§ MR. RAIKESsaid, that in accordance with the resolution at which the Committee arrived last night, he begged to move the omission of the words "Bermondsey | Surrey | One | Parish of Bermondsey." It would only be necessary, he thought, to explain to the Committee that those words were in the Bill as part of a scheme by which Bermondsey was to be made a separate borough. By the decision, however, at which the Committee unanimously arrived last night—namely, to restore the borough of Southwark to its ancient dimensions, those words would be out of place. In proposing this Amendment, he might perhaps be allowed to remove a misapprehension which possibly existed in the minds of some hon. Members. The result of the Amendment to which the Committee arrived last night would not be to create a borough of Southwark, returning three Members, as one constituency; but the borough of Southwark would be divided into three wards, each of which would return one Member. It would be possible to make a very much more reasonable division of the borough of Southwark, under the circumstances, than would have taken place under the scheme which was originally proposed by the Government. He begged to move the Amendment which stood in his name.
§ Amendment proposed,
§ In page 16, line 9, to leave out,—
| "Bermondsey | Surrey | One | Parish of Bermondsey. |
§ "—(Mr. Raikes.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he did not think that the boundaries which were made in the old constituency of Southwark were everything that were desired. In many respects there was to be a change for the better; but he wished to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke) to the fact that, as the boundaries were settled by the Commissioners, there was to be a constituency of Rotherhithe.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKENot by itself; with St. Olave's.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORwished to be perfectly candid with the right hon. Gentleman in the matter. The population of Rotherhithe were under the impression that theirs was one of the very few constituencies in England in which the Irish minority would have some chance of returning someone to represent their views. Some time ago he asked the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Charles W. Dilke) what provision was to be made in England and Scotland for the representation of the Irish minority. That minority counted altogether about 2,000,000 of the population of the two countries, or, in other words, about 1–20th of the entire population. As there were to be in the new Parliament 570 English and Scotch Members, a simple sum of division would show how many Representatives that minority could fairly claim. He made out the calculation, and put it in the shape of a Question to the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman declined to answer, and, no doubt, very fairly so, as the Question seemed to involve matter of argument. Any way, he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) thought that the Irish minority in England and Scotland would be entitled to something like 18 or 20 Members if the representation were to be regulated by the proportions of the population. He did not wish to re-open the question of the representation of Ireland; but some days ago a very strong demand was made on 449 the part of the minority in that country to a fair proportion of the representation. Nobody contested the principle which the Representatives of the minority in Ireland made out. The lowest estimate of the number of Representatives which that minority should have was 23 out of the 103 returned by the country. Now, they who formed the Irish minority in England would be very well content with a very slight approach indeed to the same amount of representation which the so-called Loyal minority in Ireland claimed. But those who had studied the question very closely understood that the Irish minority in England and Scotland had scarcely a chance of having more than two or three Representatives out of the 570 Members who were to be returned by the two countries. Now, that would be nothing like an approach to the fair representation they should have. The case was stronger with regard to the Irish minority in England than with regard to the Loyal minority in Ireland. In Ireland it was quite possible to have a Protestant returned by Catholics. The hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), the Leader of the Irish people, was a Protestant, and his Predecessor, Mr. Isaac Butt, was also a Protestant. The Catholic majority had always been willing to select their Leaders altogether irrespective of creed; but to return a Catholic for an English constituency might be described as a practical impossibility. He did not wish to make this a matter of creed; but it was notorious that the vast majority of the 2,000,000 Irishmen in England and Scotland were Catholics. This Catholic minority had a right to have its interests fairly represented in the House of Commons; and it was for that reason he hoped that in the reconstruction of the borough of Southwark the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke) would have due regard to the question of nationality, which he thought fairly came under the principles of the Bill, as they had been laid down, and that he would not deprive the Irish portion of the population of a chance of having at least one out of the three Representatives of the borough.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he knew that, as a matter of fact, there was a large Irish population, not only in 450 Rotherhithe, but also in Bermondsey. He doubted whether any change which might be made in the district of Rotherhithe would be likely to affect the Irish population. There were courses open—namely, to add St. Olave's to Rotherhithe, or to add a small piece of Bermondsey to Rotherhithe, or to leave Rotherhithe entirely by itself. He did not imagine that the adoption of either of those courses would be likely to influence the proportion of the Irish population. However that might be, the division would be a matter of local convenience. If any re-arrangement were proposed by Sir John Lambert a local inquiry would be held; and he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) promised to look into the matter before any proposition was laid before the House.
§ MR. SEXTONwas bound to say that the course of affairs appeared to him and his hon. Friends to bear a suspicious character. Last night the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke) very readily assented to the proposal to add another Member to the fashionable and aristocratic part of London at the expense of the representation of the East of London, which of any district in the Metropolis counted the largest Irish population. He (Mr. Sexton) would not be inclined to look too curiously into the particular manipulation of localities if the right hon. Gentleman had shown any reasonable disposition to meet the appeals which he (Mr. Sexton) and his hon. Colleagues had had to make to him with regard to an equitable redistribution of the representation of Ireland. As they had found that influences to prevent a fair representation of the people of Ireland were supreme in the minds of the Government, it would be necessary henceforth to give a closer, and perhaps a more critical, attention to the proposals concerning the constituencies of Great Britain. He quite agreed with his hon. Friend (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) that the number of Irish people in England and Scotland was large enough to entitle them to between 20 and 30 Members. It appeared to him they would not have that number, or any considerable part of it. It was questionable whether they could count on more than two or three constituencies in England in which Irishmen had a chance of re- 451 turning a Member. His countrymen in England were, as a rule, massed together; so that if the Government were to take any trouble in the matter, if they would take a tithe of the trouble they had taken in Ireland to give the imported element in that country an undue share of the representation, Irishmen here would get a material share of the representation. All the steps the Government had taken, so far, had, instead of being in the direction of giving Irishmen in England their proper share of representation, been in the direction of depriving Irishmen of the political power they ought to have. He was disposed, so far as he could understand the matter, to protest against the right-about-face of last night. He could see in the transfer of power from Rotherhithe to Westminster nothing but an effort to still further complete the process of intrigue by which the power of the Irish people was being minimized under this Bill. He thought his hon. Friend (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) had done good service in calling attention to this subject. The contrast between the treatment of Dublin and Westminster was most striking; so striking, indeed, that he (Mr. Sexton) and his hon. Friends would be obliged to give a most critical attention to the proposals in the Bill regarding England.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he was not at all satisfied with the answer of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke). The right hon. Gentleman had said nothing at all to meet the fair and reasonable claim he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) put forward. The other day, in reply to a Question, the right hon. Gentleman said that the principles of the indirect representation of minorities were the same in the throe countries. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman to be true to his own principles; he would ask him to put the treatment of England and Ireland side by side, and then see whether the same principle was carried out in both cases. Where was the uniformity of principle in the retention of two Members by 4,000 electors in Trinity College, Dublin, in order to secure a certain two Representatives of the Loyal minority in Ireland, and the practical cutting down to one or two seats the representation of the Irish minority in England and Scotland? 452 Unfortunately, he was not in the House last night when the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board made his extraordinary change of front. Business took him elsewhere; but had he been present he should not have allowed the right hon. Gentleman to make the change without, on his part, a strong, though, no doubt, unavailing, protest. What had the right hon. Gentleman done? He had increased the representation of Westminster. Westminster had no right to increased representation, if such a city as Dublin had not. In fact, the case of Westminster was one of the very worst for anything like increased representation, for, as he pointed out on a previous Amendment, Westminster was the constituency in which the Houses of Parliament were situated, and, therefore, the constituency which had the largest indirect pressure upon the proceedings and policy of the Legislature. How did the right hon. Gentleman propose to get the additional Member for Westminster? By taking it from the East End of London; and that being the poorer part of the Metropolis, was the part in which the Irish chiefly congregated. Accordingly the increased representation of Westminster could only be purchased by the diminished chance of the representation of the Irish people in London. He would take the case of Southwark. In each of the three constituencies in which the borough was to be divided there was a very considerable Irish population; and he did not wish the right hon. Gentleman to misunderstand in the least the claim put forward on behalf of that Irish population. The claim was that as the local circumstances supplied the opportunity the right hon. Gentleman should give the large Irish population concentrated in certain portions of Southwark a chance of having that representation in the House of Commons which such a minority was entitled to have. He put the question to the right hon. Gentleman on the ground of fairness, though he might put it on the higher ground of policy. He assured the right hon. Gentleman that the more men of the Irish race in England, Ireland, and Scotland could be induced to take an interest and actually participate in political questions the better. The reason why so many Irishmen, at so many periods of Irish history, 453 had been driven into the dark recesses of conspiracy, and still darker recesses of crime, was that the Legislature of this country gave them no Constitutional method of carrying out their purpose, and gave them no Constitutional hope of gaining their ends. Did the right hon. Gentleman wish the 2,000,000 Irish people in England and Scotland to understand that by the deliberate action of the Government they were to be wholly deprived of any representation in the House, while, with a large, and lavish, and generous hand, the Government provided representation in the House for the English faction in Ireland? He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) considered the contrast between the representation of the two minorities was most instructive and significant.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that the case of Westminster and that of the Tower Hamlets did not arise now, and could not arise until the alteration in the Bill which it was proposed last night to make was made. It was not yet known what the alteration would be. Report would be the proper time to raise the matter. No doubt it would be matter for discussion.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORI was perfectly in Order.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEWell, Sir, that is a question for you, and not for me.
§ MR. SEXTONIt is a matter for the Committee.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEI say that the cases of Westminster and the Tower Hamlets cannot arise on this occasion.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORIf the right hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will tell him how the question arises. I was discussing the general policy of the representation of minorities; and I was perfectly right in bringing in, by way of illustration, what was done in regard to Westminster.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEThis is a matter of convenience. What the hon. Gentleman has said with regard to Southwark is worthy of attention; but his general remarks with regard to the representation of the Irish minority in this country have no special point. I promise him to give a close examination of any proposal with respect to the borough of Southwark. I can do no more. The proposal with regard to 454 Bermondsey is not one, I fancy, likely to diminish the Irish character of the constituency. I shall, of course, be glad to receive suggestions from any quarter of the House.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORI shall be very glad to give the right hon. Gentleman some details.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ MR. J. G. HUBBARDproposed to leave out "Two," after "Bethnal Green, Middlesex," in page 10, line 10, and insert "One." He thought the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Charles W. Dilke) in charge of the Bill would welcome his proposition, because, instead of adding to his difficulties and his liabilities as other Amendments had done, it would diminish them. He proposed to remove one from the present list of Members, in order to place it at the right hon. Gentleman's disposal for other claimants who had a stronger and a better qualified demand for increased representation. He ventured to justify his appeal to the right hon. Gentleman upon the grounds of the words which fell from himself (Sir Charles W. Dilke) earlier in the discussion that evening. The right hon. Gentleman, speaking of boroughs, had said they were not all to be dealt with by a rigid scale, but each upon its own merits. That was exactly the ground on which he (Mr. Hubbard) asked the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee to consider the question of the representation of Bethnal Green. Bethnal Green was one of the boroughs which had been placed in the Schedule simply upon the process of arithmetical computation with regard to the population now existing in the district. The population principle had been described as the basis of the Bill, and as the basis of the Bill he had no objection to it. Admitting population to be in the first instance the guiding principle, there were, in his opinion, certain considerations which proved conclusively that the borough of Bethnal Green was not entitled to more than one Member, and that one Member he did not grudge the borough. Bethnal Green was a very interesting locale of an exceedingly useful industry in days of yore—the silk-weaving industry, which he believed was still carried on, though not, perhaps, in the same prosperous form. The industry of Bethnal Green was essentially 455 uniform; there was no variety in it; the shuttle was the incidence of industry; and one Representative of the Bethnal Green weavers would be as effective as half-a-dozen. He (Mr. Hubbard) thought a great mistake had been made in the discussion of the question of redistribution by conceding that in order to have a population of a borough or a county thoroughly well represented they must multiply the number of Representatives. The number of Representatives only required to be multiplied where the interests involved, concentrated in any particular places or towns, were vast, varied, and conflicting, in order that all the different interests might be properly represented. But where, as in the case of Bethnal Green, the interests were uniform and homogeneous, it was clear they did not need to multiply the representation—one Representative of the borough would be amply sufficient. He proposed now to consider how Bethnal Green stood with regard to other boroughs with reference to what ought also to be a matter for consideration—the wealth which they represented. He would not go into the question of taxation, because he had no precise data to go upon. He, however, held in his hand a Parliamentary Report which contained a statement as to the valuation of the borough of Bethnal Green. The population of Bethnal Green was 126,000, and the whole of the rateable value of the borough was stated to be £375,000. The Committee would see that that was an average of about £3 per head; £3 per head, therefore, represented the capitation wealth of Bethnal Green. What did that imply with regard to taxation? If there wore five people in each house it meant that, on the average, each house would be rated at about £15 a-year. Now, £15 a-year did not bring a house under the operation of the Inhabited House Duty at all, so that, upon the average, it might be said that Bethnal Green was perfectly free from the charge under the Inhabited House Duty. Then, with regard to the Income Tax. If they assumed that rental represented one-tenth of the income, the average income of Bethnal Green would be £150 a year; and that was exactly the point at which the operation of the Income Tax began. The Committee were now re-adjusting the seats of the House, and the Mem- 456 bers who would be sent to fill those seats would have the regulation of the taxation of the whole country. What were they doing in this instance? They were multiplying the Representatives of a class who paid no taxation whatever. That class, through its Representatives, might insist upon a large portion of the income of the country being levied through the means of the most oppressive and iniquitous tax that ever existed, and from which they were practically exempted—the Income Tax. It was quite possible they would advocate the levying of the tax upon an aggravated ratio—perhaps in a graduated form, as advocated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain). He thought the Committee ought to pause before they put into the hands of the weavers of Bethnal Green power to send two Members whose interest it might be to advocate the retention of the most injurious and mischievous system of taxation that ever existed. Compare, again, the wealth of Bethnal Green to that of other boroughs. The rateable value of Bethnal Green was £3 per head of the population, whereas in Islington it was £5 per head, in Hampstead and Kensington it was nearly £10, in Paddington nearly £12, and in St. George's, Hanover Square, which was, of course, a very opulent borough, the rateable value was nearly £18 per head of the population. Now, he did submit to the right hon. Gentleman in charge of this Bill and to the Committee that they could not treat boroughs where the rateable value was as low as £3 per head on the same footing as those where the rateable value was as high as £10 and £18 per head. That was the ground on which he contended that Bethnal Green had no right to more than one Member. They certainly ought to admit the principle that rateable value should be taken into consideration in dealing with this subject, and that the matter should not be dealt with solely in regard to the mere question of population. He begged to move the Amendment which stood in his name.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 16, line 10, after the words "Bethnal Green, Middlesex," to leave out the word "Two," and insert the word "One."—(Mr. J. G. Hubbard.)
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'Two' stand part of the Schedule."
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEregretted that the right hon. Gentleman should have brought a Motion of this sort before the House, which proposed that a borough with 127,000 people, an increasing population, and a rateable value of £375,000, should receive only one Member, when one Member was left to small places of 15,000 population, and when many places also with far fewer than 127,000 inhabitants and a lower rateable value would have two Members. The right hon. Gentleman would certainly not strengthen the feeling in the Committee on behalf of the City of London by attacking the representation which had been allotted to large constituencies like that of Bethnal Green. The rateable value of Bethnal Green was considerably above the average; and though, of course, it could not be compared with that of the City of London, yet it must be remembered that Bethnal Green had more than double the population of the City. The two divisions of Bethnal Green would contain 60,000 and 65,000 inhabitants respectively, and were increasing; but the right hon. Gentleman did not compare them with the City, which had a decreasing population of 50,000 for two Members, which had been given it out of consideration for its ancient position. No doubt, the silk-weaving industry in Bethnal Green was a declining one; but Bethnal Green was by no means a declining portion of the Metropolis, either as regarded population or rateable value; and, therefore, he did not think the right hon. Gentleman ought to try and reduce it to the position of a single-Member constituency.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ MR. GRANTHAMwas very happy to say that the Amendment which stood next on the Paper in his name was not one which would necessitate him occupying the attention of the Committee for any considerable length of time. It seemed to him that the necessity for moving the Amendment at all was probably due to the mistake of the draftsman of the Bill, who did not know that the hamlet of Penge was situated in the county of Surrey, and not in the county of Kent. All parties in Penge were agreed that it was desirable that the change he proposed, which was to take the hamlet of 458 Penge from the proposed borough of Lewisham and to add it to Camberwell, should be effected. Then came the question whether the change could take place, and how was it to be effected? Penge was situated in the county of Surrey, and though it was not part of the parish of Camberwell, yet he would point out that if it were added to the new borough of Camberwell, it would enable them to divide the parish of Camberwell in a much better manner, and make the districts much more homogeneous in their character, instead of being broken up as they were at present. It was contiguous to Camberwell, which it was not to Lewisham, and in every respect ought to be added to the nearest district in the county of Surrey. This was not a Party question, and he hoped the right hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill could see his way to give it his favourable consideration. He was quite sure his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition would have supported him in this matter—in fact, he had the authority of the right hon. Gentleman for saying that if he had been back in his place in the House in time he would have supported the Amendment which he now had the honour to move.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 16, line 11, at end, to add the words, "and the Hamlet of Penge."—(Mr. Grantham.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he was in some doubt in regard to this matter on first principles. He preferred the Bill as it stood, because the hamlet of Penge was in the Lewisham Board of Works District; but, although that was so, he did not attach very much importance to the matter, and if the feeling of the Committee was against him he would not press his objection to the Amendment, especially as the hon. and learned Member had stated that he had the support of the Leader of the Opposition, who had no doubt given much consideration to the matter. It was possible that if they made the change, however, they might see Members rise up to object. He should have preferred to have left the Bill as it stood. There was also this difficulty—that if they altered the Bill they would have to re-divide the borough of Camberwell. It was hardly worth while dividing the Committee upon the matter, however; 459 and, therefore, he should yield to the hon. and learned Member.
§ MR. RAIKESsaid, that he had not heard of any opposition to this proposal.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that in the absence of any evidence on the other side he would consent to make the change. With regard to the hon. and learned Member's second or consequential Amendment, if he would agree not to move it he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) would be happy, because he had rather a better form of words which he would move when the proper time came.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ MR. RAIKESsaid, he rose now to move the next Amendment in his name —namely, to leave out Clerkenwell. The object of this was to restore the borough of Finsbury as far as the three new boroughs of Clerkenwell, Holborn, and Finsbury were concerned. By a subsequent Amendment he proposed to remove the name of Holborn, and to add these two boroughs to Finsbury, so as to restore the existing borough to its present position, without altering its boundaries, and dividing it into three single-Member districts of the one borough. If the right hon. Gentleman preferred that this should be moved on Report he should be very happy to postpone it until that stage.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he would accept the Amendment; but he should prefer to substitute another Amendment for the next one which stood in the right hon. Gentleman's name.
§ MR. W. M. TORRENSasked whether the constituency of Finsbury would still retain the three Members given it by the Bill? [Sir CHARLES W. DILKE: Yes, Sir.] He (Mr. Torrens) had asked, because he understood from some of the papers that morning that it was intended to cut the representation of Finsbury down to two.
§ Amendment proposed,
§ In page 16, lines 13 and 14, to leave out—
| "Clerkenwell | Middlesex | One | Parish of Saint James and Saint John Clerkenwell." |
§ Amendment agreed to.
§
On the Motion of Sir CHARLES W. DILKE consequential Amendments made,
460
that Holborn should be struck out of the Schedule, to assign three Members instead of one to the borough of Finsbury, and to constitute that borough as follows:—
The parishes of St. James and St. John, Clerkenwell; the parish of St. Luke's, Middlesex; Holborn district; St. Giles' district; Gray's Inn; Charterhouse; Furnival's Inn; Staple Inn; Lincoln's Inn; and the Liberty of the Rolls.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORsupposed the object of these Amendments was simply to make the matter a little plainer.
§ SIR. CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that was so. It was proposed to make St. Luke's just a little larger by adding to it some small parishes south of Clerkenwell and thus reduce slightly the population of Holborn.
§ MR. WARTONasked how it was that the Liberty of the Rolls had been omitted in the Schedule up to the present?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the Liberty of the Rolls was under the Bill included in the Strand Borough as part of the Strand Board of Works District.
§ MR. WOODALLsaid, he proposed to commend to the attention of the Committee an Amendment standing in his name, which related to the town of Tunstall, one of the six towns which constituted the borough of Stoke-upon-Trent, the population of which fell just short of 165,000, the limit that would have entitled it to three Members. The population of Tunstall was approaching 15,000, and the proposal in the Bill was to detach it from the existing borough of which it was part, and annex it to Newcastle-under-Lyme. He was happy to say that no Party considerations were involved in his proposal, and to know that it had found favour with both political Parties. His chief reason for dissatisfaction with the proposal to annex it to Newcastle-under-Lyme was on the ground that the two towns had no kind of interest in common, and it would be found to be extremely inconvenient and difficult to get the two towns to act in concert. On the other hand, the town of Tunstall had, in common with the towns from which the Bill proposed to detach it, an identity of interest, social life, and political feeling, which made the severance extremely distasteful to the inhabitants. Tunstall shared with the other towns in the privilege of having a Stipendiary 461 Court, was connected with them by tramways, and was an essential part of the Pottery District. The proposal in the Bill was extremely unpopular in the town of Tunstall. The population of Newcastle-under-Lyme was above the limit which would have brought it under disfranchisement. If his proposal were adopted, he pointed out that it would not affect the divisions of the county or district in any particular, or the general arrangements of the Bill. He knew it would have the effect of making one division of the Potteries—the new borough of Hanley—proportionately large, and increase the population from 75,000 to 90,000; but he was bound to say that that constituted no objection in the eyes of the people. In concluding, he said it was impossible for any hon. Member to follow this discussion without feeling the force of what had been said in last night's debates with regard to the re-adjustment of representation in the case of growing districts; and he believed that, at no distant date, the borough of which he was speaking would be entitled to that additional representation which its claims only just fell short of.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 16, lines 45 to 47, leave out "and is not included in the Local Government District of Tunstall."—(Mr. Woodall.)
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he thought the only argument against the Amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. Woodall) was the extreme disparity which would result in respect of population. The hon. Member was, he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) believed, right in saying that, generally speaking, the change which he wished to make in the Bill was desired locally. But it seemed to him that the desire that was expressed had come from one side only, and it would be impossible for him to make any change until an expression of opinion on the other side had been received. He was bound to say that such expressions of opinion on this subject as he had received were all in favour of the proposal of the hon. Gentleman; but as it was just possible there might be some opinion the other way, he would suggest that the most convenient course would be to avoid dividing on the Amendment now, and that it should be agreed to on Report, unless there was any very strong opinion expressed against it.
§ MR. DAVENPORTsaid, the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) was probably right in supposing that the general feeling was in favour of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Stoke-upon-Trent (Mr. Woodall). He should not have ventured to intervene in the discussion but for the unfortunate circumstance that neither of the hon. Gentlemen who represented Newcastle-under-Lyme were in the House at the moment. Under the circumstances, he thought it perhaps right to express, on behalf of the inhabitants of Newcastle, their complete concurrence with the Amendment of the hon. Member for Stoke-upon-Trent. There would be no doubt, as had been stated, a great disparity of numbers between the two boroughs of Hanley and Newcastle-under-Lyme; but he was bound to point out that in the latter district there were large coal and iron industries, which, if trade revived, would lead to a great increase of population there. He did not speak on behalf of Newcastle-under-Lyme only, but generally on behalf of the district with which he had been long connected. He believed that the suggestion of the right hon. Baronet was one which the Committee could accept, because it would lead to a change being made which was generally desired. He presumed that the consequential Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Stoke-upon-Trent would also be agreed to by the right hon. Baronet, who he did not think need fear any large increase of correspondence on the question.
§ MR. CRAIGsaid, after the remarks of his hon. Colleague who had just spoken (Mr. Davenport), there remained very little for him to say on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Stoke-upon-Trent (Mr. Woodall). He might, however, mention in regard to the disparity of population, that the districts of Chesterton and Silverdale, added to the borough of Newcastle-under-Lyme, were rapidly increasing in population. He knew that there were several large mining industries being started in the district, and that factories were springing up there, which rendered it possible that, in the next 10 years, the population would be nearly doubled. It was owing to this that he attached little importance to the disparity at the present moment. He was satisfied that the intimation of 463 the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) that he was willing to adopt this Amendment, subject to the reservation made, would be received in the district with general satisfaction, where it was a matter of surprise that the arrangement set out in the Bill should ever have been made.
§ MR. BROADHURSTsaid, he also had to ask the Committee to accede to the proposal of his hon. Colleague (Mr. Woodall). The case of Tunstall was, perhaps, scarcely comparable with that of any other place in the country. Tunstall was one of a series of townships fully and closely allied in one general productive manufacture, and the proposal in the Bill was to take one of those towns and attach it to the town of New-castle-under-Lyme, with which it had no sympathy, or anything whatever in common. To that annexation both the people of Tunstall and the people of Newcastle-under-Lyme objected. With regard to the suggestion of the right hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill (Sir Charles W. Dilke), that the Amendment should be inserted on the Report, he (Mr. Broadhurst) would be personally willing to agree to any arrangement that secured the end in view; but he ventured to put it to the right hon. Baronet whether the suggestion, in the form in which it was made, did not rather tend to invite the raising of difficulties, and whether some cantankerous persons, supposing it were possible to find such persons in the Potteries, which he did not readily admit, might not construe the right hon. Baronet's suggestion as an invitation to commence operations at once? He thought it right to deal frankly with the Committee, and to say that at the commencement of the agitation with regard to this Bill there was not that perfect unanimity on this subject in the town of Tunstall which now existed. He trusted that the Committee would allow the alteration proposed by his hon. Colleague to be placed at once in the Bill.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, it seemed to him that although one difficulty had been pointed to in the course of the discussion, all who had had an opportunity of expressing their opinion were in favour of the proposal of the hon. Member for Stoke-upon-Trent (Mr. Woodall). He (Sir Stafford Northcote) thought that the course suggested by 464 the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Charles W. Dilke), was perhaps the best to take. At the same time, it was quite possible that there might be others who might desire to see the decision of the Commissioners respected, and who might desire to be heard upon the arrangement before it was finally concluded. He would press upon the hon. Member for Stoke-upon-Trent the desirability of withdrawing his Amendment for the present, in order to enable the subject to be considered on Report. So far as he had been able to examine into the question, it appeared to him that the Amendment would be a good one, and that it was desirable that the change should be made.
§ MR. WOODALLsaid, he was in the hands of the Committee in the matter. He was bound to say, however, that it was not the Commissioners who had put Tunstall in. It was one of the proposals of the Bill as it stood on the Paper for second reading. He would also venture to remind the Committee that the Bill, as it stood for second reading, did give an extra Member; but that was merely an error of the draftsman. It had led to a great deal of complication, and had prevented them from arriving at a conclusion that, he believed, would otherwise have been arrived at with unanimity. He asked leave to withdraw the Amendment on the understanding that the subject of it would come up again on Report.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. RAIKESThere is a consequential Amendment here. You must leave these places out.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEThat is so.
§ Amendment proposed,
§ In page 16, lines 48 to 54, leave out,—
| "Holborn | Middlesex | One | Holborn District. |
| St. Giles' District. | |||
| Gray's Inn. | |||
| Charterhouse. | |||
| Furnival's Inn. | |||
| Staple Inn. | |||
| Lincoln's Inn." |
§ Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule," put, and negatived; words struck out accordingly.
465§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he had an Amendment on the Paper to insert in page 16, line 58, column 2, after "Kent," the words "and Surrey." This was a verbal Amendment which had originally been necessary. It was not needed now, however, in consequence of what had been done in regard to Penge.
§ MR. RAIKESsaid, he begged to move the next Amendment, acting on the principle observed in other cases—that was to say, in order to give an opportunity for the reconsideration of the question affecting the Tower Hamlets.
§ Amendment proposed,
§ In page 16, line 59, leave out,—
| Limehouse | Middlesex | One | Limehouse District." |
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he had had an opportunity of consulting the Commissioners on this question, and they were of opinion that it should be left over to the Report, in order to give time for the consideration of the case of the Tower Hamlets. If the right hon. Gentleman would consent to that course, he would propose that this subject should be deferred.
§ MR. RAIKESsaid, he could not see any objection to that course; but he would put it to the right hon. Baronet whether it would not facilitate the labours of the Commissioners if the minor boroughs were struck out, leaving the larger area, which, by the direction of the Committee, they were to reconstitute?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he should not have proposed the course he bad mentioned if he had thought any hon. Member objected. So far as he himself was concerned, he had no feeling in the matter one way or the other. The right hon. Gentleman did not propose to leave out "Poplar"?
§ MR. RAIKESNo.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEAs the Amendment will not commit the House one way or the other, I accede to the Amendment.
§ MR. BRYCEsaid, he must enter a protest against the course being taken by the Committee, as it appeared to be 466 prejudging the case of the Tower Hamlets. He certainly had not thought last night that the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had done more than promise to inquire. For his own part, he was ready to give the most strenuous opposition to the proposed scheme.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the question of the number of Members would not be prejudged. The Committee had adopted a course similar to that proposed in the case of Finsbury. He thought they had better leave the matter over to Report.
§ MR. RAIKESI will not press the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. BRYCEsaid, he begged to move the next Amendment on the Paper, in line 59, after "Limehouse District," to insert "except the parish of Wapping." This change would affect the boundaries of the proposed boroughs of Limehouse and St. George's-in-the-East. The effect of the Amendment, with another consequential Amendment which he should move lower down, would be to take Wapping from the borough of Limehouse, and add it to the proposed borough of St. George's-in-the-East. The present Limehouse District, which it was proposed to make a borough, had a population of 58,000; and he desired to take from this the parish of Wapping, with a population of 2,225, and add it to St. George's-in-the-East, which had a population of 47,000, thus doing something to equalize the two boroughs. Wapping was a long narrow district, extending along the Northern bank of the Thames from the parish of Limehouse, to whose District Board of Works it belonged, although inconveniently outlying, and adjoining St. George's-in-the-East to the North. Geographically, it had a much closer connection with St. George's-in-the-East than it had with Limehouse; and, moreover, the change he proposed would give them an opportunity of altering the name of St. George's-in-the-East, which was unsuitable, inasmuch as it led to confusion with St. George's, Hanover Square, and which had somewhat un-pleasing associations, recalling, as it did, to one's mind the disturbances which had occurred in connection with the services of the parish church a few years ago. The new borough could therefore 467 be called the borough of Wapping. That was a name of considerable interest. The Committee would remember that Macaulay, in his History, told the story of how Judge Jeffreys was discovered disguised as a coal-whipper in a small house in Wapping by a scrivener, whom he had once bullied in Court. Then they all remembered the pleasing ballad of "Wapping Old Stairs," which Colonel Newcome sang in the Cave of Harmony. Looking at the convenience of the alteration he proposed, and at the fact that they would get a better name for the borough, he would urge the Committee to assent to his Amendment.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 16, line 59, after "Limehouse District," insert "except the parish of Wapping."—(Mr. Bryce.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ SIR CHAELES W. DILKEsaid, he thought that as the whole question of the Tower Hamlets was to be considered on Report, it would be undesirable to commence making small changes now. He would admit that the change proposed would, so far as it went, be an improvement; but the Committee had not all the facts fully before it now, and it would be well, therefore, to postpone the matter.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he wished to remind the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Bryce) that "Wapping Old Stairs" was mentioned in Vanity Fair, and not as having been sung by Colonel Newcome in "The Newcomes."
§ MR. BRYCEsaid, he consented to withdraw the Amendment; but, in doing so, he must take the liberty of correcting the hon. Member opposite (Mr. T. P. O'Connor). The song was sung by Colonel Newcome, as the hon. Member would find if he referred to the first chapter of the novel. And why should not a song that had been sung in Vanity Fair be sung again in "The New comes?"
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEregretted that they could not now have the song.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. RAIKESsaid, he would not move the next Amendment, relating to the hamlet of Mile End Old Town, as that also was connected with the Tower Hamlets. He would move, however, 468 the Amendment in lines 9 and 10, to leave out St. George, Hanover Square, Middlesex, One, Parish of St. George, Hanover Square.
§ Amendment proposed,
§ In page 17, lines 9 and 10, leave out—
| "Saint Georgo, Hanover Square | Middlesex | One | Parish of Saint George, Hanover Square." |
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
§ SIR CHAELES W. DILKEI agree to the Amendment.
§ Question put, and negatived; words left out accordingly.
§ MR. RAIKESsaid, he now had to propose an Amendment to substitute the historic name of Stratford for that of West Ham. He did not wish to change the framework of the Bill; but merely to bring about this alteration of name. He had no doubt the Local Government Board had considerable cognizance of the existence of West Ham, and so had its neighbours, although he very much doubted whether the district was generally identified by Her Majesty's subjects. He thought an hon. Gentleman rising in his place as the Member for West Ham would afford some doubt, as to the other 600 and odd Members in the House, where he came from. There was another West Ham in Sussex, and another in Hertfordshire, and they were both inconsiderable places. The place that gave its name to the Local Board of West Ham was also an inconsiderable place, It had a church, and there were a few houses in the neighbourhood; but the population of the district was, for the most part, congregated round the Town Hall of Stratford. Stratford had, for many years, been a growing town. It contained 30,000 or 40,000 inhabitants, at least, and for a long time it had contained the depot of the Great Eastern Railway. There were several small places, such as Plaistow, in the proposed new district; but West Ham was really little more than a geographical expression. No doubt, the name might be useful if it could become known; but his contention was that it was not 469 known, and never would be, as the place was nothing but a sham. Stratford-atte-Bowe was a place of historical interest, and a place of antiquity; and he could not help thinking that an hon. Gentleman returned to the House would rather be styled Member for Stratford than Member for West Ham. The question was one for the Committee to decide; his desire being merely to put before it what he believed to be a more convenient and euphonious nomenclature, and one that he thought they should be glad to welcome in the House.
§ Amendment proposed,
§ In Schedule 4, page 17, after line 16, insert—
| "Stratford | Essex | Two | The Local Government District of West Ham." |
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the argument in favour of retaining the name of West Ham was stronger than it would otherwise be, because they were creating, as a new borough, the Local Grovernment district of West Ham—they were taking that exact district as it now stood. Surely it would be a very curious thing on the part of the Committee to take a complete Local Government district, which had been created with a certain name, and change that name for Parliamentary purposes. He was bound to say that the name of the district of West Ham was now generally accepted and recognized in the Metropolis. The name of Stratford was, no doubt, very ancient; but he was not at all sure whether the Stratford of the olden time was the place included within the district of West Ham. He found there wore several Stratfords in that part of Essex. There was in the Metropolis Stratford-le-Bow and Stratford-atte-Bowe. The districts were somewhat obscure; but he had certainly discovered four of them—one being in Poplar, and another in. Essex, outside the Metropolis. It would only be confusing to accept the Amendment; and he therefore, thought it would be better to adhere to the nomenclature of the Bill.
§ MR. SAMPSON LLOYDsaid, the Committee must remember that they 470 were going to make a district of Stratford-on-Avon, and that to have another hon. Member for Stratford in the House would lead to unnecessary confusion. It was desirable that there should be only one Parliamentary borough of Stratford. MR. RAIKES: I am quite willing to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. RAIKESsaid, he should not move his Amendment to line 19 in regard to the Tower Hamlets, in view of the understanding which had been arrived at as to the consideration of that subject on Report; but it would be necessary for him to move his Amendment in lines 20 and 21.
§ Amendment proposed,
§ In page 17, lines 20 and 21, leave out—
| "Westminster | Middlesex | One | Westminster District. |
| Close of Collegiate Church of St. Peter." |
§ Question, "That the words proposed to be loft out stand part of the Schedule," put, and negatived; words left out accordingly.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, that, in the case of West Ham, he would make an earnest appeal to the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) to treat it as he had treated the Tower Hamlets and Southwark, and leave it over for further consideration on Report. This was one of the districts where, if properly divided, there might be some chance of the Irish in England securing the return of a Representative. He was glad to find that the right hon. Baronet had shown a somewhat conciliatory spirit in this matter. No doubt, it would be admitted, on all hands, that so considerable a section of the community as that to which he referred should be represented in the House; and he could not believe the right hon. Baronet would experience much difficulty through postponing the matter as he proposed. The division of the district, he was told, was, at the present moment, extremely clumsy. It seemed to be so arranged as to deprive the Irish of any chance. He understood that as West Ham was one of the divisions which had been fixed by the Boundary Commissioners, it would come under the compact to which the Leaders 471 on both sides of the House were pledged. He would, therefore, appeal to the right hon. Baronet the Leader of the Opposition (Sir Stafford Northcote), in case the right hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill consented to the plan he proposed, to allow the question to stand over. The right hon. Baronet was not in the House during the earlier portion of the evening, when they were discussing this question; but he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) could inform him that it had been pretty generally conceded that, under the Bill as it at present stood, there would not be a fair opportunity for the large Irish minority in this country to get a Representative sent to Parliament to speak in their interest.
§ MR. RAIKESIf the hon. Member proposes to move an Amendment, he will see that the most convenient place to do it will be on page 38, when we come to the sub-division of the borough.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEYes; I was just about to point that out.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORI forgot that. I will not proceed with my Amendment.
§ MR. RAIKESI do not propose to move my Amendment as to Woolwich.
§ GENERAL ALEXANDERsaid, that when he complained the other day that South Ayrshire, with a population of nearly 90,000, the population of the whole county being no less than 220,000, was only to be represented by one Member, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Trevelyan) had endeavoured to console him by saying that the average population, per Member in the Scotch counties did not exceed 52,000. Now, it was absurd, almost an absolute farce, to endeavour to console a Member the population of whose constituency exceeded the average by no loss than 36,000 in this way. The Committee had no right to make these deductions or calculations based on large averages. They must take every case, and make every case a special one as it arose. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster must know very well that the constituency that he (General Alexander) represented had not only the largest population in Scotland, but that it had the largest population in the United Kingdom. The population of South Ayrshire was larger than the population of any county constituency in Ireland, and larger than any county constituency in England. The 472 largest in England was a division of North-East Lancashire; but that had some 20,000 inhabitants less than the population of South Ayrshire. He remembered that, on Friday last, the right hon. Baronet the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke), when objecting to merge two boroughs in the county of Mid Lothian, said that it would raise the population of Mid Lothian to 94,000, and that that would be much too large and unwieldy a population for one Member to represent. But if 94,000 was too large for so great a man as the Prime Minister to represent, surely 90,000 would be too many for a humble individual like himself, or many others, to represent. Last night the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board was asked to give another Member to Westminster, and he consented to do so on the ground that the population of St. George's, Hanover Square, amounted to no less than 89,000. If the right hon. Gentleman was able to give an additional Member to Westminster because one of the parishes had a population of 89,000—much more compact, of course, than the population in a county—he had himself acknowledged that he ought to give another Member for the county of Ayr. The right hon. Gentleman ought to do one of two things—either give Ayr an additional Member, which they would much prefer, or, if he could not do that, make some endeavour to separate the urban from the rural population. Like the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Lanarkshire (Sir Edward Colebrooke), he (General Alexander) had no objection whatever to a mixed population, provided that the urban population were not allowed to swamp entirely the rural population. He would like to know why it was that the fair demand of the county of Ayr for additional representation was refused? He had a very strong suspicion of the reason of the refusal; he had a strong suspicion of the reason why a difference was made in favour of Fife, which had only a population of 171,000, as against the county of Ayr with a population of 220,000. As he always said what he thought, he had no hesitation in saying that the real reason why the county of Ayr had been so unfairly treated was that, unlike the other Scotch counties, it had presumed, at two General Elections, 473 to send two Conservative Members to Parliament, whereas the county of Fife had steadily adhered to the side of the Government. He did not wish to take up the time of the Committee; but there was one remark he wished to make with reference to something which fell from the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate (Mr. J. B. Balfour) the other day. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said he had taken the opinion of the majority of the Scotch Members upon this subject. He (General Alexander) considered that there was very little use of appealing in such matters to a majority of 51 as against a minority of 9; the majority held 51 seats, and they wished to deprive the minority of the 9 which remained. He understood it was one of the duties of a Government to protect the minority, and not to appeal to the majority. He did expect, from what the right hon. Baronet the President of the Local Government Board said when this question was first raised, that the right hon. Gentleman would endeavour to show some justice to the great county one division of which he (General Alexander) had the honour to represent. He was sorry to say, however, that although the words of the President of the Local Government Board were softer than butter, he had war in his heart. He (General Alexander) would not put the Committee to the trouble of dividing on this question, and for the simple reason that he did not so much care for adding the burghs mentioned in the Amendment to the existing group of burghs, as to have for the whole country the additional representation of another Member. If the Government would consider this point favourably, the addition to the Ayr Burghs was a matter of secondary consideration. He begged to move formally the Amendment which stood in his name.
§ Amendment proposed,
§ In page 17, after line 30, add as new lines—
| "Ayr (District of Burghs) | Ayr and Argyll | One | The Burghs of Ayr, Irvine, Campbeltown, Galston, and Old Cumnock." |
§ Question proposed, "That those lines be there added."
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, he understood from what 474 the hon. and gallant Member opposite (General Alexander) had said that he was rather moving this Amendment as a means of introducing the question of increasing the county representation of Ayr than of taking those five towns out of the county and adding them to existing groups of burghs. He (the Lord Advocate) therefore need say nothing on the question, which was fully discussed the other day, except that at that time he did not think that, on either side of the House, they were in a position to say they had an expression of opinion from the places affected by the proposal. But since the discussion the other day he had had a variety of communications from Galston, strongly protesting against the proposal to take it out of the county, and the Committee would feel that that confirmed the resolution which had been come to. In regard to the representation of Ayrshire, he was quite sure they were all alive to the great importance of that county; but he was afraid he could not admit that it was under-represented as compared with other counties which were in possession of a particular representation at present. The county of Ayr had two county Members, and it gave the names to two groups of burghs—the Ayr and Kilmarnock Burghs. Although, no doubt, these burghs overflowed into other counties, they were the head burghs of the county of Ayr, and a considerable representation was given to that county. One of the great objections which was so strongly urged on the part of Ayrshire to the suggested re-arrangement of the Kilmarnock Burghs was that Kilmarnock really did represent a fourth Member for Ayr, so that he thought it could not be said that Ayrshire was at all under-represented in comparison with Fife on the one hand and Mid Lothian on the other. Ayrshire had already two county Members, and it had two burgh Members; and, even on the showing of the hon. and gallant Member, Ayrshire would not come next for an additional Member, because Fife was over the 100,000, and he thought 90,000 was the number that his hon. and gallant Friend said he represented; and even in the case of Mid Lothian, if there had been the addition of Portobello and Musselburgh, there would have been 94,000, which would have come before the division of Ayrshire which the hon. and gallant Member repre- 475 sented. [General ALEXANDER: There are more than 200,000 in the whole county.] The proposal with regard to Mid Lothian involved that there should be two considerable towns thrown into it. If another Member could not be found for Mid Lothian, he was afraid it would be quite as difficult to find another Member for Ayrshire, oven if there were a reason for it.
§ MR. DALRYMPLEsaid, his hon. and gallant Friend (General Alexander) had laid special stress upon the desirableness of obtaining increased representation for the county of Ayr; but his speech, in moving his Amendment, went to show the great disproportion between the county and burgh representation. The remarks which had fallen from the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate (Mr. J. B. Balfour) did not at all deal with that disproportion. It was true that in the county of Ayr there were practically four Members—two county and two burgh Members—but there remained still the extreme disproportion between the county and the burgh population, and that was the point to which all the Amendments which had been put down from the Conservative side of the House with regard to the burgh representation in Scotland had reference. The division of the county of Ayr which his hon. and gallant Friend represented had a population of nearly 90,000; whereas the Ayr group of burghs had only between 30,000 and 40,000, and it was in order to rectify that gross inequality that the Amendment which stood in the name of his hon. and gallant Friend was placed on the Paper. It did not, in his (Mr. Dalrymple's) estimation, signify whether Galston or any other place were selected in order to adjust the inequality; but what they contended for was that there should be some adjustment of the great inequality between the county and the burgh population. Her Majesty's Government had declined to make the adjustment desired. The case of Ayrshire was a small illustration of the disproportion between the county and burgh population in Scotland. He could mention two other cases illustrative of the disproportion of which he and his hon. Friends complained. East Aberdeenshire had a population of 83,000, while the Elgin Burghs, a very interesting group of burghs, no doubt, had a population of only 31,000 odd. 476 The case of the county of Stirlingshire was a specially remarkable one, for the population of the county was 78,000, while the burgh population was only 36,000. It was extremely important, whether this Amendment were divided upon or not, that the Committee should be in possession of the cases of extraordinary disproportion between the burgh and the county constituencies in Scotland; and no comparison which might be placed before them by the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill (Sir Charles W. Dilke), or anyone else, could in the slightest degree avail to remove the anomalies. He was aware that they had taken a great liberty—that it was positively audacious that hon. Members on the Conservative side of the House should in any way attempt to correct these anomalies—but whatever might be the result of their exertions, he was extremely glad to have the opportunity, by means of this Amendment, of pointing out how very gross these anomalies were. It was no answer to them to say, as his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Tre-velyan) said the other day, that the object was to get the free expression of the opinion of the country. It could only be in irony that those words could be used, because it was exactly the opinion of the country parts of the county which would not be obtained if the country parts of counties were so overshadowed numerically by the numbers in the towns. He cared nothing whatever for the epithets which were applied to their efforts in this direction. They know perfectly well what it was they desired. They had been at great pains to explain to the Committee that their object was to correct what were glaring and outrageous anomalies, and they now knew the Party opposite intended to maintain and perpetuate these anomalies. The credit or discredit of preserving these anomalies indicated by their measure, and their doing nothing whatever to remedy them, rested on the Government and on hon. Gentlemen opposite. He desired to remark once more upon the treatment which Scotland had received in reference to this redistribution scheme as compared with other parts of the country. He did not know how much attention might have been extended to other parts of the country, but the amount of attention which had 477 been given to Scotland in reference to redistribution seemed to have been of a very limited kind. The other night there was a solemn discussion as to whether Exeter should receive a second Member, though it was not able to muster a population above 48,000, yet on a previous evening—he was not quite sure whether it was not at an earlier hour the same evening—it was found perfectly impossible to give a Member to Leith, which had at present 58,000 inhabitants, and which was known to have a rapidly increasing population. That was the sort of inequality he de-sired to remark upon. In his opinion, those who were to blame for this state of things were the Representatives of Scotland. who sat on the Ministerial side of the House. If the Scotch Members who sat opposite asserted themselves, as they were very well able to do, or at least as they might do in respect of their numbers, Scotland would receive better attention than it did. The Welsh and Irish parts of the Kingdom received considerably more attention than Scotland, and the reason was not far to seek. The Representatives of those parts of the Kingdom asserted themselves in the House, and were not merely the old bodyguard of the Government. The Scotch Members on the other side were so busy supporting the Government that they forgot or neglected the interests of Scotland, and that was why Scotland had received so very scant attention in regard to redistribution, and why, owing to the breakdown of the praiseworthy attempt on the part of the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate to deal with the question, all the anomalies which at present existed in the burgh representation of Scotland were to be perpetuated for a long time to come. He cared little whether his hon. and gallant Friend went to a division or not; the case was a very strong one, and he was glad it had had, at all events, the recognition of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, although they had received no encouragement to press it on the Committee.
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid, he felt obliged to say a few words in reply to his hon. Friend (Mr. Dalrymple). He did not think it ought to go out in the Scotch newspapers, which reported the debates of the House very minutely, that Scotland had been very ill-used in 478 this matter on account of the apathy of Scotch Members. In what did good-usage consist, and ill-usage in distributing the proportion of Members for the different parts of the United Kingdom? It consisted clearly in the average population to which a Member was allotted. In England, which might be taken, he supposed, as the country most powerfully represented in the House, and which might, therefore, be supposed to come off best, there was one Member to every 53,500 of the population. In Scotland, which, according to the hon. Member, had been shamefully ill-used on account of the short-comings of the Scotch Members, there was one to 53,300 of the population. Statistics told something, and they spoke with a voice which could not be mistaken against the proposition of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (General Alexander). Scotland was actually better used than England in the matter of distribution if they took not what the country had, but what it gained. Scotland had actually gained by this Bill 12 Members—that was to say, some 20 per cent of her representation, which was a gain far exceeding that of any other part of the United Kingdom. The hon. and gallant Gentleman argued that these burghs ought to be taken from the county of Ayr, and added to the Ayr district of burghs, because there was such a contrast between the numbers of the population in the county, and the numbers of the populationin the burghs. But his hon. and gallant Friend forgot that these were questions of averages, and that, taking Scotland all over, the counties were exactly as well represented—they were represented within 100—as the burghs. The hon. and gallant Gentleman argued that because the population of the county of Ayr was larger than the burgh population, therefore they must take the burghs out of the county, and add them to the group of burghs. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dalrymple), however, a little lower down on the Paper, had an Amendment in regard to another Scotch county in which the county population was actually smaller than the burgh population, and yet the hon. Gentleman proposed to take the burghs out of that small county and add them to the burgh population. The hon. Gentleman, in order to be consistent, ought to take the county of Lanark, and cut off consider- 479 ably from the county representation and add it to the representation of Glasgow, which was very much under-represented as compared with the county. In this matter, they must look to the general average of the county and burgh population, and, accepting facts as they found them in the different counties and burghs, ought to think themselves very fortunate if they could secure so exact a balance, as the Bill secured, between the justice due to the counties and to the burghs.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he must point out what he thought was a fallacy in the argument of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Trevelyan) when he talked about averages. It was not only a question of what the general average of county Members or burgh Members might be throughout Scotland, but it was a question in each individual district how far the one and the other class of population was properly represented. He sympathized very much with his hon. and gallant Friend (General Alexander) in the effort he had made to bring about some modification in the representation of Ayr and the Ayr Burghs, by putting a larger proportion of the county into the burghs, and so bringing about a greater balance between them. The object, of course, which had always been brought forward as one they were to seek was, that there should be a proper arrangement of county districts, so as to take out of the counties the purely urban element. That was what his hon. and gallant Friend endeavoured to do by the Amendment he had on the Paper some time ago, and by the present Amendment. He (Sir Stafford Northcote) thought, after all that had passed on the subject of the Scotch burghs, and considering the difficulties in which they found themselves plunged by the abandonment of the scheme proposed by the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate, it was hardly to be avoided that they should find themselves very much where they were, and that the attempt to make a proper arrangement of the burghs should be found impracticable. He was glad to hear that his hon. and gallant Friend (General Alexander) thought it better, on the whole, not to go to a division on his Amendment; but he (Sir Stafford North-cote) thought it was right to put on record that the hon. and gallant Member, 480 and the hon. Member for Bute (Mr. Dalrymple), had made their protest against the system upon which the proposals of the Government had been framed, and that they should express their sympathy with his hon. Friends in regard to the continuance, in some cases, of an arrangement which did not meet the fair claim of the county interests.
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, that no doubt the Bill removed a great many anomalies and inequalities; but it also left a great many behind it. It was not a complete Bill; in his opinion it would have been better, much better, if the Government had not made two bites at a cherry. He was in favour of equal constituencies, and if the Government had brought in a Bill to secure such an end, as nearly as possible, they would have received his support, and he had little doubt the support of most of the Scotch Members on the Liberal side of the House. With regard to the proportions as between Scotland and other parts of the Kingdom, he thought Scotland had got bare justice, and no more. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Trevelyan) seemed to forget that London ought not to be regarded as a part of England. London was the capital of the United Kingdom, and was somewhat under-represented. If the right hon. Gentleman took England, apart from London, he would find that in comparison with England, Scotland was not so favourably treated as he seemed to imagine. He (Sir George Campbell) desired to say a word upon another subject. It would be observed that the hon. and gallant Gentleman (General Alexander) had included in his Amendment a proposal to add certain towns; but that he said nothing as to his omission from the Ayr group of the small burghs of Oban and Inverary, in Argyllshire. He (Sir George Campbell) had put down an Amendment to reconstitute the group, by omitting those places; and he did so because he believed that that was the only part of the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate's (Mr. J. B. Balfour's) scheme, with regard to which there was any general agreement; he understood there was no objection to the proposal of the Lord Advocate to include these two small burghs in the county of Argyllshire. The complaints as to the scandal with regard to the 481 grouping of Scotch burghs, were chiefly due to the Ayrshire group. Oban and Inverary were situated in the extremest parts of Argyllshire, and they could not be reached from Ayrshire except by performing a journey something like that which was known as the overland route to India. It would be a very great advantage if these two burghs could be merged in Argyllshire. The county was willing to have them, and therefore he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote) to consent to that part of the Amendment of his hon. and gallant Friend (General Alexander). He might remind the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Stafford Northcote) that if by any chance it should be discovered that any parties in Argyllshire did object to the alteration, "there would be an opportunity in "another place" of making a rectification. The rearrangement would get rid of the greatest scandal which existed in the system of grouping burghs in Scotland, and, therefore, he hoped the Leader of the Opposition would see his way to assent to it.
§ MR. J. A. CAMPBELLsaid, he had an Amendment a little further down on the Paper of a similar nature to the one now before the Committee, but in regard to another group of burghs; but if his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (General Alexander) did not go to a division, he would not trouble the Committee by moving his Amendment. He wished to say, however, that the action taken by the Government had made it impossible for them to have the groups of Scotch burghs properly adjusted. He had intended to move, but for the decision of the Government, that Fraserburgh should be added to the Elgin group. The position of Fraserburgh formed a good illustration of the inconvenience of the resolution of the Government. The Elgin group was formed mainly of fishing towns, and in the midst of these was Fraserburgh. Under the Bill, that town, with a population of 6,000, was to be merged in the county, though it had no interest in common with the agricultural community, but had identical interests with the neighbouring fishing towns. He would remark that the mode of grouping he advocated was in reality the only way in which, in many parts 482 of Scotland, the urban and the rural elements in the constituencies could be properly separated. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster had referred to Lanarkshire; but it should be remembered that that was one of the few counties of Scotland in which it was possible, by erecting sub-divisions, to obtain something like a separation of the two interests, because in Lanarkshire there were sub-divisions that were mainly urban, but this was not the case in other counties. It was not the case in the district to which he (Mr. J. A. Campbell) had referred. With regard to the inclination of the population to be classed according to their different interests, he would remark that since this subject had been brought before the House there had been expressed on the part of a population spread over three contiguous centres along the Banffshire coast, and numbering together upwards of 6,000, a desire to be added to the Elgin group of burghs, in order that a group might be formed consisting of the whole of the fishing towns in the North-East of Scotland. Such an arrangement would, in his opinion, be a very reasonable one, as it would give representation to a particular branch of industry, and only pay proper regard to the community of interests in such a constituency. But, in the face of the positive declaration by Her Majesty's Government that on no account would they add any new towns to the old burgh groups, he felt that it would be quite futile for himself or his Friends to press Amendments of this kind, and he would, therefore, conclude by saying that if the hon. and gallant Member for South Ayrshire withdrew the Amendment he had proposed, he (Mr. J. A. Campbell) would not put the Committee to the trouble of pronouncing any opinion on the Amendment he had placed upon the Paper.
§ MR. WILLIAMSONsaid, the hon. Member for Buteshire (Mr. Dalrymple) had taken it upon himself to lecture hon. Gentlemen sitting on that (the Ministerial) side of the House for inconsistency in not having attempted to remove anomalies in the representation of Scotland by taking advantage of the opportunities afforded by this Bill. But the hon. Member did not seem to be aware of the fact that he was himself 483 amenable to the charge of inconsistency, because he was one of those who had voted against the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold) when he had proposed to draw the limit of population capable of becoming a constituency at 20,000, in contradistinction to the Government proposal sanctioned by the Leaders of the Opposition that the limit should be drawn at 15,000. The hon. Member for Buteshire had gone into the Lobby against the proposal of the hon. Member for Salford, and he (Mr. Williamson) was astonished that having done so, the hon. Gentleman should blame hon. Members on this side of the House for simply endeavouring to carry out the arrangement that had been come to between the two Parties.
§ MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, it seemed to him, as the Representative of an English constituency, a somewhat surprising thing that, whereas most of the English Members were going at the next General Election to contest divisions of counties which would, for the main part, consist of from 50,000 to 60,000 electors, his hon. Friends who represented the Scotch counties were able to bring forward a case in which there would be a county constituency in Scotland with a population of 217,000, to whom it was only proposed under the Bill to assign two Representatives. The reply to this extraordinary fact was that there was to be an addition of two Members for the burghs in that county, and that, therefore, on the whole, it would have a fair amount of representation; but he contended that this was in reality no answer to the case. In England there was an endeavour to adjust the proportions between the urban and the rural elements; but they did not propose to carry out the same principle in Scotland, and the grossest part of the anomaly was to be seen in this—that whereas in Scotland they were perfectly ready to break up groups of burghs for the purpose of throwing them into the county constituencies, they made it a vital principle not to form any of the other burghs into new urban constituencies. Why, he asked, was that the case? He had tried to ascertain the reasons by which such a proposition was supported, but he had heard no reason for it whatever. They had groups of burghs in Scotland that were exceedingly reasonable for 484 many purposes, groups that were found to be exceedingly convenient, because they absorbed a sufficient portion of the urban population of the counties to enable those groups to return Radical Members, and yet left a sufficient number of urban electors to enable them to swamp the rural portions of the counties. Why could they not alter this? Was there any earthly reason why they should not? It was not as though they would thereby be doing something that would destroy the general character of the Bill. What they were asked to do was to make a fair and proper distribution between the urban and, rural populations in Scotland, as was proposed to be done in regard to England. [Sir CHARLES W. DILKE: Between the urban and rural populations in Ayrshire.] It was all very well to say "between the urban and rural populations in Ayrshire," and he was ready to meet the right hon. Gentleman on that point. If they took the case of Ayrshire, he thought there was a case of very gross inequality presented to the Committee, and, he hoped his hon. and gallant Friend (General Alexander) would not rest satisfied with this discussion, but would consider the matter between the present time and the Report, and that, in the meantime, something would be suggested that would enable a fairer adjustment to be made as between the urban and rural populations, so that when the Report came to be considered some so he me might be adopted that would have the effect of securing this result.
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. E. Stanhope) had mentioned the English counties in order to draw a contrast between them and the Scotch counties. He had stated that such anomalies as that which he had drawn attention to did not exist in the different counties in England. In answer to what had been said on this point, he (Mr. Trevelyan) would take the case of the first county on the English list taken alphabetically—the county of Bedford. In that county there were two seats, one with a population of 66,000, and the other with a population of 63,000; there was a borough seat with a population of 19,000. Therefore, he put it to the Committee, that the very first of the English counties did not show ill by the side of Ayrshire.
§ MR. BUCHANANsaid, he had understood that, after the discussion which had taken place a few days ago, hon. Members on the other side of the House were going to pursue the same course as hon. Members on that side, and that when the Amendments to the previous Schedule were rejected, all the consequential Amendments to this Schedule were to be abandoned also. That was the conclusion at which he and his hon. Friends had arrived, and they had believed that the same course would be followed by hon. Members opposite. He should like, however, to say a few words upon what they had just heard from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. E. Stanhope). The hon. Gentleman had supported the proposal as an attempt to separate the urban from the rural population in the Scotch counties. But, as a matter of fact, there was a much more marked separation already existing in Scotland than in England. In Lincolnshire, as the hon. Gentleman was aware, there were several burghs like Spalding and Louth, each with a population of 8,000 or 9,000 inhabitants, forming part of the county constituency. In Scotland, on the contrary, the number of burghs of a similar size, which were not included in some Parliamentary group, could be numbered on the fingers of one hand. There was already a much greater separation of the elements in Scotland than in England. Another characteristic of Scottish representation which the hon. Gentleman did not seem to be aware of was this. There was a much greater diversity in size between the Scottish county constituencies than between those in England or Ireland. The large Scottish counties would be much larger and more populous than any counties left as separate constituencies in England or Ireland. But there were also much smaller counties left in Scotland than in England. If the hon. Gentleman would take the case of the county of Bute, which was represented by his hon. Friend (Mr. Dalrymple) sitting behind him, he would find that Buteshire had a population much smaller than that of any county constituency in England. The county of Bute had a population of only 17,000, and the united counties of Peebles and Selkirk had no more. But what he (Mr. Buchanan) had chiefly risen to do was to complain of the 486 charge made by the hon. Member for Buteshire that hon. Members on that (the Ministerial) side of the House were to blame for what had taken place, and were doing what they could for the purpose of perpetuating anomalies in the representation of Scotland. For his own part, he had heard nothing on his side of the House which would justify that accusation; and he might even go further, and say that a more unfounded charge had never been brought against them. What were the facts of the case? They knew that the Amendment on the Paper was one of a number which hon. Members opposite representing Scotch constituencies had been prepared to support; and on "Wednesday last a statement was made by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition (Sir Stafford Northcote) to the effect that proposals of this character were entirely apart from the compact that had been arrived at between the two Front Benches. Subsequently, however, they had a statement from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster(Mr. Trevelyan), who plainly informed the Committee that the addition of new burghs to the existing burgh groups was a matter which the Government considered to be a vital innovation, and which they would resist by every possible means in their power. Immediately after this it was found that a very curious change of front took place on the part of the Conservative Members for Scotland, for he believed that, with the single exception of the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. Orr-Ewing), all the Conservative Members for Scotland voted in the division that took place on Wednesday against the last Amendment of the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate. Well, what took place after that? As it had appeared in the newspapers, and was a matter of notoriety, he supposed he might refer to it. There was an interview between the hon. Member for Buteshire (Mr. Dalrymple) and the Marquess of Salisbury. Of course, what took place at that interview had not transpired; but they knew very well what was the issue of it, because the very next morning—
THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. Member was out of Order in going into matters irrelevant to the Question before the Committee.
§ MR. BUCHANANsaid, he would apologize if he had been out of Order; but he had only been calling attention to a charge which the hon. Member for Buteshire (Mr. Dalrymple) had brought against the Liberal Party, that they were endeavouring to perpetuate the anomalies in Scottish burgh representation. He (Mr. Buchanan) was only endeavouring, to the best of his ability, to rebut that charge; and he would conclude very shortly what he had intended to say. What it was that had happened on Thursday he would, after what the Chairman had said, pass by. They knew, from certain statements in the newspapers, what really did take place; and the result in the House was this—that on Friday the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate got up and stated that all these Amendments were going to be abandoned, because they had received information that the Leaders of the Opposition could not—
THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. Member was again transgressing the Rules of Order by going into a subject which had already been ruled out of Order upon the Question before the Committee.
§ MR. BUCHANANsaid, he was very sorry; but he submitted that he was only endeavouring to repudiate the charge which the hon. Member for Buteshire had most unfairly brought against hon. Members on that side of the House. The hon. Member for Buteshire had not been ruled out of Order in bringing the charge. It surely could not be out of Order in him to repudiate it. Nevertheless, he did not propose to go into the matter any further. He would merely conclude by saying this—that among the many surprises to which hon. Members on the Liberal Benches had been subjected, the last, and the one least to be expected, was the moving of the present Amendment by the hon. and gallant Member for South Ayrshire (General Alexander). They had all of them regretted the course taken by Her Majesty's Government on the occasion referred to; but they were beaten then, and they had accepted their defeat with as good a grace as possible, it being understood that that decision should govern all the consequential Amendments. But when they came down to the House on the present occasion, and found hon. Members on the other side moving 488 Amendments on the same point, he thought they had at least good ground for the complaint that hon. Members opposite had not faithfully observed the understanding which was supposed to have been come to on both sides of the House.
§ MR. ORR-EWINGsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Trevelyan) had stated that he thought Aryshire was sufficiently represented, and had spoken of the four Members for that county, thereby including the representation both of the county and the burghs. But he (Mr. Orr-Ewing) desired to call the attention of the Committee to the fact that, in reality, Ayrshire had only three Members—namely, one for the burghs, and two for the county, the constituency for the burgh Member being made up from burghs outside the county. He asked the Committee to contrast this with the state of things in Fifeshire, the result of any comparison that might be instituted being that if they were to divide Ayrshire with a population of 218,000 by three, they would have one Member to something like 73,000 inhabitants; whereas if they were to divide Fifeshire by four and,' a-half, they would have about 38,000 inhabitants to each Member, and yet Fifeshire was to have a new Member under this Bill instead of Ayrshire, which was the county that ought to have had the additional Representative. When they asked themselves whether this was just and fair, and when they saw how unjust it really was, they naturally asked themselves what was the reason for it, and the only answer they could give was that Fifeshire had shown itself to be consistently Radical, while, on the other hand, Ayrshire had been as consistently Conservative. Again, in the case of Stirlingshire, he put it to the Committee, was it just that out of a population of 112,000 the burghs should have a Representative for 29,000, while the county should be restricted to the same representation for 83,000? In Dumbartonshire there was a similar disparity, there being a population of only 13,500 in the county town, while that of the county, with the population of to-day, would have 73,000, He contended that the Government ought not to permit such anomalies as these when bringing forward a great measure for the redistribution of seats.
§ GENERAL ALEXANDER,in asking leave to withdraw the Amendment, said, he would call attention to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had asserted the other day that a population of 94,000—in the case of Mid Lothian—was too unwieldy for representation by one Member, whereas, in his (General Alexander's) case, the population included in the division he represented was over 90,000.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ DR. LYONS,in moving, as an Amendment—
In page 17, to add at end, "Royal University of Ireland | Two (in column for number of Members),said, he rejoiced to find that hon. Members had, by a large majority, affirmed the principle of University representation in that House. University representation, he contended, was the natural means of affording representation to one of the most important classes in the country; and as they were about to extend on a very large basis, and, as he believed, in wisely determined directions, the representation of the country, it was only right that the measure proposing to do this should secure the adequate representation of all important interests. He had, therefore, sincerely rejoiced at the decision the House had arrived at on the question of University representation, which had occupied its attention during the earlier portion of these discussions. The object of his Amendment was that two Members should be given to the Royal University of Ireland. That University was the legal heir and successor of the Queen's University, and the position it now occupied was set forth in a paper he held in his hand, which showed that the number of graduates at the present time was about 2,700, which number was increasing at the rate of about 200 each year, so that ere very long it might be able to hold a position level with that of the great historical Universities of England and those which existed in Scotland. If they compared the Royal University with the University of London, it would be found that it had on its books more graduates than the latter University had when the claim of that Institution to Parliamentary representa- 490 tion was granted. He did not wish to institute any invidious comparison between the great University of Dublin and the Royal University; but for the purpose of showing what had been the position of the former, he would refer to the claim made for additional representation in 1832. It was then urged that the number of members of the University of Dublin was 200, and that in a certain number of years it would have between 600 or 700; but that number had been far exceeded. With regard to the position of the Royal University, although its increment of members was probable only, and could not be precisely stated, he maintained that it had far superior claims to representation at the present time than the University of Dublin had at the time mentioned to additional representation. And as it had been conceded that University representation was part and parcel of the representation of the country in that House, he contended that he had proved that the Royal University had a claim to the concession of that representation which he advocated in its behalf. He repeated that he entirely avoided raising any invidious comparison between the two Universities; but he felt that this advocacy of the claims of the Royal University was due from him and from everyone within those walls who owed her allegiance. He believed that if a condition of equilibrium was to be established in Ireland, it was to be done not so much by putting down the great historical University of Dublin, as by raising the status of the new University, whose claims he ventured to put before the Committee. Now it might be said, although the question was one to be settled by Her Majesty's Government, that it was incumbent upon him to show where the two Members which he proposed should be given to the Royal University were to be found. He believed that at least amongst the Irish Representatives in that House, it would be considered that Ireland had a claim to two seats which, if he might say so, had been in a hasty moment extinguished. In one sense, those seats had been extinguished; but, as far as he could gather, it appeared to be the intention of Her Majesty's Government, in dealing with the question of redistribution, to proceed as if they were still in existence, and to make use of them 491 for the purpose of English and Irish representation. He believed that this view of the case was one which had not as yet been touched upon; but the question was one which Her Majesty's Government were bound to answer sooner or later. If the Government were going to make use of the two seats of Cashel and Sligo, in order to complete the number of seats proposed to be established by the present Bill, he ventured to say that Ireland had undoubtedly a much stronger claim to them than any of the other portions of the Kingdom. While on this subject of the number of seats proposed under the Bill, he would take the opportunity of tendering his very grateful and cordial thanks to the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Charles W. Dilke) for having acted in a spirit of equity and fairness towards Ireland in this respect. But having gone so far, and having acted in such a generous spirit towards Ireland as to maintain the number of seats at 103, he would venture to ask the right hon. Baronet to go a short step further, and restore the number of seats that were recognized in 1832 as the proper number for the representation of Ireland, after a long series of debates conducted by some of the most eminent statesmen the country had produced. He thought that the Amendment he was about to move had fair claims to the consideration of hon. Members on both sides of the House, and especially of the right hon. Gentlemen at the head of the Government and the Leader of the Opposition. It was with some confidence that he submitted this proposal to the right hon. Baronet on the grounds put forward, and he trusted that before the Bill passed from the House he might be fortunate enough to secure its adoption.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 17, at end, add "Royal University of Ireland | Two (in column for number of Members)."—(Dr. Lyons.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the hon. Gentleman had proposed his Amendment on the Schedule of the Bill which had to do with the boundaries of the new boroughs which the Bill created. No doubt, Universities had sometimes been called boroughs; and, in a certain technical sense, they were so; but this 492 was a Schedule of the towns and places which the Government said ought to be included in boroughs, and he could not help thinking that it was most inappropriate to the question which the hon. Gentleman had raised. The hon. Gentleman had said he was willing to raise the question on Report, which would allow the subject to be discussed on its own merits. But he must point out that there was a great difference between the retention of University representation as existing at present, and the creation of new University seats. The objections to the latter were far more numerous than in the case of the former. There was a great deal of objection taken even to the existing University representation, and he fancied there would be still more objection to the creation of new University seats. The hon. Gentleman proposed to give four University seats to Ireland; but if this suggestion were acceded to, an undue disproportion would be created in favour of that country, seeing that there were but five University seats in England, two in Scotland, and none in Wales. If they were to look beyond these considerations, he would point out to the Committee that the seats of Cashel and Sligo, which the hon. Gentleman suggested might be used for the purpose of the Royal University, were seats which had long since ceased to exist. The boroughs in question had been disfranchised by Act of Parliament, and the seats had been already allocated under the Bill. The proposal of the hon. Gentleman was, therefore, either to increase the total number of seats for the Kingdom, or else to take two seats for University purposes from some part of England or Scotland. He did not think that either of those views was at all likely to prevail with the Committee, and therefore he could not hold out much encouragement to the hon. Gentleman to raise the question again on the Report.
§ Question put, and negatived.