The Sun.
London, England, 1860-03-02 00:00:00

of the Crown ; 'that they and those who agreed with them
should carry on the business in the name of the Clown,
and that thus the connexion should be maintained between
the Crown and the House of'Commonv. AcCordilig to the
view of these persons, in the time of Charles I. Mr. Pytre
was to be Chancellor of the Exchequer. lie would have
been called what is now styled leader of this house, and
would have conducted, in the name of the Sovereign, the
business of the country. But there was another party that
said this ought not to be the function of the House of Com-
mons. The function of the house of Commons is to check
and control the Crown ; let the Ministers of the Crown
be disqualified for sitting in. the House of Commons, and
let their measures be discussed by a perfectly independent
House of Com-mons. That dispute continued till the reign
of Queen Anne, when it was determined that Ministers of
the Crown should be capable of beingre-elected, and from
that time it has been necessary that this house should not
only represent generally. the opinion of , the people, oppos_
ing any proposition from- the Crown, but it has been neces-
sary that this house should contain within itself persons
capable of conducting the business of the country—capable
of conducting; as things at present. stand, the affairs of a
great empire, whether with regard to our colonial depend-
encies, the affairs of our exchequer and the taxes:to be im-
posed, or with regard to foreign affairs, representing the
Crown, at the same time having seats in the House of Com-
mons. Now, I very muehdoubt whether this can be done
if you have a representation consisting either Of electoral
districts or divided solely into counties and great towns.
With regard to the counties it is obvious that the greater
portion of the countrygentlemen who represent them would
be unwilling to leave th6ir present occupations in:the coun-
try or to sacrifice their ease in order to undergo the
labelers of office and the drudgery which in these times
office imposes. With respect, again, to th'e members
for the great &ties and great manufacturing towns,
we often find that they are gentlemen who are them-
selves engagedjn business, who can indeed give a certain
amount of attention to the business of this house and can be
present at all its principal debates, but who would never be
Induced to risk their prospects in life that they might attain
the precarious position for six months or a year of Ministers
of the Crown. I hold, therefore, that it is quite neces-
sary, having regard to the great business of Government,
that beside the counties and the larger cities and manu-
facturing towns, you should have smaller places returning
members to this house. (Hear, hear, and a laugh from the
Opposition.) There is another reason which makes it es-
sential that there should be something of this kind in our
representation, and it is this—that you have from time to
timo seen men of the greatest ability, and fitted to render
the greatest service to the country, but who, representing
a great popular body, incur the momentary displeasure of
their constituents, and are thereby deprived of their seats in
Parliament. That, sir, was what happened to Mr. Burke
because he contended for the great prin4iples of liberty both
here and in Ireland, as well as in America. (Hear, hear.)
The same was the ease in more recent times with a man

who was famous in this house and who has lately departed

from among us, but who will live for ever in his immortal

writings—l mean tho late Lord Macaulay. (Hear.) I say,
then, that if, according to the system which has now been
established for a century and a half, you are to have the
Government of this country carried on in this house, it is

necessary that you should have morn than these two classes

of representatives—the members for the counties and those
for the great cities and towns. Nor has there been any
plan of reform proposed of late years which would do away
with that kind of representation. The measure brought
forward by the right hon. member for Buckinghamshire
last year made the least change that any one has proposed
in this respect ; while, perhaps, the proposal of my hon.
friend the member for Birmingham Made the greatest.
(A. laugh.) But it is singular enough that my hon. friend's
propoial left us with between 40 and 50 members for towns
having from 8,000 to 15,000 inhabitants and therefore being
towns of a moderate size, such as those to which 1 have re-
ferred. [Mr. Bright here made a remark, the purport of
which could not be gathered.] I infer from this, then, that
however our plans of reform may differ, all those who have
taken part in proposing such plans of late years have been
of opinion that there should he a certain number of mode-
rate sized towns which should send members to Parliament
as well as the other constituencies that I have mentioned.
(Hear, hear, from the Opposition.) Having laid down that

sir, as a general principle, I am far from intending to dis-
cuss whether as an abstract question the proposal of the
right hon. gentleman the member for Bucks or that of my
hon. friend the member for Birmingham would be the best,
but I wish to deal with this question as one which con-

cerns us practical y. For my own part I should be quite sa-
tisfied with the proposal which we made in 1854. That pro-
posal was that about 60 seats, or rather more, should be
taken from the smaller boroughs and transferred chiefly to
the larger counties and some to the large towns. There is
another question with which I do not shrink from dealing.
It is a question which concerns the present state of this
house. When the Reform Bill of 1832 was introduced
there were many of those boroughs which, as I have said,
contained only a ruined wall or a green mound, and there
was no difficulty, when Parliament was once disposed to
touch those boroughs, in abolishing their franchises. I re-

member one hon. gentleman who, mush to his honour when
it was proposed that the borough of Ludgershall should be

placed in schedule A, got up and said, " I am the patron of
Ludgershall, I am the elector of Ludgershall, lam the mem-
ber for Ludgershall, and in all three capacities I vote for
the disfranchisement of Ludgershall." (Laughter.) But
the case at the present time is very different. You have no

vvav •
men who can dispose in that way—even if they were will.
ing to do it—of these small boroughs. Ifs town has but 250
or 300 voters, these 250 or 300 voters will feel as keenly as
the electors of much ltirger places. (Cheers from the Oppo-
sition.) They and their representatives would join with
those gentlemen, whatever their numbers might be, who
are the most Conservative party in this house, and I have
no doubt they would be able to defeat any such measure as

I proposed to introduce in 1851. (Cheers and laughter
from the Opposition) Therefore, without meaning to go
into the question, which does not immediately concern us,
as to how many small boroughs there ought to be, and how
far the growing wealth and population of the ccuntry re-
quire their seats to ba sooner or later transferred to other
places, I may state that our proposal goes only a certain
length beyond the proposal made last year by.the right hon.
gentleman opposite. (Hear, and a laugh from the Opposi-
tion.) That right hon. gentleman's proposition was, that 15
boroughs, now returning two members each, should hence-
forth return only one. This I think was to be done by fix-

ins on 6,000 a the limL of population, and taking one
member from each of theboroukhs whose population was

below that limit. Now, we propose to go up to the limit of
7,000 inhabitants, and in the same manner to take away one
member from every borough that falls below that point.
It appears to me that it would not be desirable to raise the
question of total disfranchisement unless we went to some-
thing like the length we proposed to go in 1851. The prin-
ciple of total disfranchisement is one of very grave import-
ance. It ought not to be adopted without some great and
palpable publi:tbenetit would accrue from it. I cannot think,
therefore, that the abolition of some six, seven, or ten
boroughs, leaving eight or ten others of a similar character
immediately above them in population, would be a wise or
expedient measure. It would evidently create great dis•
satisfaction among those thUs disfranchised, and they would
certainly be able to show that other boroughs immediately
above them were of much the same description. It is a
much milder proposition to say that at the bottom of the
scale there are a certain nuniher of boroughs which may
still continue to be represented, but which are now Over-
weighted in the representation, and some of their seats
should be given to the more populous towns and larger
(*unties. We, therefore, propose that those boroughs,whose
names I will read—(loud laughter, and cries of "hear ")
shall no longer send two members to Parliament. They .
are—Honiton—(a laugh)—Thetford, Totnes, Harwich,
Evesham, Wells, Richmond, Marlborough, Leominster,
Lymington, Ludlow, Andover, Knaresborough, Tewkes-
bury, and Alaldon. Thus far, I believe, the list agrees with
the list contained in the bill of last year. 'We go on, how-
ever, to Ripon —(a laugh)—Cirencester, Huntingdon,
Chippenham, Bodmin, Dorchester, Marlow, Devizes, Hert.
ford, and Guildford. (Hear, and laughter.) That gives
us 25 seats on the whole, which would have to be disposed
of by Parliament. Now, we propose that the following
counties should retuin additional members—via., the West
Riding of Yorkshire two additional members, and the
southern division of Lancashire one additional
one additional
the rest, which I will read,
Lancashire,en theil
division
division of Kent, the
member, viz., the northernare.
county of Middlesex,t.o.ornetuotrn
the
western*
the southern
southern division of Devonshire,y kdivisionth of
Staffordshire, the north riding of
doriviseinre, e parts of
Lindsey (Lincolnshire), the southerntth on. of. Essex, the
pastern division of
.S.ei.nerse, e
and
western division of Nor-
folk, the western of Cornwall, the northern
. of Essex. It will be seen that
division we do not propose
to divide the West Riding of Yorkshire, and the reason
is that there is a. great repugnance in that vast riding to
have its magnificence at all diminished by a partition.
There will thus be 15 seats given to counties, of which,
though some are manufacturing, others are essentially
agricultural in their character. Coming to boroughs,
we propose that one seat should be given to Kensing-
ton and Chelsea combined ; that Birkenhead, Staley-
bridge, and Burnley should in future return one mem-
ber each; and that Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham.
and Leads should henceforth return three members instead
of two. The house may remember that upon a former
occasion I made a proposition which was not very pale table.
to the house, and which was certainly not popular in the
country, viz., that there should be a division of votes ; in
other words, that where there were three met abets eaeach.elector should have only two votes. As that proposition
was not very popular, although I think it we s a fair :Ad
just one, I shall not attempt to renew it upon. the present
occasion. I have observed that where there ar.J three
members there is a growing feeling, arising from a sense of
fairness and justice, that a very considerable. part y, though
it may be the weaker, should not be altogothe x exc'Auclecl
from the representation, but that the third mtr ober..alkeulet
be given to it, though constituting.o. wino-city of. the con-
stituency. For a long time, chiefly bectrase 4 *lf that ques-
tioni of protection and free trade n which the agricultural
counties felt a deep interest, those cmiutiei
; which now
possess three members generally
retnod gentlemen all
belonging to the same political party—the C tonservative ;
but, on looking at the returns made to the kir t parliament,