The Sun.
London, England, 1866-06-01 00:00:00

with regard to a redistribution bill, that it clearly ought

ought not to be founded on the principle of abstract rights,
equality of representation, and electoral districts, because
such a principle would be to make them the slaves of
numbers—(hear, hear)—who were very good servants, but
very bad masters. But if that, or some approximation to
it, was not the object of the Government, it was very diffi-
cult to say what their object was. The house had heard
the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Secretary of State for
the Colonies, and the Chancellor of the Duchy, but had
either of those right hon. gentlemen pointed out any prac-
tical good which they expected from this bill ? He set
himself, therefore, according to his old method, to try to
puzzle out what should be the principle of a bill for the
redistribution of seats, for he had not heard any explana-
tion of the kind from the Government. He should like, in
the first place, to be shown that some practical evil existed
which the bill was intended to remedy ; but he gave that
up in despair. It seemed to him, however, that a reason-
able view of a Redistribution Bill would be that it should
be a bill which would make that House more fully than it
was at present a reflection of the opinions of the country.
He thought that was a fair ground to start from. They
had suffered in many respects by the arbitrary division of
those two measures, and in nothing more than this, that the
arguments which should be addressed to the Redistribution
Bill were transferred to the bill for the extension of the
franchise ; for, while it was true that a redistribution bill
should aim atmaking Parliament a mirror of the opinion of
the country, nothing was more true than that the extension
of tho franchise to the working classes would not produce
a reflection of the opinion of the country, but rather the
reverse of that opinion. (Opposition cheers.) Well, then,
let them examine what was the tendency of things in this
country, and see whether that house failed in any consi-
derable degree to reflect the opinion of the country. He
confessed that he found it extremely difficult to find how
it had so failed. He thought there was a tendency to ex-
tremes, and to too great monotony and uniformity of repre-
sentation, which a Redistribution Bill should aim at cor-
recting, and the danger that, without equality being at-
tained, they would become mere multiples of one by 658.
He thought another object of a Redistribution Bill should
be enfranchisement, and by that he meant the enfranchis-
ing of fresh constituencies, giving more variety and life to
the representation of the country, and making the house
more near the country, which was a collection of an infi-
nite variety of persons, pursuits, and habits. (Hear, hear.)
Another advantage of fresh enfranchisement would be that
it would do the most efficient thing towards moderating the
frightful, enormous, and increasing expense of elections,
one of the greatest evils of the country. He was not speak-
ing of illegitimate, but the legitimate expenses. He took
up a return which was laid on the table that morning re-
lating to election expenses at last election. He would refer
to a few of its items. He found that the Stafford election
cost £5,400; Stoke-upon-Trent, £6,200; Sunderland, £5,000;
Westminster, £12,000. He took the places as they came
from the letter S downwards. He wished to call atten-
tion particularly to the Westminstee election, not for
the purpose of saying anything disagreeable to his hon.
friend (Mr. Mill), who was elected by a well-directed burst
of public enthusiasm, which was honourable to him and to
the electors. The cost of the election of his hon. friend
was £2,302, of which sum he had not contributed one six-
pence, buc to the honour of the electors they brought him
in gratuitously. But what must be the state of things
uttoutburstatkheat efenoNofvremonfotulathsueseicinuelacseioest;.ld not 113 given
e.llwfrheeeent
wouldtb ou cwh
nowitahno
(1111117;ouhtheaerrn.)
division of Derbyshire election cost £ll,OOO ; the northern
division, £14,650 ; the southern division of Essex, £10,000;
and the northern aivision £16,000 ; West Kent cost
£12,000; South Lancashire, £l7,ooo—(Opposition cheers
and laughter)—South Shropshire £12,000 ; North Stafford-
shire, £14,000 ; North Warwickshire, £lO,OOO ; South
Warwickshire, £13,000 ; North Wiltshire, £15,000 ; South
Wiltshire, £13,000 ; and the North Riding of Yorkshire,
£27,000. (Laughter and cheers.) He asked the House
how the institutions of the country could continue to work
if such a system as that were allowed to go on ? Let it not
be supposed that it was favourable to anything aristocratic.
It was favourable to plutocracy, working on a basis of de-
mocracy. Let them think of the persons that were ex-
cluded by such a system. They wanted, of course,
wealth, rank, good connection, and gentlemanlike de-

meanour and bearing in that house; but they also wanted
sterling talent and ability to carry on the business of the
country. The right hon. gentleman then read some pas-
sages from Lord Russell's work on the Constitution, an
edition of which was published last autumn, to show that
the principle of disfranchisement in the bill went too far,
and that the bill of 1869 went as far in that direction as

it was wise and prudent to go. lie then proceeded to
criticise the system of grouping proposed by the Govern-
ment, and showed the disadvantage under which mem-
bers would suffer by having to consult the wants and
wishes of several constituencies. It was like asking a
man to marry four wives. Indeed it was something
worse than polygamy, for it was asking a man to marry
four widows. (Great laughter.) The best thing that could
be said for the Ministerial Bill was that it aimed at remov-

ing anomalies. But mankind would tolerate many anoina
lies when they were old and grew up with them—when
they would resist new anomalies. Upon what principle
would they justify the taking integers from certain boroughs
and giving them fractions? The Government professed to
correct monopolies, but they only created greater anomalies
than those existing. The Chancellor of the Duchy was very
much shocked that so much had been made of geographical
considerations; but had they not been told by the Chancellor
of the Exchequer that the whole scheme was based upon
geographical considerations ? Ile supposed the only inter-
pretation that could be put upon that phrase was that per-
sons would be given the opportunity of learning as much
geography as possible in travelling from point to point.
(Laughter.) The right hon. gentleman examined the Go-
vernment scheme, and cited instances to show that towns
in the same counties with populations in excess of the
grouped boroughs were left unrepresented. In Wiltshire,
for example, there were Chippenham, Malmesbury, and
Caine, making up a population of 9,000; while close to
them was the town of Trowbridge, with 9,026 inhabitants.
Such things might be tolerable when they had grown up
with you, but they became utterly intolerable when Go-
vernment came forward with a scheme that was to remedy
all anomalies, setting nuinbers as their basis. But here
was a gross injustice, something worse than an anomaly.
The proposal was that all boroughs with leis than 8,000
inhabitants were to be dealt with in some way or other.
Well, why were Bewdley and Droitwick to be excepted
from the rule ? It could only be from the extraordinary,
haste with which the scheme had been prepared. In as-
sessing the different degrees of punishment to be dealt out
to boroughs some principle ought to have been observed.
Nevertheless, Newport, in the Isle of Wight, with ,8,000
inhabitants, lost only one member, while Bridport, with
7,819 inhabitants, had both its members taken from it.
Now, was that on account of some geographical considera-
tion ? This was not an anomaly. It was a gross injustice.
He was far from attributing any improper design to the
Government—their mistakes arose from mere wantonness,
and from the carelessness of persons who brought in
a bill which they originally did not intend to bring in.
(Hear, hear.) Ha maintained that the grouping of the
boroughs could not be satisfactory to any class of per-
sons—and of course it was not satisfactory to the small
boroughs. Nor could it be satisfactory to those gentle-
men who were calling for measures to remove the inequa-
lities of our representative system. The principle of the
bill was so bad, so thoroughly unconsidered, that it was
utterly impossible to deal with it in committee. As for the
allocation of the 49 seats placed at the disposal of Govern-
ment, it was a mere delusion to say that a boon would be
conferred upon the counties by giving them the extra
members proposed by the bill. The two measures must be
taken together, and county members must remember that
a total change was being proposed in the character of their
constituencies. When the franchise was lowered the power
of the counties would in reality be thrown into the hands
of the small towns. Therefore, when they spoke of giving
extra members to counties, it was not to counties as they
now were, but to counties such as they were going to create.
It was, therefore, the veriest delusion to say that a great
deal was going to be done for counties. And putting that
aside, let him ask upon what principle were' they to give
three members to counties ? Accordinc, to the old principle
of the constitution two members were allotted to counties.
`Nell,
they were entitled to know upon what principle that
practice cvs.s to be departed from ? He could suggest no
' other principle than that of numbers; but that principle
• seemed to be directly contrary to the principle on which
• members were returned to that house. It was a rapid ad-
, vance upon the road to equal electoral districts. He could
not for a moment bring himself to agree to the plan of giv-
ing three members to the larger county constituencies. He
thought it would be far better for them to do without the
twenty-nine new members that were promised by the bill.
It was the duty of any man who called himself a states-
man to study the signs of the times in which he lived,
and to make himself master of the tendencies and direc-
tions of modern society. What were these ? He sup-
tendiposedee wass thew adeu duty
ng noilinooreoforth lesse m di
no utbhtee dci
itrheae tt
ewne
ofvwere
feartm
ipt
yr e saenndt
to stimulate tendencies which were already in full force
ooff
ad ewmios
wise
r asct ya
t. e s
m(Oapnp ousnadwe
rn
scull:he r
es
.i)rculilimshtaant
and activity, or was it not rather, if he must legislate and