Morris tribune. [volume] (Morris, Minn.) 1880-2000, 1885-12-02
The British Franchise Bill.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE,
ST. PAUL, Jan. z, 1885. (

London Correspondence New York Nation:
The bill goes further than anybody expected
six months ago, or than could have been
OWNED from Mr.. Glandstone's earlier state
ments. 1t is not reform, but a revolution.
1t takes away 160 seats from the smaller
boroughs dep1ivlng some OF separate repre-
sentation, u. e.. merging their voters in the
general mass of county vOterS,) and taking
away one member from others which till now
have returned two members. The lower
limit for separate borough representation is
fixed at a population of IL, 1000, and of Dor
ou@hs with two members at about 80 600.
Of these 100 seats few are given to new
boroughs, much larger number are added
to the great cities with population exceed
ing 49,, 900, and still larger number to the
counties, becase these last are having their
voters far more than doubled in number by
the extension to them of the household
suffrage which has hitherto been con-
fined to the boroughs The magnitude
of the change may be measured by
the fact that the great reform bill of
1882 reallotted only 143 seats, II less than
this bill. However, this change is not that
which has excited the most interest Some
thing of the sort was foreseen, was indeed
inevitable, though few people expected the
disfranchisement to be so bold A point on
which far greater uncertainty existed wa
as to the arrangements for representing the
big cities and the counties HthertJ no
city Except the ancient city OF London, with
lUS lOuI LlGluDtIS) HIS HUI lDUIG ludI UuI60
members, and those with three tLiverpool,
Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds. Glasgow
have returned their members en- bloc, not
by districts, although each voter has been
allowed to vote for two only, so as to give the
inferior party, where it is considerable, one
member and the dominant party two. Now
these large cities receive several additional
members. Liverpool is to have nine IN all,
Manchester six, Glasgow and Birmingham
seven each, Leeds and Sheffield five each, and
so-forth, while the ten parliamentary Dor
oughs which now make up London,
and which, taken together, return % mem
bers, are in the future to be represented by
40. The bill proposes to cut up these cities
into equal electoral divisions, each of which
is to return one member only; and the same
treatment is melted out to the English coun-
ties and county divisions, which, from hav-
ing had usually two-in some cases three
members each, are now to be arranged into
divisions with one member each. These are
sweeping changes. which disturb all our old
ideas and habits, and affect the large major
ity of members of the house of commons,
displacing some, altering the constituencies
of others. The third notable feature of the
scheme is the proposal to add eighteen men,
bers to the house of commons, bringing its
number up to go. Six of these are allotted
to England and twelve to Scotland, which
has been much under-represented The
motive is the wish to avoid the resistance of
the Irish and Welsh members to a reduction
of the representation of each of those coun-
tries-greater in proportion to its population
than that of England and Scotland