The Sun.
London, England, 1866-05-15 00:00:00

grees entirely absorbed. You will have trains and troops of
members coming from
_one county and one place to this
house. It is absurd to see six members for South Lanca-
shire walking into this house, six members for only one
Riding of Yorkshire, and three members for this town, and
three for another. By this system the members will be so
increased that, instead of this Wing a classic Senate it will
have something of the turbulent character of a Polish diet.
(Laughter and hear, hear.) I know it may be said, though I
do not think it will be, that plurality of voting is no new
arrangement, because originally in the time of the Planta-
genets it was adopted. But that is a mere quibble, and no
one will have recourse to it. We know very well that while
two members were originally decided upon it was not with
reference to any political principle or organisation of politi-
cal parties which did not exist in those days. They were
days when men really never acted alone. First of all, they
had to travel to town together, for they were afraid of rob-
bers. (Laughter.) They had to put up at an inn, and were
obliged to sleep in a double-bedded room because they were
afraid of ghosts. (Laughter.) They were afraid of taxes
and benevolences being voted; but with two members one
was sure to be present; and on the whole it was considered
a very convenient arrangement. As stated in the Poston

Letters, two burgesses going to town from Norfolk would
be good counsel for each other in the difficult task they had
to perform, which was only to vote away the money of
their fellow citizens. (Laughter.) It may be said with
some reason that the Reform Bill of 1832 did admit the
principle of plurality of representatives. That is a graver
answer; but although I think it is most wise as far as we
can to adhere to the arrangement of that bill, it is not im-
maculate ; and the giving of three members to half adozen
counties was not an acceptance of the Government of the

day of the doctrine of plurality of members, but a rough

mode by which Lord Althorp settled the balance between
the counties and the boroughs. It was thought absolutely
necessary that there should be a certain number of county
members and a certain number of borough members ; but
the original plan was to divide the counties with regard to
the whole of England, and the whole thing was settled.
But there still was wanting a certain number of county
members, and Lord Althorp threw them to half a dozen—
I think seven—counties, which he did not think were large
enough to divide. But he did not do it for the sake of
plurality of members. The evil precedent which has al-
ways been inconvenient, and neverpopular, appears to have
been followed in the case of South Lancashire. Had, how-
ever, the suggestion of 1859 been accepted, the house need
not have been in the situation to have followed that prece-
dent. We proposed in 1859 that South Lancashire should
be divided into two divisions, and to give it two additional
members, but now you will be embarrassed by six. It may
be said that the view I am now pressing upon the conside-
ration of the house is inconsistent with those views which

I have so long and so frequently urged as to the claims of
the counties for increased representation. I think the house,
if it will deign to reflect for a moment, will find no incon-
sistency as far as lam concerned in the matter. In the
year 1847, in answer to Mr. Hume, when he brought for-
ward his motion for Parliamentary Reform, I first in detail
laid before the house the claims of the counties. Mr. Hume's

argument was this—he said the population was the only
principle upon which this question of representation ought
to be settled. If admonished that property had something
to do with the matter, he said, " Therefore, you must dis-
franchise small boroughs, and give their representatives to
the great towns." In general outline that was the scheme
and the theory of Mr. Hume. Well, in 1847, it was my
duty to reply to Mr. Hume's admirable motion. I then,
for the sake of argument, accepted his premises ; but I
arrived at a different conclusion—viz., that you must give
the representatives taken from the small boroughs, not to
the towns, but to the counties. Mr. Hume was an excel-

lent, a most indefatigable member of Parliament, but in
dealing with reform he did not bring to its consideration
adequate knowledge, and could not clearly discern the right
conclusion to be drawn from his own premises. We went
on then for several years, and when Lord John Russell, in
1852, in his Reform Bill, proposed a considerable disfran-
chisement of the smaller boroughs, he proposed that all
their members, to the number of 45, should be given to
counties, and he then said publioly that he did so in conse-
quence of the views which I had placed before this house,
feeling it impossible to resist the conclusion at which they
pointed. But, although Lord John Russell accepted my
premises, I never ad 4 ted his conclusions ; I never proposed
that all those members should be given to the counties,
because I knew that by this extraordinary system of small
boroughs the counties did find a counteracting and compen-
satory influence, which, though it did not fully satisfy their
just claims, did afford, in a certain degree, if not a complete,
an ample representation of the landed interests. I did not
counsel a violent change, such as the destruction of the
small borough system would involve, buuud up as it is with
so many other important interests. lam for keeping things
as they are, for I have always felt that the partial repre-
sentation of the landed interests by means of these small
boroughs gives some variety, some valuable variety, to the
elements which are represented, some additional indepen-
dence of character, and, on the whole, I think, has acted
beneficially upon the constitution of this house. Having
shown that what I have now stated is not inconsistent with

the views which I mentioned before, I come to tho general
scheme of .his bill. how are all these new seats to be ob-
tained? By what arrangement aro we to have counties
sending in theirsix members and cities their three n:eml. era
giving so much uniformity of elements and character to the
representation in this house ? It is to be effected by what
is called a system of grouping. This must be considered
under two heads. In the first place, I would remind the
house that grouping is altogether foreign to this 'country
(cheers); in the second place, that grouping of represen-
tative boroughs is altogether foreign to this kingdom.

(Cheers.) The house is well acquainted by this time with
the grouping of boroughs proposed by the Govornmentand
with its consequences upon the representation. My objec-
tion to this system of grouping is, that it aggravates ano-
malies, and that by a process of wanton injustice. (Hear.)
It succeeds only in producing an incomplete and imperfect
local representation. In the first place, view it with regard
to expenditure—a most important consideration. When
you come to grouprepresentative boroughs, you are group-
ing societies, all of which have organised parties, have tra-
ditionary politics, have committees and agents that for a cen-
tury and more have managed the political interests of the
society in which they live. When you address these

grouped societies, this group of boroughs, you are, in fact,
involved in a treble expenditure. (Hear, hear.) Instead of
curtailing the vast expenditure which entrance into Parlia-

meat unfortunately entails upon a member, you are legis-
lating in a mode that must greatly increase it. (Hear.)
Hence you not only pursue a system which must greatly in-
crease expenditure, but you aggravate anomalies, and that
by a process of what I would call unnecessary and wanton
injustice. I will take a case, because, after all, there is
nothing like an illustration ; and I will take a borough
which is represented on both sides of the house. Dor-
chester returns two members to Parliament, and it
is to be grouped with the borough of Wareham return-
ing one member. Dorchester and Wareham, now re-
presented by three members, are to be represented by only
one. The united population of those places will be 14,500,
represented by one member and losing two. But close by
them only look at Poole, being just above the magical num-
ber of 8,000, and it is represented by two members. (Loud
cheers.) Take again the case of Bridport, Honiton, and
Lyme. These three boroughs are represented now by five
members, and their united population will amount to 15,000.
Instead of five members they are to be represented by one;
and close to them will be the borough of Tiverton, which
being also above the magical number will be represented
by two members. (Cheers.) This is indiscreet and wanton
injustice. (Loud cheers.) I can understand your taking
away one member or two members from these three
boroughs, and to attain a great public object I can under-
stand your taking away three oe even four members ; but
what I cannot understand is why the boroughs called on
to make such immense sacrifices should find their united
population of 15,000 represented only by one member,
when a borough close by with 8,000 inhabitants has two.
(Loud cheers.) A small borough may be considered-what is
called an anomaly, and an ancient Constitution will be
always full of anomalies. But, at any rate, this must be
said for the small boroughs, that they are ancient, and that
they are convenient; but these groups are neitherprescrip-
tive nor convenient. (Hear, hear.) The only result is
that you create great jealousies, that you aggravate anoma-
lies, and that you produce a constituency which is not
homogeneous,and which can be only appealed to by the most
costly and complicated means, partly of corruption. Be-
cause, though corruption, unfortunately, prevails in too
many of our existing constituencies, what will result from
grouping them bat the caucus system of America ? Some
able manwill devote his energies—and this will become a
profession —to securing a majority in two of the boroughs,
he will then make his arrangements with the candidate,
and the third borough will be neither consulted nor repre-
sented. (Cheers.) The Chancellor of the Exchequer in
dealing with this question was immensely influenced by
the example of the Scotch burghs, whore this system of
grouping is successful. But I think the Chancellor of the
Exchequer committed an error—which I shall have to ad-
vert to on another subject—he reasoned, I think, from false
analogy. There is no analogy between the grouped
boroughs of Scotland and of England, as proposed by this
bill. In the first place, our boroughs to be grouped are re-

presented boroughs—(hear, hear) —and in the case of Scot-
land they were unrepresented boroughs. (Cheers.) Andthe
difference is very considerable. One of the great mischiefs
in England will be the great distances at which some of
these boroughs thus united are placed. No doubt, in Scot-
land, the distances are as great, or greater; but observe this
difference between the two countries. Between the boroughs
grouped in Scotland there is nothing but the country, but
between the boroughs grouped in England there are

flourishing and rising towns—(loud cheers)—while many
of them far exceed in wealth and importance the boroughs
that are thus grouped. All those towns may have submitted

for a considerable time, and may yet submit, to what they
deem to be the ancient Constitution of the country. But
if you choose to chango that Constitution—(hear)—they
naturally say, "Do not have recourse to so violent and
fantastic a scheme as this, the combining of represented
towns 30 miles apart, while we, in the interval, are left
utterly unrepresented, being all the time persons who,
in point of population, of property, and of the future that
awaits us, are the persons that ought to enjoy representa-