HL Deb 11 August 1884 vol 292 cc406-9
THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)

asked Her Majesty's Government, Whether, as they have admitted that redistribution ought to accompany the extension of the franchise, they are prepared to inform the House before the Session closes how far they have perfected any scheme for redistribution; and, whether the necessary provisions on that subject will be submitted to Parliament at the commencement of the Autumn Session, or when? As it was a matter of extreme importance that the House and the public generally should know in what position the question of redistribution stood, he would merely ask the Question he had put upon the Paper, and would make no further remarks until the Question was answered.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

My noble Friend has confined himself simply to asking a Question, and I will confine myself to answering it. I should think that this is the first time almost that any Government was ever asked to state the precise point at which they had arrived in the preparation of an important measure. The noble Earl, and, of course, everyone else, is aware that the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been very much directed to the question; and they have, as might be expected, gone even, indeed, so far as to indicate to both Houses of Parliament some general principles at which they thought they would be able to arrive. But, beyond saying that, I can only tell the noble Earl that we shall be fully prepared, at the when we consider it fit to present a Bill for redistribution, to present such a measure as we hope will prove satisfactory to, and claim the acceptance of, Parliament. But more than that I cannot say, nor do I think that any Government ever informed Parliament of the precise state of the legislative egg which they were engaged in hatching. The second part of the Question of the noble Earl has been often answered before, and I am surprised at the noble Earl asking it again. My noble Friend (Earl Granville) is unfortunately absent to-day, being at Osborne in attendance on the Queen; but he has stated only the other day, plainly and distinctly, that it was the intention of the Government to submit a Franchise Bill in the course of the proposed Autumn Session, and when that Bill passes into law, which I hope it will then do, we shall be prepared to introduce the Redistribution Bill.

LORD DENMAN

My Lords, in 1832, many Peers, and others, besides Mr. Hawkins—to whom I alluded before—gave up their interest in boroughs, and Parliament should be trusted now. The hon. Member for Berkshire, on March 31, 1859, made known his intention to support the Bill of the Government, and to vote against the Resolution of Lord John Russell; but he seemed to have changed his mind, for his name is in the majority against the Bill. And wisdom and knowledge shall be the stability of thy times."—[Isaiah, chap, xxxiii. v. 6.] It has always been known, before a Reform Bill was passed, what distinction was to be made between boroughs and counties by apportionment of votes.

LORD WAVENEY

said, it would be necessary, in any scheme of redistribution that might be introduced, to take especial care that the boroughs in Ireland were disfranchised, with the exception of the eight maritime boroughs and Armagh. The borough seats should be given to the county representation respectively. With regard to some of those boroughs in particular, certain peculiarities would be found to exist, inasmuch as they were intended for one purpose and had become perverted to another.

THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)

said, he was very much disappointed at the Government not being able to give some better as surance than they had given that the question would be dealt with in the autumn. It was admitted by all that redistribution was necessary in connection with the extension of the franchise; and, being necessary, it was really impossible for anyone to form an opinion upon the matter, as to the effect of the increase of the franchise on the House of Commons, until they had something more before them, and knew what the redistribution scheme was. Was it not a most unjust and unreasonable thing to ask Parliament to sanction a part of a measure which was imperfect, in order that Government might have their own way on the subject? He asked anyone whether it was proper or just that a person should be asked to affirm a particular part of a measure without knowing the whole of it, especially when it was admitted that it was necessary the whole question should be dealt with? They were all aware an agitation was going on throughout the country, and it was an agitation directed against that House. And why? The ground on which it was admitted to be directed against that House was based on falsehood. It was based on the assumption that that House was opposed to the extension of the franchise; whereas the fact was that, in order to accept such extension, they only required that the franchise should be connected with redistribution. He asked their Lordships to consider, not what might come out in the newspapers at the moment, but to look to the future writing of the historian, who would, no doubt, say that the House of Lords had been quite right, and the House of Commons quite wrong? He considered it a very great responsibility on the part of the Government, when they knew what was taking place, and when they knew the unfairness of the agitation, that they should proceed with a half measure. He would ask whether anyone could believe that that House would stultify itself by doing in the autumn what it would not do in July? If the course that House adopted in July was right, it would be right to do the same thing in November. The whole course of this question had excited an erroneous idea in the country. The fact was, the excitement got up was in the wrong direction, and he regretted to say that the Government were creating a wrong impression, and stirring up a bad feeling which would be injurious to that House and the country generally; and he hoped that before the Autumn Session the Government would see reason to change their plans.

LORD WAVENEY

said, that the subject of redistribution was in a state of great uncertainty, and they were all in want of better information before proceeding with it. One element in the uncertainty of the effect of redistribution was that the old engines for the management of constituencies would no longer avail, as the people were determined to act for themselves. The practices which prevailed upon the last occasion of redistribution would be found to be utterly useless in this one. He doubted very much whether redistribution would have the effect that was commonly supposed.

LORD COLCHESTER

said, he hoped that when the Government really did consider the matter, they would recognize the necessity of providing for the representation of minorities. Some years ago, in 1879, Mr. Leonard Courtney, the present Secretary to the Treasury, had declared that to introduce a Franchise Bill without minority representation would be a proposal which showed neither foresight nor insight. Those who read the hon. Member's speech might derive greater advantage from it than the hon. Member himself appeared to have done, for he appeared to have forgotten it altogether on the present occasion.