HANTS EPIPHANY SESSION
…
Proposed Divisional Alteration. —Sir J. C. JERVOISE, Bart, said it had been entrusted to him to move that the parish of Waterloo, at present a part of the Fareham Division of the county, should be added to the Petersfield Division. The hon. baronet said he was not fully acquainted with the views of those who mooted the alteration, but he and another magistrate, (then absent) had been asked to introduce the question. It was considered desirable, he believed, that Waterloo should be in the same division as Catherington, with the union of which it was connected. The motion having been put into his hands as a matter of form, he had accordingly laid it before the Court.
The proposition was briefly seconded by Mr. G. E. Eyre.
Lord H. CHOLMONDELEY said was constrained to oppose the motion. He had received letters from three out of the seven magistrates in the division, who were against the alteration. There ought to be some good reasons shown for making such an alteration as that proposed, but none were advanced, though there were many objections. As to distances: Waterloo was less than four miles from Havant and seven from Fareham, but it was more than ten from Petersfield*this alone was a great objection. As to magistrates resident: —Mr. Deverell lived only a mile and a half distant, whereas it was ten miles to Petersfield, and Mr. Deverell when he signed a summons or information, would never be sitting on the Bench where the hearing of the case would be, supposing this alteration was sanctioned. And Catherington Workhouse was further from Petersfield than it was from Havant; another thing, half the houses of the village were situate in the parish of Farlington.
Mr. DEVERELL said he must confirm the objections quoted by Lord H. Cholmondeley. And he would mention another fact—Waterloo was in a district that came in the southern division of the county, but Catherington was in the northern division. To grant such an application as the present, therefore, would be to lay a foundation for disturbing the now formed constituency of the county. Great inconvenience would result to the poor, and also to the police, by such an alteration as proposed. The extreme end of Fareham also would be under the supervision of a constable who would have to look after Farlington and Waterloo, and, in case of the suggested change, he would have to go ten miles to prove his case on every occasion.
Sir J. C. JERVOISE said he would remind the Court that he only officially brought forward the motion for discussion, but he did not intend to divide the Court upon it; the reasons in objection he had now heard were quite sufficient to make him withdraw the motion.