The Sun.
London, England, 1867-06-18 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-LAST EVENING.
REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL.
The House then went into committee on the bill.
On clause 10 being proposed,
Mr. LAING moved to insert after the. word "the" the
following words—"cities and boroughs named in the third
schedule in the Act, viz., Birmingham, Bristol, Leeds,
Liverpool, Manchester, and Sheffield shall return three
members to Parliament instead of two, and each of the
• boroughs named in the fourth schedule, viz., Birkenhead,
Merthyr Tydvil, Salford, Swansea, shall return two
members to Parliament instead of one." Tho honour•..blo
gentleman then proceeded at sonie length to erg:: the
adoption of his proposal, Which he contended was nothing,
but what was urgently required in justice to the extensive
and important places he had named. He was of opinion th
the adoption of his proposal would strengthen, net destroy.
the bill, and that he hoped the house would not be deterred
from assenting to his motion by the tremendous Conse-
quences shadowed forth by the right hon. gentleman the
Chancellor of the Exchequer. .

Mr. BAINES and Mr. Biuour sitppqrted the proposal.
Mr. T. HUGHES moved an al litioa to Mr. 14.tin:s
amendment to clause 10, viz., after "three lumbers instead
of two," insqrt "and in each ouch city or borough,
each elector shall be entitled to three several votes
and shall bo at liberty either to give all his votes
to any one candidate, or to distribute them among any
two or more candidates in such proportions as he may
think fit."
A sharp discussion ensued with respect to the proposi-
tion of Mr. Hughes, the chairman of the committee stating
that the proposal of the hon. member for Lambeth was
not an amendment but an addition to the amendment,
and therefore it could not, with due respect for order, le
moved until the first amendment had been disposed of.
Mr. AYRTON suggested that as it is proposed that each
of the boroughs named should have three members instead
of two, the member for Lambeth might raise his question
by inserting a description of the mode in which the three
members should be elected. If he moved his amendment
in that way, he would get rid of the difficulty.
Mr. GLADSTONE —I understand that the hon. member
for Lambeth, in deference to the wishes of the committee,
has withdrawn his amendment. (No, no, and hear, bear.)
1 have the authority of my hon, friend for saying that be
did hold that language. Then rose the hon. member for
Sheffield, stating that the rules are so clear and precise, of
course in his own mind, that there could be no doubt. He
then proceeded to support kis view by putting in the
mottth of the member foy,Lambeth a statement which my
hon. friend did not use, for nothing fell from my hon.
friend indicating that he would vote against the amend-
ment in case an addition should not be made. That sup-
position, therefore, is wholly inconsistent with the facts,
and the rule is so clear, imperative, and precise—(laughter)

—that I would submit that the case does not in the slightest
degree touch the point. The two propositions are totally
distinct, and I would very respectfully address one word
of suggestion to the member for Lambeth in the interest
of the discussion which he wishes to raise. We are all
anxious to have a full; clear, and impartial discussion, but
we cannot obtain the general judgment and arguments of
the house if we mix up this special proposition of the
member for Lambeth with the general claim preferred by
the hon. member for Wick for additional representation.
The one question will rise in perfect order after the other
is disposed of. (Hear, hea►.)
Mr. BOUVERIE submitted that it did not now lie
with the member for Lambeth to withdraw his amend-
ment. He (Mr. Bouverie) considered him perfectly in
order. No one can affirm that his proposition is not
relevant to the amendment before the committee, and if
he is to be precluded from moving an amendment, be-
cause discussion might be inconvenient, the right of mem-
bers would be entirely swept away. He thought the
member for Lambeth was bound to insist. (No, no, and
Hear, hear.)
Viscount CRANBORNE suggested that the present
discussion was one without an ism. With great respect
he held the ruling not correct; but would submit that
the proper course was not to proceed by scolding the
chair.

Mr. B. OSBORNE said the committee were getting into
a tremendous mess, which would be increased if the
amendment of the member for Lambeth were moved now
He would not now speak of his right. The common sense
is to decide the one thing
before the house, and then the
other will come on.
Mr. HUGHES said after what bad fallen he had no
difficulty as to the proper course to pursue. It was his in-
tention to support the member for Wick; but, in defe-
rence to the wishes of the committee, ho would ask leave
to withdraw his amendment.
Mr. BU PLEIC-JOHNS TON E, amidst general ale of
" Divide," expressed his satisfaction that the Government
had given a direct negative to the ameudment.
M.r. E. JAMES, as a representative of Manchester, bad
received no intimation of any local wish for additional
representation. (Cheers from the Ministerial benches.)
It may seem odd to say so; and when we find small towns
so anxious to have a share in representation, one would
expect that if Manchester and such paces were anxious
for an additional member they would press ou their mem-
bers the importance of such increase. No such intima-
tion had been given to him, and he therefore was free to
follow his own bent, and vote against the amendment of
the member for Wick.
Mr. BAZLEY said his hon. colleague had placed him
in a very painful position. (Laughter.) It is quite true
that no petitions on the subject had come from Man-
chester; but he had received remonstrances for not
having proposed six additional members for Manchester.
(Great laughter.) He hoped that an additional member
would be given to that important city. (Divide.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—The hon.
member for Wick has asked this question, " Why do you
give additional members to. large counties and not to the
large towns ? " and he seemed to think that it was an ia-
quiry it was impossible to reply to. If he reflects on the
circumstances I think the reply is not difficult.
on, p Withoopula-
ut
building the whole system on one of populati
tion must be considered as one of the important elements
entering into the case ; we must also look to the amount
population
oo ff
oporoo
apfefr to
sy
g,
raenadf l
one half the number of members.
yweexkceneedws tvheartyowf eblotrothuagths,thaend that they
are represented by only
(Cheers.) There is a general opinion, I may take it, pre-
valent on both sides of the House, that this balance
should be redressed. We have a proposal that would en-
franchise a considerable number of new boroughs, but
even if you deduct the population which they amount to
from the county population, still the county population
will exceed by about one million the whole of the borough
population, and I accept it as the general opinion of the
House that that balance should be redressed, especially
as the county population, superior in point of numbers
to the boroughs, is about to be increased on a principle of
a very popular character. How can we proceed in at-
tempting to redress the inequality of representation ex-
cept in the way proposed in the schedules laid on the
table ? It would have been quite consistent to have in-
creased the representation of the counties without in a
considerable degree increasing that of large towns ; but
we must take a general view of the question. We can-
not discuss it on an individual comparison of one or two
great towns, such as Leeds or Birmingham, with some
small borough. We might as well compare the popula-
tion of some large county with a borough. South Lanca-
shire, for example, is to be divided under the new sys-
tem, and probably ono of the divisions would have
400,000 of population. Now, it would be a flagrant ano-
maly that a county possessing 400,000 people should-have
only two members, while some smell town with 30,000 or
40,000 should have an equal number. It is quite clear
that in dealing with an ancient system of representation
like ours we cannot produce anything like perfect sym- ,
metry. We must proceed with prudence, and it is only
periodically and by degrees that we can complete the re-
presentation. Take this question of the county represen-
tation which has been brought into discussion to-night,
and see if we are iutroducing anything monstrous in at-
tempting to give something like an adequate representa-
-1 tion to eleven millions of the population. The House
well knows the relative proportion between county and
borough population. From the elaborate analysis given
of 334 boroughs 84 seats may be fairly considered as indi-
rectly representing the various county interests ; and I
mentioned last year that the consequences would be that
if you took 81 seats from 334 and added them to lee,
you would have 250 borough, and 216 county members.
The moral I drew was that it would be an arrangement by
which the contentment of the population would bo attained.
31 are in the 81 which, as I said, represented county
You have taken away 45 seats from boroughs. Of these,
populations. See how that works. Taking 45 seats from
331, there remain 289. You will, however, add 19
boroughs, and that will make 308. You muut deduct
population'
front that 50 seats ;which are remaining from the 81
which are supposed indirectly to represent county pepule-
Lion. If to the 162 county members you add 23 new
ones, you make 187, and if you add 50 borough 4ilber,
which will still indirectly represent county
ogp
ui countyio
n iute
er er si
tt.-as
Isoy
you will have 258 borough members and 237 county
nniluelenhbeiras
favour of
members
ereeporuesnetnytipu
rstahree
ssayiasltle,ntehatwme
ayprboepoesoed. But altihtift67eie the
upon the whole a fair adjustment, though not
compensated ler. by the
go of direct representatiomul:
aneu numbers
and I cannot doubt the sincerity If the HoUse is
boruisdof
tthe liptoutse—t
advantage
will see, after what has taken place, that in the redistri-
sbiunteteorne—of seats there should ha a
counties in a more satisfactory position with regard tem
to re-
presentation than has hitherto prevailed. I cannot doubt
that the committee will think the arrangement we have
brought forward is a just, fair, and proper arrangement.
(Hear, hear, from the Ministerial benches.) Tlio hon.
member for Wick himself has shown there is good reason
why we should increase the representation of great come-
ties, and not of small towns ; because there is up other
mode by which we can give representation to those great
interests which have hitherto been so imperfectly and
rudely represented in this house than by an increase in

the representation of counties. In taking 45 members fancied rivalries between counties and towns, which I think:
from small boroughs, we are not, as the hon. member for a disorganising political principle—(cheers) —are you to say
Wick says, taking them from towns, but from counties.
"I will take the 300,000 or the 350,000 people in Somer-
We are, at any rate, depriving the counties of 34 members setshire, who have already four members, and divide them
who indirectly represent them under the existing system. and give them six members, and leave Liverpool with two
It is not right for thehon. gentleman to contrast Binning-
representatives ?" This is the way to provoke irritation
ham, with its two members, with some small town with its
in the country and keep up the festering sense of injustice
two members. We might as well compare some large which becomes so inconvenient at times, and which is
sure, sooner or later, and the sooner the better, to find a
county with two members with some small county with
remedy for itself in a country which, like this, exists under
the same number. You have the county of Durham with
free institutions. (Hear, hear.) But if we want an argu-
which the population, though considerable, is not so large two members. There are four boroughs in that county in
meat to confute the right hon. gentleman, what reply does
ho make to the precedent he has himself given in the case
as that of the county, and they are represented by eight
members. (Conservative cheers.) The hon. gentleman of Glasgow ? He asks us in the case of Glasgow to give
t
very candidly informed us what object he had in bringing three representatives where now there are only two ; and
forward this measure. Although he did not ask the corn-
at the same time lays it down as a principle, that in the
mittee to adopt cumulative voting, he has told he Las
case of Manchester and Liverpool the number of two repre-
brought this forward as a preparation for that. If the sentatives is to be stereotyped, and no increase whatever,
house is in favour of cumulative voting and the represents-
under any circumstances, admitted. (Cheers.) It must
tion of minorities, they ought to support the hon. mem-
be recollected that the anomaly is very much greater even
her. (Hear, hear.) The op:nion of Government is not
than it appears; because although if you take the census
iu that direction. They are opposed to cumulative of 1861, with the figures of 440,000 both for Liverpool and
Soinersetshire, the figures in Liverpool have increased long
voting and the representation of minorities as unfea-
before this far past 500,000, and will increase probably at
Bible and fantastic schemes. I will not enter into their
reasons at present, but will give thorn when the time tho rate of 20,000, or 30,000, or 40,000 a year fur the time
to come, thereby necessitating some measure to be taken
comes. We look upon the issue to-night as ono of deep
importance. The hon. gentleman has said that if at an early day, unless we make at least sonic mod rate
the bill be passed as it is agitation will recommence as if provision now in acknowledgment of claims so vast. The
agitation was really the normal condition of Englishmen.
inequality is still further to be aggravated by the proposi-
(Hear, hear.) It is very easy to say all this, but the ques-
Lion of the right hon. gentleman to enlarge the boundaries
tion at issue is of great weight. Everything depends upon of Liverpool in proportion to the extension of the
it, and if the house determines to adopt the amendment of town ; so that unless we adopt the motion of my hon.
friend we shall be greatly aggravating the inequality and
the hon. member it will entirely change the principle on
which the opinions of the people of England have hitherto injustice already existing. {Hear, hear.) lam not willing
been upon the whole accurately ascertained. We are told to detain the house at any length, and still less, in stating
it is absolutely necessary that the representation of those my strong opinion of the necessity of such a motion, to
cities should be increased on account of the heavy duties enter upon topics which might seem to reflect upon any
that devolve upon their representatives. Therefore we portion of this house, or upon the house itself. The fair way
ought to have, as the hon. member has stated, six members is to consider all that has been done in former times rests
for Manchester. Ido not agree with that theory. I think on the responsibility of the house itself. But do not let us
two members would do much better. We all know pro-
deal with the question of redistribution as we dealt with the
verbially what is the effect of too many artists. (Laugh- question of the franchise. What was the history of the ques-
ter.) I see the hon. member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr.
tion? It was moderate demands, in the first instance, de-
sAyrton), who represents a population much more consider-
dined and refused; wide and sweeping demands, in the last
able, and I never heard him complain of having too much
instance, at length, under some apparent sense of necessity,
work. (Laughter.) I never heard his constituents corn- conceded. (Hear, hear.) If we propose a plan of redis-
plain of his neglecting their interests. It is much easier tribution wholly inadequate to the necessities of the case,
for a member to ascertain what are the wants of a large lot us beware, lest by adhering to the undue narrowness of
than to meet the requirements of the scattered population our present schemes and conceptions, we bring about, as
of a large county. Some of the counties are sixty or we did in the case of the franchise, a necessity for greatly
seventy miles long. The northern end may be a plain, the extended change, and are some day surprised by the an-
population at the southern end may live among hills. nouncement that nothing remains but to launch at once
There are different industries, different feelings, therefore into electoral districts. (Cheers.) Last year, in the bill
one member is not sufficient. lam of opinion that the which we introduced, and in respect to which I think no
amendment of the hon. member is not founded on sound one stated that the disfranchisement was too extensive, we
policy. We ought to try and supply that want which the diminished, by 49 or 50 seats, the representation of small
almost universal feeling of the house thinks ought to be boroughs. In the bill of the present year it is proposed to
supplied in the representation of the counties, and we ought diminish that representation only by 38 seats ; and yet we
to distribute the rest of the representation among those have adopted a franchise this year so much larger than the
rising urban places which have 'proved, by their inereas- franchise of last year, that the fair inference would be that
ing industry and vitality, that they are entitled to repro- some extension would be necessary in the corresponding
sentation in this house.

Mr. GLADSTONE —I shall not attempt to reply to
that portion of the speech of the right hon. gentleman
which refers to cumulative voting, or that which refers
to the undivided representation of great towns, because
it appears to me that those questions aro wholly distinct
from that raised by my hon. friend. One part of the state-
ment of the right hon. gentleman 1 have heard with satis-
faction, because it relieves me from the apprehension with
which I listened to him in the earlier part of the evening,

when he objected with so much vehemence to the motion
of the hon. member for Wick, and when he said that if it
were carried he would have to reconsider the position of
the Government. That I now understand was in connec-
tion with cumulative voting. [CHANCELLOR of the EXCHE-

QUER was understood to signify dissent.] Then am Ito
understand that the position of the Government will have
to be considered if we take the claims of the large towns
to increased representation ? (Hear, hear.) If that be so
I must retract the expression of satisfaction 1 just uttered.
If her Majesty's Government think that their position as
an Administration is brought into peril or into question by
our determination that great and populous communities
are entitled to a moderate increase of representation, such
a view on the part of her Majesty's Government would be
the most egregious instance upon record of straining at
a gnat after swallowing a camel. (Loud cheers and
laughter.) Seriously, I must claim for the house liberty
to enter freely on the discussion that has been raised.
This is a proposal not very novel in itself, not of wide

scope, not aiming to overset general views or to change
the scheme of redistribution. The house is there-
fore entitled to exercise its judgment on the proposal of
the hon. member for Wick, unbiassed by the idea of poli-
tical results. (Hear, hear.) I confess I am comforted

when I recollect the letter of the right hon. gentleman

on the two years' residence, and his subsequent explana-
tion of that lett,r, which was far more wise than the

letter itself ; and I trust if the judgment of the house
should be in favour of my right hon. friend, the right
hou. gentleman will address himself to the question
whether such a change may not without inconvenience be
incorporated with the scheme of the Government. I can-
not think, however, that zny hon. friend means that if we

adopt this motion we should virtually determine that the
seats to be had for large towns were to bo had by the
system of grouping small boroughs. I say that, by decid-
ing for the motion of my hon. friend, we are bound to no
method of supplying seats. It is perfectly open to recou-
sider the question. It is perfectly open, if you think fit,
to withdraw one member from boroughs from which one
has not already been taken. It is perfectly open to recon-
sider the plan of the right hon. gentleman to take seats

from those he purposes to give. Although this is not the
course I should recommend, I do think it most important
it should be understood that, in expressing judgment on
the motion of my hon. friend, we express no opinion as to
the means of supplying members for those large towns.
In saying this, I shelter myself under the authority of the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he said, " Our first
step is to consider the various claims of the population and
communities to representation, and when you have ascer-
tained the just and true amount of those claims, then
your business is to find seats in sufficient number to
satisfy them." It is impossible not to take notice of the
position in which the right hon, gentleman places those
towns with respect to counties. It appears to me the
claims of certain towns to increased representation are irre-

fragable claims, irrefragable in policy, and irrefragable in
principle. As my hen. friend said, you cannot settle the
question of reform upon a basis of redistribution so limited
and narrow as that on which we now stand ; and I deeply
regret that the motion of the learned gentleman the mem
ber for Portsmouth was not sustained. lam confident
that no plan so narrow as to exclude the great towns from
increased representation, even if it were to receive
for a moment the sanction of the House, could possi-
bly endure for the period wo all of us wish this
measure to endure. I go upon a principle ex-
actly opposite to that of the hon. member for Man-
chester (Mr. E. James), who does not wish to settle this
question of reform on the ground that there will bo no-
thing left for this house to do. I agree with the right hon.
gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer that agitation
is not the normal state of this country, and is not to be the
normal occupation of its people, and it is because I am
deeply convinced of this principle that I shall end as I
began in the reform discussions, by endeavouring to give
a settlement with some prospect of permanence in it. Can
there be a greater paradox than to say that, in a country
divided into communities infinitely varying in importance,

the representation is to be equal, or that it is to be limited

in every case to the number of two? We havo been
already compelled to depart from that principle in the case
of the metropolis, and we are going to depart from it still
further in that case in the present bill. Why, then, are we
not to depart from it in respect to Liverpool and Man-

chester ? The speech of the right hon. gentleman is good,
not only for this year but for future years. He contends
that in principle it is wrong to increase the representation
of the great communities. Such a declaration is contrary
to the reason of the case. Are not the numbers, property,
and intelligence of the people determining qualities which

ought to serve, in a principal degree, as the measure of
the influence and weight they ought to possess in the coun-
cils of this house ? And if so, how is it possible to look at
the case of Liverpool and Manckester—and, though I am
speaking of Manchester in tie face of one of its represen-
tatives (Mr. James), my acquaintance with it has been as
long as my hon. and learned friend's, and will perhaps con-
tinue as long—(laughter)—how is it possible to look at the
case of these towns, and suppose that they will acquiesce
in a system which reduces almost to insignificance the
numerical weight of their representation ? (Hear.) The

right hon. gentleman answers this by making comparisons

between counties and town; and by reverting to his

old fallacy of the comparative population of the two.

(Hear, hear.) If the right hon. gentleman intends to
found himself on the population of the counties for the

purpose of comparison with the towns, he must give the
counties the same extended franchise as the towns. (Hear,

hear.) It is not just in logic, it is not reasonable, thus to

urge the representation of counties, and to insist on popu-
lation for the measure of representation, in the same way
as the population of the Southern States of America was
under the old constitution of America taken for the

scheme of distribution, so as to give to your general work

measure of representation, when tho great bulk of the

the character of solidity and proportion without which we
cannot hope that it it will last. (llear, hear.) It appears
to me that these considerations are conclusive in favour of
the motion of my hon. friend ; and I regard it as an advan-
tage and recommendation of the motion that it will fairly
introduce the discussion of the plan which the hon. mem-
ber for Lambeth (Mr. Hughes) means to propose, and with
regard to which, without in the slightest degree giving an
opinion upon it, which would bo premature, is one we must

population was excluded from the franchise. It is on tho

all feel deserves careful and impartial attention. (Cheers.)
Lord CRANBORNE said if this motion were rejected it
would preclude them from adopting the amendment for
cumulative voting. Ire was in favour of giving votes to
minorities. If he could not have that he should like to

ground of tho general importance of the countks, and not
on the fancied opposition between their interests and those

have Mr. Cobden's scheme for dividing the constituencies
and giving one member to each. He supported the motion
because experience showed that, where there were three
members, there were generally two on ono side and one
on the other.
On a division the motion was rejected by 247 to 239.
Mr. LAING thereupon withdrew the remainder of the
amendment giving two members instead of one to certain
other boroughs.
Mr. A. MITCHELL moved an amendment, that every
borough which returns two or more members shall be di-
vided into the same nnmber of districts as it returns mem-
bers, and that each district return one member ; but after
a discussion he withdrew it.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER then moved

an addition to the clause constituting the parishes of
Chelsea, Kensington, and Hammersmith into a borough to
be called tho borough of Chelsea, and that in all future
Parliaments such borough shall return two members.
Mr. AYRTON moved that Fulham ba included, to

of the towns that they aro entitled to an increase of re-
presentation. But on the ground of the gotten' import-
ance, Liverpool, Manchester, and other places are likewise
entitled. It is no answer to plead the total representation
of the towns. What does Liverpool care about the re-
presentation of Plymouth ? The interests of Liverpool
are not promoted by the representation, and it is not fair
to throw that into the balance as a make-weight to make
good, when it cannot be done otherwise, a case against the
claim of Liverpool to increased representation. Compare
the case of Liverpool with that of the counties. Why
are the 440,000 people who were in Liverpool in 18G1 to
be restricted to two members, and to see the county of
South Lancashire divided and 300,000 people, by a new
Act of Parliament, invested with the same amount of re-
presentation ? But if South Lancashire may be thus
appealed to, what are they to say to Somerset and Devon,
and upon what intelligible principle, except that of the