The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1884-11-22 00:00:00

MR. BRIGHT ON REDISTRIBUTION

SCHEMES.

Mr. Sohn Bright, M.P., delivered a speech at is
dinner of the " Eighty Club" at the Westminster
Palace Hotel, in , London, an Tuesday. Mr. A. Grey,
M.P., presided, and the right hon. gentleman, refer-
ring to some of the schemes of redistribution which
had been propounded, said: There is another question
connected with the great measure of reform which I
should like to say a little about, and that is a com-
panion bill—a completing bill, which will show when
2,000,000 more people have got the franchise what
number of members they shall return, and from what
districts and specified populations members shall be
sent to Parliament. When we come to consider a
question like this I confess I feel a little difficulty,
and am not without some doubt as to what can be done
by way of negotiation and compromise. (Cheers.)
If all persons in both Houses of Parliament are
anxious for a real, honest, fair represen-
tation of the people, without reference to the
advantage or success of any particular party, then
there will be no difficulty in coming to an arrange-
ment, but when you have, as we have now, a good
many men on our side who are very anxious for a bill
of this kind, and a good many others are terrified at
the very thought of it, I am not very confident
myself that it will be easy by any negotiation to arrive
at any compromise which may give us a very satis-
factory measure. (Hear, hear.) There are curious
rumours afloat. It is said that a good many people
on the opposite side of the House to which I sit are
in favour of a change of a most extraordinary kind;
for instance, that we should, if possible, take a sponge
and pass it over the slate, and then make as many
constituencies as there are members of the House of
Commons; or that one constituency, I think, shall re-
turn one member, and that they shall blot out all the past
and establish something completely new. For my part
I do not sympathise much in that wish. Ido not
want to see 650 districts returning 650 members. I
am for something more moderate, something on the
old lines. It is only on the old lines that the Govern-
ment can safely proceed. There are two schemes
which, for anything I know, maybe under considera-
tion in the highest quarters. It is said, I think, that
one plan proposed to suppress all boroughs that were
under a population of 10,000. That would be a reason-
able proposition, and would give you 106 members to
distribute. lam of opinion that it would be very de-
sirable as we are in the midst of a large change to go
further. Suppose the Government had begun at 20,000
population as the point of the suppression of a borough.
If we took 20,000, leaving all those represented
but suppressing all the boroughs under 20,000, you
would have to suppress 120 boroughs instead of 72,
and you would have 144 seats instead of 72, and then
there are boroughs of between 20,000 and 30,000,
from which you would get 10 other members, and
you would have finally 120 boroughs to suppress, and
154 members to distribute. This is a large trans-
action, but it is a transaction in the right direction.
(Hear, hear.) If this could be done I think our
representative system would last with, perhaps, no
considerable change till the very youngest man in this
room was at least as old as I am, and perhaps much
longer. I should say that one reason for taking the
larger instead of the smaller measure is that by the
larger plan giving so many more members to dis-
tribute would enable you to confer representation
upon many boroughs of a population of between 30,000
and 50,000, who otherwise will remain without any dis-
tinct or definite representation. The smaller number
distributed amongst the large boroughs and the
counties will still leave very many considerable
towns who will have a larger population, and be still
unrepresented, and many of the towns may continue
the representation they have at present, and that I
think is an undesirable thing. But there is always
the consolation that no single elector would be
damaged by anything that is proposed to be done,
whether the 10,000 or the 20,000 were adopted. If
the 10,000 plan is adopted the boroughs below 10,000
merge into the counties in which they are situated;
if the 20,000 then for the most part, I think, all
merge into the counties, and the result to every in-
dividual elector in every borough would be merely
this, that instead of being as now—l am speaking of
the suppressed boroughs—a vote, for the most part
for one member who represents the borough, he would
give his vote in all probability for two members for
the county. So that no individual would be disen-
franchised, and a very large proportion, instead of
voting for one member, would probably vote for two
members in the county. I hold that it would be a
wiser plan to adopt the line of 20,000 rather than
10,000, but if the Government advanced 15,000 it
would be better than 10,000. I think the Government,
if they adopt the larger number, will find that the
country will probably support them thoroughly.
(Cheers.) There are two proposals which some people
make that in my opinion are bad, and it would be
well that the Government should reject one of them
totally, and that is the proposition that they should
group boroughs. Now, we in Scotland had had examples
of grouping boroughs ever since the Reform Act of
1832. There are groups of boroughs there in which one
borough is separated from another by a distance of 150
miles. The Scotch are very patient. Practically they
had no representative before, and were glad to get
that. There the little boroughs were taken out of
the counties, the effect of which was to leave them
more in the power of the landed gentry, and I am
told that there are people who would like to make
terms with the Government in such a way that the
householders in the towns should not mix with the
householders in the counties—the charming Conser-
vative preserves which the counties offer to our
opponents. There are few cases iii which the group-
ing of boroughs is either possible or right. As the
Scotch say, if a man is not popular with his party he
makes much of one of his boroughs, and so it is
found impossible to turn him out. (Cheers and
laughter.) And so he remained for years, whereas he
would have been obliged to change his policy or change
his seat. That is one of the difficulties of grouping; and if
we do not wish to hand the constituencies over to the
landed proprietors, grouping is the thing that we
ought not to listen to. I now turn to another ques-
tion, in which the hon. chairman has taken some
interest. I refer to proportional representation.
Taking these words as they stand, if they had been
heard used in a speech people would say that they
meant that members should everywhere be distributed
in proportion to population in the country—that one
member should represent a population of, say,
54,000, whether in cities or counties. I don't know
if that is the meaning of the phrase; but I do not
think that kis the meaningof many who:think that they
been b een associated with the furtherance of that propo-
sition. I should like to know what is meant by propor-
tional representation. If it is meant to give one member
to every 54,000 persons I could understand it, and, as a
matter of principle, you could not find fault with such
principle as that. In the United States in their House
of Representatives, they divide the country into
districts, and their cities into districts, and they do
that once every ten years as the population increases
or diminishes, so that they maintain proportional re-
presentation as far as possible. But there are people
here who have different ideas. Their idea is that
people who are not numerically strong enough to send
representatives to Parliament should yet send repre-
sentatives to Parliament. There are parties in both
Houses who want to get what is called minority re-
presentation by three-cornered constituencies, of which
there are five in the boroughs and seven in the counties,
and by the cumulative vote. Of these two schemes, both
odious, I should say that the cumulative vote is more
odious than the other; but you cannot measure
the distance between proposals of this kind and
the honest old method of allowing majorities to de-
termine who are to be returned. (Cheers.) With
regard to the question of dividing boroughs, in the
bill which I prepared in 1866 I proposed that the
large boroughs Manchester, Liverpool, Glasgow,
Leeds—should have six members each. I left it an
undetermined question whether these boroughs should
vote in blocks or be divided into wards—that is,
divisions of a borough so that they might have one or
two members elected by each division. I thought
that that question was deserving of discussion. I had
strong opinions about it, and it is not contrary to any
principle which is now held or which any man could
hold in respect to it. The only objection to it is that
you are more apt to get a sort of parochial represen-
tation than if you have a larger population. We must
inake up our mind to this—that the majority in one place
will be compensated for by majorities or minorities in
others, that there will be a balance all over the
country, and that the general and final result will
determine, as it ought to determine, the policy of the
Government and the legislation of • Parliament.
Therefore I am for standing by the old lines and not
departing into these new ways and by-ways, that may
lead a good distance, but were they will lead to
nobody yet has been able to determine. We must
bear in mind that any bill must cause necessarily
considerable disturbance in the country and may
create very considerable local discontent. Now, this
discontent and opposition, if any should arise, can
only be surmounted by a scheme which sensible men
shall feel to be broad and just and reasonable, con-
sulting not the interests of party—not the interests of
our own party even—but the permanent good of a
great and free nation. (Cheers.) There is such a thing
as having a power that will overcome an obstacle that
may present great difficulties, and the Government
will have difficulties with this bill Ido not so much
believe in the pacific conduct of the Opposition. I
have seen none of it since this Parliament was elected,
and I do not think, judging from the past, that we
have much reason to expect it in the future. But to
overcome that faction in the House of Commons or
discontent out of it, you must have a broad and a
just measure—a measure that when it is propounded
to Parliament and the country will see is
broad and just, and you may expect then that the
Government will receive a support which will enable
it to carry the measure. I hope it may be the good
fortune of the present Administration to offer such a
measure to Parliament, and that this Parliament may
earn a lasting honour by making it a part of our law
and of our Constitution. (Loud cheers.)

A CAlrrious MAX.—First Portlander : "Where's
pine, then, farmer ? " Second ditto (with his feet
Inside the cart) : "I be gwine down breakwater wi'
dree kegs o' gunpowder for volunteers to practice wi'."
First ditto: " What ! 'st got 'ern in thee cart ? "
Second ditto: "Yes." First ditto: "Then hang thee
legs out auver, stoopid fool, ready to jump off! S'pose
powder come to 'splode.—Jitcly.