Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1859-01-19 00:00:00

not to send members to parliament, should still retain
' their right of returning them, with the addition of two
or three country parishes, whose population, added to the
population of the little borough, should make what would
appear a sufficient constituency to return a member or
members. Now, we have had some experience of this
in several boroughs. There are the boroughs of New
Shoreham, of Cricklade and East Retford—boroughs
composed of a little town, with the grass growing in
every street ; (laughter) ; and a small village—here
and there—hardly a village; five or six miles in
one direction and as much in another; a few
farms, a few farm labourers, a wheelwright's shop, and
so on. (Continued laughter.) And all this is cooked up
and made into a parliamentary borough, and Lord Some-
body, or Mr. Somebody, who happens to own the land,
is, in point of fact, the entire constituency of the borough.
(Hear, hear, and applause.) Now,we shall not give our-
selves much trouble on the question of reform, if that be
the kind of bill we are asked to be satisfied with. We had
much better remain as we are. (Hear, hear.) There is
another mode of treating these boroughs. You may group
two or three together, if you can find them within any rea-
sonable distance, and then you will' make a constituency
more numerous than at present, and you may gain a few
members to distribute amongst larger towns. But this
grouping together has great disadvantages, as every man
who has represented one of such boroughs must know.
He must have a committee in every one of them, and if the
unhappy system of employing lawyers prevails there, he
must have a lawyer in every one of them. (Laughter.)
And when you have taken 'all this trouble, and gone to all
this expense, you have only put three dead bodies together
in the hope of making a live one out of them. (Loud
laughter.) There is another course still; and that is, to take
a certain line and disfranchise a number of small boroughs,
distributing the seats thereby obtained amongst existing
constituencies. You maydistribute them, one-half, three-
fourths, or even all, to increase the county members. But
that I should take be a mode of parliamentary reform
which would not be satisfactory to the great body of the
reformers of the kingdom. (Hear, hear.) We know
very well what giving members to the counties means,
as things exist at present; and we know that such an
arrangement would necessarily disable the Government,
if it were disposed, from giving members to those great
towns whose representation is now so wholly inadequate
to their population, their property, their taxation, and
their general influence in the kingdom. (Hear, hear.)
The Reform Bill of 1832 gave 63 seats to boroughs, and,
I think, 65 to counties ; but I believe that generally, from
that time to this, there has been a feeling amongst all those
in favour of reform, that too large an influence was then
given to the counties and to the landed interest, in the
distribntion of members made by that bill. I wish you,
and my countrymen everywhere, to watch this point with
the keenest eye possible. Repudiate without mercy any
bill, of any government, whatever its franchise, whatever
its seeming concession, if it does not distribute the mem-
bers obtained from the extinction of small boroughs mainly
amongst the great city and town populations of tho king-
dom. (Hear, hear, and applause.) The question of -dis-
tribution is the very soul of reform, and unless you watch
that you will be deceived ; and when the bill is passed,
you may possibly lament that you are not in the position
in which you now find yourselves. (Applause.) I have
undertaken on this occasion to explain the mode in which
I should propose to disfranchise, the extent to which.
it should be carried, and what I should propose to do
with the members and seats obtained from the extin-
guished boroughs. (Hear, hear.) The bill of 1832
laid its hand upon 56 boroughs, and totally extinguished
them. Those boroughs returned 111 or 112 members,
It, laid its hand upon 30 either boroughs, some of which
you could not have found if you had travelled through
the county to look for them. It.laid its hand upon those
30 boroughs, and it took one member from each ; and
it gained two members by the union of two, or rather
of four boroughs. 'Altogether it obtained 143 seats.
Now, I. propose to proceed upon the same principle as
the bill of 1832, but to travel a little further,
exploring a little more, but I hope and believe, not
more than is required by the necessities and by the
wishes of the country. (Hear, hear.) By the Reform
Bill of 1832, every borough containing under 2,000
of population was utterly extinguished ; and every
borough with less than 4,000 population lost one mem-
ber. In the bill which Lord John Russell introduced
in 1854, and which as you know did not pass, he pro-
lapsed to extinguish all boroughs under 5,000 pope-
lation, and to take one member from all those under
10,000 population. I observed lately, in a news-
paper of great eminence and of great influence, an
article suggesting what should be done in this matter.
It is a newspaper that has not been very civil to me
of late, and has not been very fair either ; for
I ask for nothing but fairness. (Loud applause.)
The Times newspaper suggests that we might very well
carry the line up to 10,000, disfranchising all boroughs
below that population, and thus obtain a large number
of seats to distribute amongst the large popuations. I
thought the measure of Lord John Russell was not suffi-
cient. I thought further that it was not necessary to draw
the line so high as that which was proposed by the Times.
And on looking over the list of the boroughs, beginning
with the smallest, which is the town of Arundel, having a
population of 2,748, I 'find that if I came down to the
line of 8,000, I shoUld include the borough of Woodstock,
and include altogether 56 boroughs, the precise number
included in Schedule Aof the original Reform Act. Of
these boroughs, 25 return one member, and 31 return two
members; and the whole schedule of the 56 boroughs
includes 87 seats or members There then was the point to
consider—if all boroughs were disfranchised under 8,000,
where would be the point below which you would allow
no borough to return more than one member? If lam
not mistaken, the same article in the Times recommended
that boroughs of less than 25,000 inhabitants should not
return more than one member to Parliament. I have
not taken exactly that course. 'And, bear in mind,
that every proposition I have now to explain has
been decided, I " believe, without reference to any
of those suggestions, for I did not happen to see them
and know Ef—the-aa at the time they were published.
I propose to disfranchise all, boroughs with a popula-
tion under 8,000. Then I step on to the population
of 16,000, and say that all the boroughs under 16,000
shall henceforth return only one member. This will give
34 seats to be added to the 87 ; and if we add four more
seats for two corrupt boroughs, St Albans and Sudbury,
that some Years ago were disfranchised, we shall have a
grand result, as far as England and Wales are concerned,
of 125 seats to dispose of. Now, I propose to explain
how these seats shall be disposed of, which, after all, is
the pith of the whole question. (Hear, hear.) There
are a number of boroughs between 16,000 and 25,000,
some of which have one member, and I 'think about 12
or 13 of them have two members. Not wishing to make
any more change than appears to be necessary, I propose to
leave them precisely as they are. I begin then at 25,000,
and I give to every borough above 25,000, now
having only one, an additional member, until I come up
to the population of 51,000. I will read the names of
the boroughs that are included in that list. There are
16 boroughs with populations between 25,000 and
54,000. They are : Gateshead, Walsall, Monmouth,
Chatham, South Shields, Tynemouth, Ashton-under-
Lyne, Huddersfield, Cheltenham, Bury Dudley, Swansea,
Leith Greenock, and Paisley. And I believe—yes, it is
so—the borough of Rochdale is included in the list : I
had left it out, I find, in the copy from which I have
read. All these boroughs would return two members.
When I got to the population of 54,000, I proceed with
the list of boroughs that henceforth are to return three
members. They are these : Bath, Nottingham, Lei-
cester, Bolton, Sunderland, Norwich, Preston, Brighton,
Portsmouth, Oldham, Stock-upon-Trent, Hull, New-
castle-upon-Tyne, Bradford, Greenwich, and Wolver-
hampton. Those are sixteen boroughs, all of which
would, under this scheme, return three members each to
Parliament. Then I come to four boroughs which ought
to be included in that list, but which at present return
only one member to Parliament —Merthyr-Tydvil in
Wales, Salford in Lancashire, and Aberdeen and Dundee
in Scotland You will observe that in making this
scheme, I have known nothing of the river Tweed, and
nothing of St.. George's Channel. I wish to treat Scot-
land and Ireland precisely on the sate principles,
in every respect, that I would treat England. (Hear,
hear.) Those boroughs bring me up from 54,000 to
135,000. All these calculations are on the census of 1851.
Beginning at 135,000, and going up to double that num-
ber, 270,000, I propose that nine boroughs shall hereafter
return four members each. They are Sheffield, Bristol,
Leeds, Southwark, Birmingham, 'Westminster, Lambeth,
and the Tower Hamlets—the population of which is so
enormous, that I propose to form two complete boroughs,
to each of which four members will be given. Then I
come to a very select, a very large, and most important
list, w'hich comprises five cities' or boroughs, but of the
very largest in the kingdom, which are entitled, as I am
sure you will say, to exercise a powerful interest upon the
goverment of the country. To the boroughs of Man-
chester, Finsbarv, Marylebone, Liverpool, and Glasgow,
having a population, at the last census, of more than
316,000, and now, doubtless, of 400, 000 f I propose to
give the right of sending 'six members to Parliament.
(Hear, hear.) Then comes the question of the new
boroughs. I ought to say here that I do not consider this
list to be absolutely complete, because there are some
places of which I have not information sufficient to enable
me to judge. But if ever this bill, or any similar bill—
and you have only to will it that it may be so —(applause)
—if this bill passes a second reading in the House of
Commons, there will be no difficulty inadding to this list
three or four or half-a-dozen others, a°°
,if g bde-
made out for them. Changes of this kind case e
can
e
during the passing of the Reform Bill of 1832werTomeaca h

of these five boroUghs I prose to give one member—
Gravesend, Leamington, Stilyhilidge, Burnley, and Bir-
kenhead. One of these boroughs cuts in a claim for
two members. That is a point to be con Mered. I have
put it down for one, because my information did not lead
me to think that I could, at this stage, take ally other
course. Then there are two places which Lord John
Russell, in 1854, proposed to make one borough —the
parishes of Chelsea and Kensington in the west of
London. Their population is so large and so rapidly
increasing, that 'I think they ought to be two boroughs,
and to have two members each. These new boroughs,
therefore, will absorb nine members. I have
read the names of several Scotch burghs which
are to have additional members. There are four
others which may be considered new burghs. You
are probably aware that in Scotland the plan of grouping
burghs has always, so far as I know, been practised.
Several of these groups are so large that I should have
been compelled to have given them two members if kept
together; and 1 thought it was much better that four or
six places joininc, to return one member, and having po-
pulation enough for two, shouldbe separated into two dis-
tinct groups, eaeh returning one member. From the
Stirling group, I propose to take the burghs of Dunferm-
line and Inverkeithing, and they will return one member ;
Hamilton, Lanark, and Linlithgow are to be taken from the
Falkirk burghs, and given one member; Dumbarton, Port
Glasgow, Renfrew, and Rutherglen are to be taken from
the Kilmarnock burghs, and to. have one member; and
the towns of Arbroath and Brechin are to be taken from
the Montrose burghs, and to return one member.. There
is one other point—what shall be done with the distribu-
tion of members as regards the counties of England ? I
propose to take a course nearly like that adopted by Lord
J. Russell in his last bill, in which he proposed to divide
the West Riding of Yorkshire and Lancashire into three
district divisions. I should give the West Riding of
Yorkshire four additional members, to South Lancashire
two additional members—l am assuming that South Lan-
cashire is divided—to the North Riding of Yorkshire one,
North Lancashire one, South Devon one, and to the rest
one, namely—West Kent, South Stafford, West Cornwall,
North Essex, South Essex, West Norfolk, East Somer-
set, West Somerset,. and that portion of Lincolnshire
known, by the name of the Parts of Lindsey. These have
been selected on account of their great populations, and
because within themthere has grown up, not only a large
population, but very large interests not exclusively .con-
nected with the land; and therefore, I think, they have a
right to some extension of the number of members in
any re-arrangement of the representation that may take
place.. There is only one other point, and that is with
regard to Ireland. And here I feel extreme difficulty,
because am anxious. to extend the same principle to
Ireland as to England and Scotland ; and yet
I am well convinced that there are many
men in Ireland,. some well qualified to give an
opinion who will not coincide with me in the course
that lam proposing. The boroughs in Ireland are much
less than the boroughs in England. There are nine
boroughs in Ireland whose average number of electors
is only 173. There is one whose number of electors is
only about 81 orBs. Now, what am Ito do with these
little boroughs ? Some would say, " Leave them as
they are ;" some would say " Disfranchise them ;" and
some " make them. into groups." I believe that, make
. .

them into whatsoever groups you like, with little exception
they will still be boroughs very small and hardly com-
petent, under an improved system, to return members to
Parliament. I have concluded to take this course now;
but of course not only I, as an unofficial member
of the House of Commons, but a minister even in
proposing such a measure, would leave himself at liberty
to make such changes as might appear most satisfactory
to the population of Ireland itself. I have proposed that
nine of these haroug,hs, beginning with Portarlington

and ending with Bandon, should be disfranchised and
that six of their members should be distributed in this
way :—Two to the city of Dublin, and one each to the
towns of Belfast and Kilkenny, and the cities of Limerick
and Cork. Then, looking at the vast population of many
of the Irish counties, I propose to give from the
boroughs of England, five new members, which, added
to the three saved from these disfranchised boroughs,
will give one member each to six of the princyal
Irish counties, and two members to the county of
Cork, which may be termed the Yorkshire of Ireland.
(Hear, hear.) lam afraid that the narration of all' this
has been necessarily somewhat tedious ; but it could not
be avoided in the course which I had laid out for myself
in addressiwe you this evening. It is possible some one
may think I unreasonable in proposing four members
for certain boroughs, and six for certain other boroughs.
What is to be the basis of your representation ? Popula-
tion ? No ! the timid say. Property ? Yes, property has
something to do with it. Taxes ? Taxes have a great deal
to do with it. I will give you one or two facts. Ipro-
pose to give to Manchester and Liverpool six members
each, twelve together. What do they pay annually to the
Government in income tax ? On schedules A and D,
trades and professions, house tax, assessed taxes, and
land tax, they paid in the year 1857,. £897,000. Take
all the boroughs that I have proposed to disfranchise—
having populations under B,ooo—the constituencies now
of 87 members ; what did they pay. that year ? They
paid £221,000 ! The constituencies of 87 members
paid £221,000, while the constituencies of four members
in past time, of twelve as I propose to arrange it,
paid more than four times as much !--(" Hear, hear,"
and applause.) Again, compare Manchester and
Liverpool with the 69 boroughs which I propose, under
Schedule B, shall in future return 69 members. In
1857 the constituents of those 69 members only paid
£386,000 ? And if I add the amount paid from the other
41 boroughs. by the constituents of 55 members, that is
taking all the boroughs with a population under
25,000, the whole amount is only £857,000 of taxes,
against £897,000 paid by Liverpool and Manchester.
(Applause.) I am not afraid, then, that anyone who looks
into these schedules will charge me with giving uodue
influence to the population or to the property of your
great towns and cities. If any man tells you that this
will do mischief, or is wrong or unfair, at heart he is not
for a representative system at all, or he does not in the
least comprehend it. (Hear.) When I undertook,
hazardously, and perhaps unwisely (loud cries of "No,
no") to prepare a scheme, I did not overlook the diffi-
culties that lay in my path. I knew then, as I know
now that in drawing up.a scheme of this kind no precise
point can be laid down which a man could say was the
exact and right thing. In the Reform Bill of 1832 every
point was•open to contest, and, was contested; and in the
reform bill of 1859, be it mine, be it that of the Govern-
ment, every point may be contested in like manner. But
the question I submit to the country is this, not whether
you should make some little change on one side or on the
other from the line I have laid down, bat whether this
scheme as a whole, which I have elaborated, and upon
which I have-consulted some of the most judicious
friends of reform in the country—whether, in its broad
features, in its entirety, it recommends itself as estab-
lishing great and free constituencies, and giving them
an approximation to that fair share of influence in the
government of the country to which they are entitled ?
Hear, hear, and applause.) Some persons will tell you,
and you will see it before the week is over in many news-
papers, that I am treating the counties in a manner
which is not fair, considering their population, and the
great property which is comprised within their borders.
I will give you my opinion upon that matter. County
seats, as you know, are at present landlords' seats
(hear, hear) —with the exception of three or four
counties, where other interests have grown up so lar,gely
as to overshadow the territorial power. Lord Derby
says the same of them. He told you some few years ago,
that if anybody would tell him what were the politics
of three or four of the great land-owners of any county,
he would undertake to tell what were the politics
of the members for that county. (" Hear, hear,"
and laughter.) And ask any of the farmers in
the United Kingdom whether they return the members
for their county. (Hear, hear.) There is one thing that
I long for, almost more than any other in connection with
this question —that the time should come when the
honest, the intelligent, and the constantly improving cul-
tivators of the farms of England should be as free and in-
dependent in the exercise of their political rights, as is the
corresponding class in the cities and boroughs of England
(Loud applause.) You have not read the newspapers or
seen the course of Parliament without discovering that
the landowners as a body, in the House of Commons, are
very much in alliance, in opinions and actions, in sympa-
thies and prejudices, with the landowners in the House
of Peers. You know that they are generally of the same
class, and that they represent the same interest. The
peers represent the land. (Hear, hear.) How many
peers go up to represent the land of Yorkshire ? Ido not
know exactly, but I suppose that ten .fingers would
scarcely be sufficient to count them upon. Will anybody
tell me that they do not represent the land ? I have
asked this question before, and want somebody to answer
it—Whom do they represent, if not the land ? Do they
represent trade ? Do you know any traders in the
House of Lords ? (Laughter.) There are two or three
connected with coal mines ; two or three, perhaps, con-
nected with great iron works; and two or three, I
think, are sleeping partners in great breweries. (Con-
tinued laughter.) But they do not represent trade.
They don't many of them know much about keeping
accounts and buying and selling, the rise of prices,. and the
fluctuations of markets. They once had generally a notion
that there was nothing so good for raising prices and
making good trade, especially in corn and wool, as an
Act oeParliament. They represent land, and that is, in
the eyes of the Constitution, the object of their being in
the House. I saw in one newspaper—l forget exactly
which—that the Lords did not represent land or anything