§ MR. MORGAN LLOYDrose to move, in page 13, column 1, line 11, to leave out "Beaumaris (District) Anglesey." The hon. and learned Member said, that, in moving this Amendment he was afraid he would be met with that non possumus which had already been the answer to so many proposed Amendments. He considered it his duty, however, to move the Amendment, and to ask for the adoption of it by the Government. The borough of Beaumaris consisted of four contributory boroughs, of which Holyhead contained more than one-half of the entire population. It so happened that Beaumaris was the largest district of boroughs included in this Schedule. The population, according to the Census of 1881, was within 154 of the limit of 15,000; and if the Census could have been taken in such a way as to include the real population of the borough it would have considerably exceeded 15,000. The reason why there was a large difference between the number of the population according to the Census and the real number of the population was that a very large number of the inhabitants of Holyhead were persons who were engaged on board the steamers plying between that town and the Irish Coast, and whenever the Census was taken there would be necessarily hundreds of persons who were actually voters of Holyhead on the other side of the Channel. The consequence was that whenever the Census was taken the Return for Holyhead fell considerably short of the real number of the population. He thought that was one element which would justify the Government in making an exception in this case, although, in point of fact, it would not be an exception at all, because he understood that the Schedule was based on the actual population of 1881. If they were to be bound by the number included in the Census Returns, they would be equally bound, in the event of some extraordinary mistake having taken place in counting up the numbers, which would be manifestly unfair. As he had stated, the population of these boroughs was within 154 of the 15,000 limit; but the real number of the population in 1881, at the time of the Cen- 1590 sus, if the Parliamentary limits had been properly defined, would have been 18,038. Holyhead, within the limits of the Parliamentary borough, contained, according to the Census, 8,680; but the population of the parish, which was really and substantially the town of Holyhead, amounted to 9,689 according to the Census; so that if the proper boundary had been assigned to Holyhead itself the population of the borough, according to the Census, would have been 15,865 instead of 14,856. In the case of another of the boroughs, Amlwch, the Parliamentary limits included little more than half the population of the parish. There were two towns in the parish, and for some peculiar reason, in 1832, the population of one was taken, while that of the other was left out. The population of the two urban districts in that parish would give 4,847 instead of 2,664; so that without any difficulty the boundaries of two of the boroughs at present included in the district of Beaumaris might be so altered—and altered, too, with advantage, and without interfering with any principle of the Bill—as to give a population of more than 18,000 according to the Census of 1881. He thought these facts afforded strong reasons for striking out this district of boroughs from the 1st Schedule of the Bill. It must be taken into account also that Holyhead itself was a growing town, and that in the future it must necessarily become more and more important. Even since the limits of the borough were fixed it had, he believed, more than doubled its population, and since the Census of 1881 the population had increased rapidly. In all human probability the increase in the future would be very much greater than in the past, because, owing to its position, it would, no doubt, in the course of time, become a port for Transatlantic steamers just as it now was a port for the departure of steamers for the Irish Coast. When once that took place, the population, which was now more than 10,000, would in a few years be doubled, so that, in all human probability, there would in the near future be in that town alone a population of more than 20,000. A Petition, very numerously signed, had been presented from Holyhead praying that some alteration should be made in the way he had pointed out. There had also been a 1591 Memorial presented to Her Majesty's Government in which certain very strong facts were stated; and there was an additional Petition from the other boroughs strongly protesting against disfranchisement. He thought it was a matter which deserved to be inquired into; and he hoped the Government, seeing that the proposal would be no violation of the principle contained in the Bill, would make an exception in the case of Beaumaris—an exception based upon the fact that owing to the peculiar circumstances of the case the true population had not been mentioned in the Census, but was really higher than it was placed at by the Census. In the event of the Amendment being adopted, he had another Amendment upon the Paper to alter the limit of the boundaries, so as to include such portions of the civil parishes of Amlwch and Holyhead as were not now included within the limits of those boroughs. According to the Census, Holyhead, with these additions, contained a population of more than 18,000, and the population at this moment was in reality more than 20,000. He begged to move the Amendment.
§ Amendment proposed, in Schedule I., part 1, page 13, column I., line 11, to leave out the words "Beaumaris (District) Anglesey."—(Mr. Morgan Lloyd.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, his hon. and learned Friend had not given the Committee any information on one very important point—namely, where he proposed to get a Member for the Beaumaris group.
§ MR. MORGAN LLOYDbegged pardon for having omitted to touch upon that matter. He would, however, suggest that something like the scheme shadowed forth in The Standard newspaper would answer every purpose, because, according to that scheme, the borough of Beaumaris was not disfranchised, and fewer Members were given to Glamorganshire. That plan might still be adopted.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, his hon. and learned Friend based his claim upon an increase of the population of Holyhead and the Beaumaris district; but the increase in Glamorganshire had been far greater than that of Holyhead. The population of Holyhead, according to the Census Returns, was only 8,600, 1592 and the rest of the district was entirely agricultural. Holyhead was the only town of any magnitude in the Island. His hon. and learned Friend said the Census Returns did not give the actual Returns of Holyhead, because 500 or 600 persons, who belonged to Holyhead, were either at Dublin or at sea on the night the Census was taken: but although that might be the case, there would be a large number of voters who belonged to Dublin and other ports in Ireland, who slept in Holyhead on that night, and who would be included in the Return for Holyhead. The fact was, as he had stated once or twice before, that every spot on the sea-coast of the United Kingdom claimed that a large portion of its population happened to be at sea on the particular night the Census was taken; and if the claims were added up, it would be found that, so far as the Packet Service was concerned, an enormous number of persons happened to be at sea on that particular night. His hon. and learned Friend proposed to make up the necessary limit of population by adding two places whose names, he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) was sorry to say, he was unable to pronounce. Unfortunately, although he had had the assistance of two distinguished Welshmen—namely, Colonel Owen Jones and Mr. Howel Thomas, he had not yet succeeded in mastering the pronunciation of the names of the places his hon. and learned Friend wished to add. His hon. and learned Friend said those places had between them a population sufficient to place Beaumaris above the 15,000 limit; but he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) desired to point out that in addition to the sparse population of the district it covered an enormous acreage. While, undoubtedly, the proposal of his hon. and learned Friend would increase the population from 14,800 odd to 18,000, it would also increase the acreage of the district from 6,000 acres to over 20,000. He was bound to say that a district which required 20,000 acres in order to get a population of 18,000 could not be considered an urban population for the purposes of the Bill. His own opinion was that Anglesey was sufficiently represented, without continuing the representation of Beaumaris. Anglesey, as a county, was by no means unfavourably treated, seeing that its population, including borough and county, altogether only amounted to 51,000. For 1593 that small population there would still be one Representative.
§ MR. RYLANDSsaid, there was one thing to which he should like to draw the attention of his hon. and learned Friend. He (Mr. Rylands) happened to represent an important constituency—Burnley—the population of which was between 60,000 and 70,000. While in the Bill a line had been drawn which was extremely painful, no doubt, to some of the small constituencies, and it might appear hard to take away a Member from a borough which was only 500 or 600 below the limit, still it was provided that constituencies which were above the limit of 50,000 should retain two Members, and one Representative was retained in the case of boroughs which were above the 15,000 limit. His own opinion was that the scale of population, so far as those boroughs were concerned, had been fixed in a very liberal manner. He should have preferred that all boroughs under 20,000 should have been thrown into the Schedule, and that all boroughs under 60,000 should lose one Member; but although he entertained that conviction, he accepted the Bill of the Government as a very fair and reasonable proposal; and, seeing that the arrangement had received the sanction of the Leaders of the two sides of the House, he was quite ready to give up any feeling of his own in order to carry out the arrangement made by the Government and the front Bench opposite. Some of his hon. Friends on the other side of the House appeared to be somewhat restive because they had not obtained all the terms they wished to have; but hon. Members on that—the Liberal—side of the House had made considerable sacrifices, and given up many of their cherished, convictions, with a view of supporting the Government and retaining the assistance of the front Opposition Bench, without which it would be utterly impossible to pass any satisfactory measure. Under these circumstances, although there was no one in that House who had a greater regard for his hon. and learned Friend than he had, he hoped that the Committee would not listen for a moment to appeals made to it by Members of different constituencies, but that, having accepted a broad line, they would be prepared to adhere to it, although it might appear to Mem- 1594 bers somewhat hard upon certain boroughs.
§ Amendment negatived.
COLONEL MILNE-HOMEsaid, he had placed an Amendment on the Paper in reference to the 2nd Schedule, which applied to Berwick-on-Tweed; but he had found that he would be out of Order unless he moved to omit the name of Berwick-on-Tweed in line 12 of the present Schedule. Berwick-on-Tweed had returned two Members to the House of Commons for the last 356 years; and he almost thought there was no other constituency in the country which had the same right to complain of the provisions of the present Bill as that which he had now the honour to represent. It would be well understood how, when the present Bill was published, and the borough of Berwick-on-Tweed found itself in the Schedule, it was extremely astonished at the treatment it met with at the hands of a Liberal Administration, whom they, as a rule, had done their best to serve. The Town Council drew up a Memorial and presented it to the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister, in acknowledging it, said that he had referred it to the Boundary Commissioners, and that the terms of it should have the best consideration of Her Majesty's Government. The Town Council had appeared before the Boundary Commissioners; but the Boundary Commissioners informed them that they had no powers whatever except to settle the boundaries of the new county districts. Under these circumstances, the borough had no other course but to call upon its Representatives in that House to say what they could on behalf of its claim for continued representation in the Councils of the nation. He was quite aware that the main basis upon which the provisions of the Bill proceeded was that of population, and that the borough he had the honour to represent did not come up to the requirements of the measure; but he contended, in the first place, that it had been already laid down that population was not to be the sole basis. Already they had had exceptions in the seats given to the Universities and the City of London, thereby showing that historical associations and other sentimental considerations were held to be of some account besides that of mere numbers. He regretted that his hon. Friend 1595 and Colleague (Mr. Jerningham), who shared with him the present representation of Berwick, was not in his place, because no one was more entitled—because no one was more able—to give the Committee a full account of the historical associations and position of the ancient town of Berwick-on-Tweed. As everyone knew, the town of Berwick-on-Tweed had played a considerable part in the history of the United Kingdom from 1296 down to the present day; but the great point was this—that since 1529 two Members had been sent up from Berwick-on-Tweed to serve in the House of Commons, and it seemed rather hard that at one fell stroke those two Members should be taken away, and that it should be totally disfranchised. It compared well with a number of other disfranchised boroughs, and he ventured to submit that it had far higher claims to consideration than any of the boroughs which were to "cease as such." Two of them were Beaumaris, which had just been considered, and Cardigan, which was also made up by the grouping of different places into a borough district. Others, which had now only one Member, lost that Member; others, again, that had two Members were only to be deprived of one; whereas Berwick was to lose both of its Representatives. In the case of Tamworth there was a population of more than 14,000; Weymouth had 13,000; and Newark upwards of 14,000, about the same as Berwick. It seemed to him that the two boroughs which deserved the greatest consideration were Berwick-on-Tweed and Newark, the latter being the borough for which the present Prime Minister was first returned to Parliament, and Berwick-on-Tweed was at one time a borough which was represented by the Prime Minister's father. There was another reason why Berwick-on-Tweed should have some exceptional consideration. If population was to be insisted upon, and no exception was to be made in favour of historical associations or geographical position, he contended that there was still another reason why the borough of Berwick should have the advantage of exceptional legislation. He had already alluded to its history; but it must be remembered that by the Act of Union special privileges were conferred upon the borough, which pri- 1596 vileges existed to that day. It had a Recorder of its own, and a Sheriff, and it had been made a county—being now the county of the town of Berwick-on-Tweed. In 1825 a privilege was taken away from its Quarter Sessions; but a quid pro quo was given; and now, in 1885, it was proposed to take away one of the greatest privileges the town could possibly enjoy, without giving anything in return. The borough had for the last 350 years sent up two Members to the House from a population of 14,000, and what did they get in return? The borough was simply merged into a division of the county containing 50,000 or 60,000 inhabitants, and it was proposed to call that division by the name of "Berwick-on-Tweed." It was often asked what was there in a name? It certainly seemed to him that in this case there was nothing whatever. They were totally disfranchising the borough, and depriving it of those ancient privileges which it was justly entitled, by the Act of Union, to retain. He did not ask the Government to retain both Members for the borough; but he thought it was a case in which a compromise would be fair, and it certainly ought to be permitted to retain one Member in virtue of the claims he had put before the Committee. Let Berwick have one Member, and not find itself totally unrepresented in the new House of Commons. Let hon. Members remember that, by depriving Berwick of its two Members, they deprived the whole of the North of England of two Members from that House. He certainly claimed support from the Prime Minister, and those who sat with him. The Prime Minister himself had recognized the importance of the place by having delayed a train at Berwick when on his way to conduct the Mid Lothian campaign, in order to recommend to the electors one of the then Liberal candidates; and upon a recent occasion his right hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote), at the same railway station, told the people of Berwick that he looked upon that town as the keystone of the United Kingdom. He, therefore, claimed the support of the two right hon. Gentlemen. He also claimed the support of his right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Wigtown Burghs (Sir John Hay), who had an Amendment on the Paper to 1597 unite Berwick to Scotland for Parliamentary purposes, for he was convinced that all true Scotchmen would evince sympathy for the town of Berwick, and prefer to see this Amendment carried. He had no doubt that he should be answered, as the hon. and learned Gentleman who preceded him in regard to the case of Beaumaris had been answered, by the question—where is the extra Member to come from? He did not think it fair for the Government to ask hon. Members where the extra Member was to come from, for they had not taken him away; and it was for those who had taken him away to say where the extra Member was to come from. He would suggest that there were plenty of disloyal and some corrupt boroughs from which a Member might be taken; and he left Her Majesty's Government to select the constituency. Had this borough been in the same position as Sandwich and others, they might have allowed it to be disfranchised as a fair arrangement; but he would remind the Committee that in the case of Berwick there had been an investigation into the practices at an election some two or three years ago. The scrutiny took place at the instance of the then Lord Advocate; and it was discovered that, at all events on one side of the House, there was perfect purity; and but for that the right hon. Gentleman in question would have had a seat in the House. It was proved to demonstration that the sitting Member did not get his seat by bribery, and he hoped this fact would not be forgotten by the Committee. If he received any support at all, he should certainly go to a division in favour of retaining a Member for the ancient town of Berwick-on-Tweed.
§ Amendment proposed, in Schedule 1, page 13, column 1, line 12, to leave out the words "Berwick-on-Tweed."—(Colonel Milne-Home.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the hon. and gallant Member had made a capital defence for the ancient borough of Berwick-on-Tweed; but he had proved almost too much. He had told the Committee that the borough enjoyed 1598 the special patronage of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, and in that case it might be well able to get on without special representation. He (Sir Charles W. Dilke) would, however, point out to the Committee how serious a gap would be made in the Bill by the acceptance of any suggestion of that kind. The hon. and gallant Member did not ask for one Member only, but, in reality, he asked for four, by drawing an artificial line in favour of a borough with a population of little more than 14,000. The hon. and gallant Member, in trying to defend his own borough, had mentioned the cases of Newark, Weymouth, and other boroughs, with a still larger population, but which, nevertheless, found themselves in a similar position, and which would certainly be able to make out quite as strong a case as the hon. and gallant Member had made out for Berwick. Newark was a very ancient borough; it had always returned two Members, and it was increasing far more rapidly than Berwick. It, therefore, had a much stronger case in its favour. The hon. and gallant Member stated that his Amendment would not interfere with the principles, of the Bill. He (Sir Charles W. Dilke) was astonished at that assertion, because only last night, when a question of population was raised, he had felt himself compelled to state that the limit of 15,000 was a vital principle of the Bill. He was afraid he could only make that non possumus answer which the hon. and gallant Member appeared to anticipate.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, he would move formally to omit Tamworth from Schedule 1. He should like to say one word, although he did not know that it would be necessary, in the shape of an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill, and to the Government, on behalf of Tamworth. It was a borough, perhaps, more ancient than that of Berwick-on-Tweed—at all events for several hundred years it had returned two Members to Parliament. He had himself had the honour of sitting for it for 30 years, and for three generations a Member of his family had represented it for nearly 90 years. He had hoped that the original plan of the Government would have been accepted by the House, and in that plan they had in- 1599 tended to preserve a seat for the ancient borough of Tamworth. By the unfortunate compromise which was subsequently made the plan of the Government had been altered, and Tamworth, together with many other places, had lost altogether their representation in the Commons House of Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that the Schedule was a vital part of the Bill; but it could not have been a vital part of the Bill when the Government originally drafted it; and it was only after a compromise, which had no sanction except from individuals, that the borough of Tamworth was excluded altogether. It appeared from what had fallen from the hon. and gallant Member for Berwick (Colonel Milne-Home) that the name of Berwick-on-Tweed was reserved for one of the divisions of the county in which that town was situated. He would beg the right hon. Gentleman to allow the name of Tamworth, at all events, to continue as the name of one of the divisions of Warwickshire or Staffordshire. He made it a personal appeal to the Committee; and he almost thought, considering that that town was represented by his father in three or four Parliaments, and had been rendered illustrious to some extent in the political annals of the country, that he might hope the right hon. Gentleman would kindly allow what he (Sir Robert Peel) knew to be the feeling of the people of Tamworth—namely, that its name, at all events, should be continued for one of the divisions of Staffordshire or Warwickshire. The town was divided by a line through its centre; and certainly Coleshill, by which name it was proposed to call the new division, was a name unknown in Parliamentary annals. He would, therefore, ask the right hon. Gentleman to allow the name of Tamworth to be substituted for that of Coleshill. He did not expect the right hon. Gentleman to give up what he considered to be a vital principle of the Bill, and therefore be did not anticipate that Tamworth would continue to have a Member reserved for it, although he did think that the case was a hard one. As he had already reminded the Committee, it had returned two Members for several hundred years; he had represented it himself for more than 30 years. At the present moment it returned two honoured and respected Gentlemen, both of whom 1600 were Liberals. He had not one word to say against those Gentlemen, although he could not help expressing his regret that they were not present to support him in the appeal he was making on behalf of this ancient borough. He sincerely hoped that the Government would accede to his request, and give him an assurance that the name of Tamworth should be preserved in the political annals of the country as the name of one of the divisions either of Staffordshire or Warwickshire.
§
Amendment proposed,
In Schedule 1, page 13, column 3, line 29, to leave out the words "Tamworth, Stafford, and Warwick."—(Sir Robert Peel.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the appeal of the right hon. Baronet was rather an appeal in favour of retaining the name of this borough as a county division than of omitting it from the Schedule. He could only say that the Government would very carefully consider, before they reached, the county Schedule, whether it would be possible to accede to the right hon. Gentleman's request. He had no doubt that the Committee would very willingly do so if it were possible. The difficulty in the way was that Tamworth was in the extreme corner of the Coleshill Division of Warwickshire, and a considerable portion of it was in the county of Staffordshire. That being so, the Commissioners had thought it necessary to choose the name of Coleshill, which was the name of the Petty Sessional Division. He had no doubt, however, that the Committee, at the proper time, would take into consideration fairly the exceptional circumstances of the case.
§ MR. SAMPSON LLOYDsaid, that, as one of the Members for South Warwickshire, he wished to say that while he sympathized with the right hon. Baronet in his desire to retain the name of Tamworth, on account of its ancient history and associations, he felt satisfied there would be a strong feeling against the name of Coleshill being taken from that particular division of North Warwickshire. Coleshill bad been the place of election ever since the Reform Act of 1832; it was situated exclusively in the county of Warwick, in the very centre 1601 of the division, and he hoped the Government would bear in mind the public feeling that might exist in the division. He would be very glad, however, to see the name of Tamworth attached to one of the divisions of Staffordshire.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR) moved the inclusion of the Ayr group of burghs among those that should cease to return Members. He said the object of the Amendment was to dissolve the group now composing the Ayr district of burghs with the view of reconstituting them in a somewhat different way. There was a similar Amendment on the Paper by the hon. and gallant Member for South Ayrshire (General Alexander), and though he differed from the hon. and gallant Member in regard to the way in which the difficulty was to be solved, yet they were agreed that the only way of effecting certain re-arrangements in the groups of Scottish burghs, which he believed was almost universally admitted to be desirable, was by first dissolving the groups under Schedule 1, and then reconstituting them under Schedule 4 in such a way as might be thought right. The object of the Amendment standing in his name was to omit from the so-called Ayr group two of the burghs of which it consisted. At present, the group comprised the burghs of Ayr and Irvine, both in the county of Ayr, and three other burghs—Campbeltown, Inverary, and Oban—in the county of Argyll. He believed there was a unanimous opinion among the Scotch Members that this was a somewhat unwieldy group, altogether wanting in that element of identity and solidarity of interests which it was desirable to maintain, and the two burghs he proposed to omit and merge in the county were Oban and Inverary. As regarded Inverary he would say nothing. He believed there was a universal feeling among the Scotch Members that small places under 1,000 population, especially if decreasing, were scarcely worthy to continue as members of groups of burghs. [Mr. RAMSAY: No.] Well, that was very generally the opinion. In regard to Inverary, the state of the matter was this—its population in 1871 was 902, and in 1881 it was 864, so that it was a decreasing place; and it was eminently 1602 what might be called a county town. It was the town of the county, and therefore it seemed very appropriate that it should form part of the county of which, it was the county town, and it was without interests or pursuits separate from those of the county. With regard to Oban, although the population was larger, he believed there was a widespread feeling to the same effect, and he understood that the people of Oban itself would desire to form part of the county. Its population was increasing, no doubt. In 1871 it was 2,413, and it was now 3,991. It was a very prosperous place; but it was, as was generally known, identified with the prosperity of the Northern part of the county of which it formed a portion. That was the object for which it was proposed to dissolve the group. Of course, it would be for the Committee to consider, when they came to Schedule 4, whether this was a proper object; but he supposed that, before dissolving the group, the Committee would require to form, at all events, some sort of provisional opinion as to whether this object was a right and proper one. The hon. and gallant Member for South Ayrshire (General Alexander) proposed to dissolve the group for a totally different object; and when the time came it would be his (the Lord Advocate's) duty to dissent from the hon. and gallant Member's proposal, which was to include the burghs of Ayr, Irvine, Campbeltown, Galston, and Old Cumnock. The question would be an open one, and he would at present only submit to the Committee that it was reasonable that this group should be dissolved, with a view to its reconstruction when the Committee came to deal with Schedule 4.
§
Amendment proposed,
In Schedule 1, page 13, column 2, line 46, after the word "Scotland," to insert the words,—
Ayr (District of Burghs)|Ayr and Argyll."—[The Lord Advocate.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ GENERAL ALEXANDERsaid, it would perhaps be convenient to the Committee that he should explain, as he had an Amendment on the Paper in terms identical with that which had been moved by the Lord Advocate, why he proposed that the existing group of 1603 Ayr burghs should be dissolved. The object he had in view was to secure a more equitable distribution of political power between the rural and the urban districts of South Ayrshire. He might state to the Committee that the population of South Ayrshire was the largest in Scotland; and in a Return distributed yesterday to hon. Members, it was found to be nearly 90,000—between 89,000 and 90,000—while the population of the Ayr group of burghs under the proposed scheme would be something short of 42,000. Now, what he intended to propose was that they should take away two of the present police burghs in South Ayrshire—Cumnock and Galston—amounting together to a population of about 8,000, and add them to the Ayr group of burghs. If that were done, the constituency of South Ayrshire would still contain a population of 82,000, while the Ayr group of burghs would have a population of not more than 50,000. It would still be a population of less than that of four of the other proposed groups. He would not trouble the Committee with the names of all the four groups, but he might mention that one—the Kilmarnock group—would, under the proposed scheme, have a population of nearly 70,000, or 20,000 more than the Ayr group. He had no desire by any means to eliminate the whole urban population of Ayrshire, for while taking aw ay two of the police burghs, he proposed to leave two others, as well as some eight other populous places. The interests of the division which he represented were partly rural and partly urban, and his object was not to jerrymander the constituency as had been suggested the other day by the hon. Member for Stirlingshire (Mr. Bolton), but to secure that the rural and urban interests should both be fairly represented in Parliament. The accusation made by hon. Gentlemen opposite of jerrymandering rather suggested to him the fable of the wolf and the lamb. The Liberal Party at present had, out of 60 Scottish seats, no fewer than 51, while the Conservative Party only returned nine, and he supposed their object, when the 12 additional seats were given to Scotland, was to secure 70 out of 72. That appeared to him to be a very unfair distribution of political power. In proof also that it could not in any way be called jerrymandering, he might state 1604 that his proposals were part of the scheme originally suggested by the Liberal Party of South Ayrshire. It was mentioned the other day that South Ayrshire was fairly entitled by its popution of 220,000 to an additional Member, and in order to get that additional Member it was proposed to take two of the police burghs—the two burghs which he had placed on the Paper—Cumnock and Galston, and add them to the Ayr group of burghs. He thought it was an important point that this proposal formed part of the scheme originally suggested by the Liberal Party of South Ayrshire. The Lord Advocate had told them that it was against the principle of the Bill to enfranchise burghs not already enfranchised; but he made no scruple about disfranchising burghs, and he (General Alexander) maintained that if it was not part of the principle of the Bill to disfranchise burghs it might also be allowable to enfranchise one. He was sorry that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke) was not in his place, because the other day the right hon. Gentleman seemed disposed to consider this matter in a very fair spirit, and said that a very good case had been made out in Scotland. He was glad, however, that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy (Mr. Trevelyan) was present, because the right hon. Gentleman also was well acquainted with the state of the burgh population of Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman himself represented a group of burghs—the Border burghs—the population of which was infinitely larger than that of the Ayrshire group to which he (General Alexander) proposed to add two burghs with a normal population of 8,000. He certainly hoped that the right hon. Baronet the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke) would not be deterred by the menacing tone of the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Buchanan), who, representing as he did the Metropolis of Scotland, might be well content with that honour without wishing to take away any of the few privileges which other constituencies possessed. South Ayrshire in no sense of the term could be regarded as a Conservative preserve. It had been represented by both Parties in turn; and to show how closely Parties were divided in that division of the 1605 county he would mention that at the General Election of 1868 he was himself beaten by a majority of only 25, but succeeded in carrying the two next Elections. He had no doubt that if the constituency was to be left in its present position the Liberal Party would greatly preponderate, owing to the large number of small towns which were scattered here and there throughout the division. He would repeat that his only object in the proposal he would have to make later on was not to jerrymander the constituency, but to secure a fair distribution of political power between the urban and the rural interests; and he hoped that upon this occasion the right hon. Baronet the President of the Local Government Board would yield to the fair request he made.
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, that he was opposed to the scheme of the Lord Advocate as a whole; but he did not propose to submit his general objections in connection with this Amendment, because this proposal was almost the only one in regard to which it might be fairly said there was a general agreement. The present proposal was to throw out of the Ayr group and into the county of Argyll two small burghs—Inverary and Oban—and he believed there was a general feeling in favour of taking those burghs out of the Ayr group. But what he wanted to say was that the Lord Advocate had taken a very dangerous course in the peculiar form in which he had placed the Motion on the Paper. It was proposed to destroy and resolve into their original elements the existing groups of burghs, and then to reconstitute them in a different way. There were few who did not think that there ought to be some change, but very few indeed were agreed as to what that change should be; and the consequence of this might be that the Lord Advocate would unite in support of his proposal many hon. Gentlemen who took diametrically opposite views in regard to it. That had already been shown by the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for South Ayrshire (General Alexander) in answer to the observations of the Lord Advocate in introducing the Motion. It appeared to him (Sir George Campbell) that if the Government pressed the plan, a great deal of trouble would result. He thought the general ques- 1606 tion of the Government proposals might be fairly raised upon this Amendment, because it would be seen at once that it would be impossible to deal with one group of burghs without dealing with others. Of course, as there was a general agreement as to the two burghs of Inverary and Oban, he would not oppose the Amendment, but would simply sound a note of warning in reference to the larger question which would still have to be raised.
§ MR. BUCHANANsaid, he desired to make a few general remarks in regard to the Lord Advocate's scheme which had been laid before the Committee by Her Majesty's Government. The proposal of the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not thoroughly remedy any of the main defects that existed in the present distribution of representation in Scotland. He understood that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke) intended to oppose, on the part of the Government, any addition to the existing groups in Scotland. That was satisfactory. On the other hand, the Lord Advocate only proposed that burghs under 1,000 inhabitants should be merged in the counties. He did not think they ought to allow a proposal of that sort to pass without a protest, on the ground that it could not be considered adequate or consistent with sound principles that only burghs under 1,000 should be so dealt with. The figure should be placed much higher. He had always contended that the same population standard should be applied in Scotland as in England, and that it should be applied not to the population of the groups, but to that of the separate contributory burghs. Again, he found that under the Bill the average county constituency would be 52,000 odd, the average burgh constituency 63,000 odd, and the grouped burghs only 40,000 odd, so that they had a disparity between the district burgh constituency and the large burgh constituency of over 20,000, and practically the representation of the large burghs to the small was as two to three. He regretted that the Lord Advocate in his scheme had done nothing to remedy this disparity in the representation of Scotland. On the contrary, it would be aggravated; for, under his scheme, the average constituency in the grouped burghs would be reduced below 1607 40,000, while the average in the larger burghs would continue at the old figure. He regretted that the subject had not been dealt with upon somewhat wider and more comprehensive principles than the Lord Advocate had presented. He recognized the desire on the part of the Government to get rid of anomalies in the representation of Scotland, and he thought they might certainly look upon the Lord Advocate's scheme, so far as it went, as a distinct improvement upon the Bill, and he should be inclined to give a general support to the Amendments which the right hon. and learned Gentleman had put down on the Paper. At the same time, he regretted that the proposals which the Lord Advocate had placed before them were so far short of the proposals he had laid before thorn two or three weeks ago. They dealt exclusively with certain small alterations in existing groups. His original proposals attempted to deal with other anomalies in Scottish representation. It was a peculiarity of their representation in Scotland that there was a much greater disparity in size between the county constituencies than in any other part of the Kingdom. They would have two counties in Scotland with a population of just over 17,000, and they would have four or five counties with a population of more than 70,000. The Lord Advocate's scheme did not attempt any amendment in that respect. In his original proposal he did make a small attempt at amendment, but that attempt was now abandoned. He thought they had a good deal to complain of in the fact that the subject had not been faced and directly dealt with on some general principle. At the same time, he thought they ought not to be ungrateful to the Lord Advocate for the small mercies he had reserved for them.
§ MR. DALRYMPLEsaid, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) complained of the proposal of the Lord Advocate, because it would result in uniting a number of persons together who generally disagreed.
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLIn one case only.
§ MR. DALRYMPLEsaid, he should have thought that even in that one case the result was a most desirable one to attain. He was quite aware that that would be the result, and it was a result 1608 which was brought about by the very extraordinary method pursued by the Government in dealing with the grouped burghs. They first of all proceeded to destroy the groups by wholesale, and then to revive by degrees that which they had destroyed. He did not pretend to say that he could suggest any better method; but it was certainly a curiously complicated and cumbrous one, which was well worthy of the attention of the Committee. He had listened with some interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Buchanan), because the hon. Gentleman had taken a very prominent part in the discussion which arose on the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill. He (Mr. Dalrymple) was interested to observe that the hon. Member complained that the Government proceeded, on no principle whatever in reference to Scotland. He was glad to hear that remark, because he entirely agreed with the hon. Member, and he thought it was a notable circumstance that in dealing with the important question of Scotch representation Her Majesty's Government, who certainly owed a great deal to Scotland, appeared to have proceeded upon no principle whatever. The hon. Gentleman surprised him when he said that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had stated last week that the Government would oppose the principle of increasing the grouping of burghs in Scotland. He had understood the right hon. Gentleman to say something in a totally different direction, and not to change his view even when he found that the Lord Advocate had expressed a different opinion. He had understood the President of the Local Government Board to say nothing of the kind now attributed to him, but to assert that the question of adding to existing groups was entirely open. Although he was not in the habit of expecting much from Her Majesty's Government, he did take some degree of comfort from the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Buchanan) further said that he recognized the attempt of the Government to remove existing anomalies in the representation of Scotland; but he (Mr. Dalrymple) held that the Government greatly aggravated the anomalies, instead of removing 1609 them, by their treatment of the subject. When, as they went on, they came to particulars, he should have to give an illustration of that aggravation of anomalies. The hon. Member for Edinburgh complained of the disparity in the numbers of population in counties, and he said that it was very undesirable there should be such great disparity of population between the counties which were each to return one Member. Yet he had not one word to say in regard to the disparity of population as between burgh and burgh. The hon. Member was perfectly content to have the Inverness burghs with a population of 25,000, the Wick burghs with a population of—well, he did not know how few—and other groups with an enormously large population; nor had he a word to say as to the disparity of population between the burghs and the counties. In one case, which had already been mentioned, it was proposed that a group of burghs should remain with a population of 29,000, while the county of itself would be left with a population of 83,000 or 84,000. He certainly did not understand the inconsistencies of the hon. Gentleman in the matter, for at the same time that he pointed out these anomalies he congratulated the Government on their successful effort to deal with the anomalies of Scottish representation. He did not intend, at the present moment, to enter into all the particulars of the case; but he thought this method of procedure, first to destroy and then to revive, was peculiar, to say the least of it. So long as he understood the principles on which the Government proceeded, he did not propose to object to their mode of action; but he was anxious to guard himself against expressing anything in the shape of approval. One word with regard to a remark which had fallen from his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (General Alexander). He objected entirely to what was called the "ewe lamb" argument, and he was not at all willing to rest the case on the ground of an appeal to pity. He was not conscious of requiring pity, and he did not plead the cause of the Conservative Party in reference to the Bill upon any such ground. When the proper time came he should be perfectly content to rest his case on what he regarded as the justice of it. 1610 He was perfectly content even that the counties, in time to come, should have a larger population than the burghs; and his only desire was that in some small measure they should adjust the inequalities that at present existed, and that would be increased by this measure, between the populations of the counties and of the burghs.
§ MR. TREVELYANSir Arthur Otway, as this debate has touched upon some of the most important points in the representation of Scotland, I propose to say one or two words early in the discussion which I think ought to be said, especially after some of the speeches that have been made. The hon. and gallant Member for South Ayrshire (General Alexander) made the only remark about it in the course of this debate to which I shall take objection. He seemed to have on his mind the impression that we made a charge of jerrymandering, as he called it, against his Party. All I can say is, that we consider that his Party have, throughout this Bill, so far from behaving in a spirit that could be characterized by that disagreeable slang word, behaved in the most equitable, public-spirited, and patriotic way. On the other hand, while I think he is quite right to repudiate that charge, I do not think he has any ground for bringing such a charge against the Government, least of all with regard to Scotland.
§ GENERAL ALEXANDERIt was the hon. Member for Stirlingshire (Mr. Bolton) who brought the charge against the Conservative Party last Wednesday.
§ MR. TREVELYANMy business is with the Government, and I am glad to have an opportunity of repudiating at once any such idea as existing in our own minds—if it could be suspected for a moment that such an idea did exist. In regard to ourselves, we certainly have no reason to try to jerrymander Scotland. We are anxious to leave the election of Members to the broad public opinion of Scotland, quite satisfied that in whatever shape Scotland is cut up, it would never tolerate, in the long run, a bad Government, whether that Government be Liberal or Conservative. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (General Alexander) said that my right hon. Friend (Sir Charles W. Dilke), who was not in his place at the moment—although it was 1611 almost the only moment he was not to be found in his place during these discussions—had dealt in an objectionable manner with the question of taking towns that hitherto had formed parts of the counties out of the counties and putting them into the groups of burghs. My hon. Friend the Member for Buteshire (Mr. Dalrymple) spoke with more particularity as to the position of my right hon. Friend. He said that my right hon. Friend had stated that this question of taking towns which have hitherto formed parts of counties out of the counties and putting them into groups of burghs was an open question. But what my right hon. Friend meant by that was quite clear to those who heard him, and especially to those who sit on the Treasury Bench. What he meant was that it was not a question which entered into the agreement between the two Parties. My right hon. Friend reminds me that the words he used were that the matter was "open to the Committee." That is an exact statement of the case, stated with perfect precision. The question did not enter into the agreement that has been so often referred to between the Leaders of the two Parties, and therefore the Committee was in a position to deal with it as it would. But that does not mean that the Government consider it, so far as the Government is concerned, an open question. They are perfectly firm on this point, that a vital principle of the Bill—not as forming part of the agreement, but as forming part of the Government view of what a redistribution scheme should be—is that small towns in Scotland which have formed parts of the counties hitherto shall remain parts of the counties, and shall not be taken out of the counties and placed in the burghs. I do not want to emphasize this by adding words at this moment; but it is quite impossible that any form of words which I can use should exaggerate the strength of the opinion which the Government entertain on this subject. Why, Sir, the hon. and gallant Member seems to think that the counties in Scotland have been ill-used. Ill-usage, under this Bill, means that each Member represents an extra large population. Well, what is the case? In Scotland every burgh Member represents 53,800 people; every county Member represents 52,900 1612 people; so that the slight difference which exists—because it is a very slight difference—tells against the burghs, and not against the counties. "Oh, but then" it is said—my hon. Friend the Member for Buteshire (Mr. Dalrymple) says so—"that is all very well; but there are such very great anomalies in the way the seats are distributed." He speaks of these small groups of burghs of 17,000 inhabitants. But you must have anomalies in any Redistribution Bill, and these anomalies tell quite as much in the case of the counties as in the case of the burghs. What constituency does my hon. Friend sit for? He sits for the constituency of Bute, and the population of Bute is, I believe, about 17,000—that is as near as possible the population of the smallest group of burghs which has been retained in this Bill.
§ MR. DALRYMPLEMay I be allowed to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman? I did not complain of the system; but what I commented upon was the inconsistency of the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Buchanan), who had so much to say about the inequality between the counties, while he had nothing to say about it in the case of the burghs.
§ MR. TREVELYANI quite understand the manner in which that allusion was brought in by my hon. Friend opposite; but I am bound to say that I think he has brought a charge against my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Buchanan) which cannot be maintained, because the next point I was coming to was the complaint of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Buchanan) that there were some very great anomalies in our distribution scheme as regards the burghs. The hon. Member for Edinburgh says that the single-burgh seats are very ill-used as against the groups of burghs. He stated that the disparity between the district seats and the single burghs in regard to population is as between 40,000 and 60,000—a matter of two to three. Well, in this world you cannot have perfection; but it is a very great thing if a Redistribution Bill takes a step, and a very great step, in the right direction, and I quite agree with my hon. Friend as to what the right direction is. Now, what step has this Bill taken? While my hon. Friend was speaking I made a 1613 very rapid mathematical calculation, which I think, on the whole, will hold good. At the present moment the single-seated burghs are in this position—there are 11 seats for 1,120,000. I daresay the calculation is not precisely accurate, but the figure is something like that—that is to say, that at the present moment in the single-seated burghs there are 100,000 people to every Member. This Bill has reduced the number from 100,000 to 60,000 for every Member, and I must own that that is a very great step in the right direction. At the same time the Bill, by the extension of two small groups of burghs, has somewhat raised the amount of population allowed to every Member in the groups of burghs.
§ MR. BUCHANANThe figures I gave were the figures for Scotland under the Bill.
§ MR. TREVELYANI quite comprehend my hon. Friend's meaning. The hon. Member pointed out what is undoubtedly a great inequality and anomaly, and I was only showing that the Bill goes far to correct what was a very much greater anomaly and inequality in the same direction. The hon. Member for Buteshire (Mr. Dalrymple) quoted the words and endorsed the complaint of the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Buchanan) that the Government proceed upon no principle in this Bill. I myself did not think the hon. Member went quite so far as the hon. Member for Buteshire (Mr. Dalrymple) thinks he did; but I am bound to say that when that remark was made by my hon. Friend opposite I did not hear one single cheer from these Benches, except from the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell).
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLI rise to explain that what I understood my hon. Friend to say, and what I cheered, was not that the Bill was bad and unequal, but that the new scheme of distribution brought in by the Lord Advocate increased the existing inequalities and did not decrease them.
§ MR. TREVELYANThen the remark which the hon. Member cheered was practically that the scheme of the Lord Advocate proceeded on no principle. [Sir GEORGE CAMPBELL: Hear, hear!] At any rate, he cheers that now. I was very much alarmed at what was contained in that cheer, for I stand before the hon. Member in the position of a 1614 victim. The hon. Member has scheduled my own constituency with that of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Noel), and I am waiting with great terror to ascertain what the nature of the charges are which he will bring against us to justify our immolation. But I cannot acquiesce either in the justice of the remark of the hon. Member for Buteshire (Mr. Dalrymple) or in the cheer of the hon. Gentlemen (Sir. George Campbell). I maintain that the Government have gone upon principle in this Bill. The main principle in this Bill is that they shall take the greatest step which can be made in the direction of giving representation in proportion to numbers, which is the only principle on which any good Redistribution Bill can possibly go, and, more than that, that it shall no longer be said of Scotland that the most wealthy and intelligent districts—if in Scotland one district can be more wealthy and intelligent than another—shallbe under-represented to a degree that absolutely constitutes a national scandal. Well Sir, the Bill has gone upon that principle, and I think it has very fairly carried it out. As to the details by which these changes are to be made, it is quite necessary—in fact, it is the only process by which it could be accomplished—that the burghs that are to be dealt with should first be put in this Schedule of disfranchisement and then in the Schedule of enfranchisement. It is the course which was adopted in the case of a Welsh borough. It is a course which, at the very least, avoids a monstrously cumbrous heap of Amendments; and it is extremely probable, in the opinion of those who have inquired into the matter, that however cumbrous the Amendments may be even yet, the object could not be carried out by any means except that which has been adopted by my right hon. Friend.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEI do not rise to challenge the observation of the right hon. Gentleman as to this being the most convenient manner of dealing with the question. I daresay it may be—perhaps it may be the only method in which the matter can be dealt with. But there are some inconveniences in the way that the question presents itself. But I do see one great advantage in the manner in which the Government are proceeding, and that is, that it has enabled us, at the very com- 1615 mencement of their proceedings, when in doubt as to the propriety of their method, to discuss, in a preliminary manner, the principles upon which we are to proceed in dealing with this part of the question; and I think there is some convenience in a general discussion of this kind. I do not pretend to have any minute acquaintance with the particular burghs of Scotland; I have only the information which has been presented to all of us; but I think it is desirable that we should, at the very outset of our proceedings, clear the ground as to the principles upon which we are to proceed. An observation was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Buteshire (Mr. Dalrymple) that he understood from the Government that the question of taking the small towns out of the counties and merging them in groups of burghs was a question which was to be considered an open one. Unfortunately I was not present when that discussion took place on Wednesday last, and I do not know precisely what was said; but I now understand that the Government take this position—that it is an open question so far as this, that there is no obligation, no agreement, no compact which in any way binds the Committee, or the Government, or the Opposition, or anybody else in regard to it, but that it is not an open question so far as the Government are concerned, because they have laid it down as a fixed principle—and the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Trevelyan) went so far as to call it a vital principle—rather a strong expression—a vital principle of the Bill created by themselves, that no towns should be taken out of counties and put into groups of burghs. Now, I certainly feel bound to confirm what has been said as to there being no compact or agreement between the two sides of the House upon this question. Distinctly and deliberately the arrangement of the Scottish burghs was excluded from the agreement made with regard to the other questions connected with this Bill; but the main principle upon which we conducted all our conferences—and the main principle upon which the Prime Minister has always argued with regard to the arrangements under this Bill—was a principle which I think ought not to be left of sight by the Government when they are establishing for them- 1616 selves the principle which they say shall govern their own conduct in this matter, and that principle is this—that as you are about to make large additions to the constituencies of the country you should take care so to divide and re-arrange the constituencies with which you have to deal as to provide for a fair and reasonable separation of the urban and rural elements. It was felt that the great measure of the Franchise Bill was to be one which would add largely to the county representation, and it was felt that if there was to be a large addition to the counties there should be such a re-arrangement of the electoral areas as to secure to them the benefit intended to be given to them, and prevent it from being taken from them, as a large proportion might be taken by the burgh and urban constituencies, and therefore upon that principle we proceeded in all the arrangements which were made in regard to other portions of the country. We certainly understood, not as a matter of compact in any way, but as a matter of reason and right, that the same principle would govern the Government, and govern Parliament and this House, in the decision of the questions which might arise in the re-arrangement of the urban and rural constituencies. Then, how is that to be done? It might be done by the division of the counties, as we propose in England, on principles which would separate those portions representing a particular interest from other portions which represent other classes of interests; but in Scotland it appeared to be a very reasonable thing—and it may, on examination, I think, turn out not only that it is reasonable and fair, but that it is the only satisfactory way of accomplishing that object—that as you have the system of grouping burghs in Scotland you may add to these burghs certain towns that are unrepresented at the present moment, and give them their representation, not through the county, but through the burghs and groups of burghs. The question which comes alphabetically first—that of the Ayr burghs—is a very good illustration. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (General Alexander) points out that according to the present arrangement there will be 90,000 population in the county division of South Ayrshire, and the scheme for the burghs will give them a population 1617 of 42,000. What he proposes is that two police burghs should be taken out, thereby reducing the number of the county population by 8,000, and that that population should be added to the burgh population, raising it to 50,000. That would give—for the county 82,000, and for the burghs 50,000. That seems, on the face of it, to be such an extremely reasonable proposal—though I do not say it may be necessary to admit it, and there may be an answer to it—that we want some better answer to it than to be told, as we were by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Trevelyan), that the Government had laid down the principle not to introduce burghs into groups when they were not in groups already. It seems to me that it is an utterly unreasonable position for the Government to take up, that it is contrary to the real meaning and intention of the measure as a whole, and so contrary to the spirit of the agreement that was made in regard to other proportions of the Bill, that I do hope, as we proceed in the discussion of this question, we shall find that the Government have not tied their own hands unnecessarily by laying down principles for which, as far as I am aware, they have given no reason whatever, and that they will not be shut out, by their own act, from giving fair, reasonable, and candid consideration to questions which may be raised on this subject.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the right hon. Baronet (Sir Stafford Northcote) in his remarks spoke of the proportions in Scotland of county and burgh populations. He spoke generally of the agreement as to certain rates of proportion regulating the representation of counties and burghs. He also asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Trevelyan) by what argument he could justify the views ha had expressed to the Committee. It seemed to him (Sir Charles W. Dilke) that one of the strongest arguments which existed was that which his right hon. Friend (Mr. Trevelyan) glanced at that day—namely, the question of the various county and burgh populations. The scheme of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Dalrymple) was to take burghs and towns out of the counties and add them to groups of burghs in Scotland. In England and Wales they gave by the Bill one Member to every 53,100 people in 1618 counties, and one Member to every 52,900 people in boroughs—the average for the counties and boroughs together being one Member to every 53,000 exactly. In Scotland, by the Bill, they gave one Member to every 52,900 in counties, and one Member to every 53,800 in burghs, the proportion for counties and burghs together being one Member to every 53,300. At the present moment in Scotland there were 32 county and 26 burgh Members. By the Bill they slightly, but very slightly, decreased the county population, and very slightly increased the burgh population, giving 39 Members to counties and 31 to burghs, being an increase of seven county Members and an increase of five burgh Members. The result was that the proportion came out in the way he had stated it. It was a proportion more favourable to the counties than it was to the burghs. The Scottish counties were more favourably represented than the English counties, and Scottish burghs were less favourably represented than English boroughs, and he thought these considerations ought to be present to the minds of the Committee in any proposal to reduce county population and to increase burgh population in Scotland.
§ GENERAL ALEXANDERobserved that his constituency had a population of 90,000.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that no doubt in particular cases there were hardships, but these were caused by such cases as the constituency of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Dalrymple), which numbered 17,000.
§ MR. DALRYMPLEsaid, he was delighted at the prominence that had been given in the discussion to Buteshire. But how did the averages which the right hon Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had quoted bear on the question which he (Mr. Dalrymple) brought before the Committee of the disproportion of the urban and rural element in particular counties?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he would explain how they bore on the question. Last night the right hon. Baronet the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote) spoke of a case where two different principles came into conflict. Taking the hon. Member's (Mr. Dalrymple's) view, he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) should say two principles came into conflict—namely, his principle 1619 of trying to exclude the urban element from the counties, and the principle of trying to represent the counties and burghs evenly.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEEvenly under similar circumstances; but where they had a larger proportion of the urban element in one county than in another they must consider the case of each county by itself.
§ MR. R. F. F. CAMPBELLsaid, that, as the Member for the Ayr Burghs, he could corroborate all that had fallen from the Lord Advocate with regard to the wish of Oban and Inverary to go into the county of Argyll. With regard to the Amendment of his hon. and gallant Friend (General Alexander), he had yet to learn that the Ayr burghs had any wish to be connected with Galston or Old Cumnock, nor had he heard that those towns wished to be joined to Ayr.
DR. CAMERONsaid, that having seen the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition (Sir Stafford Northcote) invested with the citizenship of Glasgow, he was rather disappointed to find that that most distinguished and esteemed citizen of the great burgh which he (Dr. Cameron) represented thought it necessary to disclaim any particular knowledge of the burgh system of Scotland. He (Dr. Cameron) rose, however, for the purpose of pointing out the inconvenience of dealing with the Amendment before the Committee in the manner in which it was suggested they should. It had been said that the plan of disfranchising burghs and existing groups of burghs for the purpose of re-arranging them was inconvenient. It was only inconvenient on account of their discussing on Schedule 1 Amendments which would properly come up on Schedule 4. The Amendment before the Committee was to abolish the existing Ayr group of burghs. Everyone seemed to be agreed to that. The hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (General Alexander), the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate (Mr. J. B. Balfour), the hon. Member for the Kirkcaldy Burghs (Sir George Campbell), the hon. Member for the Ayr Burghs (Mr. R. F. F. Campbell), were all agreed that the Ayr Burghs, as at present constituted, should be done away with. He (Dr. Cameron) said by all means do away with them; but if they 1620 were to enter into a general discussion on the subject of whether it was legitimate to take populous places out of counties in order to add them to groups of burghs, what would be the result? The result would be similar to that of last Wednesday—the discussion would be without much practical effect—for last Wednesday an hon. Friend below him derived one idea as to the intention of the Government, and the hon. Member for Buteshire (Mr. Dalrymple) derived quite an opposite idea. As a matter of fact, they were now anticipating the discussion which might probably come up on Wednesday next, when they were discussing Schedule 4. If they were now to enter upon a general discussion as to the principles which should guide them in connection with the re-arrangement of burghs, the day would assuredly be thrown away. It seemed to him that the most practical way in which the Amendments on the Paper might be most conveniently dealt with would be this. Let each Amendment be taken up as it occurred; where the Lord Advocate proposed to do away with an existing group of burghs—and everyone was agreed as to the expediency of some re-arrangement—let them agree with the proposal and do away with those burghs, and take up the question of re-arrangement in Schedule 4; and where the Lord Advocate proposed to do away with a group of burghs which some of them thought should not be re-arranged, then let those who thought so oppose the Motion to do away with the group. If they followed that course they would get through their work better and more speedily, and not lose the day as last Wednesday was lost.
§ MR. A. R. D. ELLIOTsaid, he was sorry he could not agree with the remarks of his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron). The confusion which appeared to have arisen was due to the fact, not that there had been too much discussion, but that there had been too little. This was a question which ought to be discussed in a general way at the earliest possible moment, and therefore he did not think the remarks of his hon. Friend (Dr. Cameron) would find much support. It was with a feeling of satisfaction that he (Mr. Elliot) heard that on one important point the Government were not tied down by the compact with the 1621 Leaders of the Opposition. He was one of those who had all along objected to a compact being arranged between the two Front Benches, and therefore it was a pleasure to him to know that the Government were free upon this matter, and that they could come forward and say on their own responsibility that they made such and such a matter a vital portion of the Bill. The Government had declared that they themselves were strongly opposed to the system of grouping burghs. Allow him to say that the system of grouping was entirely due to causes which long ago had passed away; grouping was not part of the old Scottish system. Grouping necessarily arose from the provision which had to be made when 72 Royal burghs had to get representation in the Parliament, of the United Kingdom. The system did not exist in the old Scottish Parliament, because in that Parliament Royal burghs were separately represented; but when the Union was agreed upon, 72 burgh Members could not be given to Scotland, and therefore it was almost necessary to treat several burghs as one burgh. Parliament ought now, however, to be guided mainly by matters of convenience and general interest in the way in which they were to treat the groups. Where they were inconvenient, where they were widely scattered, by all means let them be merged in the counties; but where they were situated near each other, like the Hawick group of burghs, nobody proposed to disturb them. The more old-fashioned groups of burghs were found extremely inconvenient, and the Lord Advocate was doing something to mitigate, the inconvenience that had been experienced. He regretted to hear his hon. and gallant Friend (General Alexander) talk of the jerrymandering desires of Members on the Ministerial side of the House. He should be very sorry indeed if Scottish Conservatism did not find proper representation in the House of Commons. He entirely differed from them on political matters; but he hoped his Conservative Friends would find themselves in the House in something like fair proportion to the number of Conservatives in Scotland. He had no desire they should not be represented. He now came to consider the particulars before the Committee. They had at present to deal with the 1622 Ayr burghs, and they were all agreed that those burghs required re-arrangement. It was quite true that the county of Ayr itself required additional representation, and perhaps the county of Mid Lothian also required additional representation. But that was a matter for future consideration. It was not fair to say that they were not doing something in the right direction because they were not doing as much as might be done. He knew that English Members were hardly aware of the extraordinary character of some of the groups of burghs in Scotland. The Wick district of burghs, for instance, consisted of six burghs, scattered at great distances from each other; they were Cromarty, Dingwall and Tain in Ross, Dornoch in Sutherlandshire, Kirkwall in Orkney, and Wick in Caithnessshire. Wick itself had a population of 8,000; indeed, it was the only place in the group which deserved to be called a burgh. The St. Andrews group consisted of seven burghs, including Anstruther, Crail Cupar, Kilrenny, and Pittenweem, some of which had only a few hundred inhabitants each. Now, what was the meaning of collecting together several small burghs of that description? Why not throw them into the county and make the division the St. Andrews division of the county of Fife, which would be a very reasonable thing to do? For all practical purposes, Fifeshire would be adequately represented if it had two Members for the county and one Member for the important collection of Fife burghs. Why should a county of the area of Fife have two sets of burghs within it? Surely it would be better represented as he suggested. The question of the representation of Mid Lothian was one which some time or other must crop up. There had been an agitation in favour of breaking the connection between Leith and Portobello and Musselburgh. If, however, the two latter burghs were thrown into the county of Mid Lothian, it would be reasonable that the county should have two Members. In their consultation upstairs with the Lord Advocate, they came to no definite conclusion as to how any additional Members were to be provided. Their scheme involved an addition of 14 Members to the Scottish representation, instead of an addition of 12 Members. Everyone now knew per- 1623 fectly well that it was impossible to get more than 12 additional Members, and if that was the case it must be by rearrangement, and he submitted that the only arrangement would be by merging the small burghs in the counties. Unfortunately, in dealing with this Bill, they were terribly hampered. At every point they were met by the statement that the matter had been arranged between the Leaders of the two Parties. It was quite clear that constituencies had been arranged according to classes; indeed, instructions were given to the Boundary Commissioners so to arrange them. More important instructions could hardly have been given to the Commissioners, and yet not one word of criticism had been passed upon them in the House. He regretted that matters had to such an extent been taken entirely out of the hands of the House, and arranged by the two Front Benches. He hoped that compacts such as this would be avoided in the future, and that the Party which happened to have the majority in the House would bring forward measures on its own responsibility.
§ MR. ORR-EWINGsaid, he was sure that the hon. Members who sat on the Opposition side of the House would be very much pleased with the tone of the speech they had just listened to, and he hoped the proposal to make additions now in existence would receive the support of the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Elliot). The hon. Member for Stirlingshire (Mr. Bolton) had said that he (Mr. Orr-Ewing) was the cause of the jerrymandering to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman (General Alexander) had made allusion. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bolton) had attacked him very strongly, and accused him of jerrymandering, not only Stirlingshire, but Dumbartonshire; but he forgot to tell under what circumstances he (Mr. Orr-Ewing) made the proposal. It was proposed by many parties to amalgamate Buteshire with Dumbartonshire or Argyllshire. The Lord Advocate proposed that Buteshire should combine with Argyllshire; but he (Mr. Orr-Ewing) thought it would be more suitable that Buteshire should be combined with Dumbartonshire; and it was with the view of having that carried out that he made a proposal to form a Clyde district of burghs. He wished to make that explanation in defence of the action 1624 which he had taken previous to coming up to the House. He was very sorry to hear the speech of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Trevelyan). It was of a very different tone from that of the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) in charge of the Bill. He understood the right hon. Baronet to say the other day that the Government were quite prepared, when they came to the question of regrouping burghs, to allow towns and populous places to be added to the existing groups, so as to endeavour to make up the population of these burghs to something somewhat similar to that of the counties. But that day they had heard from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster that it was a vital principle that no burgh that had not been in a group of burghs already should be added to a group of burghs. That was contrary to the agreement, and he (Mr. Orr-Ewing) thought it would be far better for Scotland if they at once did away with all groups of burghs than embark in a proposal that would create anomalies and do injustice in certain counties in Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said that one of the principles of the Government was, as far as possible, to equalize the constituencies of Scotland. The object of the Amendment of his hon. and gallant Friend (General Alexander) was exactly the same. The group of burghs which his hon. and gallant Friend wished to add 8,000 of a population to only had a population of 41,000, thus making it 49,000. South Ayrshire, which the hon. and gallant Gentleman represented, had a population of about 90,000, and would remain, if the Amendment was accepted, at 82,000. He (Mr. Orr-Ewing) asked upon what principle of fairness or equity a burgh in Ayrshire should have such a small constituency, when making this change, and the county should have such a large constituency? There was no doubt there must be a strong lingering feeling, not only among Members of the Government, but amongst the Liberal Members, to endeavour to make as few changes in Scotland as possible. The Liberal Party had hitherto had a monopoly of representation in Scotland, far beyond what the facts showed they were entitled to possess. If in 1880 the Conservatives had had the proportion of representation to which they 1625 were entitled, they would, instead of nine Members, have had 21. The hon. and learned Member for Roxburghshire (Mr. A. R. D. Elliot) said he would not like to see the number of Conservatives diminished in the House; but, on the part of the Government, there did not seem to be any desire that the Conservative representation should be strengthened, because, instead of dealing generously in the matter, they had brought forward a proposal which in his (Mr. Orr-Ewing's) opinion was very unjust. If the Government persisted in their present ideas, they would not be carrying out the instructions which the Government had given to their own Commissioners.
§ SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEsaid, he quite agreed with the hon. Members who had preceded him that it was quite right for them to discuss this question on the present stage of the Bill. As one of those who took a leading part in pressing the Government to revise the system of grouping in Scotland, he wished to tender his thanks to them for the manner in which they had done it. He thought the Government were not open to the charge that had been made against them of creating more anomalies than they had removed. If they were to make groups of burghs correspond as nearly as possible with the adjoining counties, they would get into great difficulties, and it would very likely end in their having to reconsider the question of the counties. They should have to make a greater approach to electoral divisions, although he should not regret that as an abstract proposition. He had had a long connection with Lanarkshire, and he was not unfavourable to a mixed constituency. He had hoped that the Lord Advocate would have been able to proceed with his scheme, and he was sorry that it had been dropped; but he would support the proposal as it now stood, and do his best to carry it out.
§ MR. WILLIAMSONsaid, the hon. and learned Member for Roxburghshire (Mr. A. R. D. Elliot) had animadverted, evidently without due reflection, on the grouping system in Scotland. There were only four towns in Scotland with 100,000 inhabitants, while there were a very large number of comparatively small towns. The county of Fifeshire, with which he had to do, had 60 or 70 1626 small towns, some of them grouped in the Kirkcaldy and some in the St. Andrews districts. He thought that not only ought some respect to be paid to prescriptive and ancient right, but that the grouping system in Scotland served an admirable purpose, and worked to the entire satisfaction of the country. He hoped they would adhere to their treatment of the groups of burghs as proposed in the Bill—that was, that groups of burghs with more than 15,000, just as single burghs in England or Scotland with more than 15,000, should remain. The hon. and learned Member for Roxburghshire and the hon. Member for the City of Edinburgh (Mr. Buchanan) voted against the Amendment of the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. A. Arnold) to extend the limit of disfranchisement to 20,000. If the extended limit had been made applicable to England, he had no doubt it would have been made applicable to Scotland too. His hon. Friends had spoken of anomalies; but the anomalies they had sanctioned in England by their votes upon the Amendment of the hon. Member for Salford were greater anomalies than any they had in Scotland. For instance, Hereford, with its 19,821 inhabitants, retained one Member; Whitehaven, with its 19,295 inhabitants, retained one Member; Grantham, with its 17,345 inhabitants, one Member; and many other places with similar populations were to have one Member each, while Birkenhead, with 84,006 inhabitants, Dudley, with 87,407 inhabitants, and Middlesborough, with 64,965 inhabitants, only had one Member each. The anomalies, therefore, to which his hon. Friends had given their sanction, were greater in England than they would be in Scotland. The hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Edinburgh (Mr. Buchanan) wanted to get an additional Member for Mid Lothian; but Mid Lothian, even if Portobello and Musselburgh were taken from Leith and merged in the county, would not come up to the limit of 100,000. The county had now 78,000 inhabitants, and if Portobello and Musselburgh were merged in it it would only have 93,000. In connection with this idea of finding means to give Mid Lothian an additional Member it was proposed to throw the St. Andrews Burghs into the Eastern division of the county— 1627 a county having 101,000 or 102,000 inhabitants. He hoped the Committee would put its foot down on this attempt to create an inequality as between groups of burghs with more than 15,000 and single burghs, the House having already resolved that the line should be drawn at 15,000.
§ MR. C. S. PARKERsaid, his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke) distinctly intimated to the Committee last week that the question of grouping burghs other than those already represented would be open to discussion at this stage. He had hoped that between the time that statement was made and the time at which the question was brought on, hon. Members would be able to ascertain what the people of Scotland thought about the matter. But the interval had been so much shorter than was expected, that the House had now to act with but little fresh information. The case now before the Committee was that of the Southern division of Ayrshire. It so happened that there they had the question of principle distinctly raised. In South Ayrshire they had the largest population in Scotland—perhaps in the United Kingdom—with a single Member. On the other hand, the group of burghs in South Ayrshire had only 42,000, and the present proposal would reduce the number by from 4,000 to 5,000. They were all agreed that Oban and Inverary should go out; but the proposal of the hon. and gallant Member (General Alexander) that the number should be made up again by adding 8,000 from two neighbouring burghs, raised the question of principle. Now, his right hon. Friend at the head of the Government laid it down at the first that there was to be in the main a principle of population, and also that in the redistribution of seats there should be an endeavour to maintain some of that diversity of character between the constituencies which had hitherto existed. Assimilation with regard to numbers must tend to make constituencies resemble each other; and the two Front Benches had come to the conclusion that the Boundary Commissioners should be instructed to maintain diversity of character as far as possible. He agreed with an hon. Friend in thinking that a principle like that might be carried too far. It was not desirable that Members of 1628 that House should all be marked off as Representatives of urban or of agricultural populations; but certainly the principles of the Bill seemed to require that in any change made the disproportion existing between urban and rural representation should be lessened rather than increased. Now, in South Ayrshire there was a constituency of nearly 90,000 with one Member. The Ayr Burghs had not half that population; and the question was whether one or two neighbouring burghs might not be taken from the county district and added to the group, in order to make the numbers a little more equal? In regard to this particular case, he would be a good deal guided in his vote by the wishes of the constituencies themselves. The hon. and gallant Member (General Alexander) had suggested that his constituents in the county approved of the change he proposed. On the other hand, the hon. Member for the Ayr Burghs (Mr. E. F. F. Campbell) had intimated that neither the burghs he represented, nor the two burghs which it was proposed to associate with them, had expressed any such desire. In these circumstances, he hoped that by the time they came to the further Schedule they would know better the real wishes of the constituencies concerned.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he thought the proposal he was now about to make would be received by the Committee with the same unanimity with which the last proposition had been accepted. The Wigtown Burghs, which he had the honour to represent, were a portion of the burgh representation of the South of Scotland at that moment. They were not to be reconstituted in any form; and he was well aware that there would be no object in detaining the Committee with a view of endeavouring to retain them as a burgh constituency. On the other hand, he wanted to point out to the Committee that considerable injustice was about to be done with regard to the burgh constituencies in the South of Scotland; because, if it was the intention of the Committee, as he believed it to have been, that the Committee should take care that the urban and rural population was fairly adjusted and fairly separated, the three Southern counties about which he was now about 1629 to speak—Dumfries, Kirkcudbright, and Galloway—ought to be considered in that sense. The population of those counties was 156,852, and it had hitherto been represented by five Members—three county and two burgh Members. The proposal in this Bill was to reduce that representation by one. But hitherto the proportion had been that 43,926 of the population had been represented by the two burgh Members. The proposal in the Bill, however, was to reduce the burgh population in those three counties to a total of 27,584—namely, Dumfries, Annan, Lochmaben, Sanquhar, and Kirkcudbright—leaving to the three counties a population of 130,000. Now, as it was well known that there were many towns very much larger in those three counties than Annan, Lochmaben, Sanquhar, and Kirkcudbright, it did seem very hard that under this Bill those towns should be merged in the counties, instead of being added to the district group of burghs to which they had a natural affinity. If the Dumfries district of burghs were treated as he proposed, they would have an opportunity of adding to it the town of Stranraer, which was the largest of the burghs about to be disfranchised except Dumfries. Stranraer was a most important and growing town, it was the nearest port to Ireland, and through it the postal communication which was about to be established with Ireland would flow. That town, naturally urban in its character, was to be merged in the county, while such towns as Lochmaben and Sanquhar, and even Kirkcudbright, which, as a matter of fact, had under 2,000 of a population, were to be left in the Dumfries district. The population of Stranraer was close on 7,000, and he believed there was only one other town in Scotland with anything like that population which was about to be merged in a county; indeed, Stranraer was the only town of its importance which was about to be taken out of a burgh and thrown into a county. It had lines of railway, and had many associations with Dumfries, and it seemed an extraordinary contention that to the large county population there was to be thrown in the largest town except Dumfries in the three counties. It had hitherto been the process in Scotland to associate towns which were of an urban character in a district of burghs. He 1630 was not going to travel over the arguments which had been so well debated by the Committee already; but with regard to this matter, he would like to suggest that, in case the Government should agree to the proposal, the Dumfries district of burghs should for the purpose be opened up in Committee on Schedule 2, so as to insert other towns. The burgh of Kirkcudbright, which was the most Westerly portion of the group, had a population of 2,571, yet half-way between it and Dumfries was the town of Dalbeattie, with a population of 3,855, and the town of Castle-Douglas, with a population of 2,565. These towns, which were of much more importance than Kirkcudbright, were ignored by the Bill, Kirkcudbright being retained in the group of burghs. Similarly, on the other side, they had the fact that Moffat and Lockerbie, with 2,000 inhabitants each, were much nearer to Annan and Sanquhar, which were portions of the Dumfries group. Inasmuch as the considerable population in the three counties was about to lose one of its Representatives, he thought the Committee would agree with him that it was but right that the urban population of those counties should be united with the Dumfries District Burghs, to which they had natural affinity, and that the burgh of Stranraer, with a population of 7,000, a much larger population than any other of the burghs in the Dumfries district, should be added to it for the purpose of preserving what was desired—namely, urban representation. He had the honour of attending a large meeting in the burgh of Stranraer not very long ago, in which the question was fairly put. The meeting, in which every shade of politics was represented, desired that they should retain their urban character. What he suggested would be a very fair and proper adjustment of the representation of Dumfries and Galloway, and therefore he begged to move the Amendment which stood in his name.
§ Amendment proposed,
§ In Schedule 1, page 13, column 2, line 46, after the foregoing Amendment, to insert the words,—
| "Dumfries (District of Burghs) | Dumfries and Kircud-bright." |
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
1631THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, that this was an Amendment to which he could not assent. It had already been explained that the sole object of putting any burgh or group of burghs into this particular part of the Bill was to dissolve them. His right hon. and gallant Friend proposed this Amendment with the view of adding to the Dumfries group four towns, or rather five, for in his speech he had added Stranraer. Ho noticed on the Paper an identical Amendment in the name of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Kirkcaldy Burghs (Sir George Campbell); but as that hon. Gentleman only moved an Amendment on this clause, which would have the effect of dissolving the group, and had given Notice of no Amendment as to re-grouping, he (the Lord Advocate) inferred that his proposal was simply to dissolve the group.
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLexplained that he intended to move another Amendment.
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, that, according to the Amendment on the Paper, the hon. Member would destroy the group, and revive it in no way. What the Committee had to consider was whether they were prepared to assent to either of these proposals? As regarded the first proposal, all that it involved was that to the existing group of burghs there should be added Lockerbie, with a population of 2,029; Moffat, 2,161; Castle-Douglas, 3,865; Dalbeattie with 3,865; and, according to the gallant Admiral's speech, Stranraer, with a population of over 6,000. As regarded the places referred to on the Paper, none of them were burghs, and none had hitherto been a member of a group of burghs. They were all small towns, only one, Dalbeattie, having a population of 3,000, and it was not a place with any distinctive burghal character. It had been already stated from the Government Bench that the proposal to add to the existing groups of burghs, especially by places of such small population, was one to which they could not assent. As regarded Stranraer, the case was somewhat different. Stranraer was already one of a group of burghs which had not in the aggregate 15,000 of a population, and accordingly underwent the penalty of disappearing under the Bill. Did it 1632 make any difference for the purpose of this case that they had to deal with a place which was one of a group of burghs which was to disappear? He submitted that it did not. No doubt, Stranraer was a county town, and as such would have its just influence in the county; but why that county town should be taken out of Wigton and added to Dumfries had not been shown by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir John Hay). Unless it was said that any place of 6,000 inhabitants ought to be added to something which was nearest, even though the distance might be great, he could not see any reason why Stranraer should be added to the existing Dumfries group. His right hon. and gallant Friend had, in aid of his argument, given certain statistics. He said that in the three Southern counties of Scotland—Dumfries, Kirkcudbright, and Galloway—there was a population of 156,852, and that this population was represented by three county and two burgh Members. Well, all he could say about that was that if they were all represented in these five Members, it would give 31,000 to each Member, which was very much below the average minimum; and by the reduction of 14,000 they would be still leaving the constituencies under 40,000 per Member, so that they would be still below the minimum. It came to this, therefore, that as far as population was concerned his right hon. and gallant Friend's statistics did not aid his argument, but went rather the other way—against it.
§ SIR JOHN HAYMy argument is not in favour of an additional number of Members.
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)No; but inasmuch as an appeal was made to statistics, that would seem to show that there was good reason for taking away a Member from that county.
§ SIR JOHN HAYMy argument was rather to show the difference between the urban and rural population, and to show that in the new scheme the burgh population will be reduced to 27,000 from 43,900.
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, he had not quite presented the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's argument, which was that there would be a disproportion between the 1633 counties and the boroughs, if they reduced the representation of 156,852 persons to four Members. The arrangement the light hon. and gallant Gentleman himself proposed would give the counties a population of somewhere about 43,000, which was considerably below the average, so that the counties would be well represented by three Members. So that, unless it were proposed to say that it has to be a sequence to the abolition of any group of burghs that they should pick up the bigger fragments and attach them to what was nearest, he should submit that there was no reason for adding Stranraer to the Dumfries Burghs; and as regarded four small towns or villages referred to in the Amendment, there was still less reason for accepting the proposal. With regard to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell), if what the hon. Member meant was to destroy the Dumfries group of burghs, then he should resist that. It was quite true that the Dumfries group of burghs was a very large one. Not only was the aggregate population very nearly double the 15,000 limit; but they had in the town of Dumfries alone, according to the Census of 1881, a population of 17,092, so that they had thus got one burgh—the burgh from which the group took its name—which would stand alone under the 15,000 limit. He did not think it necessary to say more than that, inasmuch as the only result of dissolving the group would be the adoption of a new arrangement which would not be acceptable. It was quite different in the last case, where the result would be such that everyone could accept. Everyone would dissent from the result of the present proposal.
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, it was only right that he should explain the Amendment to which reference had been made. He had not known whether the Government were going on with their plan, and had, therefore, thought it better to wait for the burghs to be dissolved before he put on the Paper a proposal for re-grouping them. His Amendment was the same as that of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir John Hay), although, no doubt, when they came to go into the details, it would be found that the proposals were of a somewhat different character. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor 1634 of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Trevelyan) was quite right in quoting him as having said that there was absolutely no principle in the Amendment which the Lord Advocate had put upon the Paper. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Trevelyan) had assured them that there were certain principles, so far as the Bill was concerned; but he (Sir George Campbell) did not think the right hon. Gentleman had attempted to show that there was any principle in the Lord Advocate's plan. He also thought the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Buchanan) was perfectly correct in saying that the plan of the Lord Advocate, taken as a whole, did not cure, or go in the direction of diminishing, the inequalities in the representation of Scotland. As a matter of fact, it increased them. He refrained from going into the question of the first Amendment, because it was wholly undisputed; but the present being a contested Amendment, he thought he had a right to say a few words in explaining his general view of the Lord Advocate's scheme. It seemed to him that not only was the scheme devoid of merit, but that the only recommendation it had was that it pleased nobody. Sometimes a middle course was desirable, although it did not please everybody; but it was perfectly clear that the proposed scheme pleased nobody—except, perhaps, the hon. Member for the Kilmarnock Burghs (Mr. Dick-Peddie), whose constituents would benefit by the scheme. As he had said, he objected to the Lord Advocate's Amendments, because they had no principle in them. Well, the object of his (Sir George Campbell's) Amendment was to put a little principle in them if possible. He would have been much better pleased if the Lord Advocate had not proceeded with his Amendments at all. It would be much better that they should be withdrawn. He (Sir George Campbell) would proceed to show why he thought the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendments were, he would not say unprincipled, but to be viewed in the sense of being without principle, and how he proposed to treat them by putting a little principle in them. He did not bring forward his Amendment because he wanted to carry further the system of grouping burghs, but, if possible, to infuse into the Lord Advocate's 1635 scheme something like equal justice—an equal measure to all, so that there could be no picking and choosing. He did not accuse the Lord Advocate of jerrymandering in an offensive sense; but he certainly thought that there was a very innocent form of political jerrymandering observable in his scheme. He objected to the scheme for various reasons. He objected to it, in the first place, because it amounted to a breach of faith in a technical sense, for he did not wish to be taken as using the word by any means offensively. The scheme was a breach of the understanding that the Committee had come to, and what it seemed to him the Prime Minister had put forward. He understood that the Bill was founded upon certain general principles—if not principles, at all events certain uniform rules. He thought the Government had rightly and wisely founded their Bill upon these rules, because, when rules were laid down and carefully followed, it was impossible that the charge of jerrymandering, or anything of that kind, could be bandied about from one side or the other. He had understood it to be a principle of the Bill that certain general rules should be followed; and he had understood from the Prime Minister, or from the right hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill (Sir Charles W. Dilke), that if any exception was made, or any change effected, it should only be in regard to matters to which there was very general agreement in Scotland. That was what they had been told would be the ground upon which changes would be warranted, and of course they had understood by that that it would be ascertained what the feeling of the constituencies as well as of Members was, that the feeling of the constituencies should be gauged, and that general assent having been obtained changes could be effected. Well, he altogether denied that in regard to the body of the changes the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate proposed there was any agreement whatever. So far as the constituencies were concerned, they had been kept entirely in the dark, no step having been taken to ascertain their feelings. He understood that even after this proposal had been sprung upon them, the Lord Advocate had refused to receive a deputation from the 1636 burghs—he might be wrong, but he had understood that to be the case. Then, not only had the general feeling of the constituencies been ignored, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate had also ignored the general feeling of the Members from Scotland. He understood that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had not required general agreement or anything like unanimity among Scotch Members; but with all the power and influence of the Government at his back he had obtained the opinion of the majority, and had been satisfied with that information to carry out the particular changes be desired to make. He did not think the opinion the Lord Advocate had gathered from the Scotch Members could be at all viewed in the light of a general agreement. When he (Sir George Campbell) came to the plan proposed, he would explain how he thought it was contrary to the agreement and understanding which had been arrived at. He had already declared it to be his opinion that the plan increased existing anomalies instead of diminishing them. The feeling in Scotland had been that this proposal had died and was not to be revived. When Parliament met, there was a general meeting of the Scotch Members called together—a meeting not of a section or of some few Scotch Members, but of the whole body. Well, what happened on that occasion? Why, when they first met, it was proposed that general approval should be given to the Lord Advocate's proposal.
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLYes; to the Lord Advocate's proposal there was a chorus of disagreement. Almost everyone disagreed with it, and the hon. Member for the Kilmarnock Burghs, who now expressed disagreement, was most strongly opposed to it.
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, the hon. Member would have the right of reply if he would be patient.
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, that, including his hon. Friend (Mr. Dick-Peddie), almost all the Scotch Members had been opposed, or had 1637 refused to give general approval to the scheme; but the Lord Advocate appeared to have squared his hon. Friend (Mr. Dick-Peddie) by modifying the proposal with reference to the Kilmarnock Burghs. His hon. Friend, he thought, would admit that when the Scotch Members met he (Mr. Dick-Peddie) was one of the Lord Advocate's strongest opponents. This was a very important point, and the Committee should not lose sight of it. When the question touched the interests of the Scotch Members individually there was a general chorus of disapproval. Upon this the Lord Advocate changed his plan, making alterations in detail; and when he came to do this the objections of some individual Members were done away with, and it turned out that the majority of the Scotch Members found it convenient to continue loyal to the Government. Scoth Members were always loyal to their Leaders if their toes were not trodden upon. A great many of the Scotch Members at the meeting abstained from voting; but taking the Members who were loyal on account of their interests not being affected, and those who were content with what was proposed because it affected other constituencies and not their own, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate had a majority of 20 or 21 to 7 or 8 in each case. There had been, however, so little "general agreement" amongst the Scotch Members that for a long time they heard no more about the proposals. He believed that amongst the Members of the Government, even amongst Members of the Cabinet, and certainly amongst Members generally, the idea prevailed that the proposal had been dropped. However, the Lord Advocate had quite recently put it upon the Paper, and it now turned out that it had been very materially altered. The hon. Members for the Ayr and Kilmarnock Burghs had evidently been squared. Originally they had not been satisfied; but now that they had been relieved of the disadvantage of inconvenient and outlying burghs they were perfectly satisfied with the scheme. Then, what remained of the Lord Advocate's scheme? Why, two things, one being the throwing of a certain number of small boroughs into the counties. He (Sir George Campbell) should have no objection to that if 1638 hon. Members generally agreed to it; but the other part of the scheme was the re-grouping of certain boroughs, and it was in regard to those that he complained of, there being no principle in the proposal. What the right hon. and learned Gentleman had done had been, he would not say to bribe hon. Members who were opposed to him, but "to satisfy" those hon. Members who had been previously violently opposed to him. Considerable advantage had been given to what he (Sir George Campbell) might call one and a-half of the three groups, the whole burden and loss being thrown on the other one and a-half, which were to have only one Member. He would not enter upon the details of this scheme. They were very important to his constituency; but he would not go into the question now, as it did not come before the Committee in the present Amendment. He, however, would express a hope that the Government would not go on with that scheme. He now came to the proposal which he himself wished to submit to the Government, and to the reasons why he supported the proposal of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Wigtown Burghs (Sir John Hay)—although he would modify the effect of the adoption of the Amendment later on if it were in his power. He (Sir George Campbell) wished to make a proposal which, he thought, would put the Committee on a better footing. He maintained that what was sauce for the goose was sauce for the gander, and they ought to treat one set of burghs exactly as they treated another which was similarly situated. He would propose to abolish the Hawick and Dumfries Burghs, and to re-group them, because he believed them to be almost on identically the same footing as the Kirkcaldy and Dunfermline group, and if they re-grouped the one they ought to re-group the other.
MR. LYULPH STANLEYSir Arthur Otway, I rise to Order. I understood that you permitted a great deal of latitude in reference to Ayr; but I ask whether it is in Order for the hon. Member to talk about every burgh in Scotland which it is proposed to group or not to group?
THE CHAIRMANI really think the time has come when I must call upon the hon. Member to limit his 1639 remarks. The Question before the Committee does not relate to the plan of the hon. Member; but is to insert at the end of the foregoing Amendment "Dumfries"
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLadmitted that all he had said hitherto had been somewhat wide of the Amendment. He, however, thought the right hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill would admit that it was distinctly understood that the whole of this question should be discussed at this time, so as to save time in disposing of Amendments which would come on subsequently. He had refrained from expressing his opinions generally on the first Amendment, be cause it was one upon which they were all agreed—that was to say, because it was not a fighting question. He now came to the particular question of his Amendment. He had special interest in these two burghs—namely, the Hawick and Kirkcaldy district. Both of them were model burghs, if he might so express it. Between the Stirling group of burghs and——
THE CHAIRMANI must point out that the hon. Member's arguments are not appropriate to this Amendment at all.
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he had only one word more to say to show what his object was. The three burghs which were the direct subject of this Amendment contained the town of Dumfries, which contained a trifle over 17,000 inhabitants, so that he thought he was correct in saying that it was about identical with the burgh of Dunfermline. To both these burghs the remark of the Lord Advocate applied. They were both so large that if they stood alone and were situated in England they would not be deprived of separate representation. ["No, no!"] The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate had certainly said that Dumfries was so largo that if it stood alone in England it would not be deprived of separate representation. Therefore he was justified, he thought, in saying that Dunfermline, which was similarly situated, if it stood alone in England would not be deprived of a separate representation. If the proposal he made in his Amendment should be carried, he should be glad to propose that Dumfries should be united to the Hawick Burghs. As excellent as they 1640 were at present, he thought they would constitute a still more model constituency, coming near to an equal electoral district. He had no wish to deprive the Hawick Burghs of the services of his hon. Friend, or Dumfries of the services of its Member; but he said that they might quite consistently with the other proposals of the Lord Advocate, in the case of the very small counties of Peebles and Selkirk——["Question, question!"]
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLI did not catch your last observation, Sir.
THE CHAIRMANThe hon. Member's speech has been unusually discursive. I did not interrupt him once or twice when I ought to have done so; but I really now must say that he must confine himself to the Question.
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he would not further allude to the Hawick Burghs, but would refer for a moment to the Dumfries Burghs. [Several hon. MEMBERS: No, no!] The Amendment on the paper referred to them. He would confine himself to this observation—that what he proposed was that the smaller burghs constituting the Dumfries group of burghs, following the proposal of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate as to the other burghs, should be added to the county in which they were situated, and that Dumfries itself should be added to the Hawick Burghs.
MR. DICK-PEDDIEsaid, he had no intention of continuing the discussion on the general question; but, as the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) had referred to him, and had said that most of the Scotch Members disagreed with the Lord Advocate, he thought it right to state that at the meeting of Scotch Members he approved almost all the Lord Advocate's proposals. He had opposed an arrangement which was proposed with regard to his own burghs, and in that matter the scheme had been modified, and he now approved of the whole of the proposal; but he thought the hon. Member hardly used Parliamentary language when he spoke of his being "squared" by the Lord Advocate.
§ MR. ERNEST NOELsaid, he thought that the speech of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) had 1641 nothing to do with the arrangement of the Dumfries Burghs. The hon. Member had merely taken the opportunity of expressing dissatisfaction with the scheme of the Lord Advocate—or rather with one part of it. It was a pity the hon. Member had not waited until the scheme relating to his own burgh was under discussion. The proposal of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Sir John Hay)—if it were to be taken seriously—certainly seemed to him a remarkably cool proposal. The speech of the Lord Advocate sufficiently explained how the Government could not accept the Amendment of his right hon. and gallant Friend. He proposed to make an alteration in the grouping of the burghs which he (Mr. Noel) represented, and in doing that he would take 5,000 of the population out of the county of Kirkcudbright—which had a population of 35,000—and add them to the burghs. Thus, according to his right hon. and gallant Friend's proposal, the county would be left with 30,000, while the burgh constituency he would form would be 43,000. Therefore, to get rid of one anomaly—that was to say, a burgh representation of 27,000—he would reduce the county to 30,000, and make the burgh representation 43,000. That could hardly be looked upon seriously after the speech of the Lord Advocate. He would just say one word with regard to the inclusion of the burgh of Stranraer in the Dumfries group. This burgh was in another county. It was more than three hours by rail from Dumfries; it had no real affinity to Dumfries, and really there was nothing in common between these towns. The newspapers did not circulate between the two towns. ["Yes, yes!"] Well, very few of them. The circulation of the Dumfries papers in Stranraer was very small. He had been intimately connected with the Dumfries Burghs for 17 years, and had been 11 years their Member. Yet during all that time he had never been called upon in any way to take part in any matters connected with Stranraer. Therefore, he could say confidently that there really was no affinity between this burgh, lying at the extreme end of another county, and at a very long distance from the nearest of the Dumfries group.
§ SIR JOHN HAYI wish to remind my ton. Friend that we have the same 1642 Sheriff, the same Presbytery, and the same lunatic asylum.
§ MR. ERNEST NOELsaid, there might be some things of that sort in common between the two towns; but if grouped in the way proposed for that reason, it would be found that very large districts could be brought together in the same way. But he did not feel that he could seriously discuss the question because of the speech of the Lord Advocate. If that speech had not been made, declaring the intentions of the Government, he (Mr. Ernest Noel) should have gone into the matter in detail to show how many grave objections there were to the course the right hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir John Hay) proposed.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 88; Noes 152: Majority 64.—(Div. List, No. 67.)
§ Amendment proposed, in Schedule 1, page 13, column 2, line 46, after "Scotland," insert "Elgin (District of Burghs)."—(The Lord Advocate.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. ASHER)said, as the Amendment of his right hon. and learned Friend affected the district of burghs which he (Mr. Asher) had the honour to represent, he wished to say a few words in regard to it. His right hon. and learned Friend proposed to insert the Elgin District in this Schedule, for the purpose of re-arranging it under the 4th Schedule by omitting the burgh of Kintore. He (Mr. Asher) had received a very strong representation from that burgh, signed, he believed, by almost every householder in it, protesting against being separated from the Elgin District, and being merged in the county of Aberdeen; but he was obliged to keep in view that one of the principles on which the Government scheme was based was that all existing burghs having a population of less than 1,000 should be merged in the counties. He was also aware that that principle had received very general assent throughout the whole of Scotland. ["No, no!"] That certainly was according to the information which he at present had. In those circumstances, though he regretted very 1643 much that the burgh of Kintore should be severed from the Elgin District against the wishes of its inhabitants, he did not feel justified in opposing this Amendment, at least upon the assumption of the principle that every existing burgh having less than 1,000 inhabitants was to he merged into the counties. Of course, if there should be any modification of that principle by any decision of the Committee, and if any exception should be made to it, probably there was no case in which stronger gounds could be stated for mating an exception than the case of the burgh of Kintore. Therefore, he reserved to himself, in the event of any exception being made to that principle, the right of raising the question again when it came up on Schedule 4; but, in the meantime, he did not feel justified in objecting to the Amendment.
§ MR. J. A. CAMPBELLsaid, he had an Amendment on the Paper to the same effect as that of the Lord Advocate; but his object was different. He would not detain the Committee at present with particulars as to the claims of Fraser-burgh. He did not object to the small burgh of Kintore being dropped; but he intended to propose that in its place Fraserburgh should be added to the Elgin group for the purpose of making good workmanship, which ho was sure they would all wish this Bill to have as one of its characteristics. Fraserburgh was a fishing town with a population of 6,580, and had identical interests with, at least, three of the burghs of the Elgin District. Therefore, he thought that in order to make the group a reasonable one, it was desirable that a fishing town of this kind should be added to the other burghs of the same character. He made this statement in order to show why it was that he agreed with the proposal that this group of burghs should, be placed in the 1st Schedule.
DR. CAMERONthought it was rather a pity that the Solicitor General for Scotland had not got the courage of his convictions. His hon. and learned Friend spoke, no doubt, in highly deserved terms of the burgh of Kintore, yet he was willing to sacrifice it to his right hon. and learned Colleague. As to the assertion of a principle involved, he (Dr. Cameron) did not see that there was any principle at stake. It was a matter of compromise all round; and he thought it right, 1644 where such burghs as Oban wished to be merged in the counties, even if they were much above the 1,000 population limit, that they should be merged. He also thought that deference should be paid to the wishes of such burghs as came up very close to the 1,000 of population, and that did not wish to be sacrificed, especially when their neighbouring burghs did not wish to get rid of them. He had spoken because his hon. Friend the Member for the Elgin Burghs might take heart of grace when he knew that he would meet with some support, should he push any objection to this proposal to a division, in his (Dr. Cameron's) vote.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Amendment proposed, in Schedule 1, page 13, column 2, line 46, after "Scotland," insert "Falkirk (District of Burghs)."—(The Lord Advocate.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he had every desire to save the time of the Committee. He thought he had already exhausted the general argument, and though the Chairman might have misapprehended him at the time, yet he really wished to save the time of the Committee. He only wished to say, with regard to this proposal, that it seemed to him to be one for which the Lord Advocate had given no reason, and for which he could give no reason. He (Sir George Campbell) could not imagine, if there were to be groups of burghs at all, that there could be a better group than the present Falkirk District. It contained a population of 53,000, which was the average district population, and it was what they in Scotland called a "homologous" district of burghs of the same character geographically near, and connected by railway. Putting aside the county argument, which had been abandoned by the Lord Advocate in respect of other groups, there could not be a better group than the present Falkirk District of Burghs, more like one another, or having more easy communication, and he had heard no reason why it should be dissolved.
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, he should not have thought it necessary to say anything had it not been for what his hon. Friend 1645 had just urged, because he had thought this was a point upon which there was an absolute unanimity. He believed there was still unanimity, minus his hon. Friend. He could not describe this group, as his hon. Friend did, as "homologous;" he was not sure what was the meaning of the word. The group consisted of Airdrie, Falkirk, Hamilton, Lanark, and Linlithgow, being five burghs in three counties, and they were neither locally situated to each other, nor had they any identity of interest. The hon. Member for the Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Ramsay), who was not now in his place, communicated, at an early stage of the proceedings on this Bill, the absolute unanimity of his constituents in regard to this change. In what the Government proposed to do with regard to Linlithgow they gave effect to the wishes of the burgh to be merged in the county. It wanted to go in, and no one, as far as he knew, had anything to say against that. With regard to the remainder of the group, which were partly in the county of Stirling and partly in the county of Lanark, they proposed to make a Lanark group, which should consist, to some extent, of burghs of the present Falkirk group, and, to some extent, of other burghs; and that proposal, he believed, had received unanimous assent. With regard to Falkirk itself, they proposed to join it with the burgh of Stirling, both being in the same county; and that arrangement, he believed, had the unanimous assent of the population.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he had an Amendment on the Paper to schedule the Hawick District of Burghs; but he had already anticipated the whole of the argument he wished to use as to these burghs. His proposal was to the same effect as that regarding the Dumfries Burghs; but the latter fell to the ground, and he presumed this would follow. Still, it seemed to him that what was sauce for the goose in his own case was sauce for the gander in the other.
§ MR. DALRYMPLEsaid, he did not propose to economize the time of the Committee as his hon. Friend had done. He wished to move an Amendment to schedule the Hawick Burghs, 1646 with a view to a re-arrangement under Schedule 4. Something had been said as to the proposal not being made in seriousness. He could assure the Committee, however, that so serious was he in the course he was taking that he was prepared to support his Amendment by very good reasons, and, if necessary, divide the Committee upon it, notwithstanding that it had been said that the Scotch Members agreed about everything in general, but differed about everything in particular. He was anxious to do what was called "liberate" the Hawick Burghs, but for a different object to that which the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) had in view. The position of the Hawick Burghs was peculiar. There could be no more appropriate arrangement than the existing group; but it was not a large one, and its population was about 34,000. Jed burgh, which was at present one of the Haddington Burghs—which group was to be abolished—was in the very near neighbourhood of the Border Burghs. It was proposed by the Bill that Jed burgh' should be flung into the county of Roxburgh, and should no longer be a Parliamentary burgh; and he proposed that this town, which was at present a Parliamentary burgh, should so continue—that it should be linked, not as hitherto with other towns far away from it, but with towns close to it, and of a similar description. Even in the course of a Scottish debate he was somewhat surprised at the use of the word "homologous," because, like the Lord Advocate, he did not understand what it meant; but instead of saying that Jed burgh was "homologous" with the other Border Burghs, he would say that it was, to a great extent, homogeneous. It had a population of 3,400, and was a manufacturing place; and, as regarded occupation, character, and other respects, it was very similar to the present Border Burghs, besides lying very close to them. He had heard it said that the proposal he made was unpopular, and it was quite possible that it might be; but he had yet to learn that a proposal was necessarily mischievous because it was unpopular. He would endeavour to mention the extreme suitableness of the arrangement he advocated. If Jed burgh were added to the Border Burghs, to which, for obvious reasons, it should 1647 be connected, it would make the population of the group only about 38,000, or a little more, and he considered that a very fair number; and, as compared with other groups, it was a very moderate population for a group of burghs. He would have been glad to raise this question, if it were only for the purpose of eliciting an argument from the other side of the House. He was anxious to hear the argument of the hon. Member for Roxburghshire (Mr. A. R. D. Elliot), but much more so to hear the argument of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Trevelyan). Nobody was entitled to speak upon this subject with greater authority than the right hon. Gentleman was; and he wanted to hear what was the objection to the arrangement he proposed of grouping Jed burgh with these other towns, and thus making a group which would not have an excessive population. Do not let it be said that they were proposing to pick out the towns, and have only a rural population. They were attempting to do nothing of the sort. With the hon. Baronet the Member for North Lanarkshire (Sir Edward Colebrooke), he preferred a mixed population in a county, and was no advocate for purely rural or purely urban constituencies. They were not proposing to abolish the urban element in Roxburghshire at all; they were only proposing that Jed burgh should be grouped with other burghs in close proximity to it, and which had similar industries and occupations. He would not detain the Committee further; but he should certainly ask the judgment of the Committee upon his proposal.
§ Amendment proposed,
§ In Schedule 1, page 13, column 2, after line 49, to insert the words—
| "Hawick (District of Burghs) | Selkirk and Roxburgh." |
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid, the burghs which he had the honour to represent had been introduced into the Paper of Amendments by two hon. Members. One of them was his hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell), and he (Mr. Trevelyan), would deal with him first, because his arguments were extremely short, and of a pithy 1648 nature. His hon. Friend said he proposed to deal with the gander as the goose had been dealt with. Now, he (Mr. Trevelyan) objected to be called a gander; but while the hon. Gentleman was speaking he could not help thinking of some of the most pointed lines in all English satire, which referred to the Marquess of Grahame of that day. The Marquess of Grahame compared himself to a goose in the House of Commons, as his hon. Friend (Sir George Campbell) had compared himself, on the ground that by his cackling he woke the Ministers to a sense of their danger. The lines he was reminded of were—
If right the bard, whose numbers sweetly flow,That all our knowledge is ourselves to know,What Sage like Grahame can the world produce,Who in full conclave called himself a goose?The admiring Senate, from the high-born youth,With wonder heard the undisputed truth.But in this case it was not an undisputed truth. He (Mr. Trevelyan) disputed it. His hon. Friend had done himself great injustice. The hon. Member was not what he called himself—he was a great and eminent administrator—and as a great and eminent administrator he must be aware that such a proposal as that of joining Dumfries to the Border Burghs did not come within the range of practical politics. He turned then to the arguments of his hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Dalrymple). The hon. Member said he was extremely anxious to know what possible reasons could be given against his proposal. In the first place, he (Mr. Trevelyan) gave a general reason, which was that in their opinion the burghs of Scotland had got their full population as compared with the counties; and he repeated once more that, whereas the burgh population was to every Member 53,800, the county population was 52,900. Now, his hon. Friend said that these were not a very populous group. They might not be very populous according to some standard existing in the mind of his hon. Friend; but, on the other hand, they were a very fairly populous group as among Scottish burgh constituencies. There were no less than seven other groups of burghs in Scotland that were less populous than the Border Burghs. They must consider not only what the 1649 population of the place was, but whether the population was growing or otherwise. Now, at the present moment the population of the Border Burghs was 37,640; whereas at the time when the late Earl of Beaconsfield picked them out from the surrounding counties, and gave them the romantic name they were now known by, they had only a population of 25,000 according to the Census of 1871. Now, when a burgh increased in 10 years from 25,000 to 37,000, it might fairly be called a nourishing borough. He doubted whether they could find, with the exception of Barrow-in-Furness, any such relative increase in the whole of the United Kingdom. His bon. Friend proposed to add to these burghs by taking a town from the county of Roxburgh—taking from the less in order to give to the greater. The county of Roxburgh had a population of 34,000, and he thought it would require a strong argument to prove that it would be right to rob the county, with a smaller population, to increase the burghs with a larger population. These arguments, he maintained, his hon. Friend did not bring forward. Jedburgh was only in some respects similar to the Border Burghs. These burghs constituted the most homogeneous constituency that could be imagined. It was a constituency of towns that were once small pleasant towns, but which had become large towns without ceasing to be pleasant, and which had increased with great rapidity by the prosperity of the tweed trade, the tweed trade also existing in Jed burgh, but not to the same extent as in Selkirk, Galashiels, and Hawick. Jedburgh was essentially a county town, and there was not one of the three towns in the Hawick group that was not very nearly twice as large as Jed burgh, and two of them were five times as large. Much as he respected the people of Jed burgh, he did not want to have them for his constituents, unless they were anxious for it themselves; but he objected to the proposal of his hon. Friend because of what it would take from the county. Jedburgh being a very important county town, on these grounds, and on the ground likewise that they were treating Scotland very differently from England by granting these district boroughs, he said that by creating and re-creating burghs of 3,000 in Scotland, when in England they made 1650 no new burgh under a figure of 50,000, they were treating Scotland, not with generosity, but with an unfairness which he thought would have a very bad effect on the constituencies.
§ SIR JOHN HAYsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had alluded to the borough which he had the honour to represent (Wigtown), and said it was impossible to ask them to do in Scotland what they did not do in England; but the right hon. Gentleman should not talk of consistency when the Government were proposing to do exactly the same thing in Wales as they were asking for in Scotland. They proposed to break up the borough of Haverford west by adding it to the Pembroke Boroughs, which was exactly on all fours with the case of the Hawick Burghs. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not urge consistency as being part of the Government Bill.
MR. CRAIG-SELLARsaid, the hon. Member for Bute (Mr. Dalrymple) had described Jed burgh as a relic of the Haddington Burghs. As he (Mr. Craig-Sellar) had the melancholy satisfaction of representing that relic, he wished to say a word on the proposal now before the Committee. His hon. Friend must remember that although Jed burgh was a relic of the Haddington Burghs, and was a small town, it was, at the same time, the capital of the county of Roxburghshire, and on that account it was not unreasonable that the inhabitants should wish to vote in the county. With regard to the question of the popularity of the proposal, he would remind the Committee that as soon as the Bill was presented an important meeting was held at Jed burgh, and they unanimously came to the conclusion that Jed burgh should be merged in the county, and not, as his hon. Friend proposed, merged in the Border Burghs. That, he thought, was a sufficient answer to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir John Hay), who had made remarks with regard to Haverford west, where there was no desire to be merged in the county. Therefore, so long as the question of popularity had any weight, and it was popular in the borough that they should be joined to the county, he hoped the Committee would have no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that the Amendment should be rejected.
§ SIR JOHN HAYasked, whether the right hon. Gentleman who was in charge of the Bill would explain what was the difference between the case of Stranraer and Haverford west?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he did not like interfering in a Scotch discussion; but with regard to Haverfordwest, he should be glad to defend it, although it was a proposal which the Government did not regard as a vital one.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEreminded the Committee that in voting upon this question the Government had laid down a most unnecessary rule for themselves, which had precluded them from allowing any towns which were not now boroughs from being formed into groups. When they were considering the question whether they were to turn what was now a new burgh into a part of a county, they must bear in mind that the Government had deliberately excluded themselves from coming to a satisfactory settlement of the matter, and creating a fair balance between urban and rural districts by the rule they had laid down.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, in regard to what had been said by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, he must repeat the argument which he had already used—namely, that, as a matter of fact, they favoured counties in Scotland by the proposal of the Bill as compared with burghs. The Scottish counties were more favourably represented than the English counties, and the Scottish burghs were less favourably represented than the English boroughs.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, the answer to that seemed to him to be this—that the Government were dealing with large averages, and not considering individual circumstances.
§ Question put.
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL, on being named one of the Tellers for the Amendment, speaking seated, with his hat on, said, he wished to vote the other way. His Amendment was entirely different in its object from that of the hon. Member, although the same in its terms.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 99; Noes 172: Majority 73.—(Div. List, No. 68.)
1652§ Amendment proposed,
§ In Schedule 1, page 13, column 2, after line 49, to insert the words—
| "Inverness (District of Burghs) | "Inverness, Nairn, and Ross and Cromarty |
| Kilmarnock (District of Burghs) | |
| Kirkcaldy (District of Burghs) | Ayr, Renfrew, and Dumbarton Fife." |
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSHexpressed his great regret that the Lord Advocate intended to do away with the Inverness District of Burghs. He desired to point out, however, that the object was not wholly obtained, because the burghs were contained in four counties, and the Lord Advocate had only scheduled three.
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)asked leave to amend his Amendment by adding thereto the word "Elgin."
§ Amendment amended, by inserting after the word "Nairn" the word "Elgin."
§ MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSHsaid, the Amendment had now been put in proper form. He had been surprised that afternoon to hear the Solicitor General for Scotland (Mr. Asher) state that to exclude boroughs of 1,000 population was part of the original principle of the Bill. That he utterly denied, because it was not part of the original Bill; and he was happy to say that it was not one of the matters that came under the compact between the two Front Benches, nor was it a matter that interfered with the principle of the Bill. The Lord Advocate, at a meeting of the Scottish Members after the Bill was read a second time, proposed to insert in the Bill that all burghs with a population under 1,000 should be thrown into the counties. But the reason why he fixed l,000 he had not chosen to explain. There was no magic in 1,000, and he might just as well have made it 900, or 600, or 500. Now, the Amendment would deprive the ancient burgh of Fortrose from any longer having a voice in the burghal representation of Scotland. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had also misstated the figures in regard to the population of Fortrose; for in 1881 the population was 986—within 14 of the Lord Advocate's own limit—and 1653 since that time the population had risen to over 1,000. The burgh of Fortrose distinctly objected to be withdrawn from the district of burghs; the county of Ross, to which it was proposed to join Fortrose, did not wish it to be joined; and the burghs of Inverness, of Nairn, and of Forres, desired it to remain connected with them. Under those circumstances, he could not believe that the Lord Advocate would adhere to the hard-and-fast line which he had laid down. Fort-rose was one of the oldest of the Scottish burghs; it had a long Parliamentary history, and was so rich in common property that it had absolutely no borough taxes. It was closely associated with Inverness; and although it lay within the county of Ross, it was more intimately connected with the burgh of Inverness.
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, it had been already stated—and he believed it to be a very general opinion, and also a sound principle—that places below 1,000 should not remain as units of groups of burghs. Places which were so small that they had not 1,000 population would hardly come up to the dignity of burghs. Whether the principle was sound in this case it was for the Committee to judge; but they had already accepted it in other cases. He had taken the population of Fortrose from a Parliamentary Return, which showed that it was not only a small population, but that it was a decreasing population. According to the Census of 1871 it was 911, and to the Census of 1881 it was only 869. The hon. Member had said the population was going up; but he could see nothing to mate it go up, considering it had been steadily decreasing for some time. It was one of the Inverness group certainly; but it was not in the county of Inverness, nor was it locally contiguous to Inverness, being separated from it by an arm of the sea. Fortrose was a small town or village in the county of Ross; and he submitted that it was more proper that it should be made a part of the county of Ross than one of a group of burghs with which it was not connected at all. He was not prepared to say that there should be a preservation of such small burghs as this; and he knew nothing to justify an exception being made in this case from the rule which had been laid down.
DR. CAMERONsaid, the Lord Advocate had assumed that the principle of disfranchising all those small burghs which were below 1,000 population had been affirmed; but he (Dr. Cameron) did not think it had. This was really the first case they were called upon to decide on the subject. His hon. Friend on that side of the House assured him that his figures were correct in regard to the population, and there must, therefore, be some mistake. Would it not be well for the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate to suspend his execution for a while—give a reprieve to Fortrose for a time? If not, he would vote with his hon. Friend.
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he could not understand the action of the Government in this matter. If they were going to disfranchise all places under 1,000 on the ground of high principle, which the Lord Advocate had put before the Committee, why did they not also apply that principle to the Welsh boroughs? It seemed to him that they had adopted a principle which they departed from whenever they thought fit. He hoped the Committee would insist upon an explanation in this matter.
§ MR. A. E. D. ELLIOTsaid, the borough of Fortrose had been shown to be decreasing in population, rather than otherwise, and there was no reason for departing from the rule in respect to it. The fact that it had no taxes made it all the more remarkable that the population was decreasing. There had been no case whatever made out to justify the making of an exception in favour of Fortrose.
MR. GORSTsaid, he did not like to interfere in Scotch debates; but he had been sitting there all day long endeavouring, like a drowning man, to grasp at anything like a principle he could discover. He had noticed that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had carefully refrained from saying a single word on this matter. He had left it to the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor General for Scotland, who had shown themselves utterly at variance with one another, while both were at variance with the principle of the Bill. He did not know what had been done in Wales; but in Scotland it appeared to him that the Government were attempting to do a little bit of jerrymandering. 1655 They seemed always endeavouring to manipulate the arrangement of burghs so as to promote a Party advantage. The case put forward by the hon. Member who had moved the Amendment was a very simple one. Fortrose appeared not to want to leave Inverness; Ross had no desire that it should come to them; and Inverness wished to keep it. Then, why on earth did they want to meddle with these people at all? Unless some explanation was given by the Government, he should consider himself bound to vote for the Amendment.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the right hon. Gentleman opposite had made a contrast between the cases of Wales and Scotland. He had already considered the case of the places in Wales which would remain with a less population than 1,000; and if anyone raised the question, he personally would not offer the slightest opposition to these places being merged into their counties, so that if all that was needed to make the Scottish principle uniform was that it should apply to Wales, he did not think that that would weigh much.
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he thought the right hon. Gentleman had misunderstood what he had said. He did not expect that the same principle that was to work in Scotland should be extended to Wales; but what he did say was that unless Her Majesty's Government endeavoured to make this representation a real urban representation, instead of a mixed one, they had better leave things as they were.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEunderstood the argument of the right hon. Baronet; but he would point out that the question in Scotland had been already arranged by the system of grouping. In regard to what had been said by the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), he would point out that the Lord Advocate had consulted on several occasions with the Scotch Members; and this proposal of 1,000 limit which had been suggested to him met with a very general, if not almost unanimous, acceptance.
§ MR. MUNRO-FERGUSONsaid, the Lord Advocate's proposals received very general approval in Scotland at first; but since he had discussed them with Scotch Representatives they had been so cut down that it would have been better if they had been allowed to re- 1656 main as they were originally in the Bill. The proposal to throw Fortrose into the county had excited great discontent amongst the people. The population was not far off the limit, and the Town Council thought it might soon be raised to 1,000. He was utterly opposed to the present system of grouping of burghs in Scotland; but he thought that this 1,000 limit was such a very trifling reform that they might well wait until they got more.
MR. MACARTNEYsaid, he could not help agreeing with his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) that there was a most extraordinary difference in the principles of the Government in accordance with whether the case under discussion applied to Scotland, Ireland, England, or Wales.
§ Question put, "That the words,
| 'Inverness (District of Burghs) | Inverness, Nairn, Elgin, and Ross and Cromarty |
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 166; Noes 120: Majority 46. No. 69.)
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Friday.