§ SIR HENRY KIMBER (Wandsworth)I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Committee or Commission upon Redistribution boundaries which the Government propose to set to work will be limited by their instructions to the lines of the Resolution which has been withdrawn, or whether their instructions will permit them to take into consideration other alternatives or amendments; and also, whether, having regard to the fact that the Government proposals proceed upon the basis of population, he will call for in estimate by the Registrar-General of the probable population of the different constituencies in the year 1906, in which the proposed Redistribution Bill is intended to be introduced.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURIt is somewhat too early as yet to deal with the points brought forward by my hon. friend, but I can assure him that they will receive the attention of the Government.
§ MR. PEEL (Manchester, S.)May I ask whether, in the case of border line constituencies, the right hon. Gentleman will also consider the advisability of allowing the Commissioners to consider the great shifting of population which has recently taken place in consequence of the development of means of communication, which has rendered the old precedents entirely obsolete.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI am not sure that I admit the last part of my hon. friend's Question but his suggestion will be kept in view.
§ MR. MCKENNA (Monmouthshire, N.)I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether one of the reasons which induced the Government to base their proposals for redistribution on population and not on the numbers of electors was to avoid raising the question of the plural voter; whether his attention has been called to the fact that this argument was omitted from the explanatory Memorandum accompanying the proposals; and whether, with a view to providing the House with full materials on which to form its judgment, he will instruct the Committee or other body which he proposes to appoint to inquire, as far us may be, into the number and the distribution of the plural voters.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURWe have in this Bill proceeded upon the precedent set in the preceding Redistribution Bills, and I see no reason to depart from them. If the hon. Gentleman desires us to combine with a Redistribution Bill a Reform Bill, that is not the policy of the Government.
§ *SIR CHARLES DILKE (Gloucestershire, Forest of Dean)Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Commissioners in 1885 took into consideration not only population, but also the numbers of the electors, mostly plural voters, whose qualifications arose from urban areas? The Commissioners stated then that they kept certain divisions artificially low in order to put in urban voters, who were mostly plural voters.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURThe right hon. Baronet is a very great authority on this question, because he was directly concerned in dealing with it in 1885; but I think he will not deny that population and not voting power was, broadly speaking, the basis of the arrangement. The point he has brought to my attention will be kept in mind.
§ MR. MCKENNAWill the right hon. Gentleman instruct whatever body he 1405 may appoint to inquire into the number of the plural voters in particular districts.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI am certainly not going to commit the Government as to the precise nature of the instructions to be given. There may be cases, no doubt, in which inquiry may be desirable, but, so far as I have made up my mind on the subject at all, to state the precise instructions to be given, or the time at which they will be given, would be premature.
§ SIR CHARLES DILKEIf the hon. Gentleman will look to the Report of the Commissioners he will see it wag done in the cases of both Surrey and Middlesex.
§ MR. MCKENNAI bag to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the body which he has in contemplation to set up before the next session of Parliament, in connection with his proposals for Redistribution, is the same body as that contemplated in the Resolutions; and, if not, in what respect as regards powers and duties the body now proposed differs from that originally intended.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI certainly am not going to pledge myself as to the identity of the body that will now be appointed with the body that would have been appointed had the Resolutions been passel; it is a very hypothetical Question. But there will, do doubt, be a very close relationship.
§ MR. MCKENNA asked whether the body now proposed to be appointed would be a Boundary Commission, or a Committee with power to advise the Government.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURNo Commission we can appoint would have powers except to advise the Government; it must ultimately rest with the House of Commons to decide what shall be adopted.
§ MR. DALZIELMay we assume that what is generally understood as a Boundary Commission will subsequently be appointed?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURNo, I do not think the hon. Gentleman must take my 1406 Answer as of larger scope than appears on the surface. I do not think there is anything to be gained by stating now the precise terms and exact course to be adopted.
§ MR. MCKENNA said surely they were entitled to know whether it was proposed to appoint Boundary Commissioners.
§ MR. A.J. BALFOURI do not know why the hon. Gentleman is more entitled to know it than the House of Commons was in 1884 to know the intentions of Mr. Gladstone.
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANThe right hon. Gentleman has a peculiar tendency to shelter himself under the name of Mr. Gladstone. But in Mr. Gladstone's case, owing to circumstances into which I need not enter, the matter was the subject of arrangement between the two sides of the House, so that there is no analogy whatever.
§ A. J. BALFOURThe right hon. Gentleman is mistaken; the Committee appointed by Mr. Gladstone was appointed before that arrangement.
§ MR. SWIFT MACNEILLYes, but the Commission was appointed afterwards.