§ On the Motion of Lord John Russell, the House went into Committee on the Reform of Parliament (England) Bill.
§ The question having been put, that South Shields, Durham, stand part of schedule D,
§ Mr. Crokersaid, that this was another of the Durham boroughs to which he begged to call the attention of the House. By a reference to a paper which had been quoted the other evening by the noble Lord opposite, entitled "a Return of the Population of every Place not now returning Representatives to Parliament, the Population of which exceeds 5,000 Inhabitants," it appeared that the chapelry of South Shields, contained 9,074 inhabitants, and paid the enormous sum in assessed taxes of 900l. a year. The position of this town was this: it was six or seven miles from Gateshead, seven or eight miles from Newcastle, one furlong from the new borough of North Shields, and five miles from the new borough of Sunderland. Thus, within a circle, the radius of which was five miles, there were five boroughs and seven Members. It might well be asked, why was not this town joined to some other of these boroughs? and at all events why should the two towns of North and South Shields be separated as to their representation, when they were identified in their interests and local situations; and being united rather than separated by the river Tyne, they had a complete community of feeling. As to population and the other elements of representation, South Shields was as well as Walsall and Whitley inferior to many unrepresented places; it had, moreover, been asserted, that the freemen of Newcastle lived in considerable numbers in these towns, and that, consequently, they had the less claim for separate Representation. He had so frequently endeavoured to invite the attention of the House to the monstrous anomalies, and inconsistencies, and absurdities, in which the present Bill abounded, that he felt unwilling to detain the Committee long on the monstrous inconsistency—on every principle 1264 in which Ministers professed to base their measures—of bestowing Representatives to South Shields, while towns far exceeding it in commercial importance, in wealth, and population, were left wholly unrepresented. This was a proposition which facts placed beyond the reach of controversy, and to these facts he would now earnestly invite the attention of the consistent supporters of Reform. Ministers told them that, in bestowing the franchise on towns at present not enjoying the privilege of returning Members to that House, they were guided by the average of population and assessed taxes. Be it so. Then what was the population of South Shields, and what the amount of assessed taxes collected in it? Answer—9074 inhabitants; assessed taxes, 900l. It followed that, on their own principles, every town not now possessing the right of franchise which exceeded South Shields in population, and contributed more towards the assessed taxes, was, a fortiori, entitled to the privilege of sending Members to that House. Now, without scouring the country for cases in point, he need only state the population and assessed taxes of thirteen or fourteen towns wholly neglected in the present Bill, to show that South Shields could not be invested with the franchise right without gross injustice to those places, and still grosser inconsistency on the part of the framers of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman then read a statement to the effect of the following table:—
He would ask the supporters of the Bill on what principle of consistency could they vote for the present clause, which invested South Shields, the least important place in the foregoing list, with the right of returning a Member, while the other more important towns were not to have a single Representative among them? It should be recollected, besides, that South Shields 1265 was within a stone's throw of a place returning a Member, and in the neighbourhood of four or five boroughs, while the above-named towns were most of them separated by a large distance from any represented place. But, indeed, after the case of Merthyr Tydvil, with its 24,000 inhabitants, and separated by twenty-six miles from any place returning a Member; and Toxtethpark, with its 25,000 unrepresented inhabitants, he almost despaired of succeeding in establishing a case for Croydon or Margate. He wished to impress on the Committee that those other towns were increasing in population in a much more rapid manner than South Shields. That was an additional reason why it should not receive a Member. He was aware that Ministers had endeavoured to bolster up South Shields by annexing to it Westoe, so as to make the aggregate population 18,600. Had they acted in the same way towards the places he had just named, he was confident that the disproportion, and thence the injustice and inconsistency, would appear the greater. In conclusion, the right hon. Gentleman moved, as an amendment, "That South Shields be omitted in this schedule, and that North and South Shields be united with Tynemouth and given one Member." The Member thus saved might be given to some other borough, at the future discretion of the Committee. It was not for him to select the town which should receive the gift; all he contended for was, that there were many more deserving of it than South Shields.
Population Assessed Taxes. £ South Shields 9,074 900 Stourbridge 6,148 1,500 Warminster 6,115 1,560 Alnwick 6,788 1,400 Congleton 9,300 Average assessed taxes three times more than that of South Shields. Mansfield 9,400 Trowbridge 10,800 Barminster 10,300 Loughborough 10,100 Ramsgate 7,900 Tunbridge 10,300 Gosport 12,137 Doncaster 10,800 Margate 10,039 Croydon 12,450
§ Lord Althorpsaid, that, on discussing this case in the last Session of Parliament, he fully explained the principle on which Government proposed to give a Representative to South Shields; he would, therefore, content himself by saying, that Government thought South Shields entitled to be considered a separate borough, as constituting a port in which the shipping interest was much concerned.
§ Mr. Crokerwas surprised the noble Lord had rested the case of South Shields upon such narrow ground, when it was notorious that it formed part and parcel of the port of Newcastle, and had not even a separate Custom-house or collector. He would maintain that Government were treating the rest of the shipping interest unequally as compared with the coal-shipping connected with the Tyne. Was there no shipping interest on the Mersey? It appeared, however, that the noble Lord considered that the shipping interest, when, connected with 1266 sugar or lea, cotton or timber, deserved no favour. All the Ministerial sympathy was directed to colliers. He would leave it to the Committee to decide whether the shipping interest generally could be protected by giving a number of Representatives to a particular portion of it.
Mr. Hodgsonsaid, with regard to the shipping interest of the Mersey, he must state to the right hon. Gentleman that a great part of it consisted of vessels hired from the Tyne and other rivers. As to the population of South Shields, it was true that the inhabitants of the actual town did not consist of more than 9,000, but there was a continuous line of houses reaching into the adjoining township of Weston, and the united population exceeded 18,000 souls. With respect to its increase, it had been enlarged nearly one-third since the year 1821; the Tyne also was broader than had been represented by the right hon. Gentleman.
§ Mr. Crokerreferred to the reports of the Commissioners in corroboration of what he had said, "And," concluded the right hon. Gentleman, "now that I have confuted Government out of their own documents, does the hon. Member dare to repeat his contradiction?"
Mr. Hodgsonanswered, that he would never so far violate the rules of the House as to notice the expression of the right hon. Gentleman in the language it deserved, but he would tell him, in all parliamentary courtesy, that he flung him back his offensive term with indignation, and should he venture to repeat it elsewhere, he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that it would elicit from him a very different kind of reply.
§ Mr. Crokerexplained, that he did not mean to cast any imputation on the hon. Member, but surely he ought not to have hastily contradicted him when he was only stating what he had found in those sources of information which Government themselves had supplied him.
Mr. Goulburncontended that Government were dealing partially by South Shields, judging of the case merely on their own principles of Representation.
Mr. Stuart Wortleycomplained that a different principle was applied to Sunderland and Bishop Wearmouth, and South and North Shields, although in each case the two places were divided by a river, and in population, number of houses, and taxation, they were circumstanced alike.
§ Lord Althorpsaid, that the two Shields 1267 were more completely separated by the Tyne than Sunderland and Bishop Wearmouth by the Wear.
§ Sir Charles Wetherellsaid, that this was a flagrant violation of the principle laid down by the noble Lord. It had been understood as one of the principles upon which this new Constitution was to be framed, that the places having Representatives should be at a reasonable distance from each other. Now, in the county of Durham, there were nine Members in the short space of thirteen miles.
§ Lord Granville Somersetwished that the noble Lord had looked to Bristol and the river Severn, as well as to the north-east coast of England, and the river Tyne. The trade of the Severn was increasing very fast, and deserved more regard.
§ Mr. Crokerobserved, that Darlington had 2,000 inhabitants more than South Shields, yet it had no Member. The noble Lord had not been so ready to give weight to the shipping interest in the case of Dartmouth, though the eighth port in England in the scale of importance as to shipping, whilst the shipping interest of Shields was already sufficiently represented by Newcastle.
§ Mr. Trevorsaid, that this was only one of the anomalies of the Bill, which would be handed down to posterity as the greatest concatenation of folly ever known.
§ Mr. Crokerthought it unnecessary to divide the Committee. Bad as this case was, he supposed they would meet with a worse; for, as Shakspeare said, "Each seems monstrous till its fellow comes to match it."
§ Question agreed to; and South Shields was ordered to stand part of the schedule, as was Tynemouth, without objection.
§ The question was then put, that Wakefield (Yorkshire) stand part of schedule D.
§ Mr. Crokerwished to know the reason why the boundaries of this borough were made so narrow?
§ Mr. Littletonsaid, that nothing was to be gained by extending them.
§ Mr. Crokerdesired to know what the hon. Member meant by saying that nothing was to be "gained" by extending the limits?
§ Mr. Littletonasked, what were the limits which the hon. Member would propose?
§ Mr. Crokersaid, that it was not his business to settle the limits. He was not one of the Commissioners hired to settle these limits.
§ Lord Althorpthought that there could 1268 be no doubt that the hon. Member for Staffordshire meant, by saying that nothing could be gained by estimating the limits, that no constituency of any importance would be added to the borough. The right hon. Gentleman was also incorrect in supposing the hon. member for Staffordshire received any salary as a Commissioner; his services were perfectly gratuitous.
§ Mr. Littleton, in reference to the terms in which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Croker) had thought proper to allude to him, would only ask, what would be the feelings of that Gentleman himself, had it been said of him that he was hired to perform the part he took in the business of that House?
§ Mr. Crokerknew that the hon. Gentleman was not paid by any salary for his services as a Commissioner, but he supposed that the other Commissioners were, and it was for those who were so paid, to answer the hon. Gentleman's question.
§ Question agreed to.
§ The House resumed. Committee to sit again.