—that Blaydon would be found a much more convenient name. Gateshead, no doubt, would be an appropriate title, but there could not be two constituencies bearing the name of Gateshead.

§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)
said, that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle (Mr. Joseph Cowen) was so intimately associated with Blaydon, that it was but natural he should try to give the name of that place to the division. So far as he (the Solicitor General) could judge, outside of Blaydon, Chester-le-Street would be a much more popular name than Blaydon. Certainly, one thing in favour of Chester-le-Street was that, in the first instance, the Commissioners fixed, upon the name of Blaydon. They only changed the name of the division to that of Chester-le-Street because, after hearing both sides—after ascertaining so far as they could the general feeling of the constituency—they came to the conclusion that they ought to change the name from Blaydon to Chester-le-Street. He asked the Committee to consider if they were in a better position than the Commissioners were to determine what was the name that was most generally approved by the constituency. He submitted that considering that the change had been advisedly made as a result of discussion before the Commissioners, a very strong case ought to be made out before the name was changed. The only point of importance that he could see that had been raised in favour of the Amendment was that the name of Chester-le-Street would lead to some confusion. He could hardly think it would, because he could not understand how the Chester-le-Street Division of the county of Durham could clash with Chester. There had not been any confusion between Newcastle-upon-Tyne and Newcastle-under-Lyme, which 1659 names were, perhaps, more nearly alike than Chester-le-Street and Chester.

§ Question put, and negatived.

§ MR. DODDS
proposed, as an Amendment, to omit "Lanchester," in line 21, page 53, in order to insert "North Western." He did so for the simple reason that although Lanchester had much to be said in favour of it, it being a place very similar, in many characteristics, to Chester-le-Street, it, like Chester-le-Street, was the place originally named by the Boundary Commission in substitution for Consett; Consett was the most populous place in the division, and had great claims for consideration; but the rival parties from Consett and Lanchester had met before Major Tulloch held his inquiry, and arrived at the conclusion that if the points of the compass could be used for the division, they would be content. Major Tulloch, however, said it was contrary to his instructions to give the division a title according to the points of the compass. He (Mr. Dodds) proposed "North-Western," instead of Lanchester, not because he objected to Lanchester, but in the interest of the peace of the division. There would be loss heartburning in the division if his Amendment were adopted. If the Committee accepted his Amendment, there would be greater satisfaction throughout the division—the Amendment would be acceptable to the people of Consett and Lanchester alike. He hoped the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) would, under the circumstances, adopt his proposition, especially as it had been agreed upon by all parties. A glance at the map would show that "North-Western" was a very appropriate title to give to the constituency.

§ Amendment proposed, in page 53, line 21, leave out "Lanchester," and insert"North-Western."—(Mr. Dodds.)

§ Question proposed, "That the word proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."

MR. JOSEPH COWEN
thought that if they accepted one name because of archaeological considerations, they ought to accept another. As a matter of fact, no one knew which was the North-Western Division of the county; but everybody would know the division if it were called Lanchester.

1660

§ MR. DODDS
remarked, that everybody knew full well which was the North-Western district of the county. If a geographical name could have been found for the Chester-le-Street Division, he was sure that it would have been adopted. He (Mr. Dodds) did not object to Lanchester; but as the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had consented to adopt points of the compass, he thought it was quite right that this alteration should be made.

§ MR. RAIKES
hoped the Government would see their way to accept this Amendment.

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
Yes.

§ MR. RAIKES
said, that he supported the Amendment, not only because it introduced a point of the compass, but because it got rid of another of the ambiguities of which he had had to complain. Lanchester very much resembled both Lancaster and Manchester. He should support this Amendment for the very same reason that he supported the last Amendment.

§ MR. WARTON
said, that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had consented, in a very quiet manner, to accept this Amendment. He (Mr. Warton) hoped they would have the pleasure of hearing, on this question, some hon. Gentleman connected with the county. He could not understand how the right hon. Baronet had been so easily seduced by the arguments of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stockton (Mr. Dodds), because those arguments appeared to him (Mr. Warton) to be extremely weak. The right hon. Baronet had accepted the points of the compass in the case of Dorset; but in that case the divisions were merely called North, South, East, and West. In Durham, however, they had adopted local names for some of the divisions. He thought it was desirable to avoid, if possible, mixing up in the same county points of the compass and names not points of the compass. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Raikes) seemed to be very much pleased with the adoption of points of the compass. No doubt, the right hon. Gentleman had done good service in the consideration of this Bill; but then it must be remembered that points of the compass were not, in every in- 1661 stance, desirable. He (Mr. Warton) was inclined to think that the better plan was that where they had a county like Dorset, which was split up into four divisions, it was very desirable to adopt the points of the compass; but in a county like Durham, where they had adopted local names in some cases, why should they seek to adopt points of the compass in other cases? He hoped more consideration would be given to this Amendment.

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
said, he had every desire to save the time of the Committee. He had assented to the Amendment because he thought it would be difficult to find a good local name. He did not think that Lanchester or Consett were as good names as North-Western.

§ MR. W. H. JAMES
suggested that the alternative name should be given— North-Western or Lanchester.

MR. G. W. ELLIOT
said, he was sorry the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had assented so quickly to the Amendment. Lanchester and Consett were well known in the division. Lanchester, Bishop Auckland, and Barnard Castle were perfectly well-defined places, and if these names were changed to points of the compass electors in the county of Durham would not know where the divisions were.

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
said, that as the matter had been discussed at greater length than he expected, he had better say something as to the reasons why he assented to the Amendment. Lanchester was a name very like Manchester. Lanchester was not a very important place; certainly it was the name of the Poor Law Union; but it was not a Local Board district, and it had only 3,000 or 4,000 people. Consett was a Local Board district, with a population of 7,000; so that if the Committee went by local importance Consett was of more importance than Lanchester, and Consett was the name originally taken by the Commissioners. He thought there was no good local name to give to the division; and, therefore, he had expressed his readiness to adopt the Amendment.

SIR GEORGE ELLIOT
said, that if the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had not been a little hasty in his acceptance of the Amendment, he (Sir George Elliot) would have given one or 1662 two reasons why Lanchester ought to be the name given to the division, and not Consett. Lanchester was an old place, Consett was a new place; and, therefore, he thought it was well to adhere to the name finally given to the division by the Commissioners. Consett was a place which consisted of coal pits. Now, he happened to be a Member of the Royal Commission appointed some years ago to ascertain the quantity of coal in the county of Durham; and in the course of the inquiries of the Commission, he learned that the coal at Consett would be used up in a century. In 100 years, therefore, there would be no Consett. Lanchester had existed as a place for hundreds of years, and would, he had no doubt, continue to do so. He thought that Lanchester was as good a name to give to the division as North-Western, because the people would know where the division was if Lanchester was its name. He believed there were Members of the Committee who would live to see Lanchester increased in power and importance.

§ MR. T. C. THOMPSON
regretted that the Committee were going to make these changes. The names adopted for the divisions were in his opinion, very beautiful, and were well known all over the county. Everyone, for instance, knew where Lanchester was; but very few people had heard of Consett. Consett was a place which probably would not exist very long. Lanchester, however, was a place in very remote times. It would be impossible to instil into the minds of the people of Durham which was the North and which was the North-Western Divisions of the county. The people liked to keep to well-known names. He did not hesitate to say that there were not half-a-dozen people who knew where the Southern Division of the county began. He hoped that they were framing a Bill which would last for a very considerable time; and, therefore, he desired that the names adopted for the divisions should be well understood.

§ MR. DODDS
said, he was astonished to hear the extraordinary argument of his hon. Friend the Member for Durham (Mr. T. C. Thompson). The hon. Gentleman knew, as well as any man in the House, that the two divisions, North and South, had lasted ever since the great Reform Bill of 1832. Now, whe- [Thirteenth Night.] 1663 ther or not Lanchester or Consett continued to be places, North-Western would always remain a point of the compass; and he thought that was an additional reason why they should adopt that title instead of Lanchester or Consett.

MR. G. W. ELLIOT
said, so far as he understood, there was no North-Western part of the county at all.

§ MR. WARTON
said, that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stockton (Mr. Dodds) proposed to adopt points of the compass in the cases of three divisions of the county—North-Western, South-Eastern, and Southern. Now, if the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) was not so very averse to the adoption of the points of the compass, as the titles of divisions of the counties, he (Mr. Warton) put it to him whether it would not be desirable to adopt points of the compass in the cases of all the divisions of the county? It seemed ridiculous to adopt names of locality in some eases, and points of the compass in others.

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
pointed out that they had already mixed up points of the compass with local names. That, of course, was a matter entirely for the Committee. If hon. Members thought it worth while to divide upon the Amendment, he should not use any influence he might have to cause the Committee to come to one conclusion or the other.

§ Question put, and negatived.

§ Question, "That the words 'North-Western' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

§ MR. DODDS
said, he now wished to move an Amendment as to which there had been a great conflict of local opinion. In the original scheme, the division to which he was directing attention was called Brandon; but that was very strongly objected to. It was proposed to call the district Mid Durham; but they had been told by the Commissioners that, according to their Instructions, points of the compass were not to be used in naming the divisions, and eventually Brancepeth had been decided upon. Although an important place, this was only a parish. This place had appeared to receive acceptance; but now that the Committee were at liberty to substitute geographical names instead of names of 1664 places, he thought that Mid Durham would be the most appropriate name for this division, seeing that the division was in the middle of the county. Every other division of the county, with one exception, abutted upon this, and he was sure the substitution of the name he suggested for Brancepeth would be well received. He would therefore move that that substitution should take place.

§ Amendment proposed, in page 5.3, line 25, leave out "Brancepeth," and insert "Mid."—(Mr. Dodds.)

§ Question proposed, "That the word proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."

§ MR. WARTON
said, that "Mid" was not a point of the compass, except in the mind of the hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Dodds), which was usually somewhat confused.

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
said, that if it were the general feeling of the Committee that that name should be substituted for Brancepeth, he would raise no objection to the alteration.

§ Question put, and negatived.

§ Question, "That the word 'Mid' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

§ MR. DODDS
said, he now desired to change the name of the "North Tees Division" to that of "South-Eastern Division." The name "North Tees" had no signification whatever. He had heard an hon. Member on the other side of the House declare it was a well-known name in the county; but, however that might be, it was nevertheless a fact that no one in the county had ever heard such a name applied to the district to which it had been affixed until they saw it in the Bill. The three most important places in the district were Stockton, Hartlepool, and Darlington; but none of these could be taken, as each of them retained its borough representation. As points of the compass could not at that time be taken, the Commissioners themselves had chosen this name "North Tees."

§ Amendment proposed, in page 53, line 30, leave out the words "North Tees," and insert the words "South-Eastern."—(Mr. Dodds.)

§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."

1665

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
said, in this case, also, he should leave the decision of the question to the Committee.

§ Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule," put, and negatived.

§ Question, "That the words 'South Eastern' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

§ MR. DODDS
said, that, in the next case, he wished to propose a composite name—that was to say, to give the "Barnard Castle" Division the name of "Southern or Barnard Castle" Division. Barnard Castle was an important place; and if names according to points of the compass had not been decided upon it would have been desirable to have left the name as it stood. As, however, points of the compass names had been accepted, and as this district formed a very large part of the late Southern Division, he thought "Southern or Barnard Castle" would be a very appropriate name.

§ Amendment proposed, in page 54, line 5, before "Barnard Castle," insert "Southern or."—(Mr. Dodds.)

§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
said, he should like to say a word or two upon this proposal, because he had no doubt it was one of those which were referred to on a former occasion when he was overruled by the Committee. In his opinion, this name would not be at all applicable to the division. No doubt this would be the southern part of the county if it were divided in two; but, in addition to being the more southerly parts, it was at the same time the more westerly part of the county. It seemed really to be more westerly than southerly, and he therefore thought that Barnard Castle, which was a most respectable name, should be retained as giving a title to this division.

§ MR. DODDS
said, that on reference to the map he could not understand the right hon. Baronet's (Sir Charles W. Dilke's) view as to this not being the southern portion of the county. The fact was, there was one extreme point which was now part of the South-Eastern Division, which extended further to the 1666 south than Barnard Castle Division; but for nearly 30 miles the southern part of this division was bounded by the Tees, and was, to all intents and purposes, the southern part of the county. At any rate, he should be very glad to withdraw the Amendment "Southern or," in order that the words "South Western" might be inserted, which the right hon. Baronet seemed inclined to accept.

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
No; I do not desire that at all.

§ Question put, and negatived.

§ COLONEL MAKINS
said, he wished to move, as an Amendment, in page 54, line 17, after the word "The," to insert "South Western or." This was the first of a series of Amendments standing in his name which he had put on the Paper with a view to applying the points of the compass—including the word "Mid," which was not a point-of-the-compass name—to the eight divisions of Essex. On the first day of the new Session he put a Question to the right hon. Baronet with regard to an Amendment of this kind. He had asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he would entertain such an Amendment, and the right hon. Gentleman had told him that he would be guided by the feeling of the House. Since then the right hon. Gentleman had shown, with regard to other counties, his willingness to adopt the evident sense of the Committee, and had accepted names chosen from the points of the compass. With regard to the county of Essex, at the inquiry before the Commissioners they had been precluded from raising the points-of-the-compass question, otherwise he had no doubt they would have carried their proposal. He (Colonel Makins) had been spending last week in the county of Essex, and had made inquiries on this subject, and had not found a single person take any objection to his proposal; on the contrary, everyone thought it a desirable change. He did not wish to take up the time of the Committee unnecessarily; therefore, unless arguments were raised on the other side of the House, he should confine himself to simply moving the first Amendment on the Paper in his name, the effect of which would be to add to "Walthamstow" the name "South Western or."

1667

§ Amendment proposed, in page 54, line 17, after the word "The," to insert the words "South-Western or."—(Colonel Makins.)

§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
said, there were a great many divisions in this county. It was a suburban district, and might be said to be very largely in the Metropolis; consequently it was very much more difficult to deal with in the way proposed than was a purely rural county. One of the eight divisions was extremely small in size, smaller even than the Jarrow Division, to which had been affixed a local name instead of a point-of-the-compass name. On the whole, he certainly thought that the names in the Bill were better than those proposed by the hon. and gallant Member. Some of the divisions were almost Metropolitan, and should, therefore, retain their own names; and the Epping Division, generally following, as it did, the old lines of Epping Forest, should be named after that district. Two of the divisions were named after municipal boroughs, and the only difficulty was with regard to the Tilbury Division, as to which there had been a great difference of opinion. He (Sir Charles W. Dilke) should be more inclined to take a compound name in that case than in any other. Tilbury was an ancient name; but the district was certainly not agricultural; it was really a Thames or sea-coast division.

§ COLONEL MAKINS
said, that with regard to the particular division—namely, the Walthamstow Division—now under discussion, he was sure the people of that place were anxious to have this point-of-the-compass name added to the proposed name; otherwise it would appear to be a suburban district of the Metropolis rather than an integral part of Essex. As the right hon. Gentleman had accepted these alternative names in so many cases, he (Colonel Makins) hoped he would not go from the principle on the present occasion. He was sure that in this matter he had the support of every Member for the county of Essex. He saw below him an hon. Member who represented the Western Division of the county (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson), and he trusted that hon. Member would 1668 support him on this occasion. He was sure the hon. Member agreed with him in his desire to see this alternative point-of-the-compass name given to the Walthamstow Division. He trusted his proposal would be accepted by the Government.

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
said, he agreed with his hon. and gallant Friend who represented the Southern Division of the county (Colonel Makins), and he was convinced that if, at the meeting of the Boundary Commissioners; they had been able to propose points-of-compass names, the Commissioners would have been unanimous in applying those names to this county. Already, those points of the compass names had been introduced in the Bill; and he believed his hon. and gallant Friend had fairly stated the views of the county at large, when he said that the localities would urge upon the right hon. Baronet, if it were possible, the desirability of adopting the principle in the case of Essex, as in the case of other counties. The right hon. Gentleman would not be at all departing from the scheme of the Bill if he permitted these alternative names to be adopted in this case as they had been in the others.

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
said, he did not think the matter was worth dividing the Committee about; the question was whether there was a general assent to the proposal of the hon. and gallant Member. He would not divide the Committee against opinions so positively expressed, and therefore he would accept the alternative names, although he did not like them.

§ Question put, and agreed to.

§ On the Motion of Colonel MAKINS, the following Amendments made:—In page 54, line 19, after "The," insert "Western or;" in line 23, after "The," insert "North Western or;" in line 27, after "The," insert "Northern or;" in page 55, line 1, after "The," insert "North Eastern or;" in line 7, after "The," insert "Eastern or;" and in line 15, after "The," insert "Mid or."

§ Amendment proposed, in page 55, line 19, after "The," insert "South Eastern or."—(Colonel Makins.)

§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

§ MR. WARTON
said, that, before the Question was put to the Committee, he 1669 wished to say a few words which were not exactly regular, but which arose from something that had been said by the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke). The right hon. Gentleman had seemed to have it in his mind that it would be desirable to call this "the Thames Division," and there was a great deal of force in that suggestion. There was no such place as Tilbury in the world. There was a Tilbury Fort, but no town of Tilbury or Tilbury village. He (Mr. Warton), therefore, would propose to the Committee that they should call this the Thames Division. They had very few places named after rivers, and seeing how important the Thames was—that it was the river running through the English Metropolis, the greatest City in the world, he thought it would be a very graceful act to call this division after it.

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
said, he did not think that Tilbury was a very good name; and if the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Matins) liked to confer with the Essex Members before Report, and see whether a better name than Tilbury could be obtained, so far as he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) was concerned, he should be glad to agree to the result of their conference. He could not, however, say that he thought "the Thames Division" would be a good name, because the Thames flowed through many divisions in other counties besides this, although no doubt this district ran along the Thames for a greater distance than any other.

§ MR. STRUTT
said, he would urge upon the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) the desirability of calling this the Southend Division. The Commissioners had chosen the name of Tilbury for no reason whatever that he could see; and as the largest town in the division was Southend, and as that place was in the centre of the division, agriculture being the principal industry, he thought it would only be right to adopt that nomenclature.

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
said, that no doubt Southend was the largest place in the division; but it was clearly a pleasure resort and a watering place, and he did not know that it was a good place to give a name to a county division. Unless there was very general agreement on the matter, he should be rather disposed to strike out the alternative in 1670 this case. At any rate, if that course were proposed, he should not take exception to it.

§ Amendment proposed, in page 55, line 19, to strike out the word "Tilbury."—(Sir Charles W. Dilke.)

§ Question proposed, "That the word 'Tilbury' stand part of the Schedule."

§ MR. TOMLINSON
said, it did not appear to him that the fact of Southend being a modern watering place was against its being chosen as the name of a county division. There were places in the county of Lancaster, such as Blackpool and Southport, which gave names to county divisions, and surely these might be taken as a precedent.

§ Question put, and negatived.

§ Question, "That the words 'South Eastern 'be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

§ MR. RAIKES
said, he had an Amendment on the Paper, in page 55, line 26, to add to "the Caerphilly Division" the words "Eastern or;" but he thought he had better leave the question in the hands of the hon. Baronet the Member for Glamorganshire (Sir Hussey-Vivian).

§ SIR HUSSEY VIVIAN
said, he begged to move the Amendment standing on the Paper in his name—namely, in page 55, line 26, after "The," leave out "Caerphilly," and insert "Eastern." The term "Eastern" distinctly applied to this division of Glamorganshire. Caerphilly was a very small place on the borders of Monmouthshire—in fact, only one mile from Monmouthshire, and containing a very small population indeed. It was quite true that Caerphilly gave the name to a Petty Sessional division; but that, he thought, was the only title which it had to give a name to this Parliamentary division. The name "Eastern" would geographically and distinctly describe the division; and he was able to state that it was the unanimous, or almost the unanimous, wish of the county that this alteration should be made. At any rate, if it was not the unanimous wish of the county, he had heard nothing to the contrary. He would not detain the Committee by going any further into the question, but would simply move the Amendment he had read.

1671

§ Amendment proposed, in page 55, line 26, after "The," leave out "Caerphilly," and insert "Eastern."—(Sir Hussey Vivian.)

§ Question proposed, "That 'Caerphilly' stand part of the Schedule."

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
said, he would not oppose the Amendment, if it was the general feeling of the Committee that it should be accepted; but, at the same time, he thought that some other Amendments standing on the Paper in the name of the hon. Baronet were of a very doubtful character. For instance, the hon. Baronet proposed to leave out the word "Gower," and to put in its place "Western," and that did not seem to him to be a very desirable alteration. Cower was an extremely well-known name in Wales.

§ MR. BRYCE
said, he would earnestly appeal to the Committee to retain the name "Gower."

§ MR. WARTON
Not yet; we have not come to Gower yet.

§ MR. BRYCE
said, he knew very well what he was saying; he raised the question at this point for a purpose. He had no objection to the substitution of the name "Eastern" for "Caerphilly," if it was not to be taken as a precedent for the substitution of the name "Western" for "Gower." Gower was a name which he should conceive it a great pity to lose; it was a name of the utmost interest in the earlier history of Wales.

§ Question put, and negatived.

§ Question, "That the word' Eastern' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

§ SIR HUSSEY VIVIAN
said, he would now move the next Amendment standing in his name on the Paper—namely, after the word "The," in line 29, to leave out "Gower," and insert "Western." He knew the district in question as well as anyone alive, and he had not heard any expression from those who lived in it of a desire that the name "Gower" should be retained. On the other hand, he had presented a Petition to the House praying that the name should be omitted, and that "Western" should be inserted in its place. It was true that Gower was an ancient definition of a portion of Western Glamorganshire; but it had long ceased to occupy an important position in the county. The inhabitants of Gower proper were 1672 less than 4,000; whereas the division represented the whole of the populous valley of Swansea, and a large portion of a populous district adjacent to Carmarthenshire, Gower proper did not in reality represent more than a twelfth of the district, and he thought that the term "Western" would distinctly define the division, and that "Gower" would not. Whatever historical value the name "Gower" might have, he thought that in this Bill they ought to adopt such definitions as would distinctly describe the divisions of which they spoke; he knew of no other that would define this division except that he had suggested. He desired to press the name "Western" upon the attention of the Committee.

§ Amendment proposed, in page 55, line 29, after "The," leave out "Gower" and insert"Western."—(Sir Hussey Vivian.)

§ Question proposed, "That 'Gower' stand part of the Schedule."

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
said, he thought it would be better to retain the name in the Bill, although it did not exactly represent the whole of the district, as in the case of the Isle of Thanet. As a matter of fact, it only contained half the district; but "Gower" was a very important historical name, and he thought it right that the name should be preserved.

§ MR. RAIKES
said, that he had had an Amendment on the Paper for the purpose of proposing an alternative name; and he would put it to the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) whether it would not be a more prudent course to substitute this alternative name for the Amendment now before the Committee? He quite felt the force of the argument that "Gower" was only a small part of the division; but there was also a great deal to be said in regard to the interest attaching to this very ancient name; therefore, would it not be better that "Western or," should be put before "Gower?"

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
I am not opposed to that.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ MR. RAIKES
Then I propose to insert the words "Western or" as I have indicated.

1673

§ Amendment proposed, in page 55, line 29, after "The," insert "Western or."—(Mr Raikes.)

§ Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

§ SIR HUSSEY VIVIAN
moved, as an Amendment in line 1, page 56, to substitute "Mid" for the "Vale of Neath." He was of opinion that the Vale of Neath would not be an appropriate designation to attach to this division. The Vale of Neath was only a strip, about two miles wide, in the western part of the division. The division itself extended along the West Coast of Glamorganshire, and embraced a large and populous district, including the borough of Aberavon. He was of opinion that if they wanted a new name, "Aberavon" would be much better adapted to the district than the "Vale of Neath." It was known before the Commissioners went down that it was intended to move that the definition he now proposed should be adopted. He had received many communications in favour of that name, and not one against it; and he believed it was the general wish that it should be adopted.

§ Amendment proposed in page 56, line 1, after "The," leave out "Vale of Neath," and insert "Mid."—(Sir Hussey Vivian.)

§ Question, "That the words 'Vale of Neath' stand part of the Schedule," put, and negatived.

§ Question, "That the word 'Mid' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

§ SIR HUSSEY VIVIAN
said, he would next move an Amendment, the object of which was to describe the fifth proposed division as the "South" instead of the "Llandaff Division." He said that Llandaff was undoubtedly a very ancient city, but it was a comparatively small place, and it was situated in the remote eastern corner of a division which would extend for something like 20 miles to the west. A large portion of Llandaff was already included in the borough of Cardiff, and the Eastern portion of the division was almost entirely composed of the southern boundary along the sea coast of Glamorganshire. He did not think that the word "Llandaff" at all appropriately described the division, nor would the word 1674 "Eastern;" and he, therefore, moved to substitute the word "Southern." His proposal would receive the support of everyone who was acquainted with the county of Glamorganshire.

§ Amendment proposed, in page 56, line 6, after "The," leave out "Llandaff," and insert"Southern."—(Sir Hussey Vivian.)

§ Question proposed, "That the word 'Llandaff' stand part of the Schedule."

§ MR. WARTON
said, he wished to call attention to the curious way in which line 16 had been printed. By the insertion of a comma, the sense of the Schedule was altogether altered. As it appeared in the Bill the present division was to comprise various Sessional Divisions, the municipal borough of Cardiff, and certain parishes in the Sessional Division of Newcastle and Ogmore, and in the Sessional Division of Miskin, Lower, of Llantrissant. On the previous page, page 55, this Sessional Division was described as Miskin Lower, without the comma between the two words. He wished to know which was correct?

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
said, that it was a printer's error, which would be rectified.

§ MR. WARTON
said, that it was admitted to be another printer's error added to the numerous other printer's errors which had been pointed out.

§ SIR HUSSEY VIVIAN
said, that no doubt the insertion of the comma after the word Miskin was wrong.

§ Question put, and negatived.

§ Question, "That the word 'Southern' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

§ MR. RAIKES
said, the Committee had now reached the county of Gloucester, and his next Amendment had reference to the first division of the county—namely, the proposed Stroud Division. Gloucestershire was a county which divided itself more easily into the geographical divisions—North, South, Mid, East, and West, than some others. He proposed, therefore, to constitute the Stroud Division the "Mid" Division, and he would therefore move in line 20 an Amendment to that effect.

§ Amendment proposed in page 56, line 20, after "The," insert "Mid or."—(Mr. Raikes.)

§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

1675

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
said, that he was prepared to accept the Amendment as carrying out the alternative plan.

§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH
said, that he had an Amendment upon the Paper, to insert after "Stroud" the words "and Tetbury." He wished to know whether this was the proper time for moving that Amendment?

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
said, that it would not come in here. The Committee had not yet reached the point at which it would be proper to insert the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman.

MR. STANTON
said, he hoped that, so far as Stroud was concerned, no alternative name would be given to the division.

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
said, that it was only proposed to describe the division as the "Mid or Stroud Division." It would still be a very short title, seeing that Mid was short and that Stroud was short also. That was a more important point than it seemed to be, because some of the names were extremely long, and they would have to be printed on every page of the register. Perhaps the difficulty would be got over by using either one word or the other, if a provision were inserted in the Bill to that effect; but as the Bill now stood the name of the division, however long, would have to be used.

MR. STANTON
said, it was with reluctance that he gave way to the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Charles W. Dilke); but he thought it very unnecessary, when they had such distinctive names as were proposed to be given to the Gloucestershire divisions, that they should adopt the points of the compass at all. The definition "Mid" in reference to Stroud was no doubt accurate, but unnecessary. But to call Tewkesbury Division "Northern" was wrong, for Cirencester was the most northerly; and to call Berkeley, which was to be part of Tewkesbury, "Northern" was contrary to geography and common sense.

§ Question put, and agreed to.

§ On the Motion of Sir CHARLES W. DILKE, the following Amendment made: —In page 56, line 22, after "Dursley," insert "except the parish of Slimbridge."

§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH
said, the Amendment to which he had now to 1676 ask the attention of the Committee for a few minutes was one of rather more importance than the mere insertion of a name, because it dealt with the area of the divisions formed by the Boundary Commissioners. He fully acknowledged the extreme difficulty of the task the Commissioners had been called upon to perform in setting out the different divisions of the county of Gloucester. The peculiar nature of the county made it extremely difficult to divide it into five parts. No doubt, the Commissioners had done their best to arrive at a fair decision in the scheme which they had produced at the local inquiry. But that scheme was based almost entirely upon Petty Sessional divisions, irrespective of natural boundaries, and of the pursuits of the population. One part of it was very strongly objected to on the ground of the difference of local pursuits between Stroud and Cirencester; and when the Commissioners came to revise their scheme by the light of other proposals made to them, they adopted the plan which now appeared in the Bill. He must, however, say, in regard to two of the divisions of the county, that the present Tewkesbury and Cirencester Divisions were laid out in a very inconvenient form, both in regard to shape and means of communication; and the Amendment which he had placed upon the Paper had been devised in order to render them somewhat less inconvenient than they were at present. In regard to one of the divisions—Cirencester—as defined by the Commissioners, it would be more than 50 miles long—a narrow strip of land shaped something like an old-fashioned purse, with two ends almost entirely cut off from the centre. Nor was there any communication whatever between the North and South of the division. As a matter of fact, when the inhabitants desired to have a general meeting, they had been obliged to hold it in some place outside the division, because there was no place of meeting within the division itself that was at all convenient for general access. The object of his Amendment was to make the Cirencester Division more convenient by taking away the Petty Sessional division of Tetbury on the extreme south of it, and adding it to another division to which anybody who looked at the county upon the map 1677 would see that it really belonged. Now, the second division, Tewkesbury, was also a long and narrow strip of something like 35 miles in length; and, as indicated on the plan of the Commissioners before that plan was amended by the right hon. Baronet, one part of it would have been absolutely cut off from the rest. It would still, however, be in one place only one and a-half miles broad. He proposed, by his second Amendment, to leave out two parishes proposed to be included in the Stroud Division—namely, Eastington and Frocester—in order to make the Tewkesbury Division of a somewhat better shape. Those parishes which were in the Sessional Division of Whitminster would then be included in the Tewkesbury Division, and would be excluded, as they were at present excluded, from the borough of Stroud. He did not propose to ask the Committee to divide upon this proposal. All that he was anxious to do was to point out the extreme inconvenience of the two divisions as proposed by the right hon. Baronet. He thought anybody would see how extremely inconvenient in shape the two divisions were; and what he hoped was, that the right hon. Baronet would consent to refer the matter to the Commissioners, in order that they might take it into further consideration, and, if they thought fit, agree to some Amendment to be proposed on the Report. He quite saw the difficulty of asking the Committee to deal with an Amendment of that kind against the opinion of the Commissioners; but as it was a local grievance which ought to be remedied, he thought the matter should be further considered, and if in the opinion of the Commissioners the grievance could be remedied, some change ought to be made in the present proposal. The proposal he had placed upon the Paper could hardly be said to have any Party bearing, because it was identical with that which was submitted to the Commissioners by those who represented the Liberals of Gloucestershire. There was a general feeling that the Commissioners should have accepted it, and have embodied it in their Report. It might be said that he was proposing to unite an agricultural district with Stroud, which was a manufacturing district; but the new district of Stroud would comprise an enormous area of agricultural coun- 1678 try precisely similar to that which he proposed to add to it. Therefore, the change would not involve any mingling of dissimilar populations in different parts of the county. The sole reason for regarding the parishes of Eastington and Frocester as a manufacturing district was that Eastington contained one woollen manufactory; but he did not think that that was sufficient to warrant a resistance to the plan he now proposed. If his scheme were accepted, the result would be to equalize the divisions of the county rather more than at present. According to the present form of the divisions the population varied from 59,000 to 48,000, and under his arrangement it would vary from 59,000 to 50,000. He had no wish to detain the Committee at any greater length; but he would ask the right hon. Baronet to consider what he had said, and see whether he could remedy the grievance by an appeal to the Commissioners. He begged to move the Amendment which stood in his name.

§ Amendment proposed, in page 56. line 22, after "Stroud," insert "Tetbury."—(Sir Michael Hicks-Beach.)

§ Question proposed, "That the word 'Tetbury' be there inserted."

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
said, he should be very glad to meet the views of the right hon. Baronet, and make him the promise he asked for, if he thought he could do so honestly and fairly. The right hon. Gentleman had brought the matter in a very reasonable way before the Committee, and he should have been very anxious to meet the views of the right hon. Gentleman if he could; but he was afraid it would only be misleading the Committee if he were to comply with the proposal the right hon. Gentleman made, and were to refer the matter back again to the Commissioners. The fact was that this point, which had attracted the attention of the right hon. Baronet and of other Gentlemen, had already received very careful consideration at the hands of the Commissioners, and he knew that they were in favour of adhering to their scheme. There would, therefore, be no good result obtained by a further reference, unless it were to be in the form of a direction from the Committee to the Commissioners to give effect to a view that was different from their own.

1679

§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH
said, he did not ask that that should be done.

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
said, he quite understood that that was not the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman; but he was afraid that if the matter were referred back to the Commissioners the Committee would only receive the same answer. He knew personally that the matter had been considered over and over again. It was felt that Tetbury was mainly agricultural, and that Stroud was mainly manufacturing, and that to take out the two parishes of Eastington and Frocester would not be a satisfactory arrangement of the two divisions. As a matter of fact, the Commissioners had framed this division strictly in accordance with their instructions. As the right hon. Baronet had stated, the original scheme was not exactly in the form it now assumed in the Bill, and he quite admitted the extreme irregularity of the division, so far as its shape was concerned. Nevertheless, all these points were brought before the Commissioners at their local inquiry; and the Commissioners, having regard to their instructions, felt that it was desirable to include in one division what might be considered the agricultural population, and the manufacturing population in the other. He believed that the arrangement devised by the Commissioners was, generally speaking, approved of everywhere except in Tetbury.

§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH
pointed out that the proposal he now made was made at the local inquiry by the Liberal Representative of the county.

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
said, the Boundary Commissioners had given the proposal the most fair consideration, and they had come to the conclusion that Tetbury ought not to be included in the Stroud Division; that, in point of fact, it had a community of interests with the Cirencester Division; while, on the other hand, it had no community of interests at all with the Petty Sessional divisions and parishes proposed to be included in the Stroud Division. Under those circumstances, he did not think it would be necessary to refer the matter back again to the Commissioners, but that Tetbury should remain in the Cotswold District.

MR. STANTON
said, it was quite true that this proposal was discussed at 1680 the local inquiry at Gloucester. The gist of the Amendment was, that the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) wished to take out from the Cirencester Division the Petty Sessional Division of Tetbury, with a population of 5,500, and insert it in the Stroud Division, and to take away from the Stroud Division two parishes with a population of 1,800. The result would be that the Stroud Division would contain a population of 59,800, as against 56,000; while those of Cirencester and Tewkesbury would consist of 50,000, as against 55,500, and 51,200, as against 49,500. The Tewkesbury Division would, no doubt, be rendered more equal; but, although Tewkesbury had a smaller population than the other divisions, it contained within it the boroughs of Cheltenham and Gloucester; and, no doubt, in both of those boroughs there would be a large number of voters who would have qualifications outside their respective boroughs. Therefore, in all human probability, the influence of the Tewkesbury Division would be quite equal to that of any other division of the county. He should like to say one word to the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), who seemed to think that the pursuits of the population had not been duly regarded in the scheme of the Commissioners. He thought the right hon. Gentleman was mistaken. There was not the slightest doubt that the interests of Tetbury were purely agricultural; and, although it was quite true that no one division could be regarded as strictly so, yet in the district of Stroud generally the places included were principally concernedin manufacturing perations. That was not the case in regard to Tetbury, which was practically an agricultural district; and by including it in the Stroud Division, which contained an essentially manufacturing population, they would diminish the amount of aggregation which was considered desirable in connection with the pursuits of the population. He would also remind the right hon. Gentleman that the people of Cirencester attended before the Boundary Commissioners at their local inquiry, and were highly favourable to the inclusion of Tetbury in the Cirencester Division. Mr. Ellett, who represented the views of Cirencester and its neighbourhood, adverting to the inclusion of Tetbury, said 1681 that the residents of that part of the county were unanimous in their desire that the hill lines should be preserved, and that the entire population of the Cotswold District should form one distinct and an inseparable division, and that this desire could be complied with, in accordance with the Instructions which had been given to the Commissioners. He went on further to say that a more homogeneous district could not have been obtained, and that no one who was at all acquainted with the county would have thought of proposing any scheme which would have divided the hill district, and have taken Tetbury from it, in order to carry it elsewhere. Those remarks applied with the same force to Eastington parish, which contained a manufacturing population of 1,500, and which by its industrial pursuits and geographical position should be attached to the Stroud Division. As regarded the parish of Frocester, which the right hon. Gentleman proposed to take out of the Stroud Division, it was a very small agricultural parish with a population only of 271, situated between other parishes of the division, and through which the main road of their communication passed. It was not desirable, therefore, to disturb the divisions arranged by the Commissioners. The Commissioners throughout their inquiry had displayed the utmost impartiality; and after the attention they had devoted to the county divisions he really thought the Committee ought to be satisfied, and that they should accept their decision. It was quite true, as the right hon. Baronet had pointed out, that the distance of Tetbury from the extreme end of the division was very considerable; but it was essentially a hill district, and there was no communication except by roads. The roads were good, and the fact that there was no railway communication was due to the geographical formation of the county rather than to any other cause. He hoped the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet would not be pressed, but that he would consent to withdraw it. He (Mr. Stanton) was satisfied that, industriously, numerically, and geographically, the division proposed by the Commissioners would be the best and most satisfactory for the county which could possibly be devised.

§ MR. J. R. YORKE
said, he thought that, after what the right hon. Baronet 1682 the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had said, there was very little use in discussing the matter further; but any hon. Member who had any knowledge of the Eastern portion of the county of Gloucester would understand the extraordinary difficulties the people there would labour under in conducting the Parliamentary business in the division under the scheme of the Commissioners. There was no railway communication that would be of the smallest service in getting from one end of the division to the other. If a man started now to go from Tetbury to Stratford-on-Avon, he (Mr. Yorke) hardly knew how he would get there, unless he went round by Cirencester or Didcot. He would have to drive some 50 miles or so, and then continue the rest of his journey by a most circuitous route. He imagined that the Commissioners could not have been in the least aware of what the circumstances of the county were, or they would not have dismissed the matter with what appeared to him (Mr. Yorke) to be the somewhat superficial observation that there was no similarity of interests in the division between Stroud and Tetbury. They were both towns in the same county, and the pursuits conducted in Stroud were very much of the same character as those carried on in Tetbury, and one place was at a very short distance from the other. If Tetbury were added to the Stroud Division, a very considerable improvement would be effected as regarded the symmetry of the division as well as in that of Cirencester, which was at present of extraordinary length and shape. As, however, the right hon. Baronet was not disposed to give way to the wishes of the locality in the matter, there was no further use in discussing the question. At the same time, he believed that hereafter those who were interested in the matter would very much lament the refusal to make this alteration.

§ MR. ACKERS
said, he was inclined to think the right hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill was in favour of the alteration the right hon. Baronet the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) proposed to make; but he resisted it, because he felt himself bound by the opinion expressed by the Boundary Commissioners. In regard to the observations of the hon. Member for 1683 Stroud (Mr. Stanton) in reference to the population of the district, he did not think that was an important matter, because they would have in the county, as the hon. Member perfectly well knew, another division—namely, that of Thornbury—which would be identical with that of Stroud if this alteration were made. He was surprised at the assertion of the hon. Member that the Petty Sessional Division of Tetbury was a very hilly one, and therefore ought not to be included in the borough of Stroud.

MR. STANTON
said, he had spoken of the district of Stroud.

§ MR. ACKERS
said, he knew every part of the borough of Stroud, including that in which the hon. Member himself lived; and he would ask the hon. Member if it was not far more hilly than any portion of the Tetbury district? Then, again, the hon. Member said that this was purely an agricultural district. There were no cloth mills in the district of Tetbury at the present moment; but in a large portion of the Stroud district there were no cloth mills. There were parts of the borough of Stroud, five miles in extent, in which there was not a single cloth factory; and they were going to add to the borough of Stroud a district which would make more than six miles in which no manufacturing operations were carried on. Any hon. Member who would look at the map would see at once that Tetbury belonged to Stroud, and that it was altogether cut off from Cirencester, and that, therefore, there was good reason for asking the Government to reconsider the matter. The Cirencester Division, as at present proposed, was not only of enormous extent, but would be an exceedingly unworkable division, seeing that there was no real communication in it from one end to the other. It contained no place for a public meeting, and when it was considered necessary to hold a public meeting the people were obliged to go to Cheltenham, or to some other place outside the district. But Tetbury was within an easy walk of Stroud, and actually belonged to it. As the right hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill had consented to so much, he (Mr. Ackers) hoped the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider his decision upon this question, and be prepared to deal with it upon the merits of the case. He sincerely trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would not 1684 hold the Committee too strictly to the arrangement proposed by the Boundary Commissioners. It was not a Party question in any respect, seeing that the inclusion of Tetbury in the Stroud Division was supported by the Liberal Party at the inquiry at Gloucester, just as much as by the Conservatives.

§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH
said, he had never had any desire to ask the Committee to overrule the decision of the Boundary Commissioners. He had, therefore, no intention of pressing the Amendment to a division, and after the discussion which had taken place he would withdraw it.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH
moved, as an Amendment, to omit from the Stroud Division the parishes of Eastington and Frocester in the Sessional Division of Whitminster. This Amendment, he said, related to a point which the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke) might probably consider without reference to the larger question of the Petty Sessional district of Tetbury. The right hon. Baronet had refused to insert the Sessional Division of Tetbury in the Stroud Division, on the ground that it would involve the introduction of a community with entirely different interests. With the exception of one woollen manufactory, the two parishes comprising the district of Eastington and Frocester were purely agricultural. They had always been contained in the county of Gloucester; because, from their nature, they had never been considered to be manufacturing in their character, and, consequently, they were not included in the borough of Stroud when that borough was formed under the Reform Act of 1832. He asked the right hon. Baronet whether, looking to the physical character of the country in this district, and the fact that these places had never hitherto been included in Stroud, he would allow the Boundary Commissioners to re-open this point, and place these parishes in the Tewkesbury Division of the county of Gloucester? By so doing he would materially improve the proportionate population of the Tewkesbury Division. At present the population of that division was 48,000; but the addition of these two parishes would increase it to 51,250, 1685 while that of Stroud, instead of being 57,000, would be reduced to 54,345. By that means the population of the two divisions would be rendered more equal, and the parishes of Eastington and Frocester would be represented not only in accordance with the agricultural pursuits they followed, but in the division to which they properly belonged.

§ Amendment proposed, in page 50, line 24, leave out "Eastington, Froces-ter."—(Sir Michael Hicks-Beach.)

§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
said, he had intended to cover this case in his reply to the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman opposite in moving the first Amendment. He had thought it convenient to take them together, although, perhaps, he was not strictly in order in adopting that course. As a matter of fact, the Boundary Commissioners had referred to this Amendment as well as to the former one, and he was bound to say, from the information he had received, that the case of the right hon. Baronet was not so strong upon this point as it was upon the other. Frocester was on the high road from one part of Stroud to the other—namely, between Stonehouse and Stroud, and he believed there were other parishes intervening which would also remain in the Stroud Division. The right hon. Baronet would probably be better acquainted with the fact than he was; but, at any rate, the Boundary Commissioners had a strong opinion upon the matter, and, therefore, he did not think it was desirable to ask them to reconsider their decision.

§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH
said, that he would withdraw the Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ MR. RAIKES
moved an Amendment, the object of which was to describe the second division of the county of Gloucester as the "Northern or Tewkesbury Division."

§ Amendment proposed, in page 56, line 26, after "The," insert "Northern or."—(Mr. Raikes.)

§ Question, "That those words be there inserted."

1686

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
said, that, while not opposing the Amendment, he wished to point out that this division did not comprise the northernmost parts of the county, and, therefore, to call it "Northern" might be somewhat anomalous. He could not say that the points of the compass, considering the curious shaped divisions which were provided for this county, were altgether applicable. He, therefore, asked the right hon. Baronet (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) to consider whether it would be proper to apply the term "Northern" to the Tewkesbury Division.

§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH
said, the right hon. Gentleman was quite right in saying that there was a part of the county of Gloucester which was north of this division; but there was not very much, he thought.

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
said, that was so. It was a very small portion.

§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH
said, he was anxious that the names of "Eastern" and "Western," which now applied to the two divisions of Gloucester, should still be retained; and, therefore, as it was impossible to call this division "Southern," the only alternative was to designate it "Northern." He hoped that at some future time the boundary would be rectified; but at present he approved of the Amendment.

§ MR. J. R. YORKE
thought the division ought to be named in accordance with the actual fact, and with due regard to the convenience of the population. He thought, also, that for the sake of simplicity in the issue of Writs, and in regard to the naming of Members by the Speaker, and other hon. Members, Tewkesbury would have been a better name without an alternative. He thought it would be difficult to find a more Northern Division of Gloucester than the fifth division.

§ MR. RAIKES
said, he thought his hon. Friend the Member for East Gloucestershire (Mr. Yorke) was labouring under a misapprehension. He did not propose to take away the name of Tewkesbury, but merely to give an alternative name, in accordance with the arrangement which had been generally adopted in regard to other counties. The hypothesis that there was a part of a district north of this division was true; but it extended into Worcestershire, and barely 1687 touched the county of Gloucester. Leaving that small portion out of this division, it included the whole of the northern part of Gloucestershire; and he did not know any case that was stronger for a name taken from one of the points of the compass. He therefore saw no necessity for departing from the rule which the Committee, in almost every case, had laid down for other counties up to the present moment. This was a new division in a somewhat irregular-shaped county. He quite appreciated the conciliatory manner in which he had been met upon the subject; but he could not see any difficulty in adopting the alternative name in this case, similar to that which had been adopted in other counties.

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
remarked, that the Members for the county did not appear to agree among them-selves.

§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH
As to the alternative?

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
Yes, as to the alternative. He understood the hon. Member for East Gloucestershire (Mr. Yorke) to prefer "Tewkesbury" without "Northern."

MR. STANTON
said, that there were parts of the proposed division which were certainly not in the northern portion of the county of Gloucester.

§ MR. WARTON
said, he thought it would have been desirable, in the first instance, to have adhered to the points of the compass; but that proposition had not been adopted, and the names of places well known from their antiquity and associations had been, in many instances, retained. That was proposed to be done in this case; and it would, therefore, be impossible to secure anything like a symmetrical arrangement if, in one case, they were to retain the name of the borough, and in others were to adopt the plan of naming the divisions after the points of the compass. They had already adopted "Mid" in regard to the first division—namely, that of Stroud; and, although the whole of this division was not, strictly speaking, in the northern part of the county, it might be termed "the Northern or Tewkesbury Division." They came next to the Cirencester and Forest of Dean Divisions, both of which were well-known names. But he could not say the same with regard to the 1688 Thornbury Division, which was the fifth in the list.

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
thought the best course would be to maintain the compass divisions. It was said that the Tewkesbury Division was more northerly; but as Berkeley was in the division it would be difficult to call it Northern. As to Thornbury, he believed that was the place where the Mayor of Bristol formerly did homage.

§ MR. ACKERS
said, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Charles W. Dilke) would accept what had been practically the rule of the Committee in regard to this Bill, and not altogether yield to the suggestion of his hon. Friend the Member for East Gloucestershire (Mr. Yorke). It must not be forgotten that the hon. Member, some years ago, represented the ancient borough of Tewkesbury; and it was quite natural, therefore, that he should cling to old associations, and should desire to preserve the name of that borough. But anyone who lived in the district would be aware that great dissatisfaction had been occasioned in consequence of the proposal to call this the Tewkesbury Division.

§ MR. J. R. YORKE
said, he thought his hon. Friend (Mr. Ackers) was mistaken. There was certainly nothing like general dissatisfaction.

§ MR. ACKERS
said, that might be so in regard to those who lived in the Tewkesbury District; but there were in the division the ancient City of Gloucester and the flourishing borough of Cheltenham, who would not consider themselves very much magnified by being absorbed in the name of Tewkesbury. In point of fact, there was a considerable part of the division in the northern portion of the county. He should be sorry to hear that there was any idea of giving up the name of "Western" for the Forest of Dean Division. That was a part of the county in which he was considerably interested; and he hoped the word "Northern" would be retained in the present case, and "Western" would be the alternative name for the Forest of Dean Division. If it were a question between "Northern" and "Tewkesbury," he might prefer Tewkesbury; but as it was only an alternative, and would give satisfaction to a large portion of the constituency, he hoped the word "Northern" would be accepted.

1689

MR. STANTON
expressed a hope that, for the sake of simplicity, the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) would not find it necessary to adopt either "Northern," "Eastern," or "Western," except as an alternative. He was, however, quite certain that the Forest of Dean, Tewkesbury, and Stroud would be perfectly well known without the cardinal points of the compass being attached to them.

§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH
said, he did not know upon what ground the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Stanton) spoke on behalf of the Forest of Dean, or of Tewkesbury, seeing that he had nothing to do with either of those places. It was almost absurd to talk of the town of Tewkesbury in competition with the other towns which had been attached to the Gloucester Division; but he did not see why the Western Division should not be adopted as an alternative name for the Forest of Dean, because it was really in that division now. The new division comprised a large tract of country altogether outside the Forest of Dean, and known by the name of West Gloucestershire. They were in precisely the same position as Glamorganshire. In that case, the Committee had decided that there should be the alternative name of "West Glamorganshire" or "Gower." He could not see why the name of "Northern" should not be applied to the Tewkesbury Division, seeing that Tewkesbury was only a very small town compared with Gloucester and Cheltenham, which were both now in the same division.

MR. STANTON
said, the observations he had made were founded upon what took place before the Boundary Commissioners, and the views which seemed to prevail there as to the names which were proposed to be given to the divisions. If the cardinal points of the compass were not introduced, there certainly would be more simplicity arrived at in the designation of the different divisions.

§ MR. ACKERS
said, that he was not present at the inquiry before the Boundary Commissioner; but he had heard all through the division since what the opinion of the people was, and he knew that there was a strong feeling in favour of the alternative name being accepted.

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
said, he thought the matter had now been suffi- 1690 ciently discussed, and that it ought to be brought to an end. He trusted that it would not be necessary to divide the Committee. He thought that, on the whole, the words "Northern or" might be accepted.

§ Question put, and agreed to; words inserted accordingly.

§ On the Motion of Sir CHARLES W. DILKE, the following Amendment made:—In page 56, line 32, after "Tewkesbury," insert, "and the parish of Slimbridge."

§ MR.RAIKES
moved a further Amendment to describe the third division as the "Eastern or Cirencester Division."

§ Amendment proposed, in page 56, line 33, after "The," insert "Eastern or."—(Mr. Raikes.)

§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
said, he had no objection to the Amendment.

§ Question put, and agreed to; words inserted accordingly.

§ MR. RAIKES
said, he now came to the Forest of Dean Division, and he still ventured to hope that he might persuade the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Charles W. Dilke) to allow an alternative name in regard to that division. No doubt, it was an interesting and well-known locality; but the Forest of Dean did not constitute the whole of the division. The district included in the division at the present moment formed part of West Gloucestershire; and there was a great desire on the part of the sub-divided district to retain the name of the division which had hitherto been attached to it. This part of the county formed, at the present time, the greater part of the Western Division of Gloucestershire, the boundary being the River Severn. No doubt, there were cases like the New Forest where it might be desirable to keep up the name, because it was rather difficult to assign the division to any point of the compass. But, in this case, the division was altogether free from the objection which had been urged against the Tewkesbury Division. In the case of Tewkesbury, there was some force in the objection, because the Tewkesbury Division would ramble all over Gloucestershire, although there was 1691 probably a considerable part of it in the northern portion of the county. But in the case of the Forest of Dean it was purely and essentially western; and, as far as he (Mr. Raikes) could gather, there was no feeling in Gloucestershire against the name of "Western" being attached to it. He, therefore, hoped the right hon. Gentleman would accept the Amendment.

§ Amendment proposed, in page 56, line 38, after "The," insert "Western or."—(Mr. Raikes.)

§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
said, he thought a strong argument had been raised against the insertion of the compass names on account of the confusion it might create between the existing divisions of a county and the new divisions. The argument now used was that the alteration ought to be made, because there was a similarity of name between the new division and an existing division. He congratulated his right hon. Friend (Mr. Raikes) on thus confirming the view which he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had originally expressed. As to the New Forest, which was proposed as the name of one of the new divisions of Hampshire, there was a great similarity between that case and the present. The New Forest, no more than the Forest of Dean, comprised the whole of the division; but each locality was very well known by the name it bore.

§ LORD MORETON
said, he opposed the Amendment on the ground that the voters themselves would prefer being included in the Forest of Dean Division rather than in the Western Division. The Forest proper did not certainly cover the whole of the division; but the bulk of the population were in the Forest.

§ MR. ACKERS
said, he supported the Amendment on behalf of himself and of his constituents. It was quite true that the noble Lord who had just spoken (Lord Moreton) was also one of the Representatives of the division; but he was more connected with the other side of the division, divided by the River Severn. On the other hand, he (Mr. Ackers) had his property in the Western Division, pure and simple—in the very division which it was now proposed to call either by the name of the Forest 1692 of Dean Division, or the Western or Forest of Dean Division. The larger portion of the division was not in the Forest of Dean. This was the case in the district in which he happened to live, so that he was perfectly satisfied as to what the opinion of the inhabitants of the district was. They were almost unanimously of opinion that this Amendment should be adopted; and he trusted that the right hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill would accept it.

§ Question put, and negatived.

§ On the Motion of Mr. RAIKES, the following Amendment made:—In page 57, line 1, after "The," insert "Southern or."

§ On the Motion of Sir CHARLES W. DILKE, the following Amendment made:—In page 57, line 6, after "Hants," insert "exclusive of the Isle of Wight."

§ MR. RAIKES
said, the county of Hampshire, under the arrangement in the Bill, roughly speaking, consisted of two squares, the larger square, which was the object of the series of Amendments he proposed to move, being divided into North, South, East, and West Divisions, and the smaller square, forming a separate division—the Lymington Division—to which he should ask the Committee to give the alternative name of "New Forest Division." The particular Amendment which he had risen to move was that of inserting the words "Northern or" before "Basingstoke Division." Although he was aware that it might more accurately be called the "North-Eastern Division," yet, as it included the northernmost portion of the county, he considered that the most appropriate style would be that of "the Northern or," which he begged to move.

§ Amendment proposed, in page 57, line 9, after "The," insert "Northern or."—(Mr. Raikes.)

§ Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

SIR FREDERICK FITZ-WYGRAM
said, that there was a strong feeling in favour of giving the name of "Alder-shot" as the alternative in the case of the first division of the county. Yet, although he thought the name not unsuitable, and had given Notice of an Amendment in the direction indicated, 1693 he believed the inhabitants of the Aldershot District would, on the whole, be satisfied with the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge which the Committee had just agreed to; and he should not, therefore, move the next Amendment on the Paper.

§ On the Motion of Mr. RAIKES, the following Amendments made:—In page 57, line 13, after "The," insert "Western or;" and in line 21, after "The," insert "Eastern or."

SIR FREDERICK FITZ-WYGRAM,
in moving, as an Amendment, in page 57, to leave out lines 29 and 30, said, it was proposed by the present Bill to place the three south-eastern parishes of the Fareham Division, bordering on the sea, in the Mid Division of the county. Now, the case he had to lay before the Committee in support of his Amendment was a very simple one. The southern portion of the county was divided from the other divisions by a line of hills called the South Downs; the people living on the south side of these hills were engaged in commercial and seafaring pursuits; whereas those on the north side were people of an entirely different class, who were engaged in agricultural pursuits, and had no interest whatever in trade or commerce; and he might mention that there was a line of railway which ran entirely along the sea coast. The question had been treated by the Commissioners as purely a question of numbers, and under the arrangement in the Bill one division would contain 49,000, and the other 48,000 inhabitants. The number of inhabitants living in the parishes to which he referred was about 4,800; and, therefore, he admitted there would be a disparity if the proposal he made were carried out. But he gathered that the Commissioners were to look to community of interest rather than numbers. Now, the community of interest was very strong all along the south coast of the county. The towns of Fareham and Gosport were mere annexes of the great borough of Portsmouth; there was a direct community of interest and trade with them and the people living on the south side of the hills, whilst there was no connection with those living on the north side of the hills; and therefore he said that in the scheme of the Commissioners com- 1694 munity of interest should have been considered rather than the mere abstract principle of numbers. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had told him a few days ago, that if there were a general wish in its favour, and if he could obtain the consent of the representative bodies in the three parishes he would probably accede to the alteration he was now urging upon the Committee. He had obtained the consent of the vestries to the present proposal, all of whom wished that they might retain their connection with the Western Division in the future, as they had in the past. He believed that the only objection that could be raised was on the ground of numbers; but he ventured to hope that regard would be had to community of interest, and that it would not, in this instance, be overridden by the numerical difficulty.

§ Amendment proposed, in page 57, leave out lines 29 and 30.—(Sir Frederick Fitz-Wygram.)

§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
said, he did not feel justified in accepting the Amendment. He admitted the truth of all the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir Frederick Fitz-Wygram) had said with regard to means of communication; indeed, the hon. and gallant Gentleman had made out a very strong case. But the Commissioners had distinctly considered this matter, and the population of the divisions, as proposed by the Bill, would be very nearly equal; whereas under the Amendment there would be a pretty considerable disparity, amounting to as many as 9,000 or 10,000 people. Looking to the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition (Sir Stafford Northcote) last night, in which he strongly impressed upon the Committee the importance of following the recommendations of the Commissioners generally, he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) felt bound to oppose the Amendment.

§ SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS
said, that in the absence of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition (Sir Stafford Northcote) he was bound to say he should have with great regret to oppose this Amendment on the grounds the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. 1695 Dilke) had just put forward. The right hon. Baronet's, and, indeed, his (Sir R. Assheton Cross's) opinion was very-strong, that they ought—at this period, at all events, of the Bill—to maintain all that the Boundary Commissioners had put down. He should certainly support the right hon. Baronet in upholding the recommendations of the Boundary Commissioners in all these county matters. Although he felt the force of the observations made by his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir Frederick Fitz-Wygram) he should be bound, if a division were taken, to support the view of the Government.

§ MR. WARTON
said, that after the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) it might be well to ask a question of the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) in charge of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir B. Assheton Cross) said it was important that they should, at that stage of the Bill, at all events, support the recommendations of the Commissioners on this subject. What length of time would elapse between the Committee and the Report stage? Was it the intention of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Charles W. Dilke) to allow several days to transpire between Committee and Report? If it was the intention of the right hon. Baronet to allow several days to transpire between Committee and Report, and then to give his attention to a great number of matters, he might conciliate opposition, which otherwise would be raised now, and therefore facilitate the progress of the Bill.

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
said, he thought he would be more in Order if he reserved his statement of the intentions of the Government on the points raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Warton) until the concluding minutes of the Committee stage. He would try between Committee and Report to meet the views of the House generally as to the best time to fix for Report. He thought the general desire was to make rapid progress with the Bill, and, therefore, he should propose as short a time as was reasonable between Committee and Report; and, at the same time, a sufficient time to enable hon. Members to put down any Amendments they considered desirable.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

1696

§ On the Motion of Mr. RAIKES, the following Amendment made:—In page 57, line 31, after "The," insert "Southern or."

§ MR. HORACE DAVEY
said, he had put down an Amendment, to insert after "The," on page 57, line 35, "New Forest or," so that the Lymington Division would read, "The New Forest or Lymington Division." He did not propose to move the Amendment in the exact form in which it appeared on the Paper unless his right hon. Friend (Sir Charles W. Dilke) preferred that form. Personally, he (Mr. Davey) should prefer to substitute the words "New Forest" for the word "Lymington."

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
said, he would accept the alteration in the Amendment.

§ Amendment proposed, in page 57, line 36, to leave out the word "Lymington," and insert the words "New Forest."—(Mr. Horace Davey.)

§ Question proposed, "That the word 'Lymington' stand part of the Schedule."

§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTH
said, he understood that his right hon. Friend (Mr. Raikes) intended to propose the insertion of the words "New Forest or," after the word "Lymington."

§ MR. RAIKES
said, that the Amendment before the Committee was that of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Horace Davey), which came before his (Mr. Raikes's) Amendment.

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
said, that the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Horace Davey) had moved his Amendment in an amended form.

§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTH
said, he was sorry he was not in the House when the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Horace Davey) rose. He (Mr. Sclater-Booth) understood that it was intended to give an alternative name to the division—that the division should be called the Lymington or New Forest Division. He did not understand why that course should not be followed.

THE CHAIRMAN
The Question before the Committee is, "That the word 'Lymington' stand part of the Schedule."

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
said, that if the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sclater- 1697 Booth.) preferred that course, he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had no doubt his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Horace Davey) would move it in that form, which was his original proposal. The points of the compass had been adopted with regard to the rest of the county; but there was no exact analogy in this case.

§ MR. HORACE DAVEY
said, that his reason for moving the Amendment in the amended form was that the most appropriate name should be given to the division. In this case there was no need of keeping up the alternative name—indeed, it would be out of place, because Lymington was, in fact, part of the New Forest. This was the reason why he preferred New Forest to Lymington, taking the analogy of the Forest of Dean.

§ Question put, and negatived.

§ Question, "That the words 'New Forest' be there inserted," put, and agreed to; words inserted accordingly.

§ MR. WARTON
said, he had an Amendment to propose which he had not had an opportunity of placing on the Paper. It was to insert after the word "and," in line 43, page 57, the words "in the Sessional Division of." He pointed out that the words were adopted in the other divisions of the county; but that in the case of this division they did not find anything to identify the parishes of Chilworth and North Stoneham. It was only by going through a long process that they arrived at the idea that these parishes must be in the Sessional Divisions. There was an absolute necessity of preserving similarity of expression, and therefore he begged to move the insertion of the words he had read.

§ Amendment proposed, in page 57, line 43, after the word "and," to insert the words "in the Sessional Division of."—(Mr. Warton.)

§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
said, he did not like to accept Amendments of this kind when they were not on the Paper, because they very frequently involved points one did not see. He therefore begged the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Warton) to place his Amendment on the Paper, so 1698 that he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) might have an [...]ortunity of considering it before Report. He had no doubt that on Report he would be able to accept the Amendment, because he was inclined to think that the hon. and learned Gentleman was right on this point.

§ MR. WARTON
said, that there could be no mistake about the desirability of inserting the words. He had, however, no objection to put the Amendment down for Report; but he hoped that they would not have too short an interval allowed between Committee stage and Report.

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
said, that if the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Warton) would give him a note of one of the cases covered by Amendments such as this, he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) would undertake that the matter was considered in advance of Report.

THE CHAIRMAN
Does the hon. and learned Gentleman withdraw his Amendment?

§ MR. WARTON
I will do so if I am pressed.

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
preferred that the hon. and learned Gentleman would adopt the course he had suggested.

§ MR. WARTON
said, that his Amendment was a very proper one, and therefore he should like to have it negatived.

§ Question put, and negatived.

§ MR. RANKIN
said, that in the unavoidable absence of the hon. Baronet the Member for Herefordshire (Sir Joseph Bailey), and at his special request, he (Mr. Rankin) rose to move the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Baronet, which was, in effect, to change the word "two" which stood in the Bill to the word "three," or, in other words, to allow the county of Hereford to retain its three Members. He thought it might be fairly said that the county of Hereford was rather hardly used by this Bill, because it was the only county, except Rutland, which lost a Member at all; and the number of Members for the county, including boroughs, would be by this Bill only half the number which now existed—namely, three, instead of six. The City of Hereford lost a Member, and the borough of Leominster lost a Member, and one Member was proposed to be 1699 taken from the county; therefore, he thought they might very fairly ask the Committee to reconsider the question as regarded the county. If they looked at the case of some of the other counties, they had a very strong case indeed. He found, for instance, the county of Rutland had only an area of 94,000 acres.

§ MR. WARTON
rose to Order. He submitted that under the very stringent words of the 9th clause of the Bill they could not raise the question of special representation.

§ MR. RANKIN
said, that his Amendment was to the second line on page 58, where the words "two Members, two Divisions" appeared. The Amendment he had to move was that the word "two" be left out, and the word "three" inserted.

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE,
on the point of Order, submitted that the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) was wrong, and that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Rankin) was right. He apprehended there could be no doubt it was competent for the hon. Member to move the Amendment.

§ MR. RANKIN
said, he was obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention, for he could hardly believe that he was out of Order in moving the Amendment.

THE CHAIRMAN
said, he thought the hon. Member (Mr. Rankin) was in Order in seeking to amend the Schedule by the substitution of one word for another; but, at the same time, the Amendment was in flat contradiction to one of the clauses of the Bill.

§ MR. RANKIN
Do I understand, Mr. Chairman, you will allow me to proceed?

THE CHAIRMAN
Yes; the hon. Member is in Order.

§ MR. RANKIN
said, that when interrupted by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Warton) he was calling the attention of the Committee to the fact that there were several counties which had an undue representation compared with Hereford. The county of Rutland, for instance, had only 94,889 acres, and a population of 21,000; and Huntingdon, with 57,000 population, retained its two Members; whereas Herefordshire, with a population of 101,241 and an acreage of 519,000, was to be deprived of one of its Members. It 1700 might be said that the argument with regard to the acreage did not go for much; but he thought, when it was considered that the new voters in a great number of instances were persons who could not come great distances owing to their occupation, and that it would be necessary for Members to go greater distances to them, the argument of acreage did apply with some force. He also begged the Committee to observe that if the county of Huntingdon was allowed to retain its two Members, with a population of only 57,000, surely Hereford, with a population of 101,000, might be allowed to retain its three Members. He also begged to point out to the Committee that as there were 79 boroughs thrown into the counties, the purely agricultural interests would not be represented in the new Parliament as well as now, although there would be a greater number of county Members than at present. He thought, therefore, that a county which was purely agricultural, such as Hereford, should be favourably considered in this matter. The county might easily and naturally be divided into three instead of two divisions; and, of course, if the present Amendment were carried, a consequential Amendment would be submitted to this effect—there could be the Eastern, Northern, and Southern Divisions. The Eastern Division was one celebrated for its fruit growing, and they had the authority of the Prime Minister that fruit-growing and jam-making would form an important part of the agriculture of the future. The Northern Division was celebrated for its breed of cattle, and the Southern Division celebrated for its sheep and corn; it would, therefore, be seen that there might be three very simple and natural divisions of the county. If the Committee agreed to the retention by the county of its three Members, he would like it to remain exactly as at present—namely, a minority clause county with three Members, each elector having two votes. As he did not desire to take up any further time, he would merely add that the people of Hereford thought they had been rather hardly dealt with in this Bill, and he thought the adoption of this Amendment would only be a graceful concession to them. He begged to move the Amendment which stood on 1701 the Paper in the name of his hon. Friend (Sir Joseph Bailey).

§ Amendment proposed, in page 58, line 2, to leave out the first word "two," and insert "three."—(Mr. Rankin.)

§ Question proposed, "That the word 'two' stand part of the Schedule."

THE CHAIRMAN
desired to point out that the 9th clause provided that the number of Members for the different localities should be those mentioned in the Schedule. Of course, it was competent for the hon. Member to amend the Schedule, and to alter the number of Members allowed to Hereford. In that respect, he (the Chairman) wished to modify the opinion he had expressed on the point of Order.

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
said, that this Amendment was like many others that had been proposed with regard to boroughs; and he thought county Members had shown great self-restraint in not making similar Motions with regard to counties. This Amendment was certainly not more defensible than those put forward with regard to boroughs. The low-scale counties were treated in the same way as boroughs; and the hon. Member (Mr. Rankin) had altogether omitted to tell the Committee what was the true position of the county of Hereford. The county was a little better off than the average at the present moment; not worse off, but better than some counties. It was by no means a hard case, like the cases of the Isle of Wight or Cardiganshire. [Mr. RANKIN: It loses half its Members.] The Isle of Wight lost its only borough Member, and Cardiganshire was treated in the same way; and, therefore, he could hardly agree that the case of Hereford was exceptionally hard. The population of the county amounted to 101,000; it was not an increasing, but rather a decreasing population. The average population per Member was between 50,000 and 51,000; but if the county had three Members, as proposed by the hon. Member, the population would only be between 33,000 and 34,000 per Member. The average population per Member throughout all England was 53,400, so that the county was considerably better off than the average; and he thought it would be impossible to rob a county 1702 which was in a worse position of a Member, in order to give an additional Representative to Hereford. This case could not stand by itself; if they gave three Members to Hereford, they would have to give other Members to other counties standing in a similar position. He must remind the Committee of the exact balance of the number of Members allotted to boroughs and counties by the Bill; if any seat were to be taken for this county it must be a county seat, and according to the agreement between the two Parties in the House, the seat would have to be obtained by taking a Member from one of the counties which had received an increase of Members. He thought the hon. Member would have great difficulty in persuading the Committee to do that.

§ MR. BIDDULPH
said, he felt bound, in justification of the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Rankin), to say that this question had caused the most lively interest in the county he (Mr. Biddulph) had the honour to represent; and, therefore, he felt his hon. Friend (Sir Joseph Bailey) was fully justified in putting the Amendment on the Paper. In Herefordshire it was felt to be very hard that they were to be deprived by this Bill of one-half of their representation. He was fully of opinion that the county was entitled to a third Representative, although he did not quite know where the additional Member was to come from; it was the business of the promoters of the Bill to settle that difficulty. He entirely agreed with his hon. Friend (Mr. Rankin) as to the desirability of maintaining the minority vote in the county. The minority vote system had worked remarkably well in Hereford; so far from its deadening political life, as had been stated by one Cabinet Minister, who evidently did not understand the question at all, it had stimulated the political life of the county to a very great degree. He (Mr. Biddulph) had no difficulty in supporting the Amendment.

§ MR. WARTON
said, the question had been asked where the additional Member was to come from. Now, he thought that one of the great defects of the Bill was that it had no principle, and the course pursued in the Bill with regard to this county fully proved it.

§ MR. DUCKHAM
said, the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Rankin) had 1703 quite represented the feeling that existed throughout Herefordshire on this question. At the recent Quarter Sessions there had been a very strong feeling expressed with regard to it. Hon. Members had been urged to use their best efforts to persuade the Committee to allow the county to be divided as proposed in the Amendment. He (Mr. Duckham) was very sorry that they had not to-night the attendance of their senior Member (Sir Joseph Bailey); and if the right hon. Baronet the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke) could see his way to carrying out the wishes of the county Members, he was sure the concession would be received with great pleasure by the inhabitants of both the County and City of Hereford. They all felt they were placed at considerable disadvantage by losing half their representation.

§ Question put, and agreed to.

§ On the Motion of Mr. RAIKES, the following Amendments made:—In page 58, line 4, after "The," insert "Northern or;" and in line 9, after "The," insert "Southern or."

§ MR. DUCKHAM
said, he rose to propose the Amendment of which he had given Notice—namely, that the word "Ross" be inserted after the word "The" in line 9 of page 58. The Committee had, however, agreed to the insertion of the words "Southern or," to follow the word "The;" and he now, therefore, proposed that the word "Ross" should follow the words "Southern or."

THE CHAIRMAN
I think the hon. Member is in error in this matter.

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
No; he is quite right.

§ MR. DUCKHAM
said, that if the Committee would look at the map of the county, they would see that Ross was almost at the southern extreme of the county. Ledbury, which was the name the Commissioners had decided to give the division, and for which he (Mr. Duckham) wished to substitute Ross, was in the eastern part of the district, almost at the extreme end of the division. If it was intended in the working of this Bill that the ballot boxes should be conveyed, after an election, to the town giving its name to the division, it 1704 would prove extremely awkward to take them to Ledbury. It would be much more awkward and much more expensive, at an election, to convey the ballot boxes in this division to Ledbury than to Ross. If they looked at the present population of these two towns, they would see that they were very similar; but they must bear in mind that the population of Ross was increasing, and that the population of Ledbury was not—in fact, that it had absolutely decreased during recent years. He thought, therefore, it would be a much better arrangement, and a great improvement in the Bill, to give to this division the name of Ross, instead of Ledbury. In the neighbourhood of the town of Ross a very strong feeling prevailed on the subject; a Petition had been presented by the Town Commissioners and the inhabitants of the district, in favour of the proposal he was now making. The town of Ross was very nearly in the centre of this great division. He thought the Committee would see the correctness of the view he had laid before them; and he was sure it would be in accordance with the general feeling of the district that his Amendment should be accepted.

§ Amendment proposed, in page 58, line 9, after the word "or," to leave out "Ledbury," and insert "Ross,"—(Mr. Duckham,)—instead thereof.

§ Question proposed, "That the word 'Ledbury' stand part of the Schedule."

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
said, he thought the chief objection to the name "Ross" was one that was less tenable than the objection he had taken previously—namely, the fact that there was another Ross in Scotland. In addition to that, the name "Ross" was familiar to them in connection with the fable of "the Man of Ross." Therefore, if Ledbury had no special claims on the Committee he should agree to the Amendment.

§ MR. RANKIN
said, he hoped the Committee would accede to the Amendment. There could be no doubt that Ross was the more important town, and he believed now that the only name that could clash with that proposed was New Ross in Ireland, which was no longer a borough. Ross had three railway lines running into it, whereas Ledbury had only two; Ross was an increasing town, 1705 and Ledbury was not likely to do very much in that line.

§ MR. BIDDULPH
said, he did not intend to take part in this controversy; for the reason that he happened to know there had been a good deal of local jealousy excited with regard to these names; and, further, he hoped one day to represent this division in the House. His hon. Colleague (Mr. Duckham) had urged that if Ledbury were chosen for the name of the division, the ballot boxes would have to be taken a long way in some cases. That was not necessarily the case, because if the hon. Member would inform himself upon the subject, he would find that the authorities had power to fix whatever place they liked in the district for the opening of the ballot boxes. That argument, therefore, had nothing to do with the question before the Committee.

§ MR. DUCKHAM
I said that if Ledbury were fixed upon as the place where the ballot boxes were to be opened great inconvenience would be felt.

§ MR. ECROYD
said, that as a newcomer in the county of Hereford, but as one feeling an interest in it, he should like to say that if there had been a proposal made to divide Hereford into East and West, they could not have proposed a better name for the Western Division than Ledbury; but as the proposal was to divide the county into North and South, he thought Ross was undoubtedly the right name for the Southern Division. Ross was an important town; and there was nothing very alarming to future candidates in the suggestion of the right hon. Baronet that the hon. Member representing the division would, if this title were adopted, be known as "The Man of Ross."

§ Question put, and negatived.

§ Question, "That 'Ross' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

§ MR. RAIKES
said, that the next Amendment had reference to the county of Hertford, and it was in line 17 of page 58 to insert after the word "The," "Northern or." Those familiar with the map of Hertfordshire would see that it was of a polygonal shape; but that there was a large abutment upon an adjoining county to the Northern end which, under the scheme of the Commissioners, was in the Hitchin Division. The southern portion was divided into 1706 three nearly equal strips attached to Hertford, St. Albans, and Watford. He did not think there could be any objection to the adoption of the arrangement he proposed. The division in question was the largest of the four, and occupied a more northern position than any of them.

§ Amendment proposed, in page 58, line 17, after "The," insert "Northern or."—(Mr. Raikes.)

§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
said, he had no objection to make to the proposed Amendment.

§ Question put, and agreed to.

§ MR. HALSEY
said, that in line 8, page 59, he wished to move to leave out the word "Caddington" for the purpose of inserting it lower down, because the place was in two counties. The county boundary went right through the middle of the parish of Caddington; the village church was in one county and the rest of the parish in another.

§ Amendment proposed, in page 59, line 8, leave out"Caddington."—(Mr. Halsey.)

§ Question proposed, "That the word proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
said, he had a map before him which did not agree with the statement the Committee had just heard from the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Halsey). His (Sir Charles W. Dilke's) impression was that the detached district in question had been conveyed to the county of Hertfordshire by statute. He would agree to the Amendment at present; but if he found that the hon. Member was wrong in his view the matter could be amended on Report.

§ Question put, and negatived; word left out accordingly.

§ On the Motion of Sir CHARLES W. DILKE, the following Amendment made:—In page 59, line 10, leave out "Whips wade" and insert "Whipsnade."

§ MR. HALSEY
said, he quite agreed with the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Charles W. Dilke) with regard to the last Amendment, as its object was simply to correct a mis-spelling; but he 1707 certainly could not agree to what had fallen from him with regard to the insertion of "Whipsnade" elsewhere, because the whole of the place was in the county of Bedford, and none of it in Hertfordshire. He (Mr. Halsey) was a magistrate of the district, and therefore thought that he ought to know the place pretty well. He thought that "Whipsnade" should be left out.

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
said, that, as a matter of fact, he believed that if an Amendment in the sense of the hon. Member's observations were adopted, the effect would be to take "Whipsnade" out of all the divisions.

§ MR. HALSEY
paid, that the place had to do with Bedford—it had nothing whatever to do with Hertfordshire.

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
That is not my view; I believe that "Whipsnade" parish is in the county of Hertfordshire.

§ MR. HALSEY
No, no!

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
said, it was, therefore, a question of fact. As he had not the Ordnance Boundary Survey in his hand, perhaps the Committee would allow him to keep the name as he proposed; and then, if the hon. Member would confer with him, and proved him to be wrong, he should be glad to make any alteration necessary on Report. He had already been proved in the wrong by the hon. Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Hastings), and what had happened before might happen again. He was told that the detached portion of this place was in Hertfordshire, having been transferred there by Section 26 of 2 & 3 Will. IV., c. 64, and also by a Statute of Victoria.

§ Amendment proposed, in page 59, line 10, leave out "Whipsnade," and insert "Caddington."—(Mr. Halsey.)

§ Question, "That 'Whipsnade' stand part of the Schedule," put, and negatived.

§ Question, "That 'Caddington' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

§ On the Motion of Mr. RAIKES, the following Amendment made:—In page 59, line 12, after "The," insert "Western or."

§ MR. RAIKES
said, that the next Amendment in his name had reference to the county of Huntingdon, which, as the Committee was aware, was to have 1708 only two divisions which stood entirely to the North and South. His Amendment, as it stood on the Paper, was to leave out "Huntingdon" in line 20, and insert "Southern." He was told, however, that there was a strong feeling in the district in favour of an alternative name as against a point-of-the-compass name; although it would be rather awkward to speak of the Member for this division as the Member for the Huntingdon Division of the county of Huntingdon. In deference to that public opinion, therefore, he should move his Amendment in the alternative form—namely, after the word "The," to insert the words "Southern or."

§ Amendment proposed, in page 59, line 20, after the word "The," to insert the words "Southern or."(Mr. Raikes.)

§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
said, he should have been rather inclined to think that it would have been better to have taken the points of the compass absolutely in this matter. There were many counties which had boroughs of the same name as the county, and that would be in no way unique. There was some difficulty in finding a good name for this division of the county, and the right hon. Gentleman himself was suffering under the difficulty. Ramsey had been adopted as a name in the other division; but it was a very small place, and St. Ives might have been taken; but that had been given to a division of Cornwall. In this case one of the two names was not that of an important place, and the other was that of the county. He thought it would be best here to take an absolutely county division. He was, however, willing to abide by the general sense of the Committee in the matter.

§ SIR ROBERT PEEL
said, that in the interests of his constituents, who had requested him to oppose the Amendment placed on the Paper by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Raikes), he wished to say that of course it made a great difference when the right hon. Gentleman proposed to call it the Southern or Huntingdon Division. In the Amendment brought forward the right hon. Gentleman had proposed originally to strikeout "Huntingdon" altogether, and that would have been a departure from 1709 the suggestion formerly made by those in charge of the Bill by the Letter of Instruction issued to the Boundary Commissioners under the authority of the Home Secretary. [Sir CHARLES W. DILKE: Hear, hear!] In those Instructions it was stated that merged boroughs should have the preference in giving their names to the division of the county in which they were situated. Surely Huntingdon was an illustrious borough, which was, at all events, deserving of some recognition. It was understood that, where boroughs were absolutely disfranchised, their names should, if possible, be retained as a compliment to their Parliamentary existence in the past. If the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Charles W. Dilke) agreed to the Amendment of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Raikes) he had not another word to say; but he had felt bound, in the interest of his constituents, who were much interested in this matter, to state that they were anxious that the original Instructions issued by the Home Secretary to the Boundary Commissioners should be adhered to.

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
said, the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) had not been present all through the Sitting, and was not aware that he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had said on some previous occasions that his own preference would have been for the scheme of the Bill. But considerable alterations had been made by the Committee, after strenuous resistance on his part. He had more than once been obliged to yield to the general sense of the Committee on the question of naming the divisions of counties. In the present case, as he had said, he would take whatever course the Committee thought best, and he was not at all inclined to waste much time over this matter.

§ SIR ROBERT PEEL
I trust the right hon. Gentleman will adhere to "The Southern" or "Huntingdon Division."

§ MR. RAIKES
That is what I propose.

§ SIR ROBERT PEEL
sincerely trusted that the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Charles W. Dilke) would not endeavour to abolish Huntingdon altogether. The borough was to be disfranchised, therefore he (Sir Robert Peel) could have no further connection with it; but he did hope that in the interests of the people 1710 of Huntingdon the name would not be altogether abolished.

§ MR. RAIKES
said, that was what he was aiming at; he was endeavouring to preserve the name of Huntingdon as an alternative name in consideration of its ancient character. He would ask the Committee to adopt the alternative name.

§ Question put, and agreed to; words inserted accordingly.

§ On the Motion of Mr. RAIKES, the following Amendment made:—In page 59, line 23, after "The," insert "Northern or."

§ MR. RAIKES
said, that they now came to the county of Kent. This had a great number of divisions—namely, eight; and it would be very difficult to apply points-of-the-compass names to them; but he found a strong feeling in favour of this course being taken, and as it was possible to deal with the Isle of Thanet by not attaching it to any point of the compass, he had ventured to put his Amendments on the Paper dealing with the other seven divisions. His first Amendment had reference to the Western Division in line 30 of page 59. He proposed to insert, after the word "The," the words "Western or," which would mean "The Western or Sevenoaks Division." There was no doubt that that would be the most westerly part of Kent. He did not know whether the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) intended to accept these Kentish Amendments. If he did, it might be convenient that he (Mr. Raikes) should speak generally upon the question. The three Western Divisions of Kent were, Dartford, which he proposed to call North-West, and below it Sevenoaks, which he proposed to call West, and Tunbridge, below that again, which he proposed to call South-West. Then the Medway Division, which was entirely Mid Kent, he proposed to give that name to. Faversham fell to the North-East, Ashford to the South, and the St. Augustine's Division to the South-East. In passing he could not refrain from complimenting the right hon. Baronet on his assumption of a more than Papal prerogative, because he had canonzied St. Augustine. Augustine, he believed, as a matter of fact, never had been canonized by the Court of Rome; but it had been reserved for his right hon. Friend 1711 to bestow that honour upon him now with an electoral district. St. Augustine was not the Augustine who was the first Archbishop of Canterbury. He ventured to submit, as to the Sevenoaks Division, that the term "Western" might most appropriately be applied to it. He begged to move to insert the words "Western or" in page 59, line 30, after the word "The."

§ Amendment proposed, in page 59, line 30, after "The," insert "Western or."—(Mr. Raikes.)

§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
said, he could only assure the right hon. Gentleman that, according to the best information he had been able to obtain, St. Augustine was a Petty Sessional and not a Governmental Saint. The Petty Sessional division that contained Canterbury itself had the alternative name of St. Augustine's. He disagreed with the last statement of the right hon. Gentleman, and would point out that the present case constituted one of the greatest difficulties in applying the points of the compass by way of nomenclature to so many divisions. He was willing, however, to abide by the general sense of the Committee on the subject.

§ MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS
said, he was glad to hear that the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Charles W. Dilke) was prepared to accept the Amendment proposed by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Raikes); and, as one who had taken a great deal of trouble in the inquiry, he might be allowed to say a word or two. The name of this division was selected by the Boundary Commissioners after considerable discussion. It was the best name they could find, though, perhaps, not a good one. The towns in that division were situated on the outskirts, and one of the most important was the disfranchised borough of Sandwich, and the county was not willing to accept the name of a constituency which had been so unfortunate in its career. No doubt the proposal to retain the name of the Isle of Thanet would be most popular in the county.

§ Question put, and agreed to; words inserted accordingly.

1712

§ On the Motion of Mr. Raikes, the following Amendments made:—In page 60, line 1, after "The," insert "North Western or;" in line 6, after "The," insert "South Western or;" in line 11, after "The," insert "Mid or;" in line 19, after "The," insert "South Eastern or;" in line 23, after "The," insert "South Eastern or;" and in line 30, after "The," insert "Eastern or."

§ MR. RAIKES
said, his next Amendment was on page 61, line 6, after the word "The," to leave out the words "North Lonsdale," in order to insert the word "Furness." He did not intend to divide the Committee on this and other Amendments unless he received some encouragement from the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill. North Londsdale was, no doubt, known to those who lived in those parts; but many were not aware that North Lonsdale formed part of Lancashire. However, he believed Lonsdale was a popular name in that and in another district called South Londsdale; and it appeared to him that if the name North Lonsdale were retained, the adjoining division ought to be called South Lonsdale, although in the Bill it was proposed to be called the Lancaster Division. Perhaps hon. Members would have made themselves aware of the fact that the district in which North Lonsdale was situate contained the very much more celebrated district of Furness. Everybody had heard of Furness—of Barrow-in-Furness, Broughton-in-Fur-ness, and Dalton-in-Furness—in that part of the peninsula of Lancashire which lay on the extreme north-west. Then there was the Furness Railway. In point of fact, Furness was probably as well-known as any part of Her Majesty's Dominions. True, it was not co-extensive with the proposed division; but no more was North Lonsdale. He had endeavoured to put his case before the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Charles W. Dilke), and he should be content with his decision; but he thought it rather absurd that the occasion should pass without a protest on behalf of a district more famous, and containing the great bulk of the population of the new division it was proposed to constitute. If the right hon. Gentleman thought the Commissioners had exercised a right 1713 judgment in adopting the name in the Bill, he would accept his decision; but, in the meantime, he would move his Amendment.

§ Amendment proposed, In page 61, line 6, after the word "The," to leave out the words "North Lonsdale," and insert the word"Furness."—(Mr. Raikes.)

§ Question proposed, "That the words 'North Lonsdale' stand part of the Schedule."

§ MR. HIBBERT
said, he was glad to hear that the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Raikes) did not intend to divide the Committee on this Amendment; but he was sorry he had ever brought it forward, because there was no name which had been proposed for any county which had given more satisfaction to all the people interested than this name of North Lonsdale. In the first place, it bad been settled by a Committee of Conservatives and Liberals as being the proper name, and it had been received as a satisfactory name by all the people who lived in the district, and to change it to the name of Furness would not be acceptable. He had himself lived in North Lonsdale, but not in Furness; and to change it from the more celebrated name to that of Furness would be to give it the name of a district which did not include the bulk of the constituency. North Lonsdale also contained a small portion of South Lonsdale; but the great portion of the division would be composed of North Lonsdale, and as it was one of the well-known portions of the county of Lancaster he trusted it would be allowed to remain.

COLONEL STANLEY
observed that, as representing the division of which North Lonsdale formed part, he wished to say there was only one feeling throughout the whole district, and that was in favour of the name of North Lonsdale. His right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Raikes) had proposed many Amendments and had met with great success, many of his proposals being accepted as real Amendments to the Bill. But in this case he thought his right hon. Friend stood almost alone; and it was hardly necessary, after what the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Hibbert) had said, for him (Colonel Stanley) to repeat that this question was gone into tho- 1714 roughly when the Commissioners visited the locality, where they found only one feeling expressed—namely, in favour of the name of North Lonsdale. It was true that this division took in a portion of South Lonsdale; but that was not considered objectionable, and the other district assumed its natural name of Lancaster, now a merged borough. He hoped the name of North Lonsdale would be retained.

§ MR. ECROYD
said, he was one of those Lancashire men who very much regretted the disappearance of the ancient names of the hundreds. The name Furness applied to the district north of the sands, and to apply to it the comparatively modern name of North Lonsdale was ridiculous. If Lonsdale meant anything, it meant the Valley of the Lune. He could therefore quite understand why the country above Kirkby Lonsdale should be called North Lonsdale, and the country below South Lonsdale. But why the country beyond the intervening Valley of the Kent should be called Lonsdale had always appeared to him incomprehensible. In consequence of this and of the disappearance of other ancient names coming down from a period considerably anterior to the Conquest, he very much regretted the proposed nomenclature.

§ SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS
said, he could not allow the observation of his hon. Friend behind him (Mr. Ecroyd) that the name North Lonsdale was not applicable to the proposed division. North Lonsdale was one of the old names, and marked the division between North and South, which were divided, as the hon. Member (Mr. Ecroyd) said, not by the Lune, but by the Valley of the Kent. It was one of the old hundreds of the county, and was perfectly well known. He therefore sincerely hoped, living as he did in the district, and knowing the unanimous feeling of the inhabitants on both sides in politics, that the name of North Lonsdale would be retained.

§ Amendment negatived.

§ MR. ECROYD
moved, in page 62, line 2, to leave out "Four Members—Four Divisions," and insert "Five Members—Five Divisions." It might, perhaps, save the time of the Committee if he were allowed, on this the first of a series of Amendments, to state the case 1715 generally, as all the other Amendments except one were consequential. It might seem somewhat presumptuous to raise an Amendment of such great importance as this upon the Schedule; but he believed this case to be unique, and he thought he should be able to show the Committee that whether Her Majesty's Government were able or not to afford a remedy, a great and grievous injustice had been done to North-East Lancashire in the allotment of representation. The division of North-East Lancashire was now represented by two Members, and he thought those hon. Gentlemen could not but sympathize with the step he was now taking. This division would now, under the arrangements which had been made of territory and population, contain about 259,176 inhabitants, according to the Census of 1881. The first grievance which he had to allege was that since the division of this region into four constituencies, and the allotment of four Members, no fewer than 12,751 inhabitants had been added; 9,743 in that portion of the borough of Bacup which hitherto had been in South-East Lancashire, and 3,008 by the recommendation of the Commissioners—a recommendation which was approved by the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Charles W. Dilke)—not to include the ecclesiastical district of St. Leonard's, Walton-le-Dale, in Preston, as at first suggested. The reasons against that inclusion did not need to be here repeated. It was quite enough to say that both political Parties in Preston and St. Leonards, Walton-le-Dale, entirely objected to the inclusion of this rural district within the borough of Preston. In comparing the representation of North-East Lancashire with other county divisions of a similar character, he would leave out of the reckoning altogether those rural county divisions which had, under this Bill, lost some share of their representation, or which on account of their sparse population had been thought to be entitled to special consideration. But comparing it only with other county divisions of similar character in regard to size and population, and containing both urban and rural populations, his task was easy. There was no Party motive whatever in the Motion he had to make; it was founded only on common justice and on the great importance of adopting some more conve- 1716 nient arrangement of the constituencies than that which had been forced on the Commissioners by the limitation of the representation of this district to four Members, when on every principle of justice it was entitled to five. He did not ask that any remedy should be given at the expense of surrounding districts, nor did he desire that any of their population should be taken away and given to other county divisions, for the sufficient reason that all those county divisions had been very fairly and reasonably treated in the Bill, and none of them were over-represented. What he complained of was that 259,000 inhabitants in North-East Lancashire had been allotted four Members; whilst Worcestershire, for instance, with 245,000 inhabitants—that was 14,000 fewer—had been allotted five. He could give several other instances of county divisions, none of which could be considered to be over-represented, but in all of which, if one Member was taken away, the representation would still be more liberal than that allotted to North-East Lancashire. Take, for example, the county of Chester. If one Member were taken away, each Member would then represent 62,137 inhabitants; whereas in North-East Lancashire each Member would represent 64,794 inhabitants. If a Member were taken away from Cornwall, each Member would still represent 2,000 inhabitants fewer than in North-East Lancashire. In Derbyshire, South-East Lancashire, Leicestershire, Staffordshire, Warwickshire, the Eastern Division of the West Riding, and Glamorganshire, it would be the same. In every one of these, all of them combining urban and rural districts, if one Member fewer were given, they would still be more liberally represented than North-East Lancashire. But he would not rest there. Let them look at this matter from the other point of view. If North-East Lancashire had five Members allotted to it, each Member would still have to represent about 3,000 more inhabitants than the Members for Cumberland, or the four Members for North amptonshire, or the four Members for Nottinghamshire; and these could not be regarded as counties which had been too liberally treated in the present Bill. So that, whichever way they made the comparison, North-East Lancashire was invidiously and unjustly treated, and 1717 that was precisely the complaint he made. There were 12 or 15 counties of a similar class and of average magnitude; and instead of arranging that that which contained the largest population should have five Members, they had selected others having a smaller population to have five, and had alloted only four to North-East Lancashire, the most populous of the group. He complained that the principles laid down and embodied in the Instructions to the Commissioners had not been followed in the case of North-East Lancashire; and he wished to hear some solid reason alleged for their having been treated in a manner so remarkable. He did not wish to refer to the special case of the county of Warwick, and the fusion of Warwick and Leamington; but if Accrington had been treated in the same manner as Leamington, and abstracted from the county and created a Parliamentary borough, with as large a population as that of Barrow-in-Furness, there would still have remained in North-East Lancashire more than 212,000 inhabitants, which if represented by four Members would give 53,019 for representation by each Member, after the abstraction of that large and important town, which, as he believed, was entitled to become a Parliamentary borough. The case would not be so bad if there were anything in the borough representation of North-East Lancashire to give them consolation. But the borough Members in that division would each represent more than the average number of inhabitants. That, therefore, rather added to the grievance than diminished it. The case was very different in some of the other instances he had named. In the case of Cumberland, besides a very superior county representation, the two boroughs of Carlisle and Whitehaven, containing 36,000 and 10,000 inhabitants respectively, were considerably over-represented. North-East Lancashire, therefore, in whatever aspect they looked at it, was grievously under-represented. Again, looking at the matter on the ground of prescription—and the Prime Minister attached considerable importance to the consideration of prescription—they lost the ancient borough of Clitheroe for the want of a few hundred inhabitants. That was one of the most ancient boroughs in the Kingdom, in 1718 the centre of an extensive rural and pastoral district; and yet for its extinction they received no consideration whatever, and the county in which that borough was merged was allotted the most meagre and inadequate representation. Again, he thought that where an arrangement was made which gave so serious an under-representation to a large and populous division, the grievance was greater when it could be shown that it was perhaps the most rapidly-growing division outside the Metropolitan district. He would give an instance from his own immediate neighbourhood, in which he had lived all his life, and with which he was intimately acquainted. He had ascertained from the Clerk of the Burnley Union and other officials connected with the Local Government Boards of the two principal urban centres of the Clitheroe Division that those two Local Government districts, which in 1881 contained 21,000 inhabitants, had increased by 5,410 during four years, or 25 per cent since the last Census, on the assumption that there was an average of five inhabitants to each house. Now, another consideration might fairly be brought into play with regard to this matter. Here was a population, growing not so much in consequence of the general growth of the trade in which it was engaged, as in consequence of its exceptional energy and industrial capacity; and there were some features in connection with that growth in every respect remarkable. He supposed there was no district in the Kingdom where employment was more steady and secure, and to which large numbers had been attracted from other districts, with the result of so great and permanent an improvement of this condition, as in the case of North-East Lancashire. He believed that no labouring population in the Kingdom was so well and substantially housed, and none more efficiently educated. Therefore, in whatever way they regarded this vast and increasing population, it was entitled to its full share of representation in that House under the present re-arrangement. Now, the population at that moment in these four divisions was undoubtedly more than 280,000, and probably more that290,000. The population of the great borough of Burnley, which was almost in the centre of this division, although only represented by one Member, 1719 amounted at that moment to considerably over 70,000. It was not his business to say where the additional Member demanded was to come from. He only pointed out that the Government, which had had to consider the case of 10 or 15 county divisions of similar magnitude and character, had treated them in the exceptional manner he had just described. Therefore, he said it was for the Government to remedy the injustice that was being done to them, although he wished it to be understood that they did not wish it remedied at the expense of their neighbours. They said that one Member ought in common justice to be added to the number which the Government proposed to give them; and that the arrangement arrived at between the two Parties ought not to be the cause of a gross and indefensible injustice being done in an individual case of this kind. He now passed to the consideration of the great inconvenience resulting from the arrangement of divisions which this inadequate representation had rendered inevitable. Burnley contained 70,000 inhabitants. In the Clitheroe Division, in which his interest lay, and in which he resided, the arrangement was as inconvenient and distasteful as it could be made. The populous Calder Valley on the East was linked in one division with the wide pastoral area round Clitheroe on the West, the two being separated by the mountain range of Pendle, nearly 2,000 feet high, and having no railway communication without making a long and circuitous journey round by Blackburn. The representation of the inconveniences which this arrangement would entail was entirely lost upon the Commissioners, whose only answer was that they had no power to alter either the number of Members or the number of divisions. He regretted to have been obliged to occupy so much of the time of the Committee; but he was obliged to state the case fully, because there was, he felt satisfied, none parallel to it in all the counties of England and Wales. The only case which could at all compare with it were the very exceptional one of the Isle of Wight, and that of the County of Bedford. In the latter, however, the excess of borough representation fully compensated the defect of county representation—the average of the borough and county together being, 1720 he believed, one Member to only 49,000; while the average representation of each borough and county division in North-East Lancashire was one Member to 61,000, although an enormous increase of population had since 1881 taken place in this most important district. Finally, he believed that he had shown that this claim was in every respect and from every point of view founded on justice; and he had only to express an earnest hope that no arrangement between the two Parties in that House would prevent a remedy being found for the wrong that would otherwise be done.

§ Amendment proposed, In page 62, line 2, to leave out the words "Four Members—Four Divisions," and insert the words "Five Memhers—Five Divisions."—(Mr. Ecroyd.)

§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
said, that the hon. Gentleman had placed this case in a very excellent manner before the Committee. The hon. Member had shown that there had been a very large accession of population in the case of the North-East Division of the county. Even if the hon. Member's proposal were agreed to, there would remain the question as to whence the additional Member was to come. The Clitheroe and Accrington Divisions were not above the average divisions of Lancashire; but one of the four divisions of North-East Lancashire was very large indeed. The ratio of representation in North-East Lancashire was under the arrangement proposed in the Bill—one in 54,000; and if the hon. Member's proposal were agreed to, and there were five Members allotted to it instead of four, the ratio would be one in 51,000. But there were divisions in various parts of the country considerably larger than the division in question; for instance, there were two divisions in Kent larger, and one in Surrey. Supposing they were to give another Member to this division, where was such Member to be found? In looking through the county scale he found that the county most favoured by that scale was Wiltshire; and, accordingly, he had considered this question as between the two counties. No doubt, the latter 1721 county, before the framing of this Bill, had been the most over-represented county in the Kingdom; but it had been very severely dealt with in this measure. Looking at the fact that the grievance complained of was concentrated in the one division of Rossendale, a compact Petty Sessional division which did not wish to be intersected, and looking at the fact that although it was a large county division it was not so large as many borough divisions, he thought it would be preferable to maintain the Bill as it stood.

§ SIR E. ASSHETON CROSS
said, his hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Ecroyd) had said everything that could be said in behalf of the division of North-East Lancashire. His hon. Friend had urged that the division was treated with great hardship; but, on the other hand, the right hon. Baronet had pointed out that the real hardship was in respect of one division, and that all the others were satisfied. Then, with regard to the additional Member, the right hon. Baronet had said that if they took that Member from any county they must look to Wiltshire. But he would point out that that was entering upon a wide sphere, and that if the discussion were to be continued in that direction the whole question of the representation of counties would be re-opened. Representations had been made to him on this subject; and if the right hon. Baronet were to give way upon the point he would find a number of applications would come upon him from other directions which it would be quite impossible for him to meet. It was stated that the increase of population in this division of the county was due to the influx of people which took place from Bacup; and then, again, it was said that it was due to the fact that a district had been included which had no right to be included. It was evident, therefore, that there was some mistake about the matter, and accordingly he would not pursue that part of the subject. With regard to the present population, however, he could give an instance in which there had been a much greater increase of population than in the present case, and where more representation was wanted—namely, the borough of Bootle, in which the population had almost doubled since the last Census, a fact that was sufficient to show how necessary it was 1722 not rashly to interfere with the scheme of the Bill. He was convinced that if the right hon. Baronet gave way on this point such a flood of Amendments would be brought forward on the Report that it would be impossible to get through them in any reasonable time. The inhabitants in the North-East Division of Lancashire would be perfectly satisfied with the way in which his hon. Friend had placed their case before the Committee and the Government. His hon. Friend had undoubtedly shown that a grievance had existed; but he (Sir R. Assheton Cross) thought he had shown how difficult it would be to remedy that grievance. He would remind his hon. Friend that they wore passing this Bill under a certain amount of difficulty, because there had been an agreement entered into with respect to its passage through the House; were it not so, he should, of course, have had more to say than he thought it desirable to say under the circumstances.

§ MR. ECROYD
said, that both right hon. Gentlemen laboured under a great misapprehension. It was true that the grievance of excessive population was confined to the district of Rossendale; but it was also true that the grievance of inconvenient arrangement was concentrated in the Northern Division of Clitheroe. Both those grievances resulted from the inadequate representation which had been given to North-East Lancashire as a whole. He felt, under the circumstances, that it was his duty to take a division on his Amendment.

§ MR. TOMLINSON
said, he rose to support his hon. Friend in his endeavour to deal with the insufficient representation given to the North-East Division of Lancashire. It appeared to him that the answer given to the proposal was no answer at all. Right hon. Gentlemen had simply concentrated their minds upon one part of the case; and, having admitted that that constituted an exceptional hardship, they left the other part of the complaint out of sight altogether. The right hon. Gentleman had pointed to the South-East Division of Lancashire as being also inadequately represented; but his hon. Friend had shown that the North-East Division suffered, in addition, from inconvenient arrangement. He (Mr. Tomlinson) could not avoid the conclusion that the whole scheme provided an 1723 inadequate representation of the whole county. The right hon. Baronet then asked where the additional Member was to come from, and suggested Wiltshire as the only county to which he could look. But it seemed to him that there was a much easier way out of the difficulty; and he would suggest that the extra Member to which Wolverhampton was not entitled should be given to North-East Lancashire.

MR. GORST
said, he considered the Committee were indebted to the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Ecroyd) for having brought forward this question, because it was clear that the Bill could not be regarded as final in view of the circumstances to which their attention had been called. It was evident that the hardship suffered by North-East Lancashire from inadequate representation, seeing that the population was rapidly growing, would become every year more intolerable. It was said that the additional representation could not be given after the decision arrived at by the Commissioners. But he would point out that the hon. Gentleman was not making any appeal against the decision of the Commissioners, which was not called in question, but against the plan of the Government, and not even that, because the original plan was not to make the division so large as it was now. His hon. Friend had said fairly that the grievance brought forward had been caused by the influx of population from the borough of Bacup, and by the original intentions of the Government not having been carried out. This was an important question; for here was the case of an anomaly being created since the Bill was originally favoured by the Government; and this was an appeal by the hon. Member to redress a wrong which had come about not by any fault of the Commissioners, but owing to a change which had been forced upon them by the Government. While he had always supported the proposal of the Government, and while he should be very sorry to do anything which would in any way throw the Bill again on the House, he was bound to say that he regretted extremely that the right hon. Baronet could not see a way in which to remove the anomaly that had been created, and which every year must become greater. There was also one point referred to by 1724 the hon. Member for Preston which required an answer—namely, that where there was inadequate representation of any county it ought to be redressed at the expense of the boroughs which had more extensive representation. But in North-East Lancashire the boroughs had a right to complain of insufficient representation—the boroughs of Burnley and Blackburn, for instance. The population of Blackburn was one which at the very least required two Members; and it could not be said that the borough population of North-East Lancashire was at all over-represented. Therefore the Committee had before them a case in which the county was under-represented, and the boroughs which it contained adequately represented. Finally, he hoped that a remedy would be applied to the condition of things proposed to be created by the Bill in respect of North-East Lancashire, because he was convinced that no case could be produced in which there was a greater anomaly.

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
said, the hon. and learned Gentleman had spoken of this as an extreme case of under-representation as compared with the country generally; but he would remark that language of that kind was in the nature of exaggeration, because there were many stronger cases than that of Rossendale. The Isle of Wight, for instance, was a county in which the population was rapidly increasing, and it had one Member to 73,560 inhabitants. Cardigan was also worse off than Rossendale. The same, again, in the case of the county of Clare, where there was one Member for every 71,000 persons; and turning to Scotland, the counties of Stirling and Mid Lothian had one Member to 78,000 and 79,000 inhabitants respectively, and the population there was very rapidly iucreasing.

§ MR. LEAKE
said, he thought the case of Rossendale was not so very bad— there were much grosser cases in South-East Lancashire which ought to be very differently dealt with if the same proportion of representation which the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Ecroyd) claimed for North-East Lancashire were to be allowed. If the hon. Member rested his case upon the fact that the boroughs were under-represented, the case for South-East Lancashire was three times stronger. There were in South-East Lancashire six borough constituencies 1725 in each of which one Member would represent a population of more than 68,000, and there would be two Members representing more than 80,000 each. There was no class of the people more deserving of consideration and representation than the householders of North-East Lancashire; but in comparison with other parts of the county they were not unfairly treated in the Bill.

§ Amendment negatived.

§ MR. ECROYD
proposed to correct a mis-spelt word in the Schedule, and moved to substitute "Leagram" for "Leagrin" in line 11, page 62.

§ Amendment agreed to.

MR. A. F. EGERTON
moved an Amendment to insert in page 63, line 9, after "The," the words "Farnworth cum." As the Schedule stood at present, it was proposed to give to this division the name of Radcliffe; but his proposal was that it should also bear the name of the town of Farnworth. This was one of the divisions of South-East Lancashire, and it was one of a very peculiar character. Radcliffe was an important town, and so was Farnworth. They were both headquarters of the cotton manufacturing industry, and important places in their way. He believed the Boundary Commissioners, in naming the division, might have given it the name of Radcliffe from a remembrance of the fact that Radcliffe was mentioned in the Domesday Book; but perhaps they had not been informed that the Manor of Farnworth was created by Charter in the Reign of King John, so that it had a long antiquity as well as Radcliffe. The two centres were quite apart from each other; and Farnworth would be greatly gratified if the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill could see his way to join the name of Farnworth with that of Radcliffe. If he wanted a precedent for such a double name, he would find one in Ireland, where one of the county divisions had been called "Bandon and Kinsale."

§ Amendment proposed, In page 63, line 9, after the word "The," to insert the words "Farnworth cum."—(Mr. A. F. Egerton.)

§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
said, the Committee were now dealing with a part 1726 of the Bill which related to England; and he thought there was only one exception in the Bill—an exception in the case of Ireland—where a double name had been given to a division. Under those circumstances, he would like the Committee to consider whether the proposed change should be made. If any change should be made at all in the direction proposed, no doubt this would be a good case, because here were two places which were very fairly equal. The actual town of Farnworth was rather larger than the town of Radcliffe; but the district which was known as Farnworth district was not quite so large as the Radcliffe district. Still the two places were very fairly equal; and if the Committee wished to insert double names, this was a very fair case for it. But it was a very doubtful matter in his mind whether it would be wise to make the alteration. There were, practically, no double names at present, and if they once began giving them a good many local jealousies in other places which had now died away might at once be revived.

§ MR. AGNEW
said, he had placed an Amendment on the Paper to change the name to "Radcliffe cum Farnworth;" but he was quite prepared to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. A. F. Egerton) if the Committee should think fit. There could be no doubt whatever that in South-East Lancashire Farnworth occupied a very prominent position as a manufacturing centre; and the Committee might learn, not without interest perhaps, that when the Commissioners sat in the Assize Court in Manchester, and the naming of these districts was under consideration, there was a general feeling that this particular division should be called either "Radcliffe cum Farnworth" or "Farnworth cum Radcliffe." If the Committee should accept the Amendment of his hon. Friend, he (Mr. Agnew) would, of course, be very glad to withdraw his own; but if the Committee declined to accept that Amendment, he should be bound to press his own. He thought the people interested would be perfectly satisfied if the two names were incorporated in the designation of the division.

MR. THOROLD ROGERS
would rather like to know how long the Committee were to be delayed by these ridi- 1727 culous questions? It seemed to him that every sensible man in the Committee would come to the conclusion which Gallio came to—"If it be a question of names or of your law, I will have none of it." It really was a pity that their time should be wasted in discussions upon pseudo-antiquities which were ludicrously irrelative and absolutely pitiable. He hoped the Committee would, in an emphatic way, negative all this heap of rubbish.

§ COLONEL NOLAN
said, he would not detain the Committee by remarks upon the two particular places concerned in this Amendment, or upon the advisability of adopting two names for a division as a general rule. But in his own constituency (Galway) there had been a great jealousy between two towns as to which of them it should be named after; and he would suggest, if the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Thorold Rogers) was right about these discussions being a great waste of time, that there was a very simple way of getting rid of all this bother about naming the districts—they should allow the Members for the constituencies to give the names. He would not, of course, allow them to interfere with the boundaries—that was a national question—but he thought they might fairly be trusted to give the names.

§ MR. LEAKE
said, this was not so insignificant a question as the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Thorold Rogers) seemed to imagine. When they put into one Parliamentary division two such equal political entities as these two, it might easily be imagined what would be the feelings of Farnworth or Radcliffe if the name of the one place was given and the name of the other was not. He admitted, with his right hon. Friend who had charge of the Bill (Sir Charles W. Dilke), that it was not desirable to multiply these cases of double naming; but he maintained that each particular case should be judged on its own merits. It was in consequence of the necessity for subdividing South-East Lancashire into so many constituencies that these two very important and equal towns were united as they had never been united before; and, inasmuch as each of them had a fair claim to name the division, it was felt to be a matter of considerable consequence to both—and who should judge 1728 between them? Who were the best judges? The Boundary Commissioners, or the House, or those who lived on the spot? He claimed from the Committee a lenient consideration for a union of the two names in designating this division, which was advocated by both Parties, and which was necessary for its identification. If it should be conceded, he could not imagine that it would lead to conferring a similar distinction in other cases unless equally worthy of such treatment.

§ MR. WHITWORTH
said, he knew both places very well, and he could say with confidence that the name of Farnworth ought to be given to the division. He hoped the Committee would agree to the Amendment.

§ Amendment agreed to.

MR. LYULPH STANLEY
moved, in page 63, line 29, after "the," to leave out "Prestwich." and insert "Fails-worth." He thought that Failsworth was a far more proper place to give its name to the division than was Prestwich; and Failsworth was, in the first instance, selected by the Commissioners to give the name, only when they came back to London they received private communications from the Local Board of Prestwich which induced them to alter their minds. Failsworth was the larger place, and the more central. It was the better fitted for railway communication. On the other hand, Prestwich was the seat of the County Lunatic Asylum, and no less than 2,000 of the people of the district were, unfortunately, inmates of that Institution. If Prestwich returned a Member to that House there would be very serious doubts as to his sanity. He hoped the Government would give a favourable consideration to this Amendment, and thus endeavour to meet the wishes of the saner portion of the constituency; but if not he would not trouble the Committee to divide.

§ Amendment proposed, In page 63, line 29, after the word "the," to leave out "Prestwich," and insert the word "Failsworth."—(Mr. Lyulph Stanley.)

§ Question proposed, "That the word 'Prestwich' stand part of the Schedule."

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
said, he thought he must concede the Amendment—["No, no!"]—as there was no 1729 very strong reason for preferring Prestwich, and population was the only argument he had to go upon. Prestwich was the old name, no doubt, but Fails-worth was, perhaps, a better name for the future.

§ MR. AGNEW
said, he thought this was a case on all fours with the one just decided—the case of Farnworth and Radcliffe. It would be very unfair to the people of Prestwich, who had been living of late under the expectation that they would give their name to the division, if they were to have this cold douche thrown on them now. If the President of the Local Government Board meant the district to have the name of Failsworth, he should at least extend his grace so as to permit the division to be called Failsworth-cum-Prestwich or Prestwich-cum-Fails-worth.

§ SIR E. ASSHETON CROSS
hoped the old name of Prestwich would be retained.

MR. LYULPH STANLEY
said, he would not press the Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ MR. RAIKES
moved, in page 64, line 39, after "The," to insert "Northern or," in describing the Melton Division of the county of Leicester.

§ Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD JOHN MANNERS
moved, in page 64, line 41, to leave out East Norton." t had been arranged that Belgrave should be taken out of the borough of Leicester and added to the Melton Division, where it would increase the population which was already rather large for a division by some 7,000. In order to compensate for the increase of population in one direction there ought to be a corresponding diminution in another, and he therefore proposed that the district taken out of the old Southern Division of the county and running right down to the borders of Northamptonshire should be placed in the new division, to which it would seem naturally to belong, and in that way the population of the two divisions would be equalized to a very large extent. If this suggestion wore adopted, the population of the new Eastern or Melton Division would be 51,780, and the Market Harborough Division would have 51,000, which would put them as nearly upon 1730 an equality as conveniently could be done.

§ Amendment proposed, in page 64, line 41, to leave out the words "East Norton."—(Lord John Manners)

§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
said, the change with regard to Belgrave was made by general consent. It perhaps involved the necessity of making another change, for an extreme disproportion of population between 45,000 and 54,000 was very considerable. But the change now proposed did not appear to be the subject of any local agreement, and there was a good deal of difference of opinion on the subject in the locality. A local suggestion had been made which no Member of the House had as yet consented to father, but which was strongly pressed locally, and that was, instead of dividing the Petty Sessional divisions to keep them intact. That did not do much to equalize the population, which was no doubt a drawback. It still left a certain disparity between the largest and the smallest divisions; but he had consulted the Boundary Commissioners as to which scheme they thought best, and they were rather in favour of the local scheme. That being so, he would rather leave the matter open for further consideration during the next two or three days to see whether any local agreement could be arrived at.

§ MR. PELL
said, he did not quite understand what was meant by the Petty Sessional divisions—he did not know in which of the divisions of the county the right hon. Gentleman would place them.

§ LORD JOHN MANNERS
pointed out that his proposal would leave the Petty Sessional division of East Norton exactly as it was now.

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
said, he he had no present opinion against the proposal of the noble Lord; but he would endeavour to ascertain the local feeling, if the noble Lord would refrain from pressing the Amendment until the Report.

§ MR. PELL
said, there was a very strong feeling in favour of the Amendment. His experience in the House did not lead him to place much confidence in putting matters of this kind off until Report. He hoped the Committee 1731 would be able to come to some immediate decision, especially as he saw a disposition on the part of the right hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill to concur in the view of the noble Lord (Lord John Manners).

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
said, he was afraid he could not make any suggestion now, as he would be going against the decision of the Boundary Commissioners. He had no personal objection to the proposal of the noble Lord, and would do what he could with the Commissioners in the matter.

§ LORD JOHN MANNERS
said, he should not press the Amendment. Probably the Commissioners would see that the Amendment would suit the whole of the division better than the proposal of the Bill.

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
said, it was true that the proposal in the Bill was not arrived at by local agreement. It had been made by the Boundary Commissioners.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ On the Motion of Mr. RAIKES, the following Amendments made:—Page 65, line 1, after "The," insert "Mid or;" line 12, after "The," insert "Western or;" line 17, after "The," insert "Southern or."

§ MR. RAIKES
said, they now came to the county of Lincoln, and he wished to place himself very much in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill. He had given Notice of four Amendments relating to the Northern portion of the county, reviving the old name of Lindsey. He could himself remember that in former days, before the Reform Act of 1867, Writs used to issue in the names of Lindsey and Kesteven. Therefore, these places had some Parliamentary significance. He was informed by those qualified to form an opinion upon the subject that the four Northern Divisions of the county should be West, North, East, and South Lindsey. The division of West Lindsey would be the division styled Gainsborough, and if the Amendment were adopted, the name would be "West Lindsey or Gainsborough." His proposal was, he thought, better than the proposal in the Bill, and had the advantage of being approved of by the Lincolnshire Members—or, at any rate, by some of them. If the right hon. Baronet desired it, he would pro- 1732 pose to give the points of the compass names to the county divisions, without reference to Lindsey and Kesteven. He imagined, however, that it would be more acceptable to Lincolnshire itself if they were to divide the county as proposed. Certainly, the balance of convenience and propriety leaned towards the Amendments on the Paper. He would now move to insert "West Lindsey or," in line 26, and would leave what he had to say with regard to Kesteven and Holland until they came to South Lincolnshire.

§ Amendment proposed, in page 65, line 26, after the word "The," to insert the words "West Lindsey or."—(Mr. Raikes.)

§ Question proposed, "That the words 'West Lindsey or' be there inserted."

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
said, he had no objection to the proposed changes of name, or to those changes which affected the Northern and Western parts of the county; but he must not mislead the Committee. He should have to object to changes which would be proposed subsequently—for instance, to Amendments to substitute Spalding for Holland. He should have to use arguments similar to those he had used yesterday with reference to the Isle of Ely.

§ Question put, and agreed to.

§ On the Motion of Mr. RAIKES, the following Amendments made:—Pages 65 and 66, line 31, after "The," insert "North Lindsey or;" line 1, after "The," insert "East Lindsey or;" and line 18, after "The," insert "South Lindsey or."

§ Amendment proposed, in page 66, line 24, leave out from "Spilsby" to end of line 25.—(Sir Charles W. Dilke.)

§ Question proposed, "That 'Spilsby' stand part of the Schedule."

§ MR. WARTON
Will the right hon. Baronet explain how this crops up?

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
It is a small change made in the borough of Boston.

MR. WATON
said, he must protest against the loose manner in which the Bill had been drawn. This was another and a good example of that which had occurred again and again in this Bill.

§ MR. E. STANHOPE
said, that if the hon. and learned Member would glance 1733 over the various parishes, he would see that this would be the most convenient way of dealing with the matter.

§ Question put, and agreed to.

§ MR. RAIKES
said, he now proposed, in line 26, after "The," to insert "North Kesteven or." The district of Kesteven was not, he knew, absolutely identical with the divisions of Sleaford and Stamford, but it was much more so than was North Lonsdale with the Northern Division of Lancaster; therefore, he thought it was entitled to rank as a better name. No doubt there was a small fragment of Holland in the Sleaford Division; but it did not amount to more than a 10th or 12th part of the division, and a still smaller portion was proposed to be annexed to the Stamford Division. Practically, the Sleaford and Stamford Divisions, taken together, constituted the whole district of Kesteven with an extremely small part of Holland. He thought the district was entitled to have the name he proposed. It would be very acceptable to the county, and one familiar to students of Parliamentary records. Stamford was a town of great importance, and it might claim to give its name to the division; but he did not think the same applied to Sleaford, which, though a rising town, had never had a Parliamentary history. There could be no doubt that in Lincolnshire "North Kesteven" would be as well known, if not much better known, than "Sleaford" could be. He, therefore, begged to move the Amendment of which he had given Notice.

§ Amendment proposed, in page 66, line 26, after the word "The," to insert the words "North Kesteven or."—(Mr. Raikes.)

§ Question proposed, "That 'North Kesteven or' be there inserted."

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
said, he was in the hands of the Lincolnshire Members with regard to this Amendment. If those hon. Gentlemen wished now to effect a change of name, even if they did not intend to be bound by it in the future, he should be willing to agree to what they asked. He could not admit that the present case was on a par with that of North Lonsdale.

§ MR. FINCH-HATTON
said, that as one of the Members referred to, and living as he did in the neighbourhood 1734 of North Kesteven, he wished to say that, for his own part, he accepted the offer of the right hon. Baronet, and was not unsanguine that he and his hon. and learned Colleague (Mr. Compton Lawrance) might be able to give such reasons to the Commissioners as would enable them to accept a somewhat slight modification of the boundary. The change he would propose would be a very small one.

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
Provided the present Amendment is not made an argument for the acceptance of the proposal the hon. Member now alludes to, I shall be glad to accept it.

§ Question put, and agreed to.

§ MR. COMPTON LAWRANCE
said, he wished to move the Amendment standing in his name, in page 66, to leave out lines 30, 31, and 32. The object of this Amendment, and of one that stood on the Paper in his name a little lower down, was to restore to the division of Holland certain places which had been taken away to be added to North and South Kesteven for the purpose of making the population more equal. The population, as it now stood in the proposed divisions, was about 48,000 odd in Sleaford, 49,000 odd in Stamford, and 53,000 in Spalding. He brought forward this Amendment he cause Holland was really a division in itself. It had a separate Commission of the Peace, and was a Petty Sessional division, and beyond that it had a Court of Suer of its own. The boundaries of the Poor Law Unions were contained in Holland, with one exception—namely, that of the parish of Crow-land, which did not come at all into it, but was a part of Kesteven, and he believed went into the Poor Law Union of Peterborough. Then, again, Holland had, under different Acts of Parliament, control of the drainage. The interests of Holland were entirely distinct, especially as to drainage, from those of Kesteven. He had had very good reason to find that out, having the honour to represent a large part of Kesteven and Holland at this moment. When the drainage legislation of a few years ago was before the House, it had become plain to him that the interests of this place were entirely distinct. He had found that nearly the whole of Kesteven consisted of uplands, and 1735 nearly the whole of Holland of fen lands. These were the main reasons why it seemed to him that it would be of great advantage to have Holland kept by itself. There were other reasons for his proposal with regard to Crowland. That place contained some 3,000 or 4,000 inhabitants; but in order to get into it from parts of. Kesteven, it was necessary to go by rail through the Spalding Division, a distance of some 15 or 16 miles. They were in the division four miles from the railway at the present time. There was a desire on the part of the people of Holland to be kept to themselves, and the only objection which could be taken, so far as he could gather, was to the change which would be made in the population. But the population here would never be as great as in some county divisions, or as small as in many others. His proposal would raise the Spalding Division to something like 62,000, and leave the Sleaford Division at something like 44,000 or 45,000, and the Stamford Division at about 45,000. That was the only objection, as he had said, which could be taken to his proposal. The Boundary Commissioners did their duty when the matter was brought before them, but the point he was raising had not been very strongly submitted to them. Those gentlemen had done all that seemed to them necessary when they equalized the districts. He hoped the Committee would see its way to accept this and the following Amendment.

§ Amendment proposed, in page 66, leave out lines 30, 31, and 32.—(Mr. Compton Lawrance.)

§ Question proposed, "That lines 30, 31, and 32 stand part of the Schedule."

§ SIR CHARLES W, DILKE
said, he had argued against an Amendment of this kind last night from the Boundary Commissioners' rather than from his own opinion. His own view would be rather in favour of giving the hon. and learned Member his own division; but that was not the view of the Commissioners. The Boundary Commissioners did not like to be parties to the creation of such a disparity between county divisions as would happen in the ease of the construction of a division of 62,000, and another of 43,000. But the case had been so thoroughly stated by the 1736 hon. and learned Member that he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) need not add anything to what he had said. The matter was one purely for the consideration of the Committee, and they now, having this question of the disparity of population before them, could themselves decide as to what they should do. He would ask the Commissioners to prepare a fresh Report to the House on the matter. He would ask them whether they had any stronger reason than that they had given for the proposal they had made, and their reply could be considered at a later stage of the Bill.

§ MR. FINCH-HATTON
asked whether he might use one argument which he thought would have great weight with the right hon. Baronet? It was an argument which the right hon. Gentleman had used himself in a somewhat similare ase—namely, the case of Rossendale in North-East Lancashire. Rossendale, though it had a population of something like 70,000 persons, was still kept in one division, and the right hon. Gentleman had used his argument in that case three times over, in order to impress it on hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House. He spoke against the division proposed, because he had said it was a compact Petty Sessional division, and because the people had interests in common, and did not wish the district to be divided. Now, if that was an argument which weighed—and he considered that it had weighed very materially with the Committee in the case in which the right hon. Baronet brought it forward—the case for the present proposal was even a stronger one. The population were strongly opposed to an arbitrary division of the district, and were unanimously in favour of retaining the ancient county boundaries of Holland, and that without distinction of Party, or anything of that kind, otherwise he would not have identified himself with the matter at all. If he had been rightly informed, the right hon. Baronet had received a communication from the Quarter Sessions upon this matter; and as the right hon. Gentleman had used in another case arguments similar to those which were to be advanced in this case, he thought that if some concession were now made the Commisioners would take it as an intimation to assist in ar- 1737 riving at some satisfactory amendment of their proposal.

§ MR. E. STANHOPE
said, he had listened with great satisfaction to what had fallen from the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke), and, to his mind, the case had been met by him very fairly. The right hon. Gentleman fully admitted that there was a strong case to be made out for the Amendment, and that, so far as regarded the feeling in the county itself, both on the one side and the other, it was absolutely unanimous. He (Mr. Stanhope) trusted that the right hon. Baronet would do that which he had so courteously suggested—namely, let the matter now stand over, and remit it to the Commissioners with an intimation that there was a very strong feeling in the House upon the point.

§ MR. HENEAGE
said, he hoped that the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) would take a favourable view of the proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Compton Lawrance). He believed there was an unanimous wish on the part of people of all shades of politics that the three districts, Kesteven, Holland, and Lindsey should be kept intact. He would remind the right hon. Baronet that if there was a certain disproportion with regard to the population of the three divisions, as proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Compton Lawrance), there was not half the disproportion there was between their population and that of the adjoining county of Rutland, and that for all legal purposes Lincolnshire was practically divided into three counties.

MR. LYULPH STANLEY
said, he did not wish to meddle in Lincolnshire matters; but it was proper to point out that if this point be conceded to Lincolnshire, the same question would be raised with regard to Sussex.

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
said, there were several instances in which the same point could be raised. He was bound to say that Lincolnshire had as a general rule, for Parliamentary purposes, been treated as a separate county.

§ MR. COMPTON LAWRANCE
asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ MR. RAIKES
moved, in page 66, line 33, after "The," to insert "South Kesteven or," so that the Stamford 1738 Division would read the South Kesteven or the Stamford Division.

§ Amendment proposed, in page 66, line 33, after the word "The," to insert the words, "South Kesteven or."—(Mr. Raikes.)

§ Amendment agreed to.

§ MR. FINCH-HATTON
moved, in page 66, line 39, to leave out "Spalding," and insert "Holland." He said, the same arguments might be used with regard to this change that had been used with regard to the boundaries. There was an unanimous desire on the part of the people of the division that the name of the division should be Holland, and not Spalding. He did not see any advantage in their being an alternative name. Spalding was acknowledged to be the capital of Holland, and the Spalding people were willing to believe that the less was included in the greater. He ventured to hope that, after what had fallen from the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) with regard to the other Amendments proposed in regard to Lincolnshire, that this Amendment would meet with no opposition.

§ Amendment proposed, in page 66, line 39, to leave out the word "Spalding," and insert the word "Holland."—(Mr. Finch-Hatton.)

§ Question proposed, "That the word 'Spalding' stand part of the Schedule."

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
said, he had no personal feeling in the matter; and on the understanding that the people of Spalding were in favour of the change, he would not oppose the Amendment.

§ Amendment agreed to.

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
proposed to omit from the Spalding Division the following words:— And so much of the Sessional Division of Spilsby as is included in the Parliamentary Borough of Boston.

§ Amendment agreed to.

§ MR. WARTON
said, that as they were about to enter upon the consideration of the division of the county of Middlesex, he wished to propose pro formâ the omission of certain words. The right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) would remember that when they were going through the last Schedule they struck out "Mile End." He believed he was right in saying that that 1739 was in consequence of some new arrangement which was made in order that justice might be done to Westminster—in order that Westminster should have four Members instead of three. He believed he understood rightly that Westminster would in some way be affected by Mile End Old Town, and that in the last Schedule those words were struck out. He saw no Notice, however, of a similar alteration in this page. Of course, he could not tell what was in the mind of the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke), and, therefore, he begged to move pro formâ that the words "Mile End Old Town" be struck out of this page.

§ Amendment proposed, in page 67, line 10, to leave out the words "Mile End Old Town."—(Mr. Warton.)

§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
said, the hon. and learned Gentleman was quite right in saying that a change would have to be made here; but the mere striking out of these words would not be a sufficient change. They must express their meaning in another way; and until they knew what to put in, they had better not strike anything out. The matter had better be left over until Report.

§ MR. WARTON
reminded the right hon. Baronet that the words were struck out of the last Schedule.

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
said, that in the last Schedule it was easy and simple; but here it was a complicated matter.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ MR. RAIKES
said, that the next Amendment was on page 68, and dealt with the county of Monmouthshire. The county of Monmouth was divided into three divisions under this Bill, which grouped them very naturally as Northern, Western, and Southern. He now proposed, in page 68, line 4, after "The," to insert "Northern or," so that the Abergavenny Division would read "the Northern or the Abergavenny Division."

§ Amendment proposed, in page 68, line 4, after the word "The," to insert the words "Northern or."—(Mr. Raikes.)

§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

1740

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
asked if the right hon. Gentleman preferred to give alternative titles in the case of Monmouthshire?

§ MR. RAIKES
said, he thought he was rather bound, generally speaking, to follow the alternative system right through. Of course, upon this subject he would be bound by the opinions of the hon. Gentlemen the Members for Monmouthshire.

§ MR. ROLLS
said, he was in a position to say that the people of Monmouthshire would be quite satisfied with the adoption of the points of the compass in regard to their county.

§ MR. RAIKES
observed that, in that case, he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment, and afterwards to propose to leave out Abergavenny, "and insert "Northern."

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Amendment proposed, in page 68, line 4, to leave out the word "Abergavenny," and insert the word"Northern."—(Mr. Raikes.)

§ Amendment agreed to.

§ MR. RAIKES
said, that, in the same way, he begged now to propose that the word "Bedwellty" Division be called the Western Division.

§ Amendment proposed, in page 68, line 7, to leave out the word "Bedwellty," and insert the word"Western."—(Mr. Raikes.)

§ Amendment agreed to.

§ MR. RAIKES
proposed to leave out "Chepstow," in page 68, line 7, and insert "Southern."

§ Amendment proposed, in page 68, line 7, to leave out the word "Chepstow," and insert the word "Southern."—(Mr. Raikes.)

§ Amendment agreed to.

§ MR. BIRKBECK
said, that he had a series of Amendments upon the Paper to give alternative titles to the divisions of Norfolk; but he did not propose to move his Amendments in the exact form in which they appeared. Originally he intended to propose naming the divisions of Norfolk after the points of the compass, and it was only yesterday evening that he altered them to the alternative form, believing that this form was in accordance with the wishes of the right 1741 hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke). He now, however, wished to move that the "Freebridge" Division of Norfolk be called the "North-Western" Division, because he understood that that would be in accordance with the present wishes of the right hon. Baronet. His Amendments had been down on the Paper three or four weeks, and their purport was thoroughly well known to the people of the county, and no objection had been raised to them.

§ Amendment proposed, in page 68, line 20, to leave out the word "Free-bridge," and insert "North-Western."—(Mr. Birkbeck.)

§ Question proposed, "That the word 'Freebridge' stand part of the Schedule."

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
said, he should offer no opposition to the adoption of the points of the compass in Norfolk. The merged boroughs had no strong claim to give their names to the new divisions, and therefore he should offer no objection to the Amendments of the hon. Gentleman.

§ Amendment agreed to.

§ On the Motion of Mr. BIRKBECK, the following Amendments made: —Page 68, line 25, after "The," insert "South-Western or;" line 31, after "The," insert "Northern or;" page 69, line 1, after "The," insert "Eastern or;" line 10, after "The," insert "Mid or;" line 14, after "The," insert "Southern or."

§ MR. RAIKES
said, that the next Amendment stood in his name, and had reference to the county of Northamptonshire, which was in four divisions, and which was not difficult to divide. He begged to propose that the Oundle Division be known by the alternative name of the Northern or Oundle Division.

§ Amendment proposed, in page 69, line 21, after the word "The," to insert the words "Northern or."—(Mr. Raikes.)

§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH
said, that none of the places whose names had been given to the divisions of Northampton were of importance, 1742 and therefore he begged to move that the word "or" be omitted from the proposed Amendment.

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
assented to the suggested Amendment.

§ MR. RAIKES
asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ MR. RAIKES
proposed to omit the word "Oundle," and insert the word "Northern."

§ Amendment agreed to.

§ MR. RAIKES
proposed that the 2nd division of Northampton be called the Eastern Division, instead of the Wellingboro, Division.

§ Amendment agreed to.

§ MR. RAIKES
proposed that the 3rd division of the county be called the Western Division, instead of the Brixworth Division.

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
suggested that it would be better to call the division the "Mid" Division.

§ MR. RAIKES
assented.

§ Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

§ MR. RAIKES
proposed that the Towcester Division be called the Southern Division.

§ Amendment agreed to.

§ MR. RAIKES
said, his next Amendments had reference to the county of Northumberland, and the first of them related to the division which was described in the Bill as the Wansbeck Division. By his Amendment, as it appeared on the Paper, he proposed to call the division the Mid or Wansbeck Division; but if there was any feeling in favour of omitting the local name altogether, he should be quite content to move his Amendment in that form. He thought the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had a preference for single names.

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
said, he was certainly in favour of single names where there were no local names chosen. He was told that in Northumberland there was some preference for local names.

§ MR. RAIKES
observed that, under the circumstances, he would move the Amendments as they appeared on the Paper.

1743

§ Amendment proposed, in page 70, line 9, after the word "The," to insert the words "Mid or."—(Mr. Raikes.)

§ Amendment agreed to.

§ MR. RAIKES
proposed, in page 70, line 24, after "The," insert "Southern or," so that No. 2 Division would read the "Southern or Tyneside Division."

§ Amendment proposed, in page 70, line 24, after the word "The," to insert the words "Southern or."—(Mr. Raikes.)

§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
said, there was a great deal of objection to this Amendment. Tyneside was so well known as a local designation that he should have thought that it was desirable to leave the name by itself. Perhaps it would be well if the right hon. Gentleman were to leave over this question until Report, in order that inquiries might be made in the locality.

§ MR. RAIKES
said, he was quite content to withdraw the Amendment for the present, reserving to himself the right, of course, to re-introduce it.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ MR. RAIKES
proposed, in page 70, line 29, after "The," to insert "Western or," so that the Hexham Division would read the "Western or Hexham Division."

§ Amendment agreed to.

§ MR. RAIKES
proposed, in page 70, line 33, to leave out "Berwick-upon-Tweed," and insert "Northern or Tweedside." He was not particular which words—Northern or Tweedside—were chosen; but he thought that as the Southern Division of the county had been called Tyneside, there was some appropriateness, as this division was bounded to some extent by the Tweed, that it should be called Tweedside. If, however, a better name could be suggested, he would be quite willing to adopt it. In some quarters it had been suggested that the division be called the Cheviot Division, because the Cheviot Hills formed a boundary for some distance. He should have no objection to that name. All he was anxious to do was to induce the Committee to abandon the name of Berwick-upon-Tweed as the name of a division in the county of Northumberland, because on the other 1744 side of the river there was the county of Berwick. Hon. Gentlemen, of course, knew that until a very recent Act the town of Berwick was neither, strictly speaking, in England or Scotland. He thought it was by an Act passed in 1868 or 1869 that the town had been statutorily added to the Kingdom of England. At all events, he thought it very undesirable that Berwick should be made the name of a division of the county of Northumberland, because Berwick was the name of another county. He was desirous of leaving out "Berwick-upon-Tweed," and substituting "Northern or Tweedside," or Cheviot, or whatever other appropriate name might be chosen.

§ Amendment proposed, In page 70, line 33, to leave out the words "Berwick-upon-Tweed," and insert the words "Northern or Tweedside."—(Mr. Raikes.)

§ Question proposed, "That the words 'Berwick-upon-Tweed' stand part of the Schedule."

§ MR. T. RUSSELL
said, he thought it would be very undesirable that the name "Tweedside" should be given to the division, however desirable it might be to substitute another name for Berwick-upon-Tweed. Tweedside was a well-known and historical name for the Valley of the Tweed in Selkirkshire, and confusion would undoubtedly arise if it were applied to this more Southern part of the county.

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
said, he would like time to consider the Amendment. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would, for the present, withdraw his proposition.

§ MR. RAIKES
said, he had found that there was a very strong feeling in Berwick-on-Tweed against his proposal to omit the name of that town and insert the words "The Northern or Tweed-side;" and if the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board objected to the Amendment, he (Mr. Raikes) would not persevere with it.

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
intimated that he did object.

§ MR. RAIKES
said, in that case he would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Amendment made, by inserting the words "Northern or" before the words "Berwick-upon-Tweed."

1745

§ MR. RAIKES
said, the next Amendment he had upon the Paper related to the county of Nottingham, and the proposal was, in page 71, line 4, after "The," insert "Northern or." This was based on the same principle as had been adopted in so many other cases. The county of Nottingham had been partitioned by the Commissioners into four divisions, and those divisions fell quite naturally into those of North, East, South, and West. The Amendment had relation to the proposed division of Bassetlaw, which he was glad to see had been adopted by the Commissioners. As he should be very sorry to lose that name, he merely proposed to add to it the point of the compass by which it ought to be distinguished, as Bassetlaw was distinctly within the division of North Nottinghamshire. He, therefore, begged to submit his Amendment.

§ Amendment proposed, in page 71, line 4, after the word "The," to insert the words "Northern or."—(Mr. Raikes.)

§ Amendment agreed to.

§ MR. MAPPIN
said, he now wished to move the Amendment which stood on the Paper in his name. It was, that in page 71, line 4, the word "Bassetlaw" should be omitted, and the words "East Retford" inserted in its stead. It was hardly necessary to point out to the Committee that East Retford was a very ancient borough, which had returned Members to Parliament for the last 300 or 400 years. With regard to the action taken by the Commissioners in giving the name of Bassetlaw to the division, he ought to state that when those gentlemen went down to that district they were not aware that there would be any objection to the course they proposed. No deputation had been sent to make any representation to them on the subject, as no notice was given of the intention to use the name of Bassetlaw instead of that of East Retford, and he trusted that under those circumstances the right hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill would see his way to the substitution of East Retford for the name of the division recommended by the Commissioners. He found that Members of Parliament had been returned to represent that borough ever since the year 1572; and now, as the division in which it stood was only to return one Member, instead of two as formerly, he trusted 1746 the Committee would take these things into account, and would agree to the Amendment he proposed.

§ Amendment proposed, In page 71, line 4 after the word "The," to leave out the word "Bassetlaw," and insert the words "East Retford."—(Mr. Mappin.)

§ Question proposed, "That the word 'Bassetlaw' stand part of the Schedule."

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
said, he could understand the feeling of the hon. Gentleman who had moved the Amendment; but he felt bound to point out that the borough of East Retford was part of the Hundred of Bassetlaw, and that this was one of the ancient names of the borough. Under those circumstances, he was inclined to adopt the view expressed by the Mayor of East Retford, who had attended the inquiry held by the Commissioners, and who had himself proposed that the name of Bassetlaw should be given to the division. He would, therefore, suggest that the Committee should adhere to the name of Bassetlaw.

§ MR. MAPPIN
said, the right hon. Gentleman had implied that the name of East Retford had been added to that of Bassetlaw, whereas Bassetlaw had been added to East Retford in 1832. East Retford was, as he had stated, the ancient name of the Parliamentary borough, and he trusted the Committee would not assent to its being obliterated by the substitution of Bassetlaw.

§ MR. SERJEANT SIMON
said, it appeared to him that if they were to employ the names of different localities in designating the divisions into which the counties were to be apportioned, the course the Committee ought to pursue should be to bestow such names as were well known throughout the country. Who, he asked, outside the locality itself, had ever heard of Bassetlaw? ["Oh!"] Hon. Members seemed to express surprise that he should have put this question, and it might be that he was one of the ignorant individuals; but he must confess that he had never heard of Bassetlaw; while, on the other hand, East Retford had been a Parliamentary designation well known to the country for hundreds of years, and he did not see why they should now be called upon to alter it.

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
said, he thought that if any further reason were 1747 needed than those already advanced for calling the division now under the consideration of the Committee by the name of Bassetlaw, as proposed by the Commissioners, it would be found in the fact that the circumstances under which Bassetlaw had been added to East Retford were more creditable to Bassetlaw than to the borough of East Retford.

§ MR. MAPPIN
said, under all the circumstances, and seeing that the Amendment he had proposed did not receive the assent of the right hon. Gentleman, he would ask leave to withdraw it.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ MR. RAIKES
said, he had now to move the insertion, in regard to the proposed Newark Division, in page 71, line 11, after "The," of the words "Eastern or."

§ Amendment agreed to.

§ MR. RAIKES
said, he had next to move the introduction of the words "Southern or," as the geographical description of the Rushcliffe Division of Nottinghamshire, these words to be inserted after the word "The," in page 71, line 18.

§ Amendment agreed to.

§ MR.RAIKES
said, in order to complete the geographical designation of the Nottinghamshire Divisions, he begged to move, in relation to the Mansfied Division, the insertion, in page 71, line 21, after the word "The," of the words "Western or."

§ Amendment agreed to.

§ MR. RAIKES
said, the next Amendment had reference to the county of Oxford, with regard to the 1st, or Banbury, Division of which he begged to move, in page 71, line 29, after the word "The," the insertion of the words "Northern or." The county of Oxford fell naturally into three divisions, and there could be no doubt about the Banbury portion being the Northern Division.

§ Amendment agreed to.

§ SIR BERNHARD SAMUELSON
said, he had an Amendment to propose to the Schedule that would enable the Parliamentary borough of Banbury to be retained. If that borough were treated as was proposed by the Bill, it would undergo a process of vivisection, and it 1748 was a fact that there was no natural boundary between the two portions into which it was proposed to divide the borough. He knew it might be said that, in order to carry out his Amendment, all portions of the county of Northampton that were in the borough of Banbury would for Parliamentary purposes have to be made a portion of the county of Oxford; but he did not regard that as any real objection to his proposal, because the shape of the county at that particular point was such that he had not the least doubt that, by any readjustment of county boundaries in a County Government Bill the county boundary would be so drawn as to include that portion of Northamptonshire in the county of Oxford. He would not, however, detain the Committee by discussing the question at greater length, and would simply content himself with moving his Amendment.

§ Amendment proposed, In page 71, line 30, after the word "The," to insert the words "Parliamentary borough of Banbury and the."—(Sir Bernhard Samuelson.)

§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

§ COLONEL NORTH
said, the hon. Member who had moved the Amendment could hardly be award that he was proposing to deal with a portion of the borough of Banbury that had already been included in one of the divisions of Northamptonshire.

§ SIR BERNHARD SAMUELSON
said, he should, if his Amendment were carried, propose to amend what had been referred to by the hon. and gallant Member on the Report.

§ MR. RAIKES
ventured to put it to the Chairman of the Committee whether it was competent to the Committee to entertain an Amendment which was contrary to a part of the Schedule already agreed to? The Committee had already passed that part of the Schedule which dealt with the county of Northampton, and had attached a portion of the borough of Banbury now proposed to be dealt with to one of the divisions of that county; so that if the Amendment should happen to be agreed to, that part of the borough which had been so apportioned would also be attached to the county of Oxford.

THE CHAIRMAN
said, he was not aware that what was stated by the right 1749 hon. Gentleman (Mr. Raikes) was the case. Did the right hon. Gentleman assert that the question had been already disposed of?

§ MR. RAIKES
said, it was the fact that the Committee had already defined the Towcester Division as consisting of Brackley, Daventry, and Towcester.

§ COLONEL NORTH
said, Grimsbury was in the county of Northampton; but the hon Baronet (Sir Bernhard Samuel-son) wished to bring it into the county of Oxford.

THE CHAIRMAN
said, he had before him the Bill and the Paper of Amendments; but neither in the Bill nor the Amendments did he see any mention of Grimsbury.

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
said, the Chairman could not understand from the sources of information before him the point which had just been submitted by hon. Gentlemen opposite, because all the names mentioned were not included in the Schedule; but the fact was as it had been stated. The question was one which had to be dealt with on its merits, and as the principle which his hon. Friend (Sir Bernhard Samuelson) proposed to apply in the present instance differed from that which had been applied to other Amendments which had been previously agreed to, he did not think the Committee ought to agree to this proposal.

§ SIR BERN HARD SAMUELSON
said, after what had been said by his right Friend (Sir Charles W. Dilke), he would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ On the Motion of Mr. RAIKES, the following Amendments made:—Page 72, line 1, after "The," insert "Mid or;" line 15, after "The," insert "Southern or."

§ MR. RAIKES
said, his next Amendment had relation to Shropshire, which was not a county that could be very easily divided. He thought, however, the convenience of the county would be best studied by giving the designation of "Western" to the proposed Oswestry Division, and calling the Newport Division the Northern Division, in addition to the names in the Schedule.

§ Amendment proposed, In page 72, line 28, after the word "The," to insert the words "Western or."—(Mr. Raikes.)

1750

§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS- BEACH
asked whether the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had any objection to the Amendment?

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
said, he did not object to the Oswestry Division being called the Western or Oswestry Division, but he did not thereby admit that this was necessarily to govern the other cases.

§ MR. RAIKES
said, he did not know whether the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Stanley Leighton) was present; but if he were, he would probably confirm the statement that the designation proposed by the Amendment was that which was preferred in the district.

§ Amendment agreed to.

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
said, the hon. Member (Mr. Forester) who had put down the next Amendment was not present; but if the hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. Elton), who had a proposal to make upon the same question, would move it, he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) would move that the Chairman report Progress, and the matter could be discussed to-morrow.

§ MR. ELTON
said, his Amendment was an Amendment to that of the hon. Member (Mr. Forester); and, if that course were desired, he had no objection to move his own at once as a substantive Amendment.

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
said, as the Amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. Forester) had not been moved, he had thought the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite might have moved it as a substantive Amendment, upon which Progress could be reported.

§ MR. ELTON
said, he would ask leave to put his Amendment as a substantive Amendment.

§ Amendment proposed, In page 73, line 14, to leave out the word "Wellington," in order to insert the word "Broseley,"—(Mr. Elton.) —instead thereof.

§ Question proposed, "That the word 'Wellington' stand part of the Schedule."

§ Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.