§ (Power to appoint additional barristers.)
§ "If in the present year it is made to appear to any judge of the High Court of Justice, sitting in chambers at any time after the fifth day of September, that the lists of voters for any Parliamentary county or borough in England cannot by reason of the insufficient number of barristers be revised within the period fixed by this Act, such judge shall appoint one or more duly qualified barristers to act in addition to the barristers originally appointed for such county or borough, and a barrister so appointed shall have the same duties, powers, and authorities as if he had been originally appointed.
§ "Where the Lord Chief Justice or judge appoints in the present year barristers for counties and boroughs on any circuit, he shall appoint them to act for all the counties and boroughs for which he has power to appoint revising barristers; and each barrister, when acting for any county or borough, shall have the same duties, powers, and authorities as if he had been appointed sole revising barrister for such county or borough.
§ "The duties of barristers so appointed shall be distributed among them as the Lord Chief Justice or judge who appoints them, or, after the fifth day of September, any judge of the High Court of Justice sitting in Chambers, may direct."
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)
said, that the object of the clause was to give power to a Judge in Chambers to appoint additional Revising Barristers where it was shown to be necessary. The clause was a useful though not a very important one. The hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff), in his remarks in moving the adjournment of the debate, was under a misapprehension as to this clause. In consequence of the addition of 2,000,000 voters and of the diminishing of the time that would be at the disposal of the Revising Barristers for 1563 carrying on the revision, it would be necessary to add to the present number. He had endeavoured to find out how many would have to be appointed. He had called the Revising Barristers together, and they gave him the best opinion they could on the subject, and it seemed that the smallest number of Revising Barristers that could be added would be some 34. By an existing Act of the present Reign they had power to appoint any number of Revising Barristers that might be required by Orders in Council. They could thus either increase or diminish the number. They were anxious to take the most economical or smallest number; but they did not know exactly where the pressure of the work might come in the different counties and boroughs. They had made the best estimate they could; and if it should turn out that in any particular locality the Revising Barrister should find that an additional Revising Barrister was wanted, he might go to the Judge in Chambers and ask that such assistance should be given to him. If in any place a miscalculation had been made, and they had not given sufficient strength for the revision of the lists of voters, the Revising Barrister might say that he wanted help; and the clause sent down from the House of Lords gave power to enable that help to be afforded. The clause provided that if in the present year it was made to appear to any Judge of the High Court of Justice, sitting in Chambers, at any time after the 5th of September, that the lists of voters for any Parliamentary county or borough in England could not by reason of the insufficient number of Barristers be revised within the period fixed by that Act, such Judge should appoint one or more duly qualified barristers to act in addition to the barristers originally appointed for such county or borough; and the barrister so appointed should have the same duties, powers, and authority as if he had been originally appointed. The power given by the clause was a mere general power, the object being to avoid increasing the number of Revising Barristers unnecessarily, and not to put the country to any undue expense. And to talk of the House of Lords having in that case interfered with the privileges of the House of Commons was really an abuse of language. Those Revising Barristers could 1564 not be paid without a Vote of that House, and he therefore trusted that the Lords' Amendment would now be accepted.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF
said, he was sorry to hear the unconstitutional principles laid down by the Attorney General. Of course, they must have some additional Revising Barristers, and they had already power to appoint them by Order in Council; the existing Act of Parliament also enacting that Revising Barristers should be paid 200 guineas by way of remuneration for their services and travelling expenses. That Act gave a salary to the Revising Barristers who were appointed, and they might be appointed by Order in Council; but instead of following the Constitutional course, the Government had persuaded the House of Lords to introduce a clause into that Bill, which he maintained was an infringement of the privileges of the House of Commons, and would impose a burden on the country. The infringement might not be an important one, but it set a bad precedent.
§ MR. GREGORY
said, he thought the clause was very wide in its terms; it gave the go-by to the Order in Council, because it vested power in Judges in Chambers to make the appointments.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)
explained that the Order in Council would come into operation before the revision, and it would probably fix the right number of Revising Barristers. It was only in case the number proved insufficient that power was to be given to apply to a Judge in Chambers.
§ MR. GREGORY
said, that the responsible person from whom the application should come ought to be definitely defined by the House.
§ MR. GRANTHAM
said, it would be desirable to ascertain beforehand the number of Revising Barristers who would be required, and what was necessary in regard to additional Revising Barristers might be better done under an Order in Council than by the novel proceeding now proposed.
§ MR. H. H. FOWLER
said, that in respect to that being done by Order in 1565 Council, it would be impossible at present accurately to fix, not only the additional number of barristers that would be necessary, but the counties in which they would be required. There would be a great pressure this year, which in all probability would not occur again. The cost of that arrangement had been already provided for by the Estimates for this year, and the Treasury reckoned that about 120 would be the number required, although probably less than that would be sufficient. He was satisfied that the most practical and economical way of meeting the emergency was by leaving the matter in the hands of the Judge in Chambers.
§ MR. WARTON
pointed out that the Attorney General had spoken of 34 as the number of Revising Barristers who would be required, whereas the Under Secretary for the Home Department had mentioned 120. He pointed out that the revision would be a very difficult one on account of the new franchises introduced by the Bill, and the investigations which were rendered necessary as to whether property came by marriage or inheritance. The pressure put upon the officials in order to complete the lists would be tremendous, and the consequent hurry would have the effect of making the Revising Barristers more than ever likely to commit mistakes. Errors made in this connection might have terrible influence with regard to the coming elections, especially when it was borne in mind that there would be no Court of Appeal, because no time was allowed for the decisions to be revised. He maintained that there ought not to be any undue economy with regard to the appointment of Revising Barristers.
MR. J. W. LOWTHER
asked for some explanation as to the method in which an application was to be made to a Judge in Chambers?
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)
pointed out that this provision was only to continue for one year, and that it was not to be a permanent one. He thought the House 1566 might leave it to the Judges to see that the application made was a proper one.
said, he would call the attention of the House to the great inconvenience of discussing this matter as they were now doing. It was impossible for the Government to answer the numerous questions which were being asked, and he thought it would be much better if the House put the sole responsibility for this matter on the Attorney General and the Members of the Government.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
(Dates for registration in the year 1885 in England.)
With respect to the registration of voters in parliamentary counties and boroughs in England in the present year, the following provisions shall have effect:—
§ —the next Amendment, read a second time.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES),
in moving to agree to the clause, said, that he was not at all surprised that some hon. Members should think that the Government were not allowing sufficient time for the printing of the Register. At present registration began on the 15th of September in boroughs, and it must be finished on the 12th of October. Between the 12th of October and the 1st of November sufficient time existed for the printing of the lists in the boroughs. In the counties registration began on the 15th of September and was finished at the end of October. Under this Bill, registration was begun on the 7th of September and finished on the 8th of October in boroughs; therefore, they were allowing more time than existed at present. It would be seen that more time was allowed for the printing of the lists, and, therefore, so far as the boroughs were concerned, there could be no objection. In the case of the counties, however, they did diminish the time allowed for the printing of the Register. They allowed from the 8th of October to the 7th of November, and therefore they allowed only one month instead of two, as at present. At the present time they could not begin to print the Register until the revision was completed; but, under the present arrangement, they could begin to print the moment they had finished dealing with one polling district. The Government had taken the best advice they could obtain on the point, and on the whole they believed that with a little care and discipline on the part of the officials connected with registration, the time allowed was sufficient to carry out the object in view.
§ Amendment proposed, in sub-section (b.), line 4, by leaving out the word "seventh," and inserting the word "twentieth,"—(Mr. Lewis,)—instead thereof.
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'seventh' stand part of the said Amendment."
§ MR. H. H. FOWLER
opposed the Amendment, which he said would have the effect of postponing the election for another month. In 1868 Parliament had to deal with a very similar state of circumstances, and the time given for revision by the present clause was one week longer than in 1868. This question had been carefully considered by the Clerks of the Peace, and there was no doubt that there would be no difficulty in printing the lists by the 7th of November.
§ MR. WARTON
called attention to the fact that the dates for the completion of the Registers were 1st of November in Scotland, 2nd of November in Ireland, and 7th of November in England. He wished to know what was the explanation of the difference of date in the different countries?
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)
said, that with regard to Scotland the answer was very simple. It was that the clause, as it here stood, would simply restore matters to the position in which they now were. At present the 1st of November was the day on which the new Registers came into operation. In the Franchise Bill it was postponed till the 1st of January, so that there should be a simultaneous coming into operation of the Registers in all the three countries. But when it was resolved to go back, as was done by this Bill, they simply went back to the present date.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Question proposed, "That the words 'forthwith after' stand part of the said Amendment."
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause agreed, to.
(Date for registration for 1885 in Scotland.)
In Scotland, notwithstanding anything contained in section thirteen of the Representation of the People Act, 18S4, the register of voters made in the present year shall come into force on the first day of November one thousand eight hundred and eighty-five,
—the next Amendment, agreed to.
(Dates for revision in Ireland in 1885. 13 & 14 Vict. c. 69, ss. 46, 47, 64, 76.)
In Ireland, in the present year
—the next Amendment, read a second time.
§ MR. CALLAN
moved, as an Amendment, that 10 days' notice be given of the holding of a Revision Court, instead of five days, as mentioned in the Bill. This would be necessary in order that the people should have full notice of the holding of the Court.
§ Amendment proposed, in sub-section (b.), line 3, by leaving out the word "five," and inserting the words "ten clear,"—(Mr. Callan,)—instead thereof.
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'five' stand part of the said Amendment."
§ MR. LEAMY
supported the proposal of the hon. Member for Louth. The Irish Members were in the habit of holding a great many meetings in Ireland; but no meeting was ever held unless a Sunday intervened between the notice of the meeting and the holding of it, so that the people might see the notice of it posted on the church doors on the Sunday. He thought that the information of the holding of the Court would not reach the people unless, as he said, a Sunday intervened; and he hoped, therefore, that the Amendment would be accepted.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clauses E and F:—
"For the purposes of this part of this Act—
The expression 'present year' means the year one thousand eight hundred and eighty-five.
The expression 'parliamentary county' means a county returning a member or members to serve in Parliament, and where a county is divided for the purpose of such return means a division of such county.
§ (41 & 42 Vict. c. 26.)
§ "Other expressions in this part of this Act have, unless the context otherwise requires, the same meaning as in the Acts relating to the registration of parliamentary voters.1571
§ (Temporary repeal of inconsistent provisions.)
§ "All provisions of any Act of Parliament inconsistent with the provisions of this part of this Act shall not apply to the lists or register of voters to be made in the present year; but, save as aforesaid, all the provisions of the Acts relating to the registration of parliamentary voters shall remain in full force,"
§ —the next Amendments, agreed to.
§ Page 15, line 42, leave out ("district"); line 43, leave out ("Westminster Three").
§ Page 16, line 25, leave out ("Liberty of the Rolls").
§ After line 61, insert—
|St. George, Hanover Square||Middlesex||One||Parish of St. George, Hanover Square.|
§ Page 17, after line 5, insert—
|Strand||Middlesex||One||Strand District, parish of St. James, Westminster, and parish of St. Martin - in-the Fields.|
§ After line 11, insert—
|Westminster||Middlesex||One||Westminster District, Close of Collegiate Church of St. Peter.|
§ Page 18, line 44, after ("and") insert ("including"),
§ —the next Amendments, agreed to.
§ Page 23, after line 18, insert the words—
|"Hawick District||The present district, and the municipal burgh of Jedburgh,"|
§ MR. TREVELYAN
said, he was afraid he must trouble the House by asking it to disagree with this Amendment, for reasons which he would be able to state very briefly, though they were very weighty. The Amendment was a very exceptional one. Other Amendments related to names and technicalities; but this one touched the very substance of the Bill. It proposed to take out of the county a town—he did not say for the purpose, but with the effect, of altering the political balance in that county. Even in the House of Peers, he was informed, the proposal caused such compunction among Members of the Conservative Party that there was a poor divi- 1572 sion as compared with the full strength, of that Party. What were the facts of the case? The groups of the Haddington Burghs and the Wigtown Burghs, which contained no less than nine burghs, had been merged in the counties, with the exception of one burgh out of the nine, and that not the largest or the second largest of these burghs, which it was proposed to place in a group of existing burghs. It was very necessary to prove that this was done in obedience to some principle, and he thought it was quite impossible to prove that the principle of the Bill was to remove from the list of burghs every town under 15,000 inhabitants. Here it was proposed to insert in a list of burghs a town of only 3,000 inhabitants, when such towns as Banbury and Kendal, with populations of from 14,000 to 15,000 inhabitants, were merged in counties. He said it was a proposal that the House ought not to accept. To take a town of 3,400 inhabitants out of a county and put it into a list of burghs—was that consistent with the understanding?—and here he did not refer to any private agreement, but to a public understanding between the two Parties in that House. What he was now saying was very much in the memory of the House. His right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate introduced a great number of important Amendments, some of which were voted upon and actually carried. The Leaders of the Party opposite protested in private, and the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Stafford Northcote) protested in the House. These Amendments were accordingly dropped, and those which had already been carried were withdrawn, very much to the regret of several Scottish Members, and to the regret of no one more than the hon. Member for Roxburgh, whose constituency was now being tampered with. Among these Amendments there were many proposals to merge small boroughs in the counties. This was supposed to be an advantage to the Liberal Party. It was opposed by the Conservative Party, but was none the less carried. It was proposed to put the Inverness district in Schedule A in order to merge Fortrose in Ross, and this was carried by 46 votes. It was proposed to place the Hawick Burghs in Schedule A, in order to put Jedburgh in Hawick group of burghs. This, after long debate, 1573 was lost by 73 votes. Yet when they had spontaneously abandoned the proposal which told in favour of their views, and which was carried in the House of Commons by a large majority, they were asked to accept a proposal which told against their views, and which was thrown out in the House of Commons by a majority nearly twice as large. When the Lord Advocate drafted his proposals with regard to the Scottish burghs it was quite understood on the Liberal side of the House that all proposals emanating from the other side of the House were dropped likewise. He did not charge anyone with bad faith. All he did say was, that when that turned out not to be the ease they were very much surprised. There was only one point to which he wished to call the attention of the House. It was an important one. He thought the Liberals of the Border Burghs had been very ill-used in this particular. [A laugh.] The hon. Member would agree with him that, if they had not been ill-used, they had behaved very well. Galashiels had a population of 14,000 or 15,000 inhabitants within the municipal boundary; but the Parliamentary boundary only contained 12,000 inhabitants. Those 2,000 inhabitants or more who were outside the Parliamentary boundary were very strong Liberals. What was the course that the Liberal Association of Galashiels took? Of their own accord, because they thought it just to the Conservative Party, and to the burgh of Galashiels, they applied to the Government to send down a Redistribution Commissioner in order that on their application 2,000 of the population should be taken out of the county where they would tell for the Liberal Party, and put into the burgh, where they would not tell at all for the Liberal Party. The Conservative agent declared he had pleasure in expressing his acquiescence in what had been done, and that everyone would approve of the position taken up by the Liberal Association, who had thrown up Party interest and looked at the matter in a broad light. Now, he would put it whether it was a proper return to such honourable conduct that at the eleventh hour, in an Amendment superinduced on the Bill, they should bring forward a proposal which the Liberals of the burghs regarded as most inequitable? The people concerned did 1574 not wish it. The noble Lord who moved tht Amendment in the House of Lords said that the burgh of Jedburgh did not wish it, but that the county did. That he utterly denied, and his hon. Friend who had been sent to speak for the county utterly denied and the people entirely reprobated it. The proposal was to cut out of Roxburgh the county town, which was the natural centre of the county life, the market town, the town where one of the principal newspapers was published, the county town in every sense of the word. It was proposed to mix that town up with towns with which it had little or nothing in common. The Border Burghs consisted entirely of ancient towns and villages, which had become considerable manufacturing towns quite recently, and the population of which was increasing very rapidly. But Jedburgh was a rural town, which had in it only one or two manufactories, which was not a commercial town in any sense, and in which the population was very much the same as it was 10 years ago. Nor was it on account of any discrepancy of numbers between the county and the town. If the county contained a very large population and the burghs a very small population, then there would be something to say for this proposal; but the burghs at this moment contained 40,000 inhabitants, whereas the county, including Jedburgh, only contained 37,000, and therefore on no question of population, and with no public need to serve, it was proposed to take 3,000 people out of the county, which wanted to keep them, and put them into a group of burghs with a large population, which did not want to have them. They did not require in Scotland to redress any balance between the town and county populations. In Scotland, in general, every burgh Member had a larger population attached to him than the county Members. For his own part, he had no interest in the matter. He should be very proud to represent the population of Jedburgh; but he did not wish to represent them at the expense of the interests and the feelings of the county to which they naturally belonged. This Bill as it had come back to the House of Commons contained one proposition only relating to Scotland which showed signs of having been introduced on other than on public and national grounds. It was 1575 a proposal that did not square with anything else in the Scottish representation; and he thought he had shown excellent reasons why the House of Commons should—agreeing with a decision of its own carried by nearly 80 voices—overset a decision of the House of Lords in which only 66 Contents could be found against 53 Not-Contents. He believed he had put the ease with sufficient clearness, and he trusted it would commend itself to the judgment of the House. He moved that the House disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. Trevelyan.)
§ MR. DALRYMPLE
said that, as he had moved the Amendment in Committee of this House, he might be allowed a few words. He was much astonished at the statement of his right hon. Friend that because proposals made by the Lord Advocate were found to be inconsistent with the agreement between the heads of Parties, therefore Amendments on the Paper from that side of the House ought not to have been moved. No such statement had been made, at all events while the Bill was in Committee. He therefore dissented from that statement, because there was no agreement about Amendments, and the Amendments were moved in due course. His Amendment was defeated on a division; but no such contention as that suggested by his right hon. Friend had ever been started. The House would imagine from what his right hon. Friend had said that this had been a proposal to take a town out of a county where it had always been in the Parliamentary sense, whereas the truth was that Jedburgh had been a Parliamentary burgh for 200 years. It was one of the Haddington group, and though it was no doubt part of the Government Bill that that group should be destroyed, their contention was that the case of Jedburgh was quite exceptional, and that Jedburgh should not be flung into a rural constituency, as it had nothing in common with a rural constituency. His right hon. Friend had said something about the character of the place. The character of the place was simply this—that the main occupations of Jedburgh were exactly the same as those of 1576 the Border Burghs; and he was told that there were not 20 persons in Jedburgh connected with agricultural pursuits. The right hon. Gentleman's argument, therefore, as to the towns remaining in the county had very little support. It was with considerable surprise that he found himself with an opportunity of saying a few more words on this subject, for he knew nothing whatever of the reasons why this particular Amendment—[Laughter]—he did not know what the laughter meant; but what he had to say was that he knew nothing of the circumstances which led to the selection of this burgh for special notice elsewhere. He thought the explanation was that it differed from the other Amendments by which they on his side of the House had endeavoured to add towns in counties to presently existing groups of burghs, where they had not been Parliamentary burghs before; whereas in this case the burgh was already one of a group of burghs. But it was certain that this was a life and death question with the Party opposite. He would tell Gentlemen opposite why he said it was a life and death question with them, because it was the subject of a four-line Whip. It was a question of life and death judging by the number of lines; but he thought it was rather hard upon Jedburgh, where it was so important that it should only have had four lines. The feeling opposite was very strong indeed. He imagined that the Party opposite would have staked its political existence on the subject if it had had any political existence to stake. But the point selected for this life and death struggle was one with regard to which the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill said that he sympathized with the view entertained on this side of the House. He could not say that the Chancellor of the Duchy had added any further reasons; but he would add a word as to expressions of opinion from that locality. He had had no communication with the locality until Saturday, when he received three Petitions on the subject. Two of them were from the associations in the county, but the third was from the burgh of Jedburgh itself, and was signed by 800 male persons, which was a remarkable fact when it was remembered that Jedburgh only had 390 voters in it. That was probably, therefore, a very large 1577 proportion of the constituency of Jed Burgh. They were told recently that the good ship of Reform was about to come to port. He thought it would be a good thing if the ship were to come into port, but not flying false colours. ["Oh!" and cries of "Divide!"] He would explain what ho meant. It had been part of the instructions to the Boundary Commissioners that they should, as far as possible, separate urban and rural constituencies; it had further been stated by the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government that these elements should, as far as possible, be kept distinct; and the proposal before the House was dead in the teeth of this view, and of the declaration of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Trevelyan) that the great object in view was that the country should be represented. It could hardly be in irony that this expression had been used, and yet it was the country parts of counties that would be unrepresented if the urban element overwhelmed them. Here a considerable urban population was flung into the midst of the rural population, dominating and inundating the political population of the county. He would only conclude by saying that he, for one, was not at all anxious to ask the House to go to a division on this subject. He held that, so far as this House was concerned, its decision was taken on a former occasion; and it was for the other House of Parliament to do what they thought right in the matter. He once more protested in regard to the arrangements for Scotland that there was a most unfair re-arrangement in regard to the disparity of population between counties and burghs. He entirely disagreed with the statement of his hon. Friend that the burgh Members represented in many cases greater populations than county Members. It was quite otherwise in regard to many counties. It was not, however, in this case, in regard to numbers, but because an urban population was being flung into the midst of a rural constituency, that he had once more objected to the proposal before the House.
§ MR. CRAIG SELLAR,
who rose amid loud cries of "Divide," said, he would not detain the House; but there was still a Representative of the burgh of Jedburgh, and he hoped he might be allowed to add his voice to that of his 1578 right hon. Friend, and to express the hope that the House would disagree with this Amendment. [Cries of "Agreed!"] He would confine himself to a single point which had been alluded to by his hon. Friend who had just spoken—namely, that with regard to the expression of opinion in the locality. When the news arrived on Wednesday that the change had been made in the House of Lords, and that Jedburgh had been taken out of the county and thrown into the Border Burghs, the surprise was greater than he could express. Immediately a public meeting was called in the old-fashioned way—by tuck of drum—and that evening a large meeting assembled in the hall, and a motion was put to the meeting, and the whole gathering, except eight, voted in favour of disagreeing with the Lords' Amendment. A Petition was sent to him which he had presented to this House to-day, and he had got another Petition, not from that meeting, but signed by 70 per cent of the electors of Jedburgh, begging the House not to agree to this Amendment. That, he thought, was a sufficient answer to the Petition, which was said by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Dalrymple) to have been signed by 300 male inhabitants of the borough. In the face of the facts, he thought it would not be possible for the House to agree to this Amendment.
§ MR. LEWIS
said, that one of the points raised in connection with the Bill was that every burgh of under 15,000 inhabitants should be disfranchised. He thought the case was not so indefensible as the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Trevelyan) seemed to believe. If anyone had broken the principle of the Bill it was the Government, who had done so in the cases of Pembroke and Warwick, and of these flagrant exceptions no explanation had been given. He should certainly vote in favour of the Bill as now drawn.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Page 28, column 1, line 14, after ("Staple Inn") insert ("and"); column 1, lines 15 and 16, leave out ("and Liberty of the Rolls").
§ Page 35, column 2, line 24, leave out ("detached"); column 2, line 25, after ("entirely") insert ("or nearly ").
§ Page 38, leave out lines 1 to 11, both inclusive.1579
§ Page 42, line 26, leave out ("Donny-brook") and insert ("Saint Stephen's Green ").
§ Page 50, line 34, leave out ("South-Eastern") and insert ("Ilkeston"),—the next Amendments, agreed to.
§ Page 51, line 20, leave out the word "Crediton," and insert the words "South Molton," the next Amendment, read a second time.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with The Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. Johnson.)
§ SIR STAFFOED NORTHCOTE
said, he had a strong feeling that the name originally selected by the Boundary Commissioners was the right one, and he could not understand why it was departed from.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
said, the Boundary Commissioners probably would not have chosen South Molton if they had anticipated it was to be preceded by the words "Northern or," which did not sound well with South Molton.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes 52; Noes 87: Majority 35.—(Div. List, No. 203.)
§ Page 53, line 27, leave out ("and") and insert ("including").
§ Page 55, line 29, after ("Caerphilly Lower") insert ("including the whole of the parish of Eglwysilan").
§ Page 56, line 8, column 3, after ("Kibbor") insert ("except any part of the parish of Eglwysilan").
§ Page 64, line 25, leave out ("Hindley") and insert ("Ince").
§ Page 66, line 10, after ("Hawerby") insert ("cum-Beesby").
§ Page 67, line 26, after ("Kensington") insert ("St. George, Hanover Square, Strand").
§ Page 75, line 8, after ("Okeover") insert ("Prestwood"); line 16, after ("Stafford") insert ("including the whole of the parish of Gnosall"); lines 17 and 18, leave out ("including the whole parish of Gnosall").
§ Page 76, line 1, leave out ("South-Eastern") and insert ("Handsworth"); line 11, leave out ("Lowestoft") and insert ("Mutford and Lothingland"); line 38, after ("Hadleigh") insert ("or Cosford").1580
§ Page 78, line 7, after ("parliamentary") insert ("borough of Deptford and the area of the Parliamentary"); line 8, leave out ("Deptford"),—the next Amendments, agreed to.
§ Page 84, line 29, leave out "Batley," and insert "Morley," the next Amendment, read a second time.
§ MR. SERJEANT SIMON,
in moving that the House disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment, said, the question had been fully discussed in the House, and he did not propose to repeat arguments that had been heard already. He would simply say that his Motion in favour of Batley was carried by a majority of 17. The majority in favour of Morley in the House of Lords was only three, and he thought this was a case in which the opinion of the House of Commons ought to prevail.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with The Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. Serjeant Simon.)
§ VISCOUNT LEWISHAM
said, that, although the majority on the second occasion in favour of Batley was 17, yet it was a small House, and the majority contained no fewer than 23 of the extreme Irish Party; while of 4 county and 10 borough Yorkshire Members present, all the county and 6 of the borough Members voted in favour of Morley.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
said, he hoped the House would not discuss this question over again. On the whole, he sided with his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Serjeant Simon) in favour of Batley; but he must say that the majority of the Government voted for Morley. The question had been carried both ways in that House, and not by a very large majority; and in the House of Lords Morley was only carried by 21 to 18.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes 36; Noes 86: Majority 50.—(Div. List, No. 204.)1581
§ Page 85, line 38, after ("Owston") insert ("Skellow"),—the next Amendment, agreed to.
§ Page 86, line 39, leave out the words "Spen Valley," and insert the word "Birstall," the next Amendment, read a second time.
§ MR. ILLINGWORTH,
in moving to disagree with the Lords' Amendment, said, that in that House they had already had two debates and three divisions on the point, with the result that the name of Spen Valley was confirmed. In the Lords, the change was made at the end of the discussions on the Bill after a very short debate. This district comprised six towns, and in point of population Birstall was only the fifth. Spen Valley was a well-known area. The name had been adopted by the Local Government Board for the whole district for sanitary purposes. It had been said that this was a matter of sentiment; but sentiment ought to be respected. The Spen was not a large stream; but it was a very important one, running through the very centre of the district, and on it were a large number of very important works. On the other hand, Birstall was a small place, at the extreme north-east corner of the constituency. There could be no case made out why a name covering the whole area should be given up for the name of a small town. This was a Party move on the part of the other House.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with The Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. Illingworth.)
§ MR. E. STANHOPE
protested against the language of the hon. Gentleman. He had had occasion to look into this subject, and he found that the feeling in the district was very strong indeed in favour of Birstall. It was a name thoroughly wellknown in the district, while, on the other hand, nothing could be stronger than the statement of Lord Cranbrook, who told the House of Lords that he had known the district intimately all his life, and had never heard of the Spen Valley.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
said, according to whether a man knew one part of a district or not, so he thought one or other of these names was the better. The Government had received 1582 a Memorial in favour of Spen Valley, from the Local Boards of Heckmond-wike, Liversedge, and Cleckheaton, with a population of over 32,000, forming by far the greater portion of the inhabitants of the district. It was quite true that the name of Spen Valley was very little known. It was a name which was invented a few years ago by the Local Government Board. This was one of those questions where local jealousies interfered between town and town; and Birstall, which was a small place, was unpopular among the larger places, and therefore they had united on the name of Spen Valley. While he should not expect all his Colleagues to vote with him, he himself would support Spen Valley.
said, he trusted that the House would agree to the Lords' Amendment, not only because it was agreed to there, but also because it was the name given by the Boundary Commissioners, and was the best known in the whole of Yorkshire. Out of a population of 54,000, the whole civil parish of Birstall contained 51,000.
§ MR. BARRAN
said, that nearly the whole of the population were in the civil parish of Birstall, and no district was better known in Yorkshire. He should regret very much if Birstall did not retain the name.
§ MR. JACKSON
said, that there never had been the slightest reason shown why the name of Birstall should not be adopted.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes 65; Noes 46: Majority 19.—(Div. List, No. 205.)
§ Page 88, line 26, leave out ("Kirkpatrick Juxta").
§ Page 90, line 28, after ("Kilbride") insert ("and so much of the parish of Kirkpatrick juxta as may be in the county of Lanark"); line 36, leave out ("so much") and insert the detached ("portion").
§ Page 91, line 1, leave out ("as") and insert ("which").
§ Page 103, lines 11 and 12, leave out ("North Liberties").
Page 110, line 3, leave out ("Kilculliheen"); line 28, after ("Dysart") insert ("except the townlands of Ballyote, Slanebeg, and Slanemore"),—the concluding Amendments, agreed to.
Committee appointed, "to draw up Reasons to be assigned to The Lords for disagreeing to two of the Amendments to which this House hath disagreed; "—Sir CHARLES DILKE, Secretary Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT, Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE, Mr. TREVELYAN, Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, The LORD ADVOCATE, Lord RICHARD GROSVENOR, and Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND:—To withdraw immediately:—Three to be the quorum.