The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1884-12-06 00:00:00

THE REDISTRIBUTION BILL.

The orders of the day having been postponed, Mr
Gladstone moved for leave to bring in a bill for the
Redistrityotion of Seats. Having expressed his great
satisfaction at having now reached a point that might
be regarded as marking the termination of the con-
troversy which had agitated the country, and at being
able to present a measure on a political question of
great importance and wide scope with a sanguine hope
that it would raise no serious difficulties of party dis-
pute, the right hon. gentleman explaintd that the
Government- Bill, like that of 1832, was based on two
schedules, A and B: the former showing the total loss of
separate representation, and the latter the total reduo-
tion of separate representation from two mei:fibers to
one. Schedule A was framed upon the principle that
towns of a population up to 15,000 should be merged
into the counties, divisions, or districts, and besides
these there were a small number of rural boroughs
which would likewise become portions of the nounty
constituencies, and under the same arrangement would
be included Sandwich and Macclesfield, to which it was
undesirable to give a separate electoral existence.
Under Schedul,,, B towns with a population up to
50,000 would continue to be represented, but would
not have more than one member. Other towns above
that limit and up to 165.000 population would have two
members. To these towns would be added tha counties
of Rutland and Hereford, the former losing one of its
two members and the latter one to three. Above 165,000
population the process of an augmentation of the
numbers of represeetativee now possessed would
commence. The effect of these two schedules
would be to liberate no less than 160 seats, and to these
would be added the six extinguished seats which it was
psoposed to revive. The counties would receive 96
seats over and above what they possessed at present;
the boroughs would receive 74 seats; and new
boroughs taken out of the counties would receive eight
seats. In the neighbourhood of the metropolis it was
proposed to create seven boroughs with eight mem-
bers; and the addition to the whole metropolitan re-
presentation, including those new boroughs, would be
37. The representation of Liverpool would be in-
creased from three to nine members; of Glasgow,
from three to seven; of Birraingham, from three
to seven; of Manchester, from three to six;
of Leeds, from three to five; and of Shef-
field, from two to five. Yorkshire would receive 16
new members; Lancashire, 15 Middlesex and Cork,
five each; and Durham and Lanark, fem. each. The
principle upon which the distribution would take place
was to take the electoral area as the unit and to apply
to the various areas the same rules, so that the dis-
franchisement or the enfranchisement of any town or
county would everywhere be determined by the same
considerations As far as possible the rule would be
uniform, and the result would be that England would
cbtain six seats more than it now possessed, while Wales
and Ireland would have the same number of represen-
tatives as at present. To meet the just claims of Scot-
land it was propoeed to increase the existing numbers of
the House by 12 seats. The Government had come to
the conclusion that on the whole the best and fairest
method of dividing the electoral areas would be to
adept as the general and prevailing rule the system of
one-member constituencies. It was very economical,
very simple, and went a long way towerds the relate-
sentation of minorities, and, moreover, by its means a
large diversity of representation would be ensured.
There were, however, certain exceptions to the rule. The
City of London would be accorded two members, and
towns outside the metropolis already having dual repre-
sentation, and which were not to be increased or
diminished, would not be required to be divided. Some-
thing over 50 seats would be covered by this exception.
The division of the boroughs and the fixing of the
county districts would be under a commission, which
had already been appointed and was at wok con-
sisting of Sir John Lambert, Mr. Pelham, Sir F. Sand-
ford, Mr. J. J. Henley, Colonel Ow-in Jones, and Major
Hector Tulloch, and which would not complete its
labours for a couple of months. As to the second read-
ing he hoped that the Housewould take it on Thursday,
deferring the full discussion of the principle until the
motion that the Speaker leave the chair, and he con-
cluded by expressing a confident trust that the bill,
though wide and large, and therefore most likely to be
permanent,would be found to respect ancient rights and
ancient arrangements.
Sir S. Northcote asked whether the House would be
put in possession of the instructions to be given to the
Boundary Coninisiioners, to which Mr. Gladstone
replied "Certainly."
_ .

short conversation followed, in the course of which
Sir J. Hay warmly complained that justice had not
been done to Scotland. Mr. Chaplin, Mr. Onslow, and
Sir W. H. Dyke demurred to taking the second reading
as soon as Thursday. Mr. Buchanan, Mr. Gray, Mr.
Warton, Mr. Sclater-Booth, and others spoke.
Sir O. Dilke replied on various points, and finally
leave was given to bring in the bill, which was subse-
quently read a first time.
The second reading was fixed for Thursday.
The Consolidated Fund Bill was passed through
Committee, and, some other business having been
disposed of, the House adjourned at a quarter to seven
o'clock.