The Sun.
London, England, 1866-05-08 00:00:00

THE REDISTRIBTION OF SEATS BILL.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER having
moved that the orders of the day be postponed until after
the notice of motion relative to the Redistribution of Seats
Bill and the amendment of the Representation of the People
in Scotland and Ireland, said—l rise, sir, to ask leave to
introduce a bill for the Redistribution of Seats; and though
my duty will not, I hope, require me to detain the house
for any great length of time, yet I will commence by point-
ing out that I shall have to advert to three subjects seve-
rally. The first will be to the redistribution of seats pro-
perly so-called ; the second will be as to certain questions
appertaining to the provisions most fit and convenient to
be made with regard to the boundaries of Parliamentary
boroughs ; and the third will be with respect to that ques-
tion of procedure upon those bills on which so much has
been said, and so much interest is felt. Now, with regard
to the redistribution of seats, I will say a word in the com-
mencement as to the principles on which it should proceed.
And I must state, on behalf of my colleagues and on my
own behalf, that we have never seen any room for doubt
or entertained any desire for innovation in regard to those
principles. There is, indeed, in detail an almost boundless
number of questions that may be raised in disposing of the
subject of the redistribution of seats, and there may be a
fair difference of opinion, also, as to the scale on which
those principles should be applied. The process is a double
one : first of all, there is the process of disfranchisement ;
and secondly, the process of enfranchisement. And I do not
think, as to one cr the other, there has ever been developed
in this house, or among the various Governments that
have dealt with the subject, any serious difference of opinion
as to the principles on which these two processes should
be conducted. In every case in which there has been an
attempt to bring about a redistribution of seats, namely,
in 1854, 1859, and 1860, the seats which it was necessary
to obtain have been obtained, not by extinguishing, but
by limiting the representation of small boroughs. Now,
with respect to these small boroughs, it is well we should
understand in -what view and in what sense we propose
to deal with them. There is an impression too widely
spread, perhaps, in the superficial opinion of the public,
that by the extinction or restraint of the representation of
small boroughs which may be attempted in a Redistribu-
tion of Seats Bill, we may attain the invaluable purpose of
putting an end to corruption at Parliamentary elections.
Now, no person who has ever been cognisant of this sub-
ject in a responsible capacity has dreamt of carrying the
process of redistribution of seats and the extinction or re-
straint of the representation of small boroughs to a point
which would make it in any way effectual fOr the purpose
of putting a stop to Parliamentary corruption. When we
speak of small boroughs, there is no precise definition of
the term. We may, however, be generally understood to
mean towns under 8,000, 10,000, or 12,000 inhabitants.
But it is not the fact that corruption in this country is ex-
clusively to be found in boroughs with, say, under 10,000
inhabitants. (Hear, hear.) It is not even the fact that
corruption is especially to be found in these boroughs.
(Hear, hear.) So far as the subject may bo illustrated by
returns, I think it can be shown—by taking for the test the
boroughs which have been the subject of Parliamentary
investigation, on the score of allegations of bribery for a
considerable course of years— that not only bo
roughs
from borou hs
from the very lowest figure up to 10 000 but those from
10,000 to 20,000 in a very considerable' degree indeed—and
those above that, perhaps in a less but still in a sensible
degree, to 30,000 and 40,000—would be found, melancholy
Therefore,with the most dis-
graceful as it is to make the confession, tainted
corruption. (Hear, hear.)
not attempt
the representation of small boroughs, we must in limiting
to recommend such a scheme upon the snpposin that it
has effectual tendency to exterminate this evil.
No doubt
h
it will have the effect of striking at certain boroughamh
being small, may be corrupt. And perhaps we may carry
our opinion as far as to say that where a small borough is
corrupt it is more difficult to cure than a much larger
borough, because there is no sound public opinion in
the constituency to which we can appeal. In former
times there has been an opinion that as, on the one hand,
small boroughs were liable to the special demerit of cor-
ruption, on the other hand they were entitled to claim
the special merit of opening the doors of this house to a
class of representatives who could not otherwise have
found their way here. (Hear, hear.) I confess, as I have
already expressed in this house, I am distinctly of opinion
that in former times and circumstances they did very ex-
tensivelysnbserve that u ose. With respect to one
particular class 13
rP
*
of Persons—a ver important class—namely,
young men Who very
important
as to entitle family connections are not of such a
constituencies—
wehthem to the confidence of large county
advantage of the greatly to their credit and to the
persons out of .hope for are usually willing to return
family position-1
am bound
the future and in a trust of their
k to say upon examination,
having watched the wee
especially during the last twogetions' elections, of the small boroughs,
said in these days to possess thate special
we cannot be
degree which at one time mightsal advantage to the
(Hear, hear.) If I take the case of have been hoped for.
come into Parliament within the lastgentlemen who have
which may be held to be young—that 'is years, at an age
years of age—and who have not come heroes'ulny'd under 30
di-
rect influence of family interest, I think thereer*the
single instance in which such a gentleman may bets but a
said to
hold his seat for a moderate-sized constituency. That
one
instance I may name—and it is a conspicuous one—the
rather because I draw it from the benches opposite. I
think the hon. number for Canterbury (Mr. Butler-John-
stone) came into this house some four or five years ago—and
Canterbury is a place with a population of from 20,000 to
30,0(0. It does not appear, indeed, that the largo towns
and constituencies, in the present state of things, are more
indisposed to entertain the claims of young men to whom
the opportunity is not open of being returned for the very
small boroughs. It is neither, then, upon the grounds of
their very special utility, according to the actual working
of our present system, that the general retention of the
small boroughs can be effectually defended. Nor, on
the other hand, is it upon the ground of especial cor-
ruption that their extinction can be recommended. I think
we must bo prepared to take our stand upon this ground.
There are large and important communities, many of

them growing communities, both in counties and towns ;
others of them stationary, but having one le tture in com-
mon—that they are not represented within the walls of
this house in proportion to what we may fairly call their
just demands. If, then, we are to search for the means of
making the representation of those great communities more
adequate, is it not clear that wo can only obtain the means
of meeting the demands of a growing population by resort-
ing to the restraint of the very abundant—nay, super-
abundant—system of small boroughs which still continues
to prevail in this country ? I may now go on to say that
itfn haswh what way
ely agreat object with the Government to consider
we could most conveniently and equitably
apply principle to the small boroughs. At the time of
the Reform
Bill there were a great many boroughs which
could not be dealt with except by way of extinguishing
th is
them. With regard to Galton and Old Sarum, and with
respect to many more which were not only very small but
insignificant boroughs, but also so entirely close that the
mass of the population even of those boroughs had no in-
terest whatever in the representation, it would, I think,
have been quite absurd to study the means of retaining
those boroughs on the list of boroughs returning members
to Parliament, whether in conjunction with others or by
themselves. But by the Reform Act there was a great
change produced, and every borough now, however small
it may be or however ill-constituted—for many of them are
extremely ill-constituted —every one, at all events, has this
to say, that the member who sits for it does in some sense
or another represent a real local community. Therefore
we approach the question of restraining the representation
of small boroughs at the present moment under conditions
different from those under which it was approached by
the framers of the Reform Bill. These local communities
exist in possession of a great Parliamentary privilege, and
but few of them are believed to be extensively tainted
with corruption. Those of them which are, or which may
upon evidence be proved to be so tainted, I hope, and
have little doubt,• it will be the disposition of Parliament to
deal with summarily and l severe y. (Cheers.) In passing
I must venture to extend that proposition, and to express
an ardent hope that the treatment of larger boroughs
which may be found guilty of corruption will be as different
as possible from the feeble and inefficient measures which
we pursued some sessions back, both as signifying our opi-
nion of the gravity of the offence, and as helping to put a
check upon the prevalence of these cases of corruption.
(Cheers.) Most of these boroughs, I think, we must in
fairness contemplate as being free from the taint of corrup-
tion, and likewise as being in the exercise of a Parliamen-
tary privilege which they have not forfeited by any fault
of their own. Whatever abridgment, therefore, we pro-
pose to make of their Parliamentary privileges, or whatever
restraint we propose to impose upon their privileges, we
should impose in the mildest manner. We have accordingly
come to the conclusion—departing from the principle upon
which many of those constituting the present Cabinet
adopted when they framed the bill of 1854—that it will be
most consonant with equity to decide that no borough
shall be absolutely extinguished—(a laugh)—but that in
lieu of extinction— in lieu of incorporating in our bill was
what was called a Schedule A, we should adopt a principle
which is almost new in England, but not new in Scotland,
viz., that of grouping certain boroughs together. (Hear.)
There is another thing which has weighed in a material
degree with the Cabinet in arriving at this conclusion. We
have had now more than 30 years'experience of the Reform
Bill, and I think the whole of that period goes to show if
any one class of boroughs is entitled to be selected for the
praise of at least comparative purity from among the rest
of our representative towns, it is the grouped boroughs.
(Hear, hear.) I doubt very much whether since 1824 there
have been more than two or three petitions presented in
connection with those boroughs complaining of bribery.
Mr. M. DUNLOP—OnIy one.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—I think
there have been two, ono of which was Inverness; but
apart from that I think we may say that the annals of
these boroughs are almost free from the taint of bribery,
so far as taint can be measured through the transactions
of the committees on election petitions. The same thing
may be said of the Welsh boroughs generally. In point
of fact, there is no doubt, I think, that having to conduct
an election in a plurality of places does offer serious practi-
cal impediments to the growth of those habits of corrup-
tion. We are therefore sanguine enough to entertain the
belief that the system of grouping boroughs would be a real
measure of reform in that sense of the word which wo have
all equally at heart, viz., a reform which would tend to
purify our election proceedings of what is a grievous na-
tional reproach. Now, with respect to the limits within
which these principles are to be applied—those appear to
us to be matters more of policy than matters affected by
urgent considerations of equity and justice. In the year
1854, as I have stated, several members of the present Ca-
binet were parties to the introduction of a bill which pro-
posed to disfranchise 19 boroughs altogether, and to take
one member from between 30 and 40 more. I think 61
seats, or some such number, was what we proposed to ob-
tain by that operation in 1854. In 1860, on the contrary,
we proposed only to obtain a total of 25 seats by the mild
operation of taking one member from a certain number of
boroughs which were in possession of a double representa-
tion. I think it is plltin, with reference to the actual state of
opinion regarding it, and to the magnitude which this sub-
ject has assumed in the public view, that that last number
is a number by proposing which there could be no just or
fair expectation of settling this question. (Hear, hear.) I
greatly doubt whether, if we were to go to the extent of
the bill of Lord Aberdeen's Government, we should not, by
disturbing so considerable a number of seats, lose our best
hope of a settlement of the question. Those who, like
ourselves, have thought that the satt!)rnent of the franchise
is the gravest and most important of all the questions in-
volved in a reform of the representation of the people may
very naturally feel that it is their duty to be guided with
reference to their treatment of other parts of the question
in a very considerable degree by a consideration of what
method of handling them is most likely to contribute to a
general settlement of the most essential points. The
number of seats which we propose to obtain for the
purpose of redistribution by the bill which I am about
to lay on the table of the house is 49 ; and this is
done by a double operation. We propose to withdraw
one member from every borough having a population under
8,000, which now returns two members, and by that pro-
cess thirty seats will be placed at the disposal of Parlia-
ment. The second part of our proposal is to group as
many of these boroughs as can be joined together with
geographical convenience. It appears to us that geographi-
cal convenience is, in the main, the most important ele-
ment. Of course this must be understood with a certain
latitude ; for it does not apply equally in all cases. But
geographical convenience is, perhaps, the best rule to be
adopted in the regulation of the grouping of boroughs. In
some cases it will bo convenient to group two, in others
three, in others four ; and the population of the groups will
differ. In reference to that difference in the population
of the groups, we propose to assign to the group one or
two representatives, as the case may be. Where the popu-
lation of a group amounts to less than than 15,000, our pro-
posal is that there should be one member; and where it is
above 15,000, our proposal is that there should be two
members for the group of boroughs. I may say that the
lowest population in any of these groups will be something
under 10,000 and the highest about 20,000 or 21,000. Per-
haps the house will choose, seeing that I have thus stated
the principle upon which we have proceeded, that I should
mention what the groups are. (Cheers.) They are as
follows :

1. Woodstock, Wallingford, and Abingdon—two mem-
bers.
2. Liskeard, Bodmin, and Lunceston —two members.
3. Totnes, Dartmouth, and Ashburton—ono member.
4. Bridport,. Honiton, and Lyme—one member.
5. Dorchester and Wareham—one member.
6. Malden and Harwich—one member.
7. Tewkesbury, Cirencester, and Evesham—two mem-
bers.
8. Andover and Leamington—one member.
9. Ludlow and Leominster--one member.
10. Eye and Thetford—one member.
11. Horsham, Petersfield, Midhurst, and Arundel—two
members.
12. Chippeztham, Malmesbury, and Calne—two mem-
bers.
13. Westbury and Wells—one member.
14. Devizes and Marlborough—one member.
15. Ripon, Knaresborough, and Thirsk—two members.
16. Richmond and Northallerton—one member.
Besides these groups there are eight of the towns I have
described, viz., with a population under 8,000, which we
have not found it practicable to bring, with a reasonable
regard to local circumstances and geographical conve-
nience, within the limits of any group. These will remain
with one member, the names of these places being--
Bridgenorth, Buckingham, Cockermouth, Lichfield, Stam-
ford, Stafford, Marlow, and Newport. I think I have now
stated all which is necessary to lay before the house so
far as this part of the measure is concerned. We now come
to the
a proposals for enfranchisement, and heree again I
must
transactions of former periods have laid
down lines which are socea
clear and fixed as to have a
the should be
sy that the
important bearing upongeneral course that sh
pursued. A considerable portion of the seats liberated by
disfranchisement have in all cases bees assigned to divi-
sions of counties, and there has been a tendency, or rather
increase a just tendency, perhaps, to in •
sne
the number of seats
so assigned in proportion as the number obtained by dis-
franchisementthere are the claims of the towns to be considered, and
has been enlarged. But besides counties
these under two heads :—First, those large town commu-
nities which have now reached such a point as to make it
and secondly,
expedient to divide them, or which at all events tiave
claims to some addition to the actual number of their re-
presentatives,nege, a avriesibeloen
towns,• those rising communities which, in a country like
shapeti continually ly
and
magnitude.
tcholtaa,mN:th its varied development of its industries and
with respect to those new
assumi
coming
inthave dealt
with those seats as follows
:
We propose to give 26 seats
o existenceve and
We propose to divide tho
southern division of the
a population of 627,000, into county
oof Lancaster, which has
to each three members, the
Wwholedisutiiavmc.ts, and to give
mem-
bers at present. Thus three seats
out ogf 26 aref three
dis-
posed of. We then take every county
or division of a
county not already possessed of three members, and

having a population of not less than 150,000,
with a single exception, which I will mention presently.
Of these we find 23, and there are 23 seats given to so
many divisions of counties having populations of not less
than 150,000. These calculations, I should say, are made
up from the census of 1861, which we have followed in our
calculations both for disfranchising and enfranchising.
When I speak of the population of counties I exclude the
population of the boroughs which are enfranchised, or
which we may expect to enfranchise. The two divisions
of South Lancashire will be the south-west, the Hundred
of West Derby, and the south-east, the Hundred of Sal-
ford. The 23 which will each have a new member are
Chester, North ; Chester, South ; Cornwall, West ; Derby,
North ; Devon, North ; Devon, South ; Durham, North ;
Durham, South ; Essex, North ; Essex, South ; Kent,
West ; Kent, East ; Lancashire, North ; Lincoln, parts of
Lindsey; Norfolk, West; Somerset, East; Somerset,
West ; Stafford, North ; Stafford, South ; Surrey, East ;
York North, West Riding North, West Riding South.
We have not included in this list the county of Middlesex.
We have forborne doing so because, on the whole, the
county of Middlesex for this purpose should be regarded
rather as having an affinity to the metropolitan represen-
tation than to that of the rest of the country. In dealing
with the metropolis, though we propose some increase,
we do not propose that it shall have the same increase of
representation ; we do not propose to apply to it the same
principle as to representation as we apply to more distant
places, because it is quite plain the representation of the
metropolis is, owing to its proximity and other circum-
stances, more efficient, and gives greater weight than a
similar number would in other parts of the country. We
do not propose to give to the metropolis the extraordinary
numbers it would claim if we dealt with population alone.
The twenty-six seats have, therefore, been disposed of.
We propose to give a third member to four boroughs,
whose populations exceed 400,000, namely, Liverpool,
Manchester, Birmingham, and Leeds. That raises the
number to thirty. We propose to give a second member
to Salford, which has only one representative for a popu-
lation exceeding 100,000, and which is the only town in
the country so situated. (Several Hon. members: "In
England.") That disposes of 31 seats. We propose to
divide the borough of the Tower Hamlets—(hear, hear)—
which has the largest population of any represented dis-
trict of the country, exceeding even South Lancashire by
about 20,000. The population of the Tower Hamlets is
647,000, and it is proposed to divide it into two divisions,
and to give to each division two members ; creating, in
fact, en additional metropolitan borough, without altering
the representation for those boroughs. We propose, also,
to take Chelsea and Kensington, which in 1861 had an
united population of 133,000, out of the county of Middle-
sex, and to make them into a borough returning two mem-
bers. It will be borne in mind that Chelsea and Kensing-
ton embrace a district of considerable extent, with a
growing and an increasing population. We then propose
to give one member to each of six unrepresented boroughs,
having a population exceeding 18,000. The effect will be as
follows. (Cries of "Name.") Well, I will name. They
are Burnley, Stalybridge, Gravesend, Hartlepool, Middles-
borough, and Dewsbury. In all of these except Hartlepool
we follow the existing limits of the municipal boundaries.
We have now disposed of 41 seats out of the 49. The
42d we propose to give to a constituency now numerous,
and constantly and rapidly increasing—the University of
London. (Cheers.) We have then to consider the very
important, and indeed irrefragable claims of Scotland.
(Hear, hear.) Whether the basis of population or the basis
of population combined with property as tested by taxation
is taken, it is impossible to overlook the claims of Scot-
land to an augmented representation. When such claims
arise, the habit has been in all cases to deal with them by
way of compromise, as in 1832. We do not propose to give
to Scotland the precise number of seats to which she would
be entitled if we were completely reconstructing our Par-
liamentary system, but her moderate demands we certainly
are not prepared to resist. We had to consider whether
we should deal with those demands by way of transfer-
ring seats from England or by an addition to the mem-
bers of this house. Now, that is a matter purely of
policy and convenience, and not of principle, and we
have concluded, upon the whole, that this House is dis-
inclined to add to its own number, because if the barrier
is once removed lit would be found difficult to stop the
constant intrusion of new claims. Governed by this con-
sideration, we propose that
_England shall of her abund-
ance minister something to tho poverty of Scotland--(a
laugh)—and that the remaining seven seats, the difference
between forty-two and forty-nina, shall be given to Scot-
land. The grounds for this disposal will perhaps be best
stated by my learned friend the Lord Advocate,
but I may state briefly that the substance is this :
We propose to give three additional 'members to the
counties of Ayr, Lanark, and Aberdeen ; a third to the
borough of Glasgow, a third to the city of Edinburgh, and
a second to the town of Dundee. We propose, also, to
give a member to the Scotch Universities- (cheers)—
which, like London University, already possess a very
large constituency, and one likely, I hope, to increase
year by year. This disposes of all I need say with re-
spect of seats. With respect to the Irish question, we
have left that to stand entirely upon its own grounds. It
is quite clear, when we compare the present population of
Ireland with the share she possesses of the representation
of the United Kingdom, we shall see that Ireland is not
in a position to make any new claim, and there is, on the
other hand, no necessity to make any claim against her.
Neither have we thought it necessary to make any pro-
posal with regard to 'Wales, because the Welsh
boroughs aro already to a great extent grouped
together, and the system works in a satisfactory manner.
I now come to the question of boundaries. In the bill
of 1859 it was proposed that the Enclosure Commissioners
should :appoint assistant commissioners, in order to re-
arrange the boundaries of all boroughs in such a manner
as to include within them all the population substantially
belonging to such boroughs. The difficulty of that course
is, that the (authority thus empowered to visit every bo-
rough in:England and Wales would have no adequate
guide to enable it to interpret the terms under which it
was to act. In England we have many Parliamentary
bniourostung hots
beexftoerngdoitntgenf
in ctaysoind derinthgeitrhendaitsuraparil
tylimbeittsw.
between
boroughs and countiesin point of numbers, that many small
boroughs are the headquarters of an agricultural district,
and that many boroughs are under the dominant influence
of farming districts which have been attached to them. If
you have a general re-distribution of boundaries, the
boundaries of such boroughs must be reconsidered with a
view to abridgment when they include rural districts of
the kind I have described. Now, we are not willing to set
afloat such a distribution of the boundaries of boroughs as
this would create ; nor do we think that it would be possi-
ble for the Enclosure Commissioners to decide what is the
population properly belonging to each borough. Largo
boroughs are no doubt in a state of rapid extension. There
is the extension of buildings for the purpose of business,
with which come shops and dwellings for the labouring
classes. But there is also a large amount of residential en-
largement, consequent upon the wealthier classes seeking
the advantage of semi-rural residences, which are loosely
scattered over the suburbs. It would be very difficult for
any body of commissioners to deal with an extension of
the latter class. Therefore we have sought some other
mode of proceeding. We shall propose two enactments of
a positive but limited character, and one of a prospective
nature. There are, in the first place, certain cases where the
municipal boundaries of boroughs include a larger area than
is included in the parliamentary boundary. Where that
happens we think it a sufficient proof that the natural
boundary of the town includes something beyond the
parliamentary boundary, and we propose to enact that the
municipal should henceforth be also the parliamentary
boundary. Secondly, we propose that the enclosure com-
missioners shall consider the boundary of the newly en-
franchished boroughs, and also those of the two proposed
sections of the Tower Hamlets, and in the meantime, fol-
lowing the precedent of the Reform Act, provisional boun-
daries are fixed by this bill. Now, as to the prospective enact-
ment. We propose that in future the parliamentary boundary
of a borough shall follow the local rule. Our parliamentary
boroughs are now under three kinds of local government
—some boroughs have municipal corporations, some are
under the Local Government Act, and some are under
special local acts providing for their government. My
right hon. friend the Secretary of the Home Department
will introduce a bill to facilitate the extension of the boun-
daries of small boroughs by providing that when the in-
habitants forming a local community, governed in any of
the ways I have described, address her Majesty or a Secre-
tary of State, proposing that an adjacent district should
be added to their town, then if the inhabitants of that dis-
trict express their willingness to be so added, her Majesty
shall, subject to the approval of Parliament, have power
to sanction the union between the town and the suburban
district for local purposes. And we propose that when
such an enlargement takes place for local purposes, the
borough shall be enlarged for Parliamentary purposes also.
I have now come to the question of the procedure to be
adopted with these bills. I assume that leave will bo given
te introduce this bill, and also those which the Lord Ad-
vocate of Scotland and the Chief Secretary for Ireland will
ask leave to lay on the table. We shall then have four
bills relating to the representation of the people before us.
But I may for the present leave out of consideration all but
the Franchise Bill, and that for the Redistribution of Seats
in England and Wales. Looking back to the terms of the
amendment which we have recently discussed for so many
nights, I find that its terms and the wish which it expressed
are now literally complied with. What was asked was
that the whole scheme should be before the house. But
although that was all that was asked by the amendment,
more was asked in the debate. I cannot perhaps proceed
more conveniently than to refer to the terms which I think
were used by the noble lord (Stanley), who said some-
thing like this. He used the word guarantee. He said we
want some guarantee that the two subjects of the franchise
and the redistribution of seats shall be in the hands of one
and the same Parliament. Well, sir, that is the end that
Ito
have has
neverb e e been the
fe
lend t
th
samee invariably
degreein
inconvenience from a possible ourthe heeoeutseerehpaicaltiinenN.-ieTv.
or casual separation of the
two
o jealousy
which
wand s thee xp
rseasnsieed
by amountthe of
noble
lapprehensionord.a nd
others.
tf
haenr
sy.
advantageous, and. h esuta e
same
said that it was more
questions should be dealt wit by Parliament.
hble, that these two
cßountvenVieenht,ave always
felt
and