Commons Sitting of 15 April 1885

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Rating of Machinery* [127].
SECOND READING—Oyster and Mussel Fisheries Provisional Order* [124]; Burial Boards (Contested Elections)* [106].
Committee—Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) (re-comm.) [49]—R.P. [Fourtenth Night].
Considered as amended—Royal Irish Constabulary Redistribution* [105].
Third Reading—Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 2)* [107], and passed

MOTION.

  RATING OF MACHINERY BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. NORWOOD, Bill to amend the Law relating to the Rating of Machinery, ordered to be brought in by Mr. NORWOOD, Mr. BRIXTON, Mr. JACKSON, and Mr. SLAGG.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 127.]

ORDER OF THE DAY.

  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (REDISTRIBUTION) (re-committed) BILL.— [BILL 49.]
  (Mr. Gladstone, The Marquess of Hartington, Sir Charles W. Dilke, Mr. Attorney General, The Lord Advocate, Mr. Campbell-Bannerman.)
  COMMITTEE. [Progress 14th April.]
  [FOURTEENTH NIGHT.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  SEVENTH SCHEDULE.
    COUNTIES AT LARGE.
    NUMBER OF MEMBERS AND NAMES AND CONTENTS OF DIVISIONS.
  PART I.

    ENGLAND.
    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."
    MR. ELTONsaid, that he had proposed the Amendment which had just been put from the Chair formally last night, and he would now explain what its object was. He had no wish to interfere with the views of hon. Members for Shropshire, or to cast any stigma upon any district under the Wrekin which the Commissioners had chosen to place within the division of Wellington in Shropshire. His only reason for moving the Amendment was to secure the use of another name for this division of Shropshire. Hon. Members would be aware that there were several Amendments on the Paper which proposed to confer the name of "Wellington" upon one of the Somersetshire divisions—namely, the seventh, which was described in the Bill as the Williton Division; and he, therefore, thought it was undesirable to pass by the use of the name in Shropshire. It was quite clear that, as the Bill now stood, either by carelessness on the part of the Boundary Commissioners, or from the accident of Shropshire coming alphabetically before Somersetshire, distinct priority was given to the name of "Wellington" for the Shropshire Division; and if the proposal were adopted it might interfere with that which it was intended to make when the proper time arrived for dealing with the divisions of the county of Somerset. The point in question, however, was the propriety of applying an alternative name, instead of using that of one of the points of the compass in the case of a particular locality in Somersetshire which had always been associated with the name of a great and distinguished man. That principle appeared by some accident to have been altogether ignored in this particular in-
    1764
    stance, and the consequence was that if the Schedule were accepted as it now stood, Shropshire would be left in a position of superiority; and subsequently, in all probability, the people of Somersetshire would be told that the name of "Wellington" had been already appropriated as the name of another division, and that the rule had already been departed from of designating the divisions of Shropshire by the names of the points of the compass by giving one of them this coveted name of "Wellington" pure and simple; and, therefore, that it would be impossible to confer the same name upon a division of any other county. The discussion which took place last evening was certainly of a complex and confused character; and he had felt himself obliged to move this Amendment before they came to the proper place for raising the question of the Somersetshire Wellington. However that might be, he thought some particulars should be given to the Committee, in order to ascertain whether they ought to make this extraordinary exception on behalf of Wellington in the Shropshire Division, which to his mind it was perfectly clear ought to be an alternative division—either Wellington Shropshire or Mid Shropshire. He had selected in his Amendment as the name of the division the town of Broseley, a place that was distinguished for the manufacture of pipes. He did not profess to have any local knowledge with regard to Shropshire; but he wished to make sure that the county he had the honour to represent (West Somerset) should not, by an accident, be placed in an unfair position. He was quite certain that the Commissioners had given this name to the new division of Shropshire, instead of making it applicable to the Wellington Division of Somerset, by mere accident. When the Commissioners came down to Somersetshire this name was suggested to them; but, owing to the local pronunciation, the Commissioners appeared to have selected a name that was very similar—namely, Williton. There must have been some carelessness in the matter, because the only reason given by the Commissioners for adopting the name of Wellington for one of the divisions of Shropshire was that it was a large urban district; whereas, if the Committee would look at Somersetshire,

    1765
    they would find that the urban district of Wellington in that county was considerably larger than the urban district they had selected in Shropshire. There appeared to have been a somewhat ridiculous sort of happy carelessness on the part of the Commissioners in connection with this incident; and as the Commissioners had displayed some indifference in the matter, he thought it was absolutely necessary that a discussion should be raised now for the purpose of securing fair play to the county of Somerset. Of course, where there were two places enjoying the same famous name, one of them was bound to come before the other alphabetically. But the Commissioners had had a full opportunity of considering both, and certainly the alphabetical principle ought to be disregarded. The Duke of Wellington was Lord of the Manor of Wellington in Somersetshire; and when he was rewarded with a Peerage, after his distinguished victories in the Peninsula, he selected that place as the name of his Barony and of his subsequent Viscountcy, Earldom, and Dukedom. To make that perfectly certain it was only necessary to call attention to the patents under which these distinctions were granted. They were all of them in the same terms. In the first Sir Arthur Wellesley was described as Baron Wellington, of Wellington in Somerset, the next as Viscount Wellington of Talavera and Wellington in Somersetshire; then as Earl of Wellington in Somersetshire; and, lastly, as Duke of Wellington of "Wellington in our county of Somerset." Now, the main point he had to urge was that the Somersetshire people were very proud of the Duke of Wellington, and they were now asked to give up all the local dignity and superiority which had been conferred upon them by the connection of the Duke of Wellington to Wellington in Shropshire, which was considered by the Commissioners to be the more important urban district. The principle of taking into account this element of human interest and of hero worship had already been accepted by the House; and in deference to the wish of the Leader of the Opposition the name of a consituency had been preserved in order to do honour to the memory of one of the right hon. Baronet's distinguished ancestors who had represented that constituency. The same principle was to
    1766
    be brought into play in the case of the constituency so long represented by Sir Robert Peel, and the name of Tamworth was to be preserved. The right hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill had done honour to that sentiment or feeling in a marked and exceptional manner; and he (Mr. Elton) thought that, under these circumstances, and knowing that it must have been by some accident that the alternative name had been given in this instance, and not having any particular interest in inserting the name of "Broseley," except to afford an opportunity for discussion, he would, if he obtained the permission of the Committee, withdraw his Amendment with the object of allowing the words "Mid or" to be inserted.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that before the Amendment was by leave of the Committee withdrawn it would, perhaps, be convenient that he should state the views of the Government in regard to both of these cases. He certainly did not think that the name of "Broseley" would suit the division now under discussion. Broseley was at the edge of the division, and he did not think there would be any general agreement in favour of that name; and it must, therefore, be set aside. In regard to the two Wellingtons, he might point- out that the population of Wellington in Shropshire was almost exactly the same as that of Wellington in Somersetshire; but he believed that the boundaries of the urban district in Shropshire were more close, and the town, as a town, had undoubtedly a larger population than Wellington in Somersetshire. It was one of the principal Petty Sessional divisions in Shropshire, containing four times the population of that in Somersetshire; and, therefore, he thought the Commissioners had made out a case for preferring it in connection with the county of Salop. No doubt a great deal of indignation had been excited by the proposal, and he had received more communications on this subject than upon any other part of the Bill. He thought there were really two practical suggestions which might guide the Committee in the choice they had to make, either to have Wellington as a second name in each case, and call the present division "the Mid" or "Wellington" Division of Shropshire, while they called the Somersetshire Division the "Wes-

    1767
    tern" or "Wellington" Division of Somersetshire, or they might call them "the Mid Division of Shropshire" and "the Western Division of Somersetshire." Those were the best suggestions he could make in the matter. He would not object to preserve the name of Wellington as a second name in each case. It was a very distinguished and respectable name in each county apart from the associations connected with Wellington in Somersetshire. He did not think there would be as great a risk of error or confusion between the Mid or Wellington Division of Shropshire, and the Western or Wellington Division of Somersetshire, as there would be between Newcastle-on-Tyne and New-castle-under-Lyme; or in the case of Ross in Herefordshire, which they had agreed last night to take, although there was the chance of confusing it with New Ross in Ireland, and Ross-shire in Scotland. He did not think that this was so bad a case as that; and in speaking of the Member, in all probability he would be spoken of as the Member for Mid Shropshire, or the Member for West Somersetshire. If the Committee had any strong opinion either way he would be prepared to accept it, and would not divide against either proposal.
    MR. RAIKESsaid, he thought the suggestions put forward by the right hon. Baronet were both of a very practical character, and it was exceedingly difficult to say which was the preferable one. It seemed to him that the general balance of convenience would be on the side of omitting the name of Wellington in both cases. By preserving these names in both instances they would be creating an unnecessary amount of confusion for themselves. No doubt there were two Newcastles, but there was a clear distinction between Newcastle-on-Tyne and Newcastle-under-Lyme; in addition to which both of them were well-known places. The same might be said also of Ross, the new division of Herefordshire. And in regard to Scotland the name was not "Ross," but "Ross-shire," and the constituency in Ireland was "New Ross," so that there was an actual distinction of name in both instances. In the case of the two Wellingtons there was no distinction of name whatever, and both would be new constituencies with which the
    1768
    House would be unfamiliar, and considerable confusion would probably arise in consequence. Looking at Shropshire, with which county he was well acquainted, he thought there would be considerable difficulty in finding another name for this division. He had thought at one time that the name might be taken from the River Severn, which flowed through it; and it had been proposed also to name it after the far-famed Wrekin, which was in the centre of the division. Both of those proposals had been objected to; and, following the analogy upon which the Committee had already proceeded, he believed that the balance of convenience would be found to lie on the side of adopting the names of "Mid Shropshire" and "Western Somersetshire," without the alternative name of "Wellington." He should be glad to learn if his hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Somersetshire (Mr. Elton) would accept that suggestion?
    MR. ELTONsaid, he was unable to accept it.
    MR. RAIKESsaid, that under those circumstances he should vote with the hon. and learned Member in favour of leaving out the name of "Wellington" in Shropshire, and he should vote against him when the proposal was made to insert "Broseley."
    MR. A. H. BROWNsaid, he could not support the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Somersetshire (Mr. Elton) claimed for Wellington in that county a larger urban population than that of Wellington in Shropshire; but he had not given the actual figures. As a matter of fact, Wellington, Somerset, had only 156 people more; so that, as far as population was concerned, the difference between the two was very small indeed. But there was one fact which his hon. and learned Friend did not appear to be acquainted with—namely, that Wellington in Shropshire had now overgrown the boundaries formed in 1854, when it was first constituted a Local Government area. If they were to take now what was really the parish of Wellington in Shropshire it would be found that it had a population of 14,199, as against 6,360 for Wellington in Somersetshire. Following what had been done in other cases, he would suggest a compromise in the matter—

    1769
    namely, that they should call one division "Mid or Wellington Division of Shropshire," and the other "West or Wellington Division of Somersetshire."
    MR. STAVELEY HILLsaid, he had devoted some amount of consideration to the question of the proper name to attach to this division; and as he had been acquainted with this part of the country for more than half a century, he was able to bring some local knowledge to bear upon it. He quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board that the name of "Broseley" would not do at all. It was on the edge of the division, and certainly ought not to give its name to the division. He then came to the suggestion which was contained in an Amendment upon the Paper in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Christchurch (Mr. Horace Davey)—namely, to leave out "Wellington" and insert "Wenlock." But the borough of Wenlock was not in this division, neither was Bridgnorth nor Ludlow; but Little Wenlock was. The next proposal was to call it "the Wrekin Division;" but in regard to that suggestion be thought the Wrekin would have far too wide a significance. In the phrase of "Friends round the Wrekin" were comprised not only those living within a small division of this character, but it included all those who had that prominent hill to look at every morning. He then came to the question what ought really to be the name, and if it was not to be Wellington there could not be a better name than "Mid Shropshire." The people of the district had no particular desire to have the name of Wellington. It was not a large place, and in speaking of it it would probably not be called the Wellington District. He thought that all persons living in the neighbourhood would be quite satisfied if the division were called "Mid Shropshire."
    MR. HORACE DAVEYsaid, the Amendment of his which had been alluded to by the hon. and learned Member was one in the same sense as an Amendment which stood in the name of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton). He was bound to say that like his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Staveley Hill) he was more interested in Somersetshire
    1770
    than he was in Shropshire, and he had placed this Amendment upon the Paper with a view of doing something for Wellington in Somersetshire. It was stated by the Boundary Commissioners that they had adopted the name of Wellington in this division, because, as a Petty Sessional division, it was larger than Wellington in Somersetshire; but if hon. Members would examine the map, judging by the eye, not more than one-half of the Petty Sessional division was in this division at all, the other half being in another division. As, however, be was only interested in the Somersetshire division, he was ready to accept the suggestion of his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board, and retain the name of Wellington in each division—calling the Shropshire Division by the name of the Mid or Wellington Division of Shropshire, and the Somersetshire Division by the the name of the Wellington or Western Division of Somersetshire. From communications which he had had with gentlemen residing in Wellington in Somersetshire he was quite confident they would regret very much if the name of Wellington were not in some way or other associated with that division. If, however, the Committee added the alternative name in each case, and made it the Mid or Wellington Division in Shropshire, and the Western or Wellington Division in Somersetshire, he did not think there would be much chance of any future confusion arising. If hon. Members who were interested in Shropshire would consent to that course he was quite sure that those who took an interest in Wellington in Somersetshire would be prepared to meet them.
    MR. WARTONrose to Order. He believed at the present moment that the only Question before the Committee was that the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for West Somersetshire (Mr. Elton) should be withdrawn.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, he did not understand that the hon. and learned Member had as yet asked leave to withdraw the Amendment. Therefore, the Question before the Committee was the Motion which the hon. and learned Member had moved by way of amending the Schedule.
    MR. RYLANDSsaid, he ought to explain to the Committee that he had some

    1771
    personal connection with this division of Shropshire, which was a justification for his intervention in regard to the selection of a name for the Shropshire Division. His hon. and learned Friend had said with perfect accuracy that in the neighbourhood of the division itself there could be no doubt whatever of the importance of "Wellington as a large and increasing place in connection with the iron and other industries. It might be said to be increasing largely, and it certainly appeared in every sense to be the most appropriate name that could be adopted for the division, acting in accordance with the rule which had been adopted in connection with the nomenclature of the Bill—namely, that where there was a large and populous town, that town should give its name to the division in which it was situated. He thought, considering the very great importance of Wellington in the locality, that this name should not be altogether ignored in the present instance. There was a strong feeling in the division itself that the name of Wellington should be selected. He could not accept the alternative suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Raikes) that they should give the alternative name of Wellington both to the division of Mid Shropshire and of Western Somersetshire. At the same time, he was quite prepared to support the adoption of the name of Wellington without any reference whatever to Somersetshire. He thought the Committee ought to deal with the matter on its own merits, and he was clearly of opinion that the name of Wellington ought to be included as an alternative name for this division of Shropshire. He had no wish to anticipate the discussion upon Wellington in Somersetshire. Of course, if hon. Members from Somersetshire were willing to accept the suggestion of his right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Raikes) he should be sorry to stand in the way; but pending that discussion he certainly hoped that no disposition would be manifested on the part of hon. Members connected with Shropshire to give way in regard to the name of Wellington.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)urged on the Committee that the time had now come when they should arrive at a decision upon the
    1772
    question; and he hoped that the compromise which had been suggested by his right hon. Friend (Sir Charles W. Dilke) would be accepted. It appeared to be a struggle between Shropshire and Somersetshire, and the only point at issue was which county was entitled to use the name of Wellington. In the one case Shropshire was anxious to retain the name, and in the other Somersetshire desired to make use of it in connection with that county. As nobody objected to the application of "Mid" to Shropshire and "Western" to Somersetshire, he thought the Committee had better come to a decision at once.
    MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONsaid, that as one of the Representatives of Shropshire he could not accept the proposal of the Government. The people of Wellington were determined to retain, if they could, what the Boundary Commissioners had decided they ought to have. The same Commissioner went to Shropshire and to Somersetshire, and after hearing the merits of both cases argued he declared for Wellington in Shropshire as the place which ought to take the name. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Somersetshire (Mr. Elton) had drawn a comparison between Wellington in Shropshire and Wellington in Somersetshire; he would follow up that comparison. Wellington in Shropshire had a population of 12,000, or exactly double the number of "Wellington in Somersetshire. Then let them take the test of letters sent through the Post Office. If any letter were addressed simply to Wellington, where would it be sent? It would be sent to Wellington in Shropshire. Then, again, how was this small village governed in Somersetshire? It was governed by what is called a court leet and port reeve—all the roughs were governed by a reeve—a sort of petticoat government he supposed. It was essentially an agricultural town. It had not even a Town Hall of its own, for its Town Hall belonged to the Duke of Wellington and not to the town itself. He objected, moreover, to any place having a double representation—a representation in the House of Lords, and a representation in the House of Commons. The Somersetshire town was represented in the House of Lords by the Duke of Wellington. Why should they run the

    1773
    risk of creating unnecessary confusion by needlessly using identical names? Their object should be to simplify, and not to confuse. He would take another test of the relative importance of the two towns. Wellington, in Shropshire, had four railways; whereas this little place in Somersetshire had only one. Wellington, in Somersetshire, had a market only once a month; Wellington, in Shropshire, had one once a week. The rateable value of this Somersetshire village was £20,000; the rateable value of Wellington, in Shropshire, was £50,000. Wellington, in Shropshire, was the head of a great iron district, and iron used for the armour of their ironclads was supplied from that part of the country. The people who lived there were prepared to do all they could to induce the Committee to accept the Report of the Boundary Commissioners; and, therefore, if he could get anyone in the House to act with him—and he certainly trusted that the hon. Member for Wenlock (Mr. A. H. Brown) would support him, seeing that the hon. Member desired to be more intimately associated with the political representation of Wellington—he would be prepared to divide the Committee on this point. He thought that Wellington, in Shropshire, had some claim even upon the right hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill, because he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that there were a great many supporters of Her Majesty's Government in that part of the world. He, therefore, maintained that the Government ought to adhere to the decision, which the Commissioners, after full inquiry, had decided upon. He sincerely trusted that the name of "Mid Shropshire or Wellington" would be retained as the name of the division for this part of the country.
    MR. MELLORsaid, that he was an inhabitant of the district of Somersetshire which had just been attacked by the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Stanley Leighton); and all he wished to say was that the compromise suggested by his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board, and supported by the Attorney General, would give universal satisfaction to the district, and to the people among whom he lived. The present was a struggle between two divisions in different counties to retain the name of a very distinguished man; and, as far
    1774
    as he was able to speak for the people of Somersetshire, they would be extremely unwilling to surrender the name of Wellington. Although, perhaps, some people might think the matter was not one of very great importance, the people of the locality were most anxious to retain the name. He thought the compromise which had been suggested was a very fair one.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he understood that the hon. and learned Member for West Somersetshire (Mr. Elton) was prepared to withdraw the Amendment.
    MR. ELTON: Yes.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the facts were thoroughly in the possession of the Committee; and he would, therefore, simply move to insert the words "Mid or" before the Wellington Division.
    MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONasked if he was to understand that the word "Wellington" would still be retained?
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Yes; it will be the "Mid or Wellington Division."
    MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONpresumed that he would be in a position to fight the other question, in regard to Somersetshire, when that county was reached.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that was so.
    Amendment proposed, in page 73, line 14, after the word "The," to insert the words "Mid or."—(Sir Charles W. Dilke.)
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. RAIKESsaid, his next Amendmen on the Paper was in line 21, to leave out "Ludlow" and insert "Wenlock." He did not intend to move that Amendment; but he would move in the same line to insert the words "Southern or," which would describe the division as the Southern or Ludlow Division. It would be observed that there were two other boroughs—namely, Bridgnorth and Wenlock, included in this division, both of which he believed claimed to be considered even before so ancient a place as Ludlow. Bridgnorth had about the same population, but the borough of Wenlock was more populous either than

    1775
    Ludlow or Bridgnorth. He thought it would be confusing to give any other alternative name; and, therefore, he would simply move the insertion of the words "Southern or."
    Amendment proposed, in page 73, line 21, after the word "The," to insert the words "Southern or."—(Mr. Raikes.)
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. RAIKESsaid, they had now reached the county of Somerset; and his next Amendment had reference to the proposed division of Long Ashton. He did not think that Long Ashton was a place of such paramount importance as to entitle it to give its name to an important division; and he almost thought that this was a case for substituting "Northern" for "Long Ashton." If it was considered desirable to retain some local designation as well as a point of the compass, he would leave the Committee to decide what it should be. He would now move the Amendment in the form in which it stood on the Paper—namely, to insert the words "Northern or."
    Amendment proposed, in page 73, line 32, after the word "The," to insert the words "Northern or."—(Mr. Raikes.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. R. H. PAGETsaid, he was entirely indifferent as to how the matter was settled. He was much more interested in the fact of who would represent the division. He would, however, suggest, merely for the sake of simplicity, that this was a case in which the alternative name might be omitted. If the right hon. Baronet would look at the map he would see that Somersetshire readily lent itself to an arrangement. North, South, East, and West, and the Frome, Wells, and Bridgwater Divisions would complete the county. The use of the points of the compass would introduce extreme simplicity in the nomenclature.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the hon. Member would leave in the name of Wells.
    MR. E. H. PAGET: Yes; he would retain Frome, Wells, and Bridgwater, as they were names which had already been known in connection with Parliamentary representation.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid he had already intimated his readiness to
    1776
    agree in the case of Wells, and he had no strong objection to the other names.
    MR. R. H. PAGETsaid, it would be necessary to strike out the word "or" from the Amendment.
    MR. RAIKESsaid, he felt no difficulty, as far as the Amendment was concerned, in withdrawing it, and substituting another to provide—as, in fact, he had suggested in the first instance—that the word "Northern" only should be inserted. He did not, however, wish to bind himself as to any particular course in regard to the other parts of the county, because he should certainly have something to say in regard to the Bridgwater Division.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEasked if the right hon. Gentleman would propose to keep in Wells, Bridgwater, and Frome?
    MR. RAIKESsaid, he was prepared to retain Wells and Frome; but there might be considerable objection to that course in regard to Bridgwater. He had no wish, in moving that the Long Ashton Division should be called the Northern Division, to exclude himself from opposing Bridgwater subsequently.
    MR. GREGORYsaid, that before the Amendment was withdrawn he wished to call attention to the fact that there would be no large town in the district; but he presumed that Long Ashton would be the principal polling place for Parliamentary elections.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. RAIKESmoved to; leave out the words "Long Ashton" in order to insert the word "Northern."
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. ACLANDproposed, in line 35, to omit the parish of "Binegar" from the Sessional Division of Wells. His object was to take that parish out of the Long Ashton District and put it in that of Wells, for this reason—that although it looked exceedingly well on the map, and he was not finding fault with the Commissioners for what they had done, the fact was that the parish of Binegar was cut off from the rest of this division of Long Ashton by the Mendip range of hills, along which the roads were exceedingly bad and the slopes extremely steep. That circumstance was recognized when the East Somersetshire Division was drawn, and also in the

    1777
    arrangement of the Petty Sessional divisions; so that if the Boundary Commissioners had intended to act upon Petty Sessional arrangements, and for the convenience of the district and of the inhabitants of Binegar, there was a strong case for presuming that this proposal would have been recognized by the Boundary Commissioners. He quite admitted that he could not ask the President of the Local Government Board to take the case for granted upon his mere statement, and he also admitted that the alteration he proposed would look somewhat odd upon the map. But the appearance of the map was not the point; the real point was the convenience of the inhabitants of the district; and, considering that that convenience had been recognized in the important matter of forming the Petty Sessional divisions, and also in the present division of the Parliamentary boundaries, he must say he thought there was good ground for this application, that the same lines should be adhered to in the new county division. He hoped, if the President of the Local Government Board could not accept the Amendment now, that he would at least agree to refer the point to the Boundary Commissioners on the grounds he had stated, and that the Commissioners would reconsider the matter before the Report stage of the Bill. There was no political importance whatever attached to this alteration, and he believed that the original action of the Commissioners was founded to a certain extent on a misapprehension of the effect the inclusion of Binegar in the Long Ashton Division would have, and upon some slight inaccuracy in regard to the population of the various parts of the district. He believed there was no objection to his proposal on the part of the Members for the county. He had been applied to by the inhabitants of the district to represent the case to the House; he had undertaken to do the best he could, and he hoped the President of the Local Government Board would take into consideration the facts he had stated.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 73, lines 35 and 36, to leave out the words "in the Sessional Division of Wells of Binegar, and."—(Mr. Acland.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEremarked, that even if there were a universal vote of acceptance in regard to this Amendment, he feared that he could not take it, knowing, as he did, the opinion of the Boundary Commissioners in reference to it. His hon. Friend admitted that the present arrangement looked well on the map, and certainly it looked better on the map than the division which would be substituted if this Amendment were adopted, seeing that the shape of the division would then be like that of a comet with a very long tail. The Boundary Commissioners had put the parishes of Binegar and Mid-somer-Norton into the Long Ashton Division after a local inquiry; and he was bound to say that he did not think his hon. Friend's proposition would be an improvement from any point of view. That being so, he could not accept the Amendment.
    MR. R. H. PAGETthanked the hon. Member for East Cornwall (Mr. Acland) for the interest he appeared to take in this particular part of the county of Somerset; and he believed if the proposed alteration were made it would be advantageous to himself (Mr. Paget) personally. At the same time he was bound to say that, although for general convenience the Petty Sessional division had been differently arranged, he had not been invited to press this matter upon the attention of the Committee, and he did not find himself at liberty to take the action which the hon. Member invited him to take. If hon. Members would study the figures they would find that the present Wells Division, into which it was proposed to throw the parish of Binegar, was already sufficiently large, and it was not desirable to make it still larger. He was, therefore, not in a position to press the Amendment upon the general acceptance of the Committee; and he had certainly heard no complaint of the arrangement proposed by the Boundary Commissioners.
    Amendment negatived.
    MR. RAIKESsaid, the next Amendment had reference to the Wells Division in the County of Somerset. The Committee had determined to accept, positively and absolutely, the word "Northern" with regard to the division styled Long Ashton in the Bill, and it was

    1779
    further suggested that the word "Eastern" should be substituted for the words "Shepton Mallet," "Southern" for "Yeovil," and "Western" for "Williton." He did not propose to enter into that question now; but if they got the four points of the compass in the county it was only reasonable that they should proceed on the same kind of nomenclature, although it was not absolutely necessary. There would be no geographical inconvenience as to the division of Wells, because it was naturally North-Western, and the division of Frome was naturally North-Eastern. There could be no question about those two divisions geographically; and having regard to the constituency which his hon. Friend (Mr. K. H. Paget) so ably represented, he had no doubt that his hon. Friend would prefer being spoken of as the Member for North-West Somersetshire rather than as the Member for so small and decaying a place as Wells. He believed there was a danger, in the case of these alternative names, of the county title dropping out altogether, and of the Member coming up and beingknown merely as the Representative of a particular place. But after the course they had already taken he thought it would be better to adhere to the alternative proposal'; and he would therefore move to insert in connection with the Wells Division the words "North-Western or."
    Amendment proposed, in page 73, line 35, after the word "The," to insert the words "North-Western or."—(Mr. Raikes.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he should offer no opposition.
    MR. R. H. PAGETsaid, a suggestion had been made which he thought the right hon. Baronet had accepted solely for the sake of simplicity—that four of the divisons of the county should receive compass names, and that the three divisions of Wells, Frome, and Bridgwater, having the names of distinct boroughs, should in future be designated by those names. He had no opinion that the dignity of a county Member was likely to be injured by his being called the Member for the Wells Division, or for the North-Western or the Wells Division; but he did not think in this
    1780
    case, or in the other cases which had been mentioned, that there was any necessity for inserting North-Western, North-Eastern, or South-Western. In this particular instance the name of Wells was quite enough.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEasked whether the right hon. Gentleman proposed to insist upon his Amendment?
    MR. RAIKESsaid, he had moved it partly in the hope of giving his hon. Friend an opportunity of making a speech. He thought that when once they introduced the points of the compass into a county there was no reason why they should not continue to do so in conjunction with the alternative proposals. Certainly, whenever any proposal was made to depart from that rule, as in the case of Shropshire, he found that the Committee had to go back to it in the long run. He was not proposing to get rid of the name of Wells; but merely to introduce the words "North-Western" before Wells.
    SIR ARTHUR HAYTERsaid, he had formerly represented Wells, and was still acquainted with that part of the country. The name of Wells was pretty well known; but they would be entirely at sea in talking of the North-Western Division of Somerset. Wells was a Cathedral city, was still the seat of a Court of Quarter Sessions, and had for centuries been represented in the House. If hon. Members would glance at the map they would see that the whole of the Long Ashton District was North of the Wells Division, and practically this was not a North-Western district at all. Of course, there was something to be said for historical associations; and, therefore, he would be glad if the name of North-Western could be dropped; but, to whatever conclusion they arrived in this House, the division would certainly continue to be known in the county as the Wells Division.
    MR. RAIKESintimated that, under the circumstances, he would not press the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. RAIKESsaid, he thought he would best consult the convenience of the Committee by not moving, at that stage at all events, the next Amendment, which related to the Frome Division, the object of the Amendment being to give to that division the alternative

    1781
    name of "North-Eastern." He would, therefore, go on to the next Amendment, in line 10, which proposed to describe the Shepton Mallet Division as the "South-Eastern" or "Shepton Mallet Division." He begged to move that Amendment.
    Amendment proposed, in page 74, line 10, after the word "The." to insert the words "South-Eastern or."—(Mr. Raikes.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. R. H. PAGETsaid, he thought it was understood that this division was to be described as the "South-Eastern," without any alternative name.
    MR. RAIKESsaid, that if that was the opinion of the Committee he was quite ready to take that course, and would, therefore, withdraw the Amendment in that form.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. RAIKESmoved to leave out the words "Shepton Mallet."
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, he would put the Question in this form—that the word "Shepton Mallet" stand part of the Schedule.
    Question, "That those words stand part of the Schedule," put, and negatived.
    Question, "That the word 'Eastern' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    MR. RAIKESmoved to omit the word "Yeovil" from the fifth division for the purpose of inserting the word "Southern."
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. RAIKESnext proposed, in line 24, to insert the words "Mid or," in reference to the Bridgwater Division. He did not think there was any necessity for reviving the somewhat unsavoury name of Bridg water in connection with the division, seeing that it was sufficiently described geographically as the "Mid Division." He had intended to propose the omission of the word "Bridgwater" altogether, on account of the recollections associated with the disfranchisement of the borough; but his present Motion was a compromise which he hoped would be accepted. He knew that it might be said that this particular division did not constitute any large
    1782
    part, or, indeed, any part at all, of the existing Mid Division of Somersetshire; but geographically it was Mid, and he hoped that in future they would be able to speak of the Member as the Member for Mid Somersetshire, and avoid any reference to Bridgwater.
    Amendment proposed, in page 74, line 24, after the word "The," to insert the words "Mid or."—(Mr. Raikes.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. E. J. STANLEYwished to bear testimony to the electoral purity of Bridgwater at the present day. If the right hon. Gentleman would go down and make an inquiry, he would find that a great deal had happened since the days to which he had referred. Indeed, he (Mr. Stanley) was able to say, from his observation and of his own knowledge, that in these days it would be found that the borough of Bridg water was as honourable, and as high-minded, and as pure, as any borough in the Kingdom. Although it was not a question of very great importance, the right hon. Gentleman proposed to give a complete misnomer to this division. He proposed to call it the "Mid" Division, whereas it could not be regarded as the Mid Division in any sense of the term, seeing that there were five divisions of Somersetshire on one side, and only one on the other. He thought the Committee would have no desire to go back to byegone days, but would prefer to look forward; and he could assure hon. Members, having known the borough of Bridgwater for 11 years, that an entirely new generation had sprung up in it, and that the feeling of the people of Bridgwater was altogether different in regard to electoral matters from what it was in former times. He, therefore, protested against any attempt to cast unmerited obloquy upon it.
    MR. R. H. PAGETalso opposed the Amendment. He thought it somewhat unfortunate that his right hon. Friend, with remorseless accuracy of memory, should wish to rake up the misdeeds of Bridgwater in the past. He hoped the Amendment would not be accepted by the Committee; but that they would consider the matter upon exactly the same lines as those which had induced them to accept the proposals which had been made in reference to the other

    1783
    divisions. There would be simplicity in giving the name of Bridgwater only, and there was certainly a sweetness about the name. Therefore, sweetness and simplicity demanded that the name Bridgwater should be maintained. It formed no part whatever of the present Mid Division of Somersetshire; but, as had been pointed out, there were five divisions on one side of it, and only one on the other. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be satisfied with this short discussion, and would withdraw the Amendment.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 71; Noes 33: Majority 38.—(Div. List, No. 101.)
    MR. RAIKESsaid, the next Amendment had reference to the only remaining division in the county of Somerset. His Amendment on the Paper was to call it "the South-Western" or "Williton" Division. He desired to keep aloof from the battle of the Wellingtons, and he did not wish to raise that question by this Amendment. He was told, however, that the name "Western" would be preferred to that of "South-Western;" and, that being so, he would propose the Amendment in this form—after the word "The" to insert the words "Western or," that being in accordance with the manner in which they had dealt with other divisions.
    Amendment proposed, in page 74, line 34, after the word "The," to insert the words "Western or."—(Mr. Raikes.)
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. HORACE DAVEYmoved, in line 34, to leave out the word "Williton," in order to insert the word "Wellington." He would not detain the Committee by any further discussion upon the matter, because he thought they were substantially agreed that this change would be expedient.
    Amendment proposed, in page 74, line 34, to leave out the word "Williton," in order to insert the word "Wellington."—(Mr. Horace Davey.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'Williton' stand part of the Schedule."
    VISCOUNT NEWPORTsaid, he hoped the Committee would not consent to this
    1784
    proposal. They all desired to see as much simplicity as possible introduced into the Bill; and if a second Wellington was to be introduced it might create much confusion. The Committee had already admitted the stronger claim of Wellington in Shropshire over that of Wellington in Somersetshire by allowing Shropshire to retain that name; and he could not but think that it would tend to create confusion if there were to be two Wellingtons in the field at once. It appeared to him that if hon. Members for Somersetshire did not like the name of "Williton," the name of "Western" alone, which had already been agreed to, would be quite sufficient, and would be a good designation for this division. At any rate, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill would see the difficulty that would necessarily be involved in having two divisions named "Wellington;" and he hoped the Committee would not accept the Amendment.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he had spoken upon this subject some time ago in regard to the county of Salop; but he would repeat briefly what he had said. He did not apprehend that the name of Wellington would be used in practice in that House, and that the county name alone would be employed. His hon. Friend opposite (Mr. R. H. Paget) would be known as the Member for Somersetshire—a name not altogether unknown, seeing that he already sat for it in that House. There certainly would not be any greater risk of confusion than would be created in having a Newcastle-on-Tyne and a Newcastle-under-Lyme; and also in the case of the Rosses—one in Herefordshire, one in Ireland, and one in Scotland.
    MR. R. H. PAGETsaid, the division which had just been taken certainly destroyed the simplicity of the original proposals with regard to this county, which proposals he had understood Her Majesty's Government to accept. The alternative principle had now found its way into the county of Somerset. Up to the last division they had simple names for each division, and he had hoped that that principle, which had been accepted apparently by the right hon. Baronet, would have been maintained; but, unfortunately, the Government had gone the other way, and the alternative system of naming the con-

    1785
    stituencies had already been got rid of in the naming of the Bridgwater Division. That removed in his mind any objection here as to the introduction of the alternative. He had been prepared, if the principle of simplicity had been adopted throughout, to have adhered to it in this case, and to have left out the name of "Williton" or "Wellington;" but if there should be any alternative name at all, it should undoubtedly come in here. Wellington had a right to be regarded historically as a place of considerable importance—of far more importance than a mere upstart town of yesterday. On the ground of its historical associations, they might fairly demand that the name of "Wellington" should be connected with this division of Somersetshire.
    MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONsaid, the right hon. Baronet had given a very good reason why the name of Wellington should not be retained. He had intimated that it was not of the slightest importance what alternative name was used in the Bill, because it would never be employed in practice, and therefore one name was as good as another. Another name had already been preferred by the Boundary Commissioners; and in regard to the name of "Wellington," the Committee had already decided that it should be given to a division in another county. Therefore this matter came before the Committee from a totally different point of view. He was sorry for the people of Somersetshire; but he did see how the Committee, having once allotted this name for a division in Shropshire, should now allot it for a division in Somersetshire. The name had already been taken, and there was no reason why the arrangement should be disturbed. He would like to say one word on behalf of the name of "Williton." He did not see why Williton should be put on one side for Wellington. The only reason assigned for giving the name of Wellington was that, somehow or other, it was connected with the name of the Duke of Wellington. But the Duke of Wellington was not born there, and there had been great historical personages born in Williton. For instance, that great man, Reginald Fitzurse, one of the knights who killed Thomas A'Becket, was born there. The Duke of Wellington required no petty parish
    1786
    in Somersetshire to make his name remembered throughout England; and for the sake of historical associations he thought "Williton" ought not to be put on one side for the name of "Wellington." And, on more than the one ground that because the Boundary Commissioners had decided that the name Wellington should be attached to the division of another county, he thought the name of Williton ought to be retained here. He therefore supported the noble Lord the Member for North Shropshire (Viscount Newport), and hoped he would divide against the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 74, line 34, to leave out the word "Williton," in order to insert the word "Wellington,"—(Mr. Horace Davey,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question put, "That the word 'Williton' stand part of the Schedule."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 11; Noes 90: Majority 79.—(Div. List, No. 102.)
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEmoved to omit from this division the parish of Hillfarrance, in the Sessional Division of Taunton. He explained that under an Order of the 31st December, 1883, that parish no longer existed.
    Amendment proposed, in page 74, line 39, to leave out the word "Hillfarrance."—(Sir Charles W. Dilke.)
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. RAIKESsaid, he had now to propose the first of his Amendments in connection with the county of Stafford. Perhaps he might explain that under his proposal the Leek Division would become the Northern or Leek Division; No. 2 the North-Eastern or Burton Division; No. 3 the Mid or Penkridge Division; No. 4 the Northwestern or Pirehill Division; No. 5 the Eastern or Lichfield Division; No. 6 the South-Western or Kingswinford Division, and No. 7 the South-Eastern or Handsworth Division. In every case there would be an alternative name. Some of the names were not generally known; but some of them, such as Burton and Lichfield, were known to everybody. Perhaps Pirehill, Penkridge, and Kingswinford had not at-

    1787
    tained equal celebrity. He proposed these alternative names in order to see whether the Committee would prefer to have alternative names, or to adopt the points of the compass only. In one or two cases, very notably in those of Burton and Lichfield, it might be considered desirable to retain the names of those towns in preference to giving the points of the compass only; and, therefore, it would be more symmetrical to provide a geographical designation in every case. He proposed now, in the case of the first division, to call it the Northern or Leek Division.
    Amendment proposed, in page 75, line 4, after the word "The," to insert the words "Northern or."—(Mr. Raikes.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. STAVELEY HILLsaid, he would ask the attention of the President of the Local Government Board to one slight variation he intended to propose in the divisions as they were designated in the Bill—namely, to leave out "Penkridge" and insert "Stone." If the right hon. Gentleman would also kindly look at a map of the county he would see that there were seven divisions, to six of which might be applied what were called compass names, and the other one—Lichfield—was the only one which contained a merged borough. The difference he would suggest in the scheme proposed by his right hon. Friend was that he should call the three divisions running down the right-hand side of the map by Eastern names, and the three divisions running down the left-hand side by Western names. Then, by striking out the compass name in reference to the Lichfield Division and using the word "Lichfield" only, they would continue the name of the only merged or disfranchised borough. Leek would become North-Eastern, Burton Eastern, Handsworth South-Eastern, Pirehill North-Western, Penkridge Western, and Kingswinford Southwestern. It seemed to him that that was a much more simple way of naming these seven divisions; and it would be seen that he excepted from the compass names only one division, and that a division which contained a merged borough. As a Staffordshire man he had taken great interest in the names of these divisions; and if the sys-
    1788
    tem he proposed were adopted there would be no advantage in having alternative names at all. If, however, alternative names were to be given he thought there would be more advantage in calling the divisions by the names of the old Saxon Hundreds. The compass names, however, were, in his opinion, preferable; but if they were to give alternative names he would suggest the substitution of "Stone" for "Penkridge."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that he would prefer the proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman to that of the right hon. Gentleman in regard to this county, because it was much more simple except as regarded the second division, to which he would rather see the name of "Burton" attached. Burton had a large population, and was an important urban centre. Indeed, there had been a question of making it a separate borough instead of throwing it into the county division.
    SIR ARTHUR BASSpreferred the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for West Staffordshire (Mr. Staveley Hill) to the nomenclature suggested by the right hon. Gentleman.
    COLONEL LEVETTsaid, he thought that after what had been said by the right hon. Baronet it would be needless to ask him to retain the name of Lichfield. The whole of the inhabitants of that district would be grateful if that name could be retained. It had long been associated with the history of the country. The city was one of great antiquity, and its position was central. It was, therefore, most desirable, both on the ground of position and of historical and ecclesiastical associations, that Lichfield should continue to give its name to the division in which it was placed. It was not only central, but it was the headquarters of the Yeomanry, of the Militia, and of the military; around it centred all the interests of the Church in the diocese, and he was quite sure there was a very strong feeling in favour of retaining it as a Parliamentary name in the division. He sincerely hoped that the Committee would accept this suggestion.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEpointed out that the Amendment they were now discussing was the Northern Division.
    MR. STAVELEY HILLsaid, his proposition was to use the word "Eastern"

    1789
    or "Western" in connection with each division.
    MR. RAIKESsaid, he was quite satisfied with the discussion which had taken place, and would withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    On the Motion of Mr. STAVELEY HILL, the following Amendments made:—Page 75, line 4, leave out "Leek," insert North-Eastern; "line 9, after "The," insert "Eastern or;" line 14, leave out "Penkridge," insert "Western;" line 20, leave out "Pirehill," insert "North-Western."
    MR. STAVELEY HILL (for Mr. SAMPSON LLOYD)moved, in page 75, line 25, after "Lichfield," insert "and Tamworth."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that as the name of Tamworth had been proposed in connection with this division he thought it right to mention a circumstance which had occurred in an earlier discussion upon the Schedules of the Bill. His right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Sir Robert Peel) had delivered an admirable speech in regard to the association of his father's name with the borough of Tamworth—a speech which had much moved the feeling of the House. He (Sir Charles W. Dilke) considered the question very carefully, and it was because he did not quite see his way in regard to it that he wished to allude to the difficulty now. He had referred to it on a former occasion, and he certainly did not see how it was to be overcome. His right hon. Friend preferred that the name of Tamworth should be given to the Coleshill Division in Warwickshire instead of to this division of Staffordshire. But there was a difficulty in regard to that case. Tamworth was on the extreme edge of the Warwickshire Division, and was, as a matter of fact, in two counties. Coleshill was a very proper place to select for the name of the division, and it was a place where the elections for the county of Warwick were formerly held. He believed there was a strong objection in the division to the proposal to give the name of Tamworth to it. He was quite sure that the desire to retain the name of Tamworth was very strong, and he hoped his right hon. Friend would meet him in endeavouring to find some other division in connection with which it
    1790
    could be used. He had thought it right to mention the matter here before the Committee came to discuss the divisions of the county of Warwick.
    SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, he should like to say a word or two on the point which had been raised by his right hon. Friend, whose kindness and consideration for everybody all through the proceedings of the Committee had been acknowledged on both sides of the House. The Committee had decided to retain the name of the place associated with the Duke of Wellington, and also that of the borough with which Sir John Northcote was connected during the Long Parliament. But he would now refer to the passing of the Reform Bill in this country in 1832, and to the distinction which Tamworth had acquired by the services of his father as a statesman and politician; and he hoped the Committee would kindly support him in the plea which he now made in favour of giving the name of Tamworth to the Coleshill Division of Warwickshire. He did not wish to say one word against the borough of Lichfield; but, at the same time, Tamworth had no desire to play a second part to Lichfield in the matter of giving a name to a county division, and he thought that Tamworth was entitled to some distinct recognition. He observed that this was the only municipal borough in Warwickshire that had not received separate representation. The hon. and learned Gentleman who moved the present Amendment had just now said that there was a strong feeling in Coleshill against the name of Tamworth being substituted for it in the first division of the county of Warwick. Coleshill was very little known. His right hon. Friend had truly stated that it had for some time been the centre of the polling district in that locality; but that was only since the Reform Bill of 1832. Now, Lichfield was wholly in the county of Stafford; whereas, what was the geographical position of the town of Tamworth? One could not attach it to Lichfield, because it was almost entirely in Warwickshire. Now the population of Tamworth in 1881 was over 14,000, and he believed that at that moment it exceeded 15,000; but 10,000 of the inhabitants were in the county of Warwick. The population of the borough of Tamworth suppressed by this Bill was greater than the population of Coleshill, Derby,

    1791
    and Nuneaton, all of which under this Bill were allowed to give denominations to districts. The Town Hall of Tamworth was in Warwickshire, the market place was in Warwickshire, the railway stations and all its public buildings were in Warwickshire. He could not suppose that anyone could bring forward the name of Coleshill as a division. Why, it had not even a railway station. There was a railway station a mile and a-half from the town, but there was no railway stationinthe town, whereas Tamworth was the centre of a large trade coming from Lichfield, Derby, and many other places. Under these circumstances, he trusted the Committee would approve the retention of the name of Tamworth, which he no longer represented in that House. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Spencer Balfour) who now represented the borough of Tamworth would, he was sure, endorse every word he had said with regard to the strong feeling of the people of Tamworth, that its name at least might continue to be connected with the district in which the vast majority of the people of that borough lived. Having made these few remarks he had again to thank the Committee for the way in which they had received his representations. He was bound to add that his right hon. Relative the Speaker had authorized him to say that he would consider it a favour on the part of the Committee if they would allow the name of Tamworth to continue on the Parliamentary roll of this great country.
    MR. DIGBYsaid, he should not detain the Committee for more than a few moments after the speech of the right hon. Baronet to which they had just listened; but as a resident of Coleshill, and one connected with it for a long period, he was, perhaps, entitled to say a few words. Hon. Members who had spoken had connected this Amendment with one lower down on the Paper, and some things had been said with regard to Coleshill which he thought would justify him in making a reply. In supporting the Amendment before the Committee to add the name of Tamworth to that of Lichfield in distinguishing one division of the county of Staffordshire, he would like to point out a few reasons why he thought the Amendment proposed was worthy of consideration. In the first place the old town of Tamworth was in Staffordshire; the portion of the Parliamentary borough in
    1792
    the county of Warwickshire consisted of outlying parishes which were added by the Act of 1832.
    SIR ROBERT PEEL: When the hon. Gentleman says that the old town of Tamworth is in Staffordshire, I would remind him of what I have already stated, that the Town Hall and all the principal public buildings are in Warwickshire.
    MR. DIGBYsaid, he was obliged to the right hon. Baronet for his correction; but he had information which authorized him to say that the whole of the town was in Staffordshire. Perhaps, however, the right hon. Baronet was more accurate in his knowledge of the subject. The parishes in Warwickshire belonging to the Parliamentary borough of Tamworth had developed considerably since 1832, and a large population had sprung up within them. He desired to say that no one in that House appreciated more than he the great debt of gratitude which the whole of this country owed to the memory of Sir Robert Peel, whose country seat he would remind the Committee was in Staffordshire. He would also point out that the whole of the remainder of the first Warwickshire Division wished that it should receive its name from Coleshill. Coleshill was the centre of that division, and it was an old town, notwithstanding that the right hon. Baronet might not know of its existence before 1832; and, further, he could tell him that it was a place older than Birmingham. There was a time when Birmingham was described as near Coleshill, instead of the phrase being as now "Coleshill near Birmingham." He hoped the Committee would adopt the suggestion of the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke), and for the reasons he had given he had great pleasure in supporting the Amendment before the Committee.
    MR. SPENCER BALFOURsaid, that the alteration proposed by the Amendment was desired by no one in the district. The people of Lichfield did not want it; they all united in asking that the name of Tamworth should be given to the Warwickshire Division in which the bulk of the population was. So far from Tamworth being principally in Staffordshire, he would point out that Tamworth Castle and the oldest part of the town were in Warwickshire, and that the whole of the increasing district of Tarn-

    1793
    worth was in Warwickshire. That part had nearly doubled its population since 1832. It would be very hard for Tam-worth if, simply owing to the accident of the Government having based the Bill on the population at the last Census, they should lose both their Members and all connection with the Parliamentary proceedings of the country. He implored the Committee to accede to the eloquent appeal of the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) and to the appeal of the people of the district. With regard to the remainder of the division, it was within his own knowledge that the electors objected to its being called "Coleshill or Tamworth," otherwise they had no objection to Tamworth; indeed, a large representative body had asked him as a Tamworth man to press the claim of Tamworth.
    MR. P. A. MUNTZsaid, he felt bound to support the Amendment before the Committee, because, although he had no connection with Staffordshire, he was convinced that the claims of Warwickshire in this matter were very slight indeed, while the claims of Staffordshire were very strong. He had the highest authority, notwithstanding what the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) had stated, to say that the borough of Tamworth was in Staffordshire. The seat of the right hon. Baronet was in Staffordshire. In reply to the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, with reference to the feeling; existing upon this subject in North Warwickshire, he was bound to say that he was in favour of the Northern Division of Warwickshire being called by the name of Coleshill. He said that Tamworth had not the slightest claim to give its name to North Warwickshire, and that if it were to give a name to any Parliamentary division, it should be in Staffordshire. He believed he was correct in stating that the population of Tamworth was 15,000, although the right hon. Baronet had represented it as being much larger.
    SIR ROBERT PEEL: I said that at the last Census the population was over 14,000, and that my impression was that now it was over 15,000.
    MR. P. A. MUNTZsaid, that, looking at the fact that Coleshill had been the place of nomination for North Warwickshire during half-a-century, it had every claim to give its name to the divi-
    1794
    sion, and he must say that the bulk of the population would be dissatisfied with that distinction being given to Tamworth.
    MR. RYLANDSsaid, he thought it was to be regretted that the House had been obliged, under the very proper regulations made for the redistribution of seats, to throw the borough of Tamworth into the county. On that ground alone, he thought that Tamworth had very great claims on the Committee. But he acknowledged a very much higher sentiment in regard to Tamworth. His right hon. Friend (Sir Robert Peel), on this and on a former occasion, had appealed to the House in terms which must have excited the sympathy of all; but when he remembered that the late Sir Robert Peel had been one of the most illustrious Members who ever represented a constituency in that House, he was convinced that an appeal from the members of his family would be eagerly responded to. As Englishmen, everyone in that House had reasons to feel gratitude for the great and distinguished labours of Sir Robert Peel in the interest of their country. But he took it that there was a general concurrence of opinion in the Committee that the name of Tamworth should not be blotted out, but give its name to one of the county districts. Then came the question as between Staffordshire and Warwickshire. Now, as he understood the Amendment before the Committee, it was proposed to have the alternative name of Lichfield for the 1st division of Staffordshire. He must say that, in his opinion, Lichfield, as a Cathedral city, and one which had also been deprived of its representation under this Bill, had a perfect right to give its name to that division, and he should be sorry that Tamworth should form with it a sort of "double-barrelled" arrangement. Coleshill, his hon. Friend (Mr. Muntz) seemed to think, was a place of world-wide reputation He had the impression that it was in some way or other distinguished for the manufacture of nails, and the right hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill informed him Coleshill had a magnificent church; but he did not hesitate to say that Coleshill, as a name, whatever might be the antiquity of the town, was scarcely known, and had never been regarded as of any importance whatever outside the narrow boundary represented by the hon. Gen-

    1795
    tleman who had just sat down. He understood the hon. Gentleman to speak in favour of Coleshill giving a name to part of the county; but he hoped the Committee would not hesitate in the course they should, in his opinion, take in this matter. When they reached the part of the Schedule which dealt with the divisions of the county of Warwick, he should vote in favour of the adoption of the very distinguished name of Tam-worth in place of the undistinguished name of Coleshill.
    VISCOUNT NEWPORTsaid, the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) had begun his remarks with regard to Coleshill by a statement which showed that his local knowledge in this matter was not large. He (Viscount Newport), being connected with the counties of Stafford and Warwick, wished to say, on behalf of his brother electors, that there was a considerable feeling in favour of Coleshill being retained as the name of one of the divisions of the county of Warwick. No one had more respect than he for the memory of the great statesman who had been connected with the borough of Tamworth; but, at the same time, he would point out that the borough of Tamworth was but partly in the county of Warwick—at any rate, the seat of his right hon. Friend (Sir Robert Peel) was in the county of Stafford, and he believed it would meet the wishes of the electors in both divisions that the name of Coleshill should be retained. With regard to one remark of the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) that there was no railway station in the town of Coleshill, he begged to say that the railway ran at the bottom of the hill on which the town was placed, and that it was practically in the town. He hoped the Committee would not allow the name of Coleshill to be struck out of the Schedule.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that the larger portion of the population of Tamworth was in Warwickshire, 8,500 being in that county, and 5,500 in Staffordshire. In view of that, he did not think the hon. and learned Member could press his Amendment very strongly, and as no one urged it very strongly upon its own merits, he suggested that it should be withdrawn. He was bound to say that in his opinion the Committee were against the adoption of the name of Coleshill, and when they
    1796
    came to the portion of the Schedule which dealt with the county of Warwick, he thought the Government must yield to the general feeling expressed in favour of Tamworth.
    MR. STAVELEY HILL,in asking leave to withdraw his Amendment, said, he would say no more than that the Staffordshire people would be sorry to consider Tamworth as lost to the county.
    MR. HICKSsaid, the right hon. Baronet had given the population of Tamworth as a Parliamentary borough; but it might not be within the knowledge of the Committee that the borough was composed of many different parishes—it was not the town of Tamworth alone. He thought, before the Amendment was withdrawn, they ought to know what was the population of Tamworth itself, and not merely that of the Parliamentary borough.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he was unable to give the information asked for by the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, not having the figures in his possession.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    SIR ARTHUR BASSsaid, he was sorry to have to move an Amendment to the Commissioners' scheme for Staffordshire, which had met with general acceptance as a whole, though considerable dissatisfaction was felt with the portion which his Amendment referred to. His object simply was to remedy as far as possible inequality of numbers, and to avoid the severance of populations of like pursuits and interests. The division of Handsworth, as at present constituted, contained 60,140 inhabitants; that of Lichfield 49,942; a difference of over 10,000, and this in spite of the fact that Lichfield contained no Parliamentary borough within its limits, whilst the freeholders of the large and important boroughs of Walsall, Wednesbury, West Bromwich, and Harborne—now included in Birmingham—3,140 in number, would vote in the Handsworth Division. The result would be that, estimating roughly one voter to six of the population, there would be 13,163 voters in Handsworth to only 8,324 in Lichfield, or less than two-thirds. Now, the Instructions to the Boundary Commissioners were "approximately to equalize populations," and—

    1797
    "If the county voters having qualifications in a Parliamentary borough are numerous, some regard may properly be had to their number in determining the population to be embraced in the division."
    Now so far was that from being the case, that the Commissioners had given Handsworth, which had 3,140 borough freeholders, an excess population of 10,000 over Lichfield, which had no borough freeholders. The Commissioners were further instructed to keep together populations of like pursuits and interests. Now, Handsworth was an urban and manufacturing constituency with a few agricultural parishes at its northern end adjoining the Lichfield Division. Lichfield was mainly mining and agricultural. The Commissioners had included in it the important and populous mining districts of Cannock Chase, Wyrley, and Brownhills; but they had excluded from it the parishes of Pelsall and Walsall Wood, adjoining Brownhills, with which they were entirely identical and formed practically one community. And they had gone farther, for they had actually divided the Local Board district of Brownhills, and had taken the parish of Walsall Wood from it and added it to the Handsworth Division, with which it and its neighbouring parish of Pelsall had absolutely no community of interest whatever, and from which they were separated by the intervening agricultural parishes of Aldridge and Great Barr. So that they would have one portion of the Local Board district in the Hands-worth, the other in the Lichfield Division, and they would have one side of a street voting in one and the other side in the other division. Now, he could have understood a scheme by which Lichfield was retained as a purely agricultural division, and the adjoining mining districts entirely excluded from it; but he could not understand on what principle large mining populations had been added to it, and one district only—that which he was now endeavouring to re-unite to its natural associates—divided in the most inconvenient manner possible. His proposal, therefore, was to take from Handsworth the parishes of Pelsall and Walsall Wood, with a total population of 6,170, and add them to Lichfield. The population of Hands-worth would then become 53,970, that of Lichfield 56,112, whilst Handsworth, with its 3,140 borough freeholders, would
    1798
    still have a great excess of voting power. He really thought that if this proposal were considered apart from its political aspect, its justice and expediency must be acknowledged by all those acquainted with the district. He challenged his hon. and gallant Friend opposite (Colonel Levett) to traverse any of the assertions he had made. The hon. and gallant Gentleman could not deny that by this proposal the populations and voting power of the two divisions would be much more nearly equalized; he could not deny that Pelsall and Walsall Wood were entirely identical in interests and in the character and pursuits of their populations with the adjoining district of Brownhills, to which he (Sir Arthur Bass) wished to re-unite them. He really could not conceive of any valid argument which could be urged against the Amendment; but he thought he knew what his hon. and gallant Friend would say—he would tell the Committee that Lichfield was mainly an agricultural division; that there were too many colliers in it already to please him; that colliers generally voted Liberal, and therefore he would do his best to keep out any additions. He trusted, however, his right hon. Friend in charge of the Bill would not listen to any such argument as that, and that he would give a friendly reception to his Amendment.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 75, line 31, after the words "Norton Canes," to insert the words,—
    "And in the Sessional Division of Rushall, of—
    Pelsall, and so much of Walsall Foreign as is contained within the urban sanitary district of Brownhills."—(Sir Arthur Bass.)
    Question proposed, "That those word be there inserted."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, it was not very easy for one not familiar with the local reasons stated by the hon. Baronet who had just spoken to form any very clear notion with regard to this case. But he admitted to his hon. Friend that, in the absence of information to the contrary of what he had stated, he should form the same opinion with regard to it as himself. Primâ facie his hon. Friend had a good case; but he did not feel himself a free agent in this matter. He was willing to assume that the Boundary Commissioners were more likely than he to be right. He

    1799
    was, therefore, compelled to resist the Amendment, as he had already resisted Amendments coming from the other side for which, at all events, a strong case had been made out.
    MR. HASTINGSsaid, there was not an inhabitant of the district concerned who did not desire that this change should be made in the Bill. They all viewed the severance from the district with which their interests were connected with the greatest dissatisfaction. He hoped the Committee would meet the justice of this case.
    SIR CHARLES FORSTERsaid, that his hon. Friend asked no more than that the parishes of Pelsall and Walsall should be transferred to the division of Lichfield, with which, on geographical and other grounds, it properly belonged. He could confirm the statement that the inhabitants looked with strong dissatisfaction on their severance from their own district and their transfer to another with which they had no local connection. If his hon. Friend went to a division, he should support him.
    COLONEL LEVETTsaid, his hon. Friend the senior Member for Staffordshire (Sir Arthur Bass) had made out an excellent case, as was to have been expected from him, in favour of his Amendment. His hon. Friend had challenged him (Colonel Levett) to state reasons against that Amendment; and, although he did not know that he could state his case as well as his hon. Friend had done, he should do his best. The Amendment of the junior Member for East Staffordshire (Mr. Wiggin) had been refused, on the ground that it would open the door to a great many Amendments of the same description, and which would have the effect, if agreed to, of upsetting the whole of the boundaries. That, he thought, was a strong reason why this Amendment should not have been brought forward, because, if they were once to set about disturbing the boundaries, he believed that this Bill would never get through the House. His hon. Friend wished to transplant that district to another division. Now, the Instructions to the Commissioners were extremely clear. Where there were large populous localities of a particular character they were, if possible, to be included in the same division. Now, Lichfield was essentially an agricultural division; but his hon. Friend
    1800
    proposed to take out of Rushall the two most populous places in it and transfer them to that division. He (Colonel Levett) maintained that that would be in direct opposition to the Instructions given to the Commissioners, and he held, at the same time, that his hon. Friend had not shown sufficient grounds for it. There was no objection to the boundaries as shown in the map; they were extremely clear, and had been accepted by the county as a whole; in short, the scheme of the Commissioners had been universally adopted. The Commissioners themselves had remarked that, although they expected to find a great deal of difficulty in dealing with the county, they were delighted at the unanimous opinion which existed in favour of their Report, and that there was no reason to expect there would be any further trouble about it. This Motion was put forward at the time by three or four gentlemen, every one of whom was a Liberal agent; there was no general support for the Motion, which came from one Party only; and he maintained that it was not in accordance with the Instructions to the Commissioners, or the general intentions of the Bill, that the proposal of his hon. Friend should be carried out. The political effect of throwing these two places into the Lichfield Division would be to stifle the voice of the agricultural labourers, whom it was the object of the Franchise Bill to have represented in that House. His hon. Friend and himself both knew the county; they knew where the votes came from, and they knew where the conclusion would be. He maintained that this was not the proper basis on which to deal with this question. There was not one in 10 of the whole population of Rushall who had any pretension to an interest in agriculture. Under the circumstances, he submitted that the proposed Amendment would have the effect of interfering with the principle of the Bill.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 30; Noes 88: Majority 58.—(Div. List, No. 103.)
    Amendment negatived.
    MR. RAIKESsaid, they now came to deal with the county of Suffolk, and after "The," in line 9, page 76, he

    1801
    proposed to insert "Northern or," so that No. 1 Division would read "The Northern or Lowestoft Division." As the Committee were aware, the county of Suffolk consisted of five divisions, and four of them formed an oblong square. The fifth—the one they were now considering—was situated in the North of the county. Lowestoft was a well-known place, and he would not be found proposing to abolish the name of Lowestoft as that of the division. The names of the other divisions were the Eye Division—Eye was a district not altogether unknown; the Stowmarket Division; the Sudbury Division—Sudbury had a Parliamentary history; and the Woodbridge Division, Woodbridge being a place which was pretty well known in Suffolk, though, perhaps, not so well known out of the county. The preference, therefore, would be for obtaining the alternative nomenclature in the case of the divisions of Suffolk. He did not care whether they struck out the local names or not.
    Amendment proposed, in page 76, line 9, after "The," insert "Northern or."—(Mr. Raikes.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEthought they had better adopt the alternative names in the case of Suffolk.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHpointed out that, although Lowestoft was a well-known place, it had never had a Parliamentary Representative. He thought it would be well to adopt the points of the compass absolutely, unless the local names were very well known.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he would not go so far as that; but he would consider the matter before Report. This was rather a peculiar case; Lowestoft was the centre of the division.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    MR. RAIKESsaid, his next Amendment was to call the Eye Division the North-Eastern or Eye Division; but he believed there was a desire in some parts of the House to preserve the name of the borough of Eye.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEthought they had better have the alternative name in this case.
    Amendment proposed, in page 76, line 20, after "The," insert"North-Eastern or."—(Mr. Raikes.)
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    MR. RAIKESthought that, as the alternative plan had been adopted so far, they had better carry it out through the county. If, however, the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) preferred to strike out "Stowmarket," he (Mr. Raikes) would move the Amendment in that form.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, it was argued by some hon. Gentlemen that the Committee should incline more to the names of merged boroughs than to other names. Personally, he did not attach so much importance to that principle as some Members did.
    MR. RAIKESsaid, he would, therefore, move to leave out "Stowmarket," and insert "North Western."
    Amendment proposed, in page 76, line 26, to leave out the word "Stowmarket," and insert the words "North Western," instead thereof.—(Mr. Raikes.)
    Question, "That the word 'Stowmarket' stand part of the Schedule," put, and negatived.
    Question, "That the words 'North Western be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    On the Motion of Mr. RAIKES, the following Amendments made:—In page 76, line 35, after "The," leave out "Sudbury," and insert "South Western," instead thereof; and in page 77, line 1, after "The," leave out "Wood-bridge," and insert "South Eastern," instead thereof.
    MR. RAIKESsaid, they now came to the county of Surrey. The county was divided into six divisions, four of which formed an oblong square, and the remaining two were situated in the North-Eastern corner, closely adjoining London. One of the divisions, the Kingston Division, was almost, it might be said, entirely urban in its character. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Charles W. Dilke) would, therefore, object to the adoption of a point-of-the-compass name in respect of that division. The other five divisions grouped very naturally. The one they began with was the Chertsey Division, and he proposed to give it the alterna-

    1803
    tive name of "North-Western." All the names of places given to the Surrey divisions were well known, and probably there would be a preference for retaining the alternative name. He begged to move the Amendment which stood in his name.
    Amendment proposed, in page 77, line 9, after "The," insert "North Western or."—(Mr. Raikes.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that Chertsey was well known in the county, and perhaps it would be well to retain the alternative name. He had, however, a doubt as to the desirability of retaining the name of Kingston as that of one of the divisions. There were two rival places—Kingston and Richmond—in the division, and it was a question whether Kingston should, in consequence, be retained. He had no personal feeling one way or the other.
    Question put, and agreed to; words inserted accordingly.
    MR. RAIKESsaid, his next Amendment had reference to the Guildford Division. Guildford was a merged borough, and it was one of the two capitals of Surrey. He therefore supposed the division had better be given an alternative name.
    Amendment proposed, in page 77, line 14, after "The," insert "South Western or."—(Mr. Raikes.)
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    MR. RAIKESproposed, as an Amendment, to insert, after "The," in line 21, "South Eastern or," so that the Reigate Division should be called "the South Eastern or Reigate Division."
    Amendment proposed, in page 77, line 21, after "The," insert "South Eastern or."—(Mr. Raikes.)
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    MR. RAIKESproposed an Amendment, to give the Epsom Division the alternative name of "Mid."
    Amendment proposed, in page 77, line 29, after "The," insert "Mid or."—(Mr. Raikes.)
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    MR. RAIKESsaid, the next Amendment on the Paper related to the Kingston Division. The Amendment he had put on the Paper was to call the division the Northern or Kingston Division. Although he had a preference for the points of the compass, he did not think that "Northern" was distinctly and clearly the best name that he should like to propose. As, however, he preferred the alternative form, he begged to move the insertion, after "The," of the words "Northern or."
    Amendment proposed, in page 77, line 34, after "The," insert "Northern or."—(Mr. Raikes.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. WARTONsaid, he hoped that the Amendment would not be accepted. The right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had said he had a doubt as to the name to give to this division. Perhaps the Committee would permit him (Mr. Warton) to give a very important reason why they ought not to make any alteration at all. Kingston was a place of great antiquity. There was a stone there which, he believed, was the oldest and best preserved stone in the Kingdom. Coming from Saxon times, Kingston or Kingstone was really a very beautiful monument of antiquity. One of the divisions of the county had been called Guildford.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: In that case an alternative name has been adopted.
    MR. WARTON: Now, for many years past the Assizes in Surrey had been held at Kingston, Guildford, and Croydon. The Spring Assizes were always held at Kingston; whereas the other Assizes were held alternately at Guildford and Croydon. Precedence was always given to Kingston over Guildford and Croydon included. The right hon. Baronet had spoken of the rival place, Richmond. No doubt, there was some hesitation as to which place should give its name to the division; but, surely, the real Richmond was the Richmond in Yorkshire. The Richmond in Surrey was, no doubt, a very pretty suburban place; but it had nothing of the antiquity or rank of Kingston. He hoped his right hon. Friend (Mr.Raikes), notwithstanding his love of alternative names, would be good enough not to

    1805
    press this Amendment, but let Kingston, a distinctly celebrated and ancient place, stand by itself.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he did not wish it to be understood that he suggested that the division should be named after Richmond. He had only meant to convey that there was a doubt as to whether the division should be called Kingston or Richmond.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he was persuaded that, on reflection, the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) would see that Richmond had no claim to give its name to the division. As far as the question of the points of the compass was concerned, even the right hon. Gentleman who brought forward this Amendment was not very clearly in favour of the name "Northern." "Northern" was not a very good name to give the division, and therefore he hoped the Amendment would not be persevered in.
    Question put, and agreed to; words inserted accordingly.
    MR. RAIKESproposed an Amendment to give the alternative name of North-Eastern to the Wimbledon Division.
    Amendment proposed, in page 78, line 1, after "The," insert "North Eastern."—(Mr. Raikes.)
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he wished to call the attention of the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) to the second line on page 78, because he proposed to move the omission from that line of the words "a District of the Metropolis," and to substitute the words "a Metropolitan borough." It seemed to him that the phrase "a district of the Metropolis" was not sufficiently expressive. They knew that there was a Metropolis, and that it was to have a large number of Members; but when they had done with the scaffolding of the Bill and contemplated the crowned edifice, they would have the words left "a District of the Metropolis." He did not know whether, as a matter of fact, the right hon. Baronet knew that one or more Parliamentary boroughs would be affected by these words. He thought that when they came to the Report, it would be well to have the exact truth stated. There were some boroughs
    1806
    created by the Bill which might be described as Metropolitan boroughs or boroughs in some way connected with the Metropolis, but which were not districts of the Metropolis. He begged to move the omission of the words "a District of the Metropolis."
    Amendment proposed, in page 78, lines 2 and 8, to leave out the words "a District of the Metropolis."—(Mr. Warton.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that on Report he would consider whether it would be best to say "in the Metropolis," or "a district of the Metropolis."
    MR. WARTONsaid, that after the promise of the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke), he would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. RAIKESsaid, they now came to the county of Sussex, and the first of the divisions in that county was that which it was proposed to call the Horsham Division. The re-arrangement of Sussex was rather remarkable. Sussex had some very well-established and recognized boundaries, statutory and otherwise; but the new arrangements had completely changed the face of the county. Horsham was a merged borough, and Bramber had been cut in two; indeed, Bramber might have given its name to either of two divisions. He thought, however, that as the larger or more important borough had had to disappear by being bisected, it would be hardly fair for it to undergo the additional humiliation of being superseded in favour of the smaller borough, which was wholly contained in the limits of the new division. He did not propose to suppress the name of Horsham altogether, but to call the division "The North-Western or Horsham Division." The county fell very naturally into North-Western, South-Westorn, Northern, Mid, Southern, and Eastern.
    Amendment proposed, in page 78, line 13, after "The," insert "North Western or."—(Mr. Raikes.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he thought the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Charles W. Dilke) would admit that Sussex was a very difficult county to divide, and that he would also admit that the statements which he made in regard to the population in the Instructions he gave to the Commissioners made the work of division oven more difficult than it otherwise would have been. He (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) was bound to say that the Commissioners endeavoured to do their work as fairly as possible; but he thought the county of Sussex might have been divided better. A large number of recommendations were made; but he did not know whether they reached the right hon. Gentleman or not—at any rate, they reached the Commissioners. The people of the county would have liked, as far as possible, to adhere to the old divisions or Rapes of the county. The Rape of Bramber had been a Parliamentary borough for some considerable time; and he thought it might very easily have been adjusted so that practically for the Rapes of Chichester, Arundel, and Bramber, with some slight addition from the Rape of Lewes, particularly as two parishes were recently in the Rape of Bramber and partly in the Rape of Lewes, three Members might have been given to West Sussex. The Commissioners had dealt with the county partly by Petty Sessional divisions, and partly by Union divisions. It would be found that, in order to make up an extra 2,000 or 3,000, they had taken a large portion of the Thakeham Union, and put it to the Petty Sessional divisions of Chichester and Arundel, and the result was that the boundary was not as convenient or as well-arranged as it otherwise might have been. When they came to consider the case of the merged borough of Lewes, they found that it was now placed, as it were, almost in West Sussex. For all purposes—for election as well as for other purposes—Sussex had hitherto been divided into two counties. That had all been put on one side, for they now found that the old Rape of Bramber had been divided, and that a portion of the Petty Sessional division of Lewes, including the borough of Lewes and the Petty Sessional division of Hove, outside the borough of Brighton, had been thrown,
    1808
    with the remainder of the Petty Sessional division of Steyning and the Petty Sessional division of Worthing, into the Mid or Lewes Division of Sussex. There was no connection between Worthing and Lewes: indeed, it would have been a great convenience to the county of Sussex had they been able to retain more or less their old Rapes, for all their communications were from North to South, instead of being from East to West. Sussex laboured under great disadvantages when the Commissioners attended to hold the inquiries. It was one of the earliest counties taken, and being a very large county—it was as much as 90 miles long—there was no opportunity of consulting the different districts as to their wishes in the matter of division, or of forming a Committee to frame a scheme acceptable to the whole county. They were bound to attend at Lewes upon the 2nd of January, and discuss the scheme of the Commissioners. The moment the scheme was put forward in discussion, it was found that every small place had its own view on the question. After listening to all the statements made, it was thought it would be better, upon the whole, to adhere to the scheme of the Commissioners. As the right hon. Gentleman very well knew, the loss of several of its Members was very severely felt by Sussex. Sussex had a population of 500,000, and therefore they had been rather hardly dealt with, because they had lost no less than eight borough Members. It was true they had gained two extra Members for the county, but that did not compensate for their losses. He could only hope that the new arrangements would work well; but when they had done away with the old divisions of the counties, he hardly thought matters would work as smoothly as was expected. He should have no objection to the proposals of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Raikes). The names which had been given to divisions were names which, in many cases, commended themselves to the localities; but the proposal to give alternative names to the divisions was one which would also commend itself to a large number of persons who were extremely anxious that the old county names should not be done away with.
    MR. GREGORYsaid, he could confirm all that had fallen from the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir Walter B.

    1809
    Barttelot) as to the difficulty the Commissioners experienced in coming to a proper conclusion, and as to the great pains they took to come to the conclusions they did. Whether the conclusions of the Commissioners were satisfactory to the county at large, he was not prepared to say. It was hoped by some that the Commissioners would have found it desirable to adhere to the old Rapes—to the old historical divisions of the county; but he believed that that was found to be absolutely impossible, if there was to be anything like proportionate representation in the county. On the whole, he had no reason to complain of the distribution that had been made. He trusted that if the points of the compass were adopted as the names of the different divisions, the names of towns would also be retained. He was fully persuaded that the adoption of any proposal to do away with the names of the divisions, as proposed by the Commissioners, would give rise to very considerable dissatisfaction in the county, He trusted, therefore, that if the points of the compass were adopted, they would also be adopted in the sense of alternative names.
    MR. T. C. THOMPSONsaid, he did not know that he could offer any strong objection to the course which had been taken by the Committee, because it had been taken with regard to the counties generally. But he certainly thought there was a strong feeling in Sussex that the old names should have been kept up. It was an Instruction to the Commissioners that they should preserve the names of the places which had formerly returned Members to Parliament. In old times East Grinstead sent Members to Parliament, and it gave great satisfaction to the people of the district to think their privileges were to be restored. He thought the same kind of feeling existed in the different districts of Sussex. It was well they should not get into too regular a groove. He did not think they exactly wanted to devide England into electoral districts, and he was surprised that there was a desire in that direction on the other side of the House. It was just possible that when some new democratic wave passed over the country, some great man might rise up and propose to do away with the divisions North and South, East and West, and that all the Members for the county should thenceforth be
    1810
    chosen by the county at large. He thought they should contend against that, and the best way of doing so was to stamp on each district an individuality which would grow stronger with time.
    Question put, and agreed to; words inserted accordingly.
    On the Motion of Mr. RAIKES, the following Amendment made:—In page 78, line 17, after "The," insert "South Western or."
    On the Motion of Sir CHARLES W. DILKE, the following Amendments made:—In page 78, line 20, leave out "Finden," and insert "Findon;" and in line 21, leave out "Thakenham," and insert "Thakeham."
    On the Motion of Mr. RAIKES, the following Amendments made:—In page 78, line 23, after "The," insert "Northern or;" in line 30, after "The," insert "Mid or;" in page 79, line 1, after "The," insert "Southern or;" and in line 10, after "The," insert "Eastern or."
    MR. RAIKESsaid, the next county in order was that of Warwick. Now, Warwickshire naturally fell into four divisions, North-Western, North-Eastern, South-Western, and South-Eastern, and that was the form in which he had placed Amendments on the Paper. But he was bound to say there was a feeling in the county in favour of styling one of the divisions "the Northern Division"—that was, he thought, the one which he had desoribed as North-Western. He therefore begged to move to insert, after "The," in line 20, "Northern or." If his Amendment were adopted, No. 1 Division would be called "the Northern or Coleshill Division."
    Amendment proposed, in page 79, line 20, after "The," insert "Northern or."—(Mr. Raikes.)
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    MR. SPENCER BALFOURsaid, he had now to move an Amendment which had already been discussed at much length—namely, to insert "Tamworth" instead of "Coleshill." In answer to a question put by the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Hicks), as to the actual composition of the municipal borough of Tamworth, he (Mr. Balfour) might say that 2,302 inhabitants of the

    1811
    municipal borough of Tamworth resided in North Warwickshire, and 3.208 in Staffordshire. But to the North Warwickshire Division must be added the inhabitants of Tamworth Castle, which was really the oldest portion of Tamworth, and the district in which the two railway stations were situated, and these inhabitants numbered as many as 3,113. As a further illustration of the inconvenience of the district of Coleshill, he might say that the clerk to the magistrates at Coleshill lived at Tamworth, and in order to perform his duties he had to drive 14 miles there and 14 miles back every day. He begged to propose the Amendment which stood in his name.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 79, line 20, to leave out the word "Coleshill," in order to insert the word"Tamworth,"—(Mr. Spencer Balfour,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the word 'Coleshill' stand part of the Schedule."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he thought they would only waste time if, on this question, they were to go into very much detail. It would be a great mistake for the friends of Tamworth to attempt to deny that the local feeling was in favour of Coleshill; he thought there could be no doubt on that point. Then, with regard to the importance of Coleshill, it was well known as a place where the open elections were held. Indeed, it was an old - fashioned county town of a certain amount of importance. Then, there was the argument that the part of Tamworth which was in the county of Warwick was not so thoroughly urban as the part that was not in that county. All these arguments, he thought, had certain weight against the Motion which was now made. If he had to settle the question apart from the question of sentiment, he should certainly say that Coleshill was the right name to give to the division; but he felt strongly the effect produced in the Committee by the speech of the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel). He felt so strongly the great desire of many Gentlemen not connected with the locality to give the name of Tamworth to the division, that he was not prepared to use the influence of the Government to defeat that desire.
    MR. P. A. MUNTZsaid, that notwithstanding the remarks of the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke), he must say that the opinion of the majority of the population of North Warwickshire was so strongly against an alteration of the name of the division from Coleshill to Tamworth, that he should feel he was not doing the people justice if he did not express their opinion in the House. It appeared to him that it would be a great hardship to Coleshill if the name were changed in consequence of a few outlying parishes of Tamworth being in Warwickshire. There was another point of importance, and that was that the decision of the Commissioners was in favour of Coleshill. He should certainly carry the matter to a division, and he hoped the Members of the Committee, whatever feeling of respect they might have for the memory of the distinguished ancestor of the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel), would, in justice to the population of North Warwickshire, support him. As to the population of the two places, he found that the inhabitants of Coleshill—a place which had been described as exceedingly small—numbered 2,356, against a population in the Warwickshire part of Tamworth of 2,302. That fact formed a most important consideration. The Committee would un-questionably do a great injustice to Coleshill if they agreed to change the name of the division to Tamworth.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEdeprecated the matter being discussed again on its merits.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, the only reason which justified the time they had spent upon this matter was that there was great local interest felt upon the nomenclature of this division. After what had fallen from hon. and right hon. Gentleman opposite, it seemed to him that what the Committee were now asked to do was to allow their own sentiment to override local feeling. He could not help thinking that that was just what they ought not to do. It was not denied that that part of Tamworth which was in Warwickshire was the smallest part of the borough. However much they desired to perpetuate the memory of the late right hon. Baronet Sir Robert Peel, by giving the name of Tamworth to one of the new divisions, they ought not to give the

    1813
    name to a district to which it did not belong.
    MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, he fully appreciated the desire expressed by the sons of the late Sir Robert Peel that the name of Tamworth should be given to this division; but he had found a practical reason for supporting the Amendment—a reason which had not been mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Charles W. Dilke) or by any other Member. Twenty-four thousand acres of the Union of Tamworth were in the county of Warwickshire, and Tamworth was the centre of a Poor Law Union. Coleshill was not a Poor Law Union, but simply a parish in such a Union. Now, his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board, who had the matter of local government so much at heart, was disposed, when he obtained the opportunity, to bring before the House a measure dealing with Unions which were partly in one county and partly in another; and having regard to the fact that by far the larger part of the Union of Tamworth—an infinitely greater acreage than Coleshill—was in Warwickshire, he (Mr. Arthur Arnold) could not hesitate as to the way he should vote on this Amendment.
    MR. H. A. BASSsupported the proposal of his hon. Friend and Colleague (Mr. Spencer Balfour). He maintained that if this boon were refused to Tamworth, it would be a most distinct breach of what the Prime Minister said would be allotted to boroughs which lost their Members by this Bill. He (Mr. Bass) thought that too much had been said about Coleshill and its importance. Coleshill was an obscure and remote village; indeed, although he had had the honour of representing the borough of Tamworth for seven years, he never heard the name of Coleshill until this Bill was printed. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had said that the boroughs which lost their Members would give their names to some division of the county. He (Mr. Bass) supposed that was intended as a sop, and he believed that many of the constituencies which had lost their Members looked upon it as a very moderate kind of sop. Yet it was even proposed to take this moderate sop away from Tamworth. He thought that in all fairness, and considering that 8,500 out of the 14,000 inhabitants
    1814
    of the borough of Tamworth resided in the Coleshill Division of Warwickshire, Tamworth had very superior claims to give its name to this division, rather than to a division of Staffordshire, in which county there only resided 5,500 of the 14,000 inhabitants of the borough. Tamworth was placed in a very awkward position. If they maintained the county boundary, the Parliamentary borough was cut in half; not only that, but the municipal borough was divided, and also the parish, Now, what was termed the Coleshill Division of Warwickshire would contain no disfranchised Parliamentary borough, neither would there be any municipal borough in the division. In the Lichfield Division of Staffordshire, however, there would be the disfranchised borough of Lichfield to contend with; and seeing that the Parliamentary borough of Lichfield contained something like 8,000 inhabitants, and that the portion of the Parliamentary borough of Tamworth which would go into East Staffordshire had only 5,500 inhabitants, the people of Lichfield would certainly consider that Lichfield had superior claims to give its name to the constituency than Tamworth. He hoped that, under the circumstances, the Committee would recognize the great claim of Tamworth to give its name to a division of Warwickshire.
    MR. DIGBYsaid, that after what had just fallen from the hon. Member for Tamworth (Mr. H. A. Bass), the Committee ought to remember that there were agricultural interests to be studied. The hon. Gentleman had said that the town of Coleshill was insignificant; but he (Mr. Digby) must point out to the hon. Member that in the future division of the county the agricultural interests were not insignificant. The hon. Gentleman seemed to forget that the borough of Tamworth had only a few months' existence; besides, in what way had the great bulk of the Coleshill Division to do with the population of Tamworth? The majority of the population of the town of Tamworth lived in Staffordshire. ["No."] The population of that part of the town which was in Warwickshire was smaller than that of the part which was in Staffordshire. The population of Coleshill was 2,400, while that of the Warwickshire part of Tamworth was only 2,300.

    1815
    Moreover, some attention ought to be paid to the fact that Tamworth was at one end of the new division, and that a great part of the town was outside the division. Coleshill, on the contrary, was situated in the centre of the division. They should consider, too, whether the interests of Coleshill, or of the division, gravitated towards Tamworth. Upon inquiry it would be found that they gravitated towards Birmingham. He had lived in the division all his life, and he could assure the Committee that there was very little trade done by agriculturists with Tamworth; by far the larger part of the trade was done with Birmingham. Coleshill was the centre of the trade of the division, the centre of the agricultural interest. He felt that when boroughs were disfranchised, the Committee should not only consider those boroughs, but should consider also the interests of agriculturists, and the interest of the agricultural labourer, who, according to the promoters of the Bill, was the chief person to be benefited by the Bill.
    MR. HICKSsaid, he claimed the indulgence of the Committee as a freeholder of this division of the county of Warwick. If the Committee seriously reflected upon the figures which were laid before them with regard to a previous Amendment concerning the county of Stafford, they would see they were rather hasty in discussing that Amendment. No one who had regard to the number of inhabitants, or to acreage, would say that Tamworth should give its name to the constituency, to the exclusion of Coleshill, which, for more than half-a-century, had been the nomination place, and the leading place of the division. He thought the Government ought to stand by their own Bill and their own officers. It was the duty of the Committee to reject this Amendment, and to support, when they came to Report, the Amendment with regard to the county of Stafford.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 17; Noes 143: Majority 126.—(Div. List, No. 104.)
    Question "That 'Tamworth' be there inserted, put, and agreed to.
    On the Motion of Mr. RAIKES, the following Amendments made:—In page
    1816
    79, line 30, after "The," insert "North Eastern or;" in page 80, line 1, after "The," insert "Southwestern or;" and in line 9, after "The," insert "South Eastern or."
    MR. RAIKESsaid, the county of Westmoreland, which came next, was very easily divided into two divisions—North and South. He did not propose to alter the local names of the divisions, but simply to make additions. He would move to insert "Northern or" before Appleby.
    Amendment proposed, in page 80, line 18, after "The," Insert "Northern or."—(Mr. Raikes.)
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    MR. RAIKESproposed, as an Amendment, that the Kendal Division be given the alternative name of "Southern."
    Amendment proposed, in page 80, line 23, after "The," insert "Southern or."
    Question, "That those words be there inserted" put, and agreed to.
    MR. RAIKESsaid, that the first Amendment he had on the Paper concerning' the county of Wilts was to insert the words "North Eastern or," after "The," in line 31, so that the No. 1 Division of the county should be called "the North Eastern or Crioklade Division." He had, however, ascertained that there was a preference in that part of Wilts to give the Crick-lade Division the alternative name of "Northern." That being the wish of the people, and there being no geographical impropriety in the name, he would move his Amendment in that form.
    Amendment proposed, in page 80, line 31, after "The," insert "Northern or."—(Mr. Raikes.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be inserted."
    SIR GABRIEL GOLDNEYsaid, he did not think the Amendment was required. He certainly was not aware that any opinion in favour of the adoption of the points of the compass as names for the different divisions had been expressed anywhere in the county. On the occasion of the Commissioners' visit to the county, a large representative meeting was held in the Court

    1817
    House at Salisbury. There were present the four Members for the county and a considerable number of borough Members, and both political Parties were represented. A large number of maps was placed at the disposal of those who attended the meeting; and although various suggestions were made relative to the nomenclature of the divisions, there was no forward indication in favour of the different divisions being named according to the points of the compass. Wilts was divided geographically into North and South by the chalk downs and Salisbury Plain, and the divisions were well known. No one ever spoke of the Eastern or"Western Division. North and South were the two great divisions, and the Commissioners, who went into the question, considered it advisable to take certain Petty Sessional divisions as the basis of the five county divisions, and to name each of the county divisions after the principal disfranchised borough contained in it. Cricklade was a very ancient borough, and he hoped that its name would be retained as that of the division, not only on account of the historical associations of the town, but because of the wish of the people to be identified with the old borough. The Commissioners, in giving the names of the principal boroughs to the divisions, had merely carried out their Instructions. Chippenham, for instance, was a well-known place, and it was right it should give its name to the division in which it was situated. He would remind the Committee that Chippenham was a place of some interest, owing to the circumstance that it was the first constituency represented by the late Sir Robert Peel, and it also had the distinguished task of turning out a Government, by the adverse decision of an Election Committee. But apart from sentiment the divisions, as arranged by the Commissioners, were clearly marked, and their names were well known. The local newspapers had discussed the matter for a considerable period, and not' a single reason, that he was aware of, had been given or advanced for changing the name. He, therefore, trusted that the Government would retain the proposal in the Bill, in the absence of any local expression of opinion in an opposite direction. He might say that so acceptable had this proposal been to the meeting
    1818
    held in Salisbury, that that meeting had passed a vote of thanks to the Boundary Commissioners for the manner in which they had divided the county and defined the divisions.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, his interest in Wiltshire was very great; but it differed in this respect from that of some other hon. Members—namely, that it was an interest in the county, and not in any particular town. He entirely differed from the hon. Member who had just sat down (Sir Gabriel Goldney), and thought that the claims of the county rather than the claims of the towns should be considered by the Committee. There was not one of these places which was really entitled to be called a town, with the exception of Swindon and Devizes. The other towns were only large villages. As to anything having been said with regard to this matter at the meeting at Salisbury, if that gathering had at all resembled the meeting held in Gloucester, it must have been known that the points of the compass names were barred by the Instructions given to the Commissioners. He objected to the divisions of the county having to bear the names of these small towns.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that for his own part he quite agreed with the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Gabriel Goldney) that it would be better to take the county names absolutely, instead of having alternative names. However, he thought the Committee were not disposed to take those names absolutely, but were pretty generally of opinion that the alternatives should be accepted. He felt that he must assent to the proposal.
    MR. STORY-MASKELYNEsaid, he thought a compliment was due to the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Raikes) for his efforts with regard to nomenclature in this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman had really been practising as Attorney General for the points-of-the-compass names, and had exhibited an amount of topographical knowledge which did him the greatest credit. He (Mr. Story-Maskelyne) did not think there was a very strong feeling in Wiltshire in favour of one way or the other of dealing with these names; but he thought there was a point of view which the Committee might adopt which would corroborate the right hon. Gentleman

    1819
    (Mr. Raikes) in regard to his proposal. It was this, that whatever they did with the district he (Mr. Story-Maskelyne) had the honour to represent, and with regard to which he had an Amendment to move, there were historical places in Wiltshire whose names they could attach to the county districts. Everyone knew that these places were not without considerable historical interest. One of them was Cricklade, which had been represented in the very first Parliament of England, and which had returned Members to the House pretty nearly ever since. But that observation applied to almost every town and village which appeared in the list of places within the county. He thought, however, that as regarded many of the names in the county, it would be well to assign to those divisions, at least as an alternative name, a point-of-the-compass name. The effect of that would be very largely to remove local jealousy. Marlborough and Devizes were two of the largest boroughs in the county, and it might be said that their claims to have a district named after them were about equal. In spite of what had fallen from the hon. Baronet the Member for Chippenham (Sir Gabriel Goldney), all the difficulties which had been pointed out could be, he thought, got rid of by calling the district in question, "The Eastern District of Wiltshire," and so at once do away with a great deal of heart-burning. As to the district he (Mr. Story-Maskelyne) had the honour to represent, he thought the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University had wisely dropped the word "East" from his proposal. "North Wilts" was, no doubt, a very proper name for the Cricklade Division. It represented a portion of the Thames District and the White Horse Valley. That was the greater part of North Wilts; while, on the other hand, the North-Western District, which the hon. Member for Chippenham represented, was one in which the centre of gravity of population would be found between Melksham and Chippenham, so that it could hardly assert a claim to be called "North Wiltshire." If the Committee were to adopt names from the points of the compass—that was to say, alternative names—he thought the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Raikes) had put those names down correctly. Therefore, he (Mr. Story-Maskelyne) would not raise
    1820
    any objection to those proposals. On the understanding that he could bring his own Amendment forward as to his own borough, he should not offer any opposition to the present Motion.
    Question put, and agreed to; words inserted accordingly.
    MR. STORY-MASKELYNEsaid, he wished to propose, in line 31, page 80, to leave out "Cricklade," in order to insert "Swindon." He did not mean to say that the proposal he was making was one which would be unanimously accepted by the whole constituency he had the honour to represent; but he would say this, that he thought that the objection to the proposal was one limited to a comparatively small portion of the constituency. The town of Cricklade, no doubt, could justly say that it had an historical position in the county. It might say, in the first place, that the borough had sent a Member to Parliament since the Parliament of 1295, and that, since that time, the district had been extended over a very large area. It might say that when this Bill was brought before the House, the borough of the Hundreds of Cricklade was a typical borough in the county, representing an agricultural district of 50,000 inhabitants, a number corresponding to the unit of population which, according to the idea of the Re-distribution of Seats Bill, was to be represented by a single Member. If archeological associations were to apply to Cricklade, it must give its name to the division of the county in which it was situated. On the other hand, he had to call attention to the enormous increase which had taken place in the population of Wiltshire, according to the last two Censuses. The increase had been owing largely to the rapid development of the town and neighbourhood of Swindon. Some years ago Swindon was a small town on a hill, a quiet, sleepy little place, with all the characteristics of a country town; but it had now become one of the busy hives of railway industry, having round it scattered villages which were practically suburbs, representing a population of 22,000or 23,000. They formed part of the Northern Division of Wiltshire, and represented nearly half of a constituency of 47,000. His Swindon constituents had asked him to urge the House to agree to change the name, as recommended by the Commissioners, from "Crick-

    1821
    lade" to "Swindon." He thought that was a demand he had a right to make in the name of the majority of his constituents, and the Committee, he was sure, would not think he was asking too much. In making this demand, he was going against the principle laid down by the Government in their Instructions to their Commissioners; but, if his proposal were acceded to, this would not be the first time the Government had passed over those Instructions and violated the principles they had laid down, in deference to the desire of constituencies.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 80, line 31, to leave out the word "Cricklade," in order to insert the word "Swindon,"—(Mr. Story-Maskelyne,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the word 'Cricklade' stand part of the Schedule."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that his hon. Friend (Mr. Story-Maskelyne) had supplied him with the remark he wanted, for, in his argument, he had divided this district into two, one part belonging to Cricklade and the other to Swindon. Cricklade, as the hon. Member had said, was an extremely ancient name, and better deserving the distinction of giving a name to a division than Swindon. Swindon was the name of a small area. Beyond that, looking at the associations of the places, he thought Cricklade was by far the better name.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    MR. RAIKESsaid, the next Amendment stood in his name, and had reference to the Chippenham Division, to which he desired to add the style of North Western." here was no geographical objection to this proposal, and the hon. Member who had just now spoken (Sir Gabriel Goldney) had pointed out special reasons for the adoption of the name, having shown that the main part of the population lay more to the West than anywhere else. The Amendments he (Mr. Raikes) had put upon the Paper had been suggested by the senior Member for the county of Wilts (Mr. Estcourt); therefore, there was good reason for thinking it would be acceptable to the Committee.
    Amendment proposed, in page 80, line 34, after The," insert North Western or."—(Mr. Raikes.)
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    On the Motion of Mr. RAIKES, the following Amendment made:—In page 81, line 1, after "The," insert "Western or."
    MR. STORY-MASKELYNEsaid, he desired to move, after the word "or," in the last Amendment, to omit the name "Westbury," in order to insert the name "Trowbridge." His argument in favour of the Amendment was of a similar kind to that he had urged upon the Committee just now, and to which the Committee had given such a feeble response. Nevertheless, he thought it right to ask the Committee to make this change, Trowbridge being really a very ancient and important place. It was a neighbouring town to Bradford-on-Avon, which had been a manufacturing place from very ancient times. It was considerably larger than Westbury, a place of a small and unimportant character. He could not give the exact number of the population; but he should think that there were more people there than in any other town of Wiltshire, except Swindon and, possibly, Salisbury. He thought himself that it was larger than Salisbury. On those grounds, he could very fairly ask the Committee to make the change he proposed—to strike out a name which was unknown to fame, and to substitute for it one of great importance at the present time, one with old historical associations, and one really more worthy of giving the title to this division of the county.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 81, line 1, after the word "or," to leave out the word "Westbury," and insert "Trowbridge,"—(Mr. Story-Maskelyne,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That 'Westbury' stand part of the Schedule."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that no doubt Trowbridge was the more important town, having got to be regarded as the county town; but, on the other hand, Westbury was a borough of some importance, and he thought they should keep that name as against Trowbridge.
    SIR GABRIEL GOLDNEYsaid, if there was to be a change from Westbury, he was not at all satisfied that the town and parish of Bradford was not larger than Trowbridge. Trowbridge

    1823
    had a very limited area, while Bradford had an area of considerable extent; but Westbury was the proper and recognized name.
    LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, that if importance were to be attached to the name of Chippenham, owing to the circumstance that it had been the first constituency represented by the late Sir Robert Peel, they might probably view this town of Trowbridge with greater favour, from a knowledge of the fact that it had had the advantage of possessing Crabbe as its Rector.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Amendment negatived.
    On the Motion of Mr. RAIKES, the following Amendments made:—In page 81, line 7, after "The," insert "Eastern or;" and in line 14, after "The," insert "Southern or."
    MR. RAIKESsaid, they now passed on to the county of Worcester, which was cut into five divisions by the Bill—namely, Bewdley, Evesham, Droitwich, Oldbury, and King's Norton. Bewdley, Evesham, and Droitwich were merged boroughs, and, therefore, it would be desirable, following the precedent they had hitherto set down, to accept those names and the alternative nomenclature. The Oldbury Division, however, was a very small one, and almost entirely of an urban character; and he did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Charles W. Dilke) would not prefer that it should take a point-of-the-compass name simply. Geographically, there could be no objection to Bewdley being in the Western Division, Evesham being in the Southern Division, Oldbury being put into the Northern Division, and King's Norton in the Eastern Division. That would leave only Droitwich to deal with, and that he thought might have attached to it the designation of "Mid." He begged to move to insert "Western or" before "Bewdley."
    Amendment proposed, in page 82, line 25, after "The," to insert "Western or."—(Mr. Raikes.)
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    On the Motion of Mr. RAIKES, the following Amendments made:—In page 81, line 33, after "The," insert "Southern
    1824
    or;" and in page 82, line 1, after "The," insert "Mid or."
    MR. RAIKESsaid, that now, as to the 4th division, in line 13, he would propose to insert the words "Northern or." He understood that the hon. Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Hastings) had some criticism to pass upon this Amendment. If the hon. Member objected to it, as he (Mr. Raikes) was not particularly wedded to it, he should be prepared to give way. However, there could be no geographical objection to his proposal, because Oldbury was certainly in the Northern part of the county. But if the hon. Member had anything to say, he was sure the Committee would be glad to entertain his objection.
    Amendment proposed, in page 82, line 13, after "The," insert "Northern or."—(Mr. Raikes.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. HASTINGSsaid, he wished to ask the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) and the Committee to do in this case what they had done in several previous cases—namely, to leave out the word "or." In the other three divisions, the towns giving the names to the divisions were merged boroughs. It was quite right that boroughs which no longer sent an independent Member to Parliament should live in the nomenclature of the Bill; but in the ease of the Oldbury Division, there had been no previous borough of that name, and it therefore seemed to him unnecessary to take that name as an alternative to the point-of-the-compass title. There had been considerable local jealousy exhibited against the name Oldbury being used at the time the Commissioners made their inquiry. This local jealousy was particularly, pronounced between Oldbury and Halesowen. He thought, therefore, that to adhere to the name "Northern Division" only would be to satisfy all parties, and to allay all local jealousy.
    MR. RAIKESsaid, he should be glad to withdraw the Amendment as it stood on the Paper, and move it in an amended form—that was to say, to leave out "Oldbury," in order to insert "Northern."
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 82, line 13, to leave out the word "Oldbury," in order to insert the word "Northern,"—(Mr. Raikes,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question, "That the word 'Oldbury' stand part of the Schedule," put, and negatived.
    Question, "That the word 'Northern' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    MR. RAIKESsaid, he wished now to move to leave out "King's Norton," in order to insert the word "Eastern."
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 82, line 19, after "The," to leave out the words "King's Norton," in order to insert the word"Eastern,"—(Mr. Raikes,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words 'King's Norton' stand part of the Schedule."
    MR. HASTINGSsaid, he had to-day presented a most influential Petition, containing 700 names, from the town of Bromsgrove, praying that for the name of "King's Norton" the name of "Bromsgrove" should be substituted. As far as he was concerned, however, he thought the Amendment proposed by the right hon. Gentleman would satisfy' the Bromsgrove people.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Question, "That the word 'Eastern' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    MR. RAIKES: That, I am happy to say, is the last county in which the points-of-the-compass names have to be introduced.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the Amendment which stood in his name on the Paper had reference to the extension of the municipal borough of York under the York Extension and Improvement Act, 1884, which Statute only came into force during the present year. The extension was not therefore covered by the Definition Clause; and that was the reason why it was necessary to describe the parts taken into the borough by the Improvement Act in more precise terms. The measure was drawn up in its present form before it had been ascertained that the Act had not yet come into force.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 82, line 33, leave out from beginning of line, to end of line 37, and insert,—
    "The Sessional Divisions of,—
    "Birdforth,
    "East Bulmer (except so much as is added to the municipal borough of York by 'The York Extension and Improvement Act, 1884'),
    "Hallikeld,
    "Malton, and
    "West Bulmer,
    "The wapentake of the Ainsty of York (except so much as is included in the municipal borough of York as extended by 'The York Extension and Improvement Act, 1884'),
    "And the municipal borough of York, inclusive of the places added to that borough by 'The York Extension and Improvement Act, 1884' (47 and 48 Vic. c. CCXXXII.)."—(Sir Charles W. Dilke.)
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule," put, and negatived.
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    MR. STAFFORD HOWARDsaid, he should like to ask the right hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill (Sir Charles W. Dilke) if he would consider, on Report, whether the first division should not be called "Thirsk and Malton," instead of merely "Thirsk," considering that Malton was quite as important a borough as Thirsk? Anyone who looked at the map would see that Thirsk did not, in a reasonable way, describe the district. Thirsk was a small borough, situated at one side of the division. If the alteration he (Mr. Stafford Howard) proposed were made on Report, it would, he thought, give great satisfaction.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he would promise to consider the matter before the Report stage if the hon. Member would place his Amendment on the Paper.
    Mr. DUNDASsaid, he had an Amendment on the Paper to substitute for the name "Northallerton" the name of "Richmond." There had been a strong expression of local opinion upon this matter, which, he trusted, would have some weight with the Committee. In this district there were 18 polling districts, 11 of which had petitioned in favour of the name of Richmond. In those 11 districts the opinion in favour of the substitution of Richmond for Northallerton might be said

    1827
    to be unanimous. In two other districts opinion was divided, the Liberals taking one view, the Conservatives another. That left only five polling districts, as to which he knew nothing; but, for the sake of argument, he would presume them to be in favour of retaining the name "Northallerton." There were six Petty Sessional districts in the division, of which five had petitioned in favour of the change he was proposing. Northallerton was not at all an important place; Richmond was a place which was extremely well known, having returned Members to Parliament, from time immemorial, without being disturbed, whereas Northallerton had forfeited a Member in 1832. Northallerton was not in any historical sense the capital of the North Riding; it was situated at the extreme eastern edge of the division, whereas Richmond lay in a central position. The latter place had been a well-known area for at least seven centuries—it had been, he might say, the capital of the district. The people who resided in Richmond were proud of their historical connection, and would feel it very much if the name "Richmond" were not given to the Parliamentary division. Public opinion was very high on the subject, and whether the name decided upon were "Richmond" or "Richmondshire" he should not care.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 83, line 1, to leave out the word "Northallerton," in order to insert the word"Richmond,"—(Mr. Dundas,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the word 'Northallerton' stand part of the Schedule."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, his own feeling was rather in favour of Richmond as against Northallerton; but he knew there was a great difference of opinion upon the subject. The town of Northallerton had a population nearly as large, only short, in fact, by about 100 of that of Richmond, and it was exactly equal in size. Northallerton might be considered the capital of the North Riding, all the county buildings being in it, and the Commissioners were of opinion that the division should bear the name of that place. His (Sir Charles W. Dilke's) opinion, however, inclined in the other direction, seeing that Rich-
    1828
    mond was regarded as the more ancient town.
    MR. GORSTsaid, he must apologize to the Committee for intervening in a local question of which he knew nothing; but his excuse was that his hon. Friend the Member for Northallerton (Mr. G. W. Elliot), who was present in the House all last night with the view of giving the Committee his opinion upon this subject, had been unexpectedly called away by the sudden illness of his son, and, having no one else in the House to reply for him, had asked him (Mr. Gorst) if he would be kind enough to make a few observations that the hon. Gentleman himself would have made had he been present. The hon. Member had been good enough to hand to him (Mr. Gorst) the notes of the speech that he had wished to make. He would use those notes; but he was quite sure the Committee would lose by not having a personal expression of the local knowledge and the local feeling of the hon. Member for Northallerton himself on this occasion. Most of the facts the hon. Member had wished to bring under the notice of the Committee had already been stated by the hon. Member for Richmond (Mr. Dundas) and the right hon. Baronet the President of the Local Government Board; and he (Mr. Gorst) did not know whether he ought to take up the time of the Committee by repeating what they had said. It had been admitted by the hon. Member for Richmond that Northallerton was by far a more central point than Richmond.
    MR. DUNDAS: No; I said it was the centre of the North Riding, but not of this division.
    MR. GORSTsaid, he knew enough about the railway geography of this district to know that Richmond was a cul de sac; whereas Northallerton was a great railway junction through which important lines ran. It was admitted that Northallerton was a place for the Yorkshire Registry of Deeds, and that the Sessions were held there. The hon. Member for Richmond had said that it, was not the county town of the Riding.
    MR. DUNDAS: I did not.
    MR. GORSTsaid, that if he were inaccurate in his statements, this was one of the disadvantages which must be attributed to the absence of the hon. Member for Northallerton, and which the Committee, he was sure, would

    1829
    be indulgent enough to excuse. The hon. Member for Northallerton bad every local knowledge; whereas his (Mr. Gorst's) knowledge of the district was extremely limited. He had, however, understood the hon. Member (Mr. Dundas) to say that Northallerton was not the county town. At any rate, it was the place where the Quarter Sessions were hold; and, that being so, it certainly looked as though it were the county town of the Riding. It was also, he was told, the headquarters of the Constabulary, and the place which the Commissioners, after sitting and taking evidence upon the subject, had come to the conclusion was the most suitable to select to give its name to the division. It was clear, therefore, that there was a great deal to be said in favour of the retention of the name of Northallerton. He was rather surprised that the right hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill did not defend the decision of the Commissioners. He (Mr. Gorst) had been sitting here during the greater part of these discussions, and throughout he had observed that the right hon. Baronet had defended the Commissioners even when the Committee was disposed to take a view of its own against them. He (Mr. Gorst) had been in hopes that his task would have been rendered a great deal more easy by the right hon. Baronet on this occasion taking the course he had adopted on other occasions. There seemed, however, to be a feeling behind the right hon. Baronet in favour of the name of Richmond, on account of which he was ready to throw over the opinion of his Commissioners. He (Mr. Gorst) trusted that the Committee and the Government would not throw over these gentlemen, but would back their opinion, unless some reason of an overwhelming character were alleged to the contrary. Everybody knew that these questions of name were not vital questions. He was not at all sure that the names they were discussing at such length in the Committee, and settling so elaborately, would be the ultimate names by which these divisions would be known, because the people had an odd way of giving what names they thought proper to everything, and of using those names in spite of Acts of Parliament, or the rules and regulations of Committees. Therefore, it was not the actual phraseology of the Act of Parlia-
    1830
    ment, but the usages which would spring up hereafter, which would determine whether the division was to be called "North" or "South," or after this or that place. The matter was not of very great importance; but, so far as he was able to understand the question—and he was quite impartial in the matter—it certainly seemed to him that it would be more advantageous to take the name of Northallerton than that of Richmond. People talked about the ancient character of the one name against the other—about one being better known than the other. Well, he confessed that the name of "Northallerton" was a name which every child who read English history was familiar with, as that of a place where an important battle was fought between England and Scotland. That most of them were familiar with the name of Richmond as a town was true; but he thought that the name was known mostly in its connection with persons who had taken titles from it.
    MR. ARTHUR PEASEsaid, he was sure they all regretted the absence of the hon. Member for Northallerton (Mr. G. W. Elliot), and of the hon. Baronet the Member for the North Riding (Sir Frederick Milbank), through indisposition. The hon. Baronet to whom he referred was strongly in favour of the substitution of the name of "Richmond" for "Northallerton." The hon. and learned Member who opposed the Amenment (Mr. Gorst), from his remarks, seemed hardly to fully appreciate the geographical position of the town. There could be no doubt that Richmond was the centre of the divison. Some allusion had been made to the inconvenience of its position through its being at the end of a line of railway. They had not now to decide the polling places, or the place to which the ballot boxes were to be taken on the occasion of an election. But on that point there could be no doubt that the boxes could be more rapidly taken to Richmond than to Northallerton. He wished to support the statement of the hon. Member for Richmond, that there was a very strong feeling on this subject in the locality on the question, and that if the name "Northallerton" were retained in preference to "Richmond" great dissappointment would be felt.
    MR. DUNDASsaid, he was thoroughly familiar with the district in question,

    1831
    being Chairman of Quarter Sessions. He trusted the Committee would give effect to the expression of opinion which had been elicited in favour of changing the name of the division.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 73; Noes 113: Majority 40.—(Div. List, No. 105.)
    Question, "That' Richmond' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    MR. WARTONsaid, that before they left this division he should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill whether a point-of-the-compass name could not be added in this case?
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he did not think that could be done in this case, which referred to a division of a Riding; and, moreover, Richmond was one of the merged boroughs.
    MR. RAIKESsaid, he had now to move an Amendment which, if not of great importance, had an interesting peculiarity. It was proposed to leave out the name of an electoral division contemplated in the Bill, which he would undertake to say no one outside the East Riding of Yorkshire had ever heard of before this Bill was introduced, and which very few in it knew anything about. It was a name of some antiquity; but was only one of three Petty Sessional divisions combined in this particular electoral circumscription. The three Petty Sessional divisions were those of Dickering, Bainton Beacon, and Buckrose—Buckrose had been chosen as the name of a division—and why the Commissioners had hit upon it in preference to the equally-as-little-known places Dickering and Bainton Beacon he could not say. All three were equally known, or equally unknown, to fame; but the other divisions—those in the North Riding—were places extremely well known. He referred to such places as Thirsk, Richmond, Cleveland, and Whitby. Probably the Commissioners thought they had chosen such remarkably good names for the North Riding that, on the strength of those, they could take less important names in other divisions. The hon. Member for the East Riding (Mr. Sykes) it was said was likely to become a candidate for the division of "Buckrose;" therefore, perhaps, he
    1832
    had had something to do with the choosing of the title. At all events, his hon. Friend had, he believed, a preference for it. He (Mr. Raikes) would have been glad to have respected the hon. Member's preference, were it not that they were put in this position. They might indulge in an extremely absurd name where there was an alternative; but in regard to Yorkshire, it had been agreed, generally, that the alternatives of North, South, East, and West were practically impossible, the number of divisions being too large for their adoption. If the division in question could have been styled "The Northern or Buckrose Division" of the East Riding, there would not have been so much to object to, for in that case "Buckrose" would never have been unearthed. The Member returned by the division would have been known as the Member for the Northern Division of the East Riding. But as there was to be no point-of-the-compass name taken in this case, and as the division was to have fixed to it a local title, the title chosen should be one well known and recognized. He would defy any hon. Member to have formed an opinion, before this Bill appeared, as to whether a Gentleman to be returned in the future as "the Member for Buckrose" came from Suffolk, Lincolnshire, or Lancashire. As the first object they had in giving a name was to indicate something, as there was nothing indicated in "Buckrose," and as it would be better to take a name that would, at all events, have something like an idea in it, he would propose that "Bridlington" should be substituted for "Buck-rose." There were other towns in the division—Driffield, and several more—but they were small places. "Bridlington," he thought, a good name, although he was not particularly devoted to it. He would be willing to substitute "Flamborough," which would be, to a certain extent, a distinguished name in connection with the well-known promontory of "Flamborough Head." If this latter proposal met with the approval of the right hon. Baronet, he should be glad to alter his Amendment accordingly. At any rate, he felt compelled to enter a protest against the reductio ad absurdum in which they were involved, owing to the passion for local nomenclature which seemed to possess those in charge of the Bill.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 83, line 26, to leave out the word "Buckrose," in order to insert the word "Bridlington,"—(Mr. Raikes,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the word 'Buckrose' stand part of the Schedule."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he believed this was a deep-laid design on the part of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Raikes) to provoke a speech from the hon. Gentleman the senior Member for the East Riding (Mr. Sykes). That hon. Member might be expected to have preference for a sea coast name such as "Flam borough Head," seeing that one of his first acts in the House had been to bring forward a Bill for the preservation of sea birds, and that there were plenty of sea birds in the neighbourhood of Flam-borough Head.
    Mr. SYKESsaid, he would explain why he earnestly hoped the Committee would not reverse the decision of the Commissioners in this matter. Buck-rose was neither an absurd nor an obscure name. To all who were acquainted with the history of Yorkshire, Buckrose was a very familiar name, and one of which there was no need to be ashamed. The town of Bridlington, for which he had the greatest respect, and which he had represented for many years in the House, lay at the extreme edge of the proposed constituency. The Wapen take of Buckrose was almost coterminous with the proposed constituency; and he sincerely hoped the Committee would not interfere with the proposal of the Bill.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Amendment negatived.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he would hero move the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for York (Sir Frederick Milner), who, as it had been stated, was prevented by indisposition from being in his place.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 83, line 33, after "Ouse and Derwent," insert "except so much as is included in the municipal borough of York, by virtue of 'The York Extension and Improvement Act, 1884.'"—(Sir Charles W. Dilke.)
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    On the Motion of Sir CHARLES W. DILKE, the following Amendment made:—In page 84, line 4, leave out the word "six" in each case, and insert "five."
    SIR MATTHEW WILSONsaid, he wished to move to insert at the end of line 8, on page 84, the words "Hazlewood with Storiths and Beamsley." He had presented a Petition from these small townships, possessing 388 inhabitants, praying very earnestly to be added to the division of Skipton. In old times they were included in the parish of Skipton, They were in the Skipton Poor Law Union, in the Skipton Petty Sessional Division, and Skipton was their market town. He had spoken to the Commissioners on this subject, and had ascertained that if they had had the power they would have had no objection whatever to include these small townships in the proposed division of Skipton. He hoped the right hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill would be kind enough to take this proposal into his favourable consideration. Perhaps, on Report, he would include these townships. As he had said, it was only because they had not the power that the Commissioners had not done it.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Baronet move his Amendment?
    SIR MATTHEW WILSON: No, Sir.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he would consider the matter before the Report. The question was a trifling one. If there were not a universal opinion against this alteration being made, the Commissioners would not oppose it. The change had not been made, because the Commissioners had regarded the Northern Division of the West Riding as a separate county in itself. There might be reasons why the alteration should not be made; but if there was a universal opinion in favour of it, no doubt it would be effected.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he supposed this district would be included in the Eastern Division, on account of its being on the Eastern side of the river. Skipton was its natural market town, and it had more intercourse with that town than any other.
    MR. HEALYsaid, they had just such a case as this in Waterford, and he hoped the right hon. Baronet would consider that also.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he would consider that ease when they came to it.
    MR. SERJEANT SIMONsaid, he had an Amendment to move in page 84,line 29 in the Bill, to insert the name of "Batley" in the place of "Morley," so that the southern part of the West Riding Division should be called the "Batley Division" instead of the "Morley Division." He said that the Boundary Commissioners in 1867 divided the extensive parish of Batley into two parts—placing the town of Batley within the Parliamentary borough of Dewsbury, and throwing the other part of the municipal borough and the parish into the present county division. The proposed new division, under the present Bill, was made up entirely, or nearly so, of the parish, and of that portion of the municipal borough of Batley which was not within the Parliamentary borough of Dewsbury; and Morley, which the Commissioners proposed as the designation of the new division, was a town of 15,000 population, situate almost at the extreme end. It would be out of the question to work the election there; while the town of Batley, with its Corporation and separate magistracy, was at a central point of the district, with its line of railways running through and from it to all parts. It was a town of great and growing importance, having an extensive trade with all parts of the world. Its population in 1881 was 27,508; and he might safely say that, according to the rate at which it had hitherto increased, it would not be less now than 30,000. Yet this important town, with its great and growing trade and population, and a central town of the district, it was proposed to ignore, and to pass over in favour of Morley, with only half its population, and situated, as he had said, at an extreme point. In the town of Batley there was an excellent Grammar School, and the people of Morley sent their children there to be educated. Surely, then, as between the two towns, there was no comparison as to which should give the name to the new division. But it was said that the town of Batley was not in the county, but within the Parliamentary borough of Dewsbury. If that was a question of representation, there might be something in the objection. But it was not a question of representation, but a question of name—which town should give the
    1836
    name to the division—the town which was identical in name with the area or parish that was to form the new division, or a town of half the population and of less importance, which happened to be situated in a corner of it. He had no intention of saying anything in detraction of Morley; but, in his view, the claims of Batley were beyond all comparison stronger than those of Morley. Adjacent to Batley was a succession of townships all engaged in the same or in similar branches of the same industry—namely, the heavy woollen trade. There was constant communication going on between them. Their population was of the same urban character; they formed almost one community. The population of these places, together with that portion of the population of Batley which was outside of the Parliamentary borough of Dewsbury, amounted to something over 44,000. In fact, they constituted the greater portion of the population of the new division. Some of those adjacent places had petitioned in favour of the claim of Batley to the designation, and he had not heard of any who were against it. On the score of population, therefore, he thought that it would be carrying out the spirit of the Instructions to the Commissioners to give the preference to Batley. But, independently of that, he ventured to say that, on the ground that the new division was really and substantially part of the municipal borough or the parish of Batley—["No!"]—not the town of Batley itself, Batley should be the name given to it. Morley was merely a part, and a very-small part, of it. Was the part to absorb and be greater than the whole? or were they to act upon the axiom that the "whole is greater than the part?" The Instructions to the Commissioners were that, among other things—population, and so forth—they were to take into account considerations of area. It became a question whether, under all the circumstances, the new division should not be called by the name of the area which comprised it, and which was part of the municipal borough and parish of Batley, rather than by the name of a small town situated within it. He trusted that his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke) would see, and that the Committee also would

    1837
    see, the reasonableness of his contention; and, looking at the lateness of the hour (20 minutes to 6 o'clock), and to the fact that one or two Friends of his who were familiar with the districts in question would address a word or two to the Committee, he would conclude his remarks by moving the Amendment of which he had given Notice, to which he hoped his right hon. Friend would give his assent.
    Amendment proposed, in page 84, line 29, to leave out the word "Morley," in order to insert the word "Batley,"—(Mr. Serjeant Simon,)—instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the word 'Morley' stand part of the Schedule."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Serjeant Simon) had stated the whole case fully and fairly. The part of the town of Batley in the borough of Dews-bury contained 25,589 people; whilst that part outside Dewsbury contained 1,916; therefore the greater part of Batley was in the borough of Dewsbury, and the question would seem to be not whether the name "Morley" should give place to "Batloy," but whether the name "Dewsbury" should not be changed. He could not accept the Amendment, but would leave it in the hands of the Committee.
    MR. E. A. LEATHAMsaid, he was of opinion that the town of Batley had been very badly treated. In 1867, when it was put in the borough of Dewsbury, it was told that another Reform Bill would be brought forward before very long, and that then matters would be put right. But, instead of putting matters right, the Government, in this Bill, were doing the very reverse, and were heaping fresh indignities on the town. The parish of Batley had been turned into an electoral district; but it was to go not under its own name, but under that of a large manufacturing village situated somewhere in the parish. He trusted that the Committee would avail itself of this opportunity of removing what was by no means a sentimental grievance.
    MR. MACKIEsaid, he knew the district in question very well, and could only say that he concurred in everything that had been said with regard to it by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Serjeant Simon). He trusted the Committee
    1838
    would decide to confer upon the district the name of "Batley."
    MR. WARTONsaid, that, owing to the lateness of the hour, hon. Members wished to hurry on the decision of this matter without having given the Committee sufficient time to properly consider the facts of the case. So far as he was concerned, he was not going to abate one jot the amount of discussion he considered Amendments of this kind deserved. He was going to do justice to Morley. He did not scruple to say—
    It being a quarter of an hour before Six of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to report Progress; Committee to sit again To-morrow.
    House adjourned at ten minutes before Six o'clock.