The Press.
London, England, 1858-10-30 00:00:00

INEQUALITIES OF THE REPRESENTATION.

In dealing with this subject Mr. Bright supplied
the statistics bearing on the case :
I will not trouble you with a heap of statistics which yon
cannot remember, but will give you as a proof one or two
cases. fake the greatest county in England. Yorkshire
shows you an existing inequality which is absolutely fatal to
all fair representation. There are in Yorkshire 10 small
boroughs which return to Parliament 16 members—
there are 8 other boroughs in Yorkshire whose members
altogether are 14. Now, the 10 boroughs returning the
16 members have not niore than 80,000 of a population,
while the 8 boroughs with the 11 members have a popu-
lation of 620,000. Now, whether you take the amount of
population, the number of houses, the sum at which they
are rated to the income tax, or the number of electors, the
proportion is in the same way,—the large boroughs with the
smaller number of members have seven times the popu-
lation, seven times the number of houses, seven times
the amount of income tax to pay, and seven times the
number of electors. I must ask your attention to one
other comparison, and it telatea to your own town. The
present Chancellor of the Exchequer, you know, represents
the county of Bucks. That county has a population of
164,000, which is not much more than half the population
of Birmingham, and yet Bucks with its boroughs has not
less than 11 members in the House of Commons : 164
persona in Bucks return 11 members, while Birmingham,
of not less than 250,000 and probably much more, only
returns '2 members. I will give you another illustration,
which refers to your own town. In the counties of Dorset
shire, Devonshire, and Wiltshire there are 22 holoughe,
which return 31 members to Parliament. Compare the
population and political power of those 22 boroughs, le-
turning 31 members to Parliament, with the population
and political power of Birmingham. You have nearly
twice the population, but you have only two members to
represent you in Parliament. I could furnish you with
pages of illustrations of this kind to show you that our
whole system of representation is unequal and dishonest.
But one more proof only, and then I will quit the figures,
for I think the cave will be sufficiently clear. There are
in the House of Commons at present 330 members
( more than half, whose whole number of constituents do
not amount to more than 180,000, and there are at the
same time in Parliament 24 members whose constituents
are upwards of 200,000 in number, and, while the consti-
tuents of the 330 members are assessed to the property
tax at 15,000,000/., the constituents of the 21 members are
assessed to the same tax at more than 21,000,000/. There
is besides this great significant fact, that wherever you Ito
in Great Britain and Ireland five out of every siz men you
meet have no vote. The Reform Bill, which I am not
about to depreciate, since I know what it cost to get,
and 1 know something of what it has done, was so drawn
as purposely to exclude from the list of electors the great
body of the working classes of this kingdom. But sup-
posing that out of the 6,000,000 of grown-up men in the
United Kingdom 1,000,000 have the suffrage, as is now the
case, and supposing that that 1,00J,000 returned the House
of Commons by a fair distribution of members according to
numbers, there would, in all probability, be a fair represen-
tation of the opinions of the 6,:100,000, because the opinions
of the 1,000,000 would to a considerable eztent reflect and
represent the opinions of their fellow countrymen. But
that is not the case. The law has selected 1,000,000 to be
the electors of members of Parliament, but, having got
that 1,000,000, they have contrived, partly by accident it
may be, but very much by arguments and intention, et;
that the political power of the majority of that 1,000,00 t
is frittered away and fraudulently disposed and destroyed by
the manner in which members are distributed among the
1,000,000 electors composing the electoral body. Now,.
wish to ask this meeting—and let us try to take a judicial
and dispassionate view of the question when we talk of
reform—what is it that we really want? I bold it to be
this—that we want to substitute a real honest represen-
tation of the people for that fraudulent thing which we
call a representation now. But there is a very serious
question to be decided before we can almost take a step.
When you are about to reform the House of Comirons,
are your eyes to be turned to the House of Peers, or to the
great body of the nation ? The House of Peers, as you
.
know, does not travel very fast,—even what is called a per
liamentary train is too fast for its nerves; in fact, it never
travels at all unless somebody shoves it. If any wan

-41