§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEI shall place on the Paper this evening my Amendments to the Redistribution Bill; but I am anxious to take the earliest opportunity of mentioning to the House a difficulty which has arisen with regard to Westminster. I stated in Committee that I thought a fair case had been made out from the opposite side for treating Westminster as an ancient borough, and for assigning to it four Members instead of the three which had been allotted to it by the Bill. I had made inquiries of the Leaders of the Opposition, and had found that it was their opinion that the additional seat required should be taken from some other part of London. I examined which was the least under-represented part of London, and, finding this was the centre of the Tower Hamlets, I suggested to the Committee that the seat must come from thence. I undertook that Sir John Lambert and Sir Francis Sandford should, after local inquiry, advise us as to the division of Westminster into four, and should also advise us as to the re-division of the Tower Hamlets. Their Report will be circulated to-morrow morning, and will contain maps. It yesterday came to my knowledge that the Leaders of the Opposition so greatly disliked the proposed division of Westminster, and so greatly preferred the original division into three, which had been made by myself without the advice of the Boundary Commissioners, as to lead me to doubt whether it will be wise for me to propose to go forward with the changes which I had intended to make. I regard those changes as mutually dependent, and I should be prepared to revert to them should I find a decided change of opinion on the other side of the House.
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLasked if the right hon. Baronet would amplify his statement by saying which Leaders of the Opposition had informed him of their views—which Leaders wished Westminster to have four Members, and which Leaders wished it to have three? Otherwise, isolated Members of the Party had great difficulty in knowing what course to take.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEI must say that the Leader of the Opposition wished for four as against three.
§ MR. W. H. SMITHintimated that when the right hon. Baronet proposed to reduce the number of Members for Westminster he should oppose it.
MR. GORSTasked whether, when the Amendment was proposed, the right hon. Baronet would take into consideration the feelings and views of the inhabitants of Westminster as well as the opinions of the Leaders of the Opposition?
§ MR. RITCHIEasked whether the claims of the Tower Hamlets to have seven Members was to be dependent upon an agreement between Her Majesty's Government and the Leaders of the Opposition as to the representation of Westminster?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that if Westminster was to have four Members instead of three, the additional seat was to be taken from the Metropolis. He should propose that it should be taken from the Tower Hamlets.
§ MR. RITCHIEinquired whether it was an open question with the Government whether the additional seat was to be taken from the Metropolis or from some town in the Provinces?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEreplied that, on former occasions, he had stated that there had been a suggestion made that an additional seat for Westminster might be obtained from other sources besides the Metropolis.
§ MR. ONSLOWremarked that, as communications appeared to have been going on between the Leader of the Opposition and the Government, he should like to ask the Leader of the Opposition what course he proposed to ask the Party to take on this question?
§ MR. RAIKESsaid, that, as the Mover of the Amendment, he would remind the right hon. Baronet that it was unanimously accepted by the Committee. He wished to ask, if upon Report there was 665 still a strong feeling shown as to the claim of Westminster to have four Members, the right hon. Baronet would adhere to the decision already arrived at by the House?
§ MR. BRODRICKsuggested that a seat might be taken from one of the over-represented counties in Ireland.
§ MR. LEWISobserved that Wolverhampton was an over-represented borough from which a seat might be taken.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that Wolverhampton was mentioned on a former occasion as one of the boroughs from which a seat might be taken. He would remind the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University that the view which met the general concurrence of the House was that the question of dividing Westminster into four districts should be decided on the advice of the Boundary Commissioners.
§ MR. RITCHIEwished to know whether, in the event of the Tower Hamlets retaining its seven Members, there was to be any fresh scheme of redistribution, or whether the original scheme of the Bill was to be carried out?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that, in the event of the Tower Hamlets retaining its full number of Members, the original scheme of division would be carried out, and there would only be a change of name, the separate divisions continuing parts of the borough of the Tower Hamlets.
§ MR. ONSLOWasked the Leader of the Opposition what the arrangement was with regard to Westminster and the Tower Hamlets?
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEI can only say that I understood it was the wish of the House to change the number of Members for Westminster from three to four, and I entirely approve of that alteration. That, however, involves a change of the redistribution of the divisions of Westminster. But when the re-arrangement of the borough came to be made the division which was suggested and approved by Sir John Lambert and Sir Francis Sandford appeared to me and to the right hon. Member for Westminster to be an unfortunate division, and one which would not be satisfactory to the people of Westminster; and I certainly intend to support my right hon. Friend the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) in 666 his endeavours to obtain a better division for the borough than that proposed by the Schedule.
§ MR. HEALYasked whether the arrangement between Lord Salisbury and the Government was that any arrangement come to by the Boundary Commissioners the Government pledged themselves to carry through the House; and whether, in consequence of that, the Government had refused every' Amendment in the case of Irish divisions, whereas they had consented to a change in the case of Westminster?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEreplied that the division of London and the Metropolis generally was made by himself, and not by the Boundary Commissioners.