§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERI rise, Sir, to ask for leave to bring in a Bill for the Re-distribution of Seats. And though my duly will not, I hope, require me to detain the House for any great length of time, yet I must commence by pointing out that I shall have to advert to three several subjects—first, to the re-distribution of seats, properly so called; secondly, to certain questions as to the provisions which are most fitting and convenient to be made with regard to the boundaries of Parliamentary boroughs; and thirdly, I must deal with that question of the procedure upon these Bills upon which so much has been said, and with regard to which so much interest has been excited.
Now, Sir, as regards the re-distribution of seats. I will say a word at the commencement as to the principles upon which such a re-distribution should proceed. And I must say on behalf of my Colleagues and for myself that we have never seen any room for doubt or any reason to entertain any desire for innovation, or for departure from previous example, with regard to these principles. There are, indeed, in detail an almost boundless number of questions that may be, some plausibly, and some fairly, raised, if there be a disposition to rake them in disposing of the subject of re-distribution. And there may also be a fair difference of opinion as to the scale upon 487 which those principles shall be applied. The process is a double one; first of all there is the process of disfranchisement, of the withdrawal or curtailment of the privilege of representation in Parliament; and secondly, there is the process of enfranchisement. I do not think that as to either the one or the other there has ever been, either in this House or among the various Governments that have dealt with the subject, any vital difference of opinion as to the principles upon which these two processes should be worked. In every case in which a Bill for the re-distribution of seats has been brought in, whether in 1854, in 1859, or in 1860, the seats which it was necessary to obtain have been obtained not by extinguishing, but by limiting the principle of the representation of small boroughs. To that method of proceeding I need scarcely say we shall adhere.
Now, Sir, with respect to the subject of small boroughs, it is well that we should give the House to understand with what view and in what sense we propose to deal with them. There is an impression that is too widely spread perhaps in the opinion, at least in the superficial opinion —if I may so speak—of the public, that by this sort of either extinction or restraint of the representation of the small boroughs, to be introduced into a Re- distribution of Seats Bill, we may serve an invaluable purpose by putting a stop to corruption in Parliamentary elections.
Now, Sir, no person so far as I am aware, who has ever been cognizant of this subject in a responsible capacity, has dreamt of carrying the process of re-distribution of seats, or of an extinction or restraint of small boroughs, to any point which would make it in any manner effectual for the purpose of putting a stop to Parliamentary corruption. And, indeed, in order to correspond in any degree with such an aim, we must attach to the name of a small borough a signification far wider than it has hitherto ordinarily borne. When we speak of small boroughs, while there is no precise definition of the term, perhaps we may be understood generally to mean towns that are under 8,000, 9,000, 10,000, or 12,000 inhabitants, according to the shades of meaning which people may attach to that term. But it is not the fact that corruption in this country is exclusively to be found in boroughs under, say, 10,000 in population. It is not even the fact that corruption—so far as I understand the matter—is especially to be found 488 in those boroughs. I believe that as far as this subject is capable of being illustrated by Returns, it will be shown that if you take for your test boroughs which have been the subject of Parliamentary investigation on the score of allegations of bribery during a considerable number of years, not only nor perhaps mainly the boroughs from the very lowest figure up to 10,000 in population, but those from 10,000 to 20,000 in a very considerable degree, and then, again, those from 20,000 up to 40,000, or even higher, would be found—melancholy as it is to me to make the confession—to be tainted with this most disgraceful offence. Therefore, in proposing a limitation of the representation of small boroughs, which has, in point of fact, been the basis of every scheme suggested for the re-distribution of seats, we must not attempt to recommend such a scheme upon the supposition that it has of itself any effectual tendency to the extermination of the evil of corruption. No doubt it will have this effect—it may strike at certain boroughs, which, being small, are also corrupt, and perhaps we may carry our opinion with justice as far as to say that, where a small borough is corrupt, it is more difficult to cure the evil than in a large borough, because there is less of sound public opinion in the constituency to which you can appeal. And the seat so withdrawn is sure to be given to a constituency less likely to misuse its power. On the other hand, Sir, there has been in former times—at least, as far as I know, a widely spread opinion that, as the small boroughs were liable to the special demerit of corruption, so also they were entitled to claim the special merit of opening the door of this House to some classes of representatives who could not otherwise find their way here. I have already distinctly stated in this House my opinion that, in former times and circumstances, small boroughs did very extensively serve that purpose, especially in one particular mode. They introduced into this House a very important class of young men whose family connections were not of such a nature as effectually to recommend them to the confidence of large constituencies, as candidates who might in the first instance be taken upon trust. Now, however, the large constituencies, especially those of counties, much to their credit and to the advantage of the country, are usually willing to return as their representatives young men belonging to families which have tra- 489 ditionally enjoyed their respect, and to look to them with hopes for the future. Thus, an opening is found for the younger members of families of rank, birth, and opulence. But how do we stand as to youths of families who have not these advantages?
I am bound to say that, having particularly watched the working of our small boroughs, especially during the last two general elections, and having just striven to exempt them in some degree from especial censure, I do not think we can say, testing the matter by experience, that the small boroughs now possess that special advantage in the degree they did at one time, or indeed in any degree beyond other classes of constituencies. If we were to take the cases of gentlemen—it would be invidious, perhaps, to refer to names—but if we were to take the cases of gentlemen who in a Parliamentary sense might be called young —I suppose Parliamentary youth need not be held to expire before thirty—I say, then, taking the case of gentlemen not above thirty years of age elected within the last ten years or more, or to bring the matter more closely to a test, taking those only who now sit here, whether on the one side or the other, and who have not come into Parliament through the direct exercise of family influence, or through the credit and position of their families in the places which they represent, I think there is not more than one single instance in which an hon. Gentleman at the happy time of life, and of the class I have named can be said to hold his seat at the present moment. [An hon. MEMBER: There is not one.] Yes, there is one. I think there is one instance, and only one as far as my researches have gone, in which such a gentleman can be said to hold his seat for a small borough, understanding by a small borough one under 10,000 in population. All the rest sit for larger, chiefly for much larger places. One of them I may name; for it can only be named with honour, and moreover I draw it from the opposite side—it is that of the hon. Member who entered this House some four or five years ago as the representative of Canterbury, a place with a population, I think, of from 20,000, to 30,000. Singular though it may be, and contrary to all anticipations, it does not appear that the larger constituencies are, in the present state of things, more indisposed to entertain the claims of young men who have no traditional or family influence, and who 490 have not yet had an opportunity of making a political character for themselves, than are very small boroughs. They are, on the contrary, it would seem rather more favourably inclined to this important class of our Members.
It is neither then, I think, upon the ground of any special utility, according to the working of our present system, that the general retention of small boroughs can be effectually defended: nor, on the other hand, is it on the ground of special corruption that their extinction can be recommended. I think we must be prepared to take our stand upon the following very clear and simple ground. There are large and important communities, many of them growing communities, both in counties and in towns, others of them stationary; but having the one feature in common that they are not represented within the walls of this House in any sort of proportion to what we may fairly call their just demands. If we are to search for the means of making the representation of those great communities more adequate, it is quite clear, I think, that we can most adequately obtain, and, in fact, can only obtain the means of meeting the fair demands of justice and of growing populations, by resorting to a curtailment of the still very abundant, and, indeed, superabundant system of representation of small boroughs, which still continues to prevail.
Having said this, Sir, I may now proceed to state that it has been a great object with the Government to consider in what way they can most conveniently and most equitably apply this principle to the small boroughs of the country. At the time of the Reform Bill, there were a great many boroughs which could not be dealt with except by way of extinction, and, indeed, which had become in the public view intolerable, as little better than a mockery of the representative system. Among those boroughs were not only Gatton and Old Sarum, but many others, which were not only small and insignificant, but were so entirely close that the mass of the population even within those insignificant boroughs themselves possessed no interest in their representatives. It would have been quite absurd to have sought any means of retaining such boroughs upon the list of those returning representatives to Parliament, whether by joining them with others or in any other way. A great change was introduced into 491 this state of things by the Reform Act; and every borough, however small or however ill-constituted it may be, has, at all events, this to say in its own favour—the Member who sits for it does in some way or other represent the views, as well as the interests, of a local community. We therefore approach the question of restraining the representation of the small boroughs under somewhat different circumstances from those which the framers of the Reform Act had to confront in their treatment of the same subject. These local communities are, as we find, in possession of great Parliamentary privileges; but they are not, as we believe, extensively tainted with gross corruption. Those of them which are, or are proved upon adequate evidence to be so tainted will, I hope, be effectually and decisively dealt with by the House; and I may diverge from my path for one moment to express the hope that, even in the case of those larger boroughs where this corruption is proved to exist, the House will adopt measures entirely different from those which we pursued some Sessions back, so feeble and inefficient in their character—measures in some degree commensurate with the gravity of the offence, and such it is to be hoped may have a tendency to check both there and elsewhere the prevalence of the evil. I think, however, that the class of small boroughs ought, as a class, to be regarded as free from this taint, and as being in possession of Parliamentary privileges which are brought into question through no voluntary fault of their own. Whatever abridgment, then, is to be imposed upon those privileges, that abridgment ought to be effected in the mildest manner possible; and departing, therefore, from the principle which guided many of those sitting in the present Cabinet when they framed the Bill of 1854, we have come to the conclusions that the equity of the case will be fully met by a course somewhat less disagreeable.
We therefore propose that no borough shall be absolutely extinguished; and in lieu of extinction or enumeration of boroughs in what was called Schedule A, we purpose resorting to a method new or rather almost new to England, but one of which the principle has been already adopted in Scotland and Wales—that of what is called grouping boroughs together. And, Sir, there is another reason which has, I think, weighed with the Government in arriving at this conclusion. We have now had more than thirty years' ex- 492 perience of the Reform Act, and the whole of that experience, we are of opinion, goes to show that if any one class of boroughs, within moderate limits of population, is entitled to be selected from among the rest for the praise of at least comparative purity, it is the grouped boroughs. I doubt very much whether there have been since 1832 more than two or three petitions presented against any election for those boroughs in the Kingdom of Scotland. [An hon. MEMBER: Only one!] I am told there have been two; but it really matters little whether there have been two or one, for in either case with equal justice we can say that the annals of these boroughs are almost free from taint, so far as taint can be measured by transactions connected with election petitions, and that, after all, is the main if not the only source from which we can derive our information upon this subject.
The same thing may be said, I think, with regard to the Welsh boroughs generally. And there is no doubt, when we come to consider the morbid anatomy of corruption, and the actual machinery by which its measures are adjusted and applied at the last critical moment of a day of election, that a serious impediment to the indulgence in or the growth of those practices is offered by the fact that the business of the election has to be conducted at a plurality of places. We have therefore concluded that the grouping of these boroughs will constitute a real Reform, as far as this word expresses whatever tends to freedom from corruption.
Within what limits these principles should be applied appears to be more a question of policy than of rigid or at least of determinative considerations of equity and justice. As I have stated, in the year 1854 many Members of the present Cabinet were parties to the introduction of a Bill by which it was proposed to disfranchise 19 boroughs altogether, and to take one Member from between 30 and 40 others. We proposed, I think, to obtain 64 seats, or some such number, by this operation in 1854. In 1860, on the contrary, we proposed to obtain a total of only 25 seats by the mild operation of taking one Member from a certain number of boroughs that were in possession of the privilege of double representation. I think it is plain that, bearing in mind the actual state of things, and the magnitude which this subject has assumed, especially under recent circumstances, in the consideration of the 493 public, that the last number is not one which would by its adoption suffice for the settlement of this question in that reasonable and substantial sense of the word settlement which we desire. On the other hand, by going to the extent advocated by Lord Aberdeen's Government, and by disturbing so many seats, we should, I am afraid, equally court the risk of failure. Those who, like ourselves, have looked upon the settlement of the franchise as the question first in importance and interest, will probably be guided to a great extent in their treatment of the other branches of the subject by considerations affecting the probability of arriving at that settlement. The number of seats we propose to obtain for the purpose of re-distribution by the Bill I shall ask leave to lay upon the table of the House is 49, and these are to be obtained by a double operation. We purpose taking one Member from every borough which at present returns two representatives, and which has a population of under 8,000. The second part of our proposal is to group as many of these boroughs having a population of less than 8,000 as can be joined together with geographical convenience. It appears to us that geographical convenience forms one of the most important considerations in dealing with this subject, although the term must of course be understood with a certain latitude, and other considerations must also have a place. The consequence will be that in some cases the group will consist of two boroughs, in others of three, and in others of four. The populations of these groups will of course differ, and according to the difference in the population we propose assigning to the group one or two Members, as the case may be. When the population amounts to less than 15,000 we propose to assign one representative, and when it exceeds that number we propose to give it two. I may add that the smallest population in any of these groups slightly exceeds 10,000, and the highest is about 20,000 or 21,000. The Return for which I have moved, however, will give the particulars of the plan, together with other matters affecting this subject, and these, I hope, will to-morrow morning be placed conveniently under the view of Members.
I have now, Sir, stated upon what principles these groups have been selected, and perhaps the House may desire next to learn their names. The first of the proposed groups comprises Woodstock, Walingford, 494 and Abingdon, and we propose that these towns unitedly shall return two Members. Bodmin, Liskeard, and Launceston will return two; Totnes, Dartmouth, and Ashburton, 1; Bridport, Honiton, and Lyme Regis, 1; Dorchester and Wareham, 1; Maldon and Harwich, 1; Cirencester, Tewkesbury, and Evesham, 2; Andover and Lymington, 1; Ludlow and Leominster, 1; Eye and Thetford, 1; Horsham, Midhurst, Petersfield, and Arundel, 2; Chippenham, Malmesbury, and Calne, 2; Westbury and Wells, 1; Devizes and Marlborough, 1; Ripon, Knaresborough, and Thirsk, 2; and Richmond and Northallerton, 1. In the case of eight among the towns containing populations of less than 8,000 we have not found it possible, having regard to various local reasons and to geographical convenience, to form any groups. These towns are Bridgnorth, Buckingham, Cockermouth, Hertford, Huntingdon, Lichfield, Marlow, and Newport.
We next, Sir, come to the question of enfranchisement; and here again I may say that we have already stated general rules which are sufficiently clear to leave us very little doubt as to the general course which should be pursued. A considerable portion of the seats liberated by disfranchisement have in all cases been assigned to divisions of counties, and there has been a tendency rather—and a just tendency, perhaps—to increase the number of seats so disposed of in proportion as the total number set free by disfranchisement has been large. But the claims of towns have also to be considered. And these may be divided under two heads. First, we have the claims of those large urban communities which have either reached such a point as to make it expedient to divide them, or at any rate to give them some addition to the number of their representatives; and secondly, we must consider the claims of those rising communities which, in a country like this, with a rapid and varied development of its industry and commerce, are continually coming into existence, and assuming great or appreciable shape and magnitude. Proceeding upon these principles, we propose to give twenty-six seats to counties in England. Dividing thus the southern division of the county of Lancaster, which has a population of 627,000 in the two districts, and which has three representatives at present, we proposed to give three representatives to each. That leaves us twenty-three seats of our twenty-six. We 495 then take, with a single exception, every county, or division of a county, not already possessed of three Members, and having a population above 150,000, and give to each of them an additional Member. This 'arrangement exhausts the twenty-six seats, which we propose to divide among the counties. I should not forget, however, to tell the House that we have taken the Census of 1861 as our guide with respect to population in regard both to the questions of disfranchisement and to those of enfranchisement; and that, when I speak of the population of counties, I exclude the population of existing Parliamentary boroughs, and also the probable population of those towns we propose to enfranchise.
I will now, Sir, read the divisions of counties to which we propose to give additional Members. The south-west division of Lancashire, comprising the hundred of West Derby, and the south-east division of Lancashire, comprising the hundred of Salford. To them we now propose to give three representatives each, and we also propose that the following should each have three Members:—The northern division of Chester, and the southern division of Chester; the western division of Cornwall; the northern division of Derby; the northern division of Devon, and the southern division of Devon; the northern division of Durham, and the southern division of Durham; the northern division of Essex, and the southern division of Essex; the western division of Kent, and the eastern division of Kent; the northern division of Lancaster; Lincolnshire; the western division of Norfolk; the eastern division of Somerset, and the western division of Somerset; the northern division of Stafford, and the southern division of Stafford; the eastern division of Surrey; the North Riding of York, the northern division of the West Riding of York, and the southern division of the West Riding of York. These among them take the twenty-six seats, and it will be observed that we have not included in this list the county of Middlesex.
We have foreborne to include it, because we think the county of Middlesex ought, for the purposes we have now in view, to be regarded rather with respect to the metropolitan representation than to the representation of the rest of the country. And in dealing with the representation of the metropolis, although we propose to make an increase of it to some extent, yet 496 we do not propose to increase it on the same scale as that on which we propose to increase the representation of more distant places, because it is obvious that the representation of the metropolis, owing to its proximity to the seat of Government, and the closer relations of unity subsisting generally between its Members, is more efficient and possesses greater weight than a similar numerical quota of representation in other portions of the country. We do not propose, therefore, to give to the metropolis the extraordinarily large number of Members which it would be entitled to claim if it were dealt with in respect to its population alone.
Twenty-six seats, then, having been disposed of, we next propose to give a third Member to four boroughs having a population exceeding 200,000—namely, Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham, and Leeds. That proposal raises our twenty-six to thirty. We then propose to give a second Member to Salford, which has but one at present, although it has a population exceeding 100,000. It is the only town in the whole country which stands in that predicament. Thus we have disposed of thirty-one. We next propose to divide the borough of the Tower Hamlets, which has the largest population of any represented district in the country, exceeding even South Lancashire by about 20,000. The population of the Tower Hamlets, according to the last census, is 647,000, and it is proposed to separate it into two divisions, and to represent each division by two Members. That proposal is tantamount to creating an additional metropolitan borough, without altering the general standard for the representation of the metropolitan boroughs. We also propose to take Chelsea and Kensington, which had in 1861 a population of 133,000, out of the county of Middlesex, and to make them a borough returning two Members. It will be borne in mind that Chelsea and Kensington embrace a district of considerable extent, with a very rapidly growing population, so that their present population must be much beyond that which I have stated. We also propose to give one Member to each of six unrepresented municipal boroughs having respectively either within its municipal or intended Parliamentary boundary a population of 18,000 persons, and upwards. This arrangement will dispose of six more seats. Those boroughs are Burnley, Stalybridge, Gravesend, Hartlepool, Middlesbrough, and Dewsbury. 497 All of these, except Hartlepool, would follow the existing municipal boundaries; and Hartlepool would, I believe, consist of the present municipal borough of Hartlepool with the parish of Staunton. Thus far I have turned to account forty-one seats out of the forty-nine; and the forty-second we propose to give to the constituency of the University of London, a learned body, at present very numerous, and one constantly and rapidly increasing.
We have further, Sir, to consider the very important, and, indeed, irrefragable, claim of Scotland to an increase in the number of Members by whom it is represented in this House. Either the basis of population, or the basis of population combined with property as decided by taxation, will prove that it is impossible to refuse or to overlook the claim of Scotland to an augmentation of representation. We do not, indeed, propose to give to Scotland the precise number of seats which Scotland might, perhaps, have been entitled to require, had we been engaged in a complete reconstruction of our Parliamentary system; but a moderate demand on behalf of Scotland we are certainly not prepared to resist.
We have, however, had to consider the question whether that demand should be satisfied by a transfer of seats from England or by an addition to the total number of the House. That question is, as far as I know, a matter purely of policy and convenience; and we have concluded upon the whole, after some consideration, that this House would be disinclined to add to the number of its Members, under the belief, whether well or ill-founded, that if the proposal to increase Were once assented to, it would be difficult to resist the continual intrusion and continual concession of new demands. We, therefore, Sir, propose, although with some reluctance, that England, out of its abundance, shall minister somewhat to the poverty of Scotland; and that the remaining seven seats, the difference between the forty-two and forty-nine, which are supposed to be gained by our process of disfranchisement, shall be given to Scotland. The grounds of that disposal will, perhaps, be best stated by my learned Friend the Lord Advocate; but I may state briefly the places concerned. We propose to give an additional Member to each of the counties of Ayr, Lanark, and Aberdeenshire the hon. Member to the borough of Glasgow, a third Member to the city of Edinburgh, 498 a second Member to the town of Dundee, and one Member to the Scotch Universities. These eminent and learned bodies, as well as the University of London, are already possessed of a very large constituency, which, as I hope, will continue to increase from year to year.
That, I think, disposes of all I need say with respect to the re-distribution of seats, unless, indeed, I add a word on the subject of Ireland, which appears to us to stand entirely on its own ground. If we compare the present population of Ireland with the share which it has of the entire representation, it was quite clear that Ireland, with its 105 representatives, is hardly in a position to make any new claim, while, on the other hand, there is clearly no necessity to make any claim against it.
Neither do we think it necessary to make any proposition with respect to Wales. The general arrangement of the Welsh boroughs and the working of the arrangement are satisfactory, and the few marked inequalities that subsist there, have not appeared sufficient to warrant, or at least, to require any disturbance of the existing arrangements.
I now come to the question of boundaries; and, first of all, I will advert, not in terms of censure, but simply for the purpose of discussion, to the plan which was proposed in 1859. The question of boundaries is manifestly one capable of being extended to a vast importance. In point of fact, under the terms adopted in the Bill of 1859, it might have assumed the whole of that vast importance; for, in the 57th clause of that Bill, it was stated that wherever the population properly belonging to a Parliamentary borough extended beyond the Parliamentary limits thereof the boundaries of that borough should be so enlarged as to comprise every part of the population "properly,"(I think I use the language of the Bill) or "substantially" forming part of such borough; and it was further enacted that the Inclosure Commissioners should appoint Assistant Commissioners and should visit every borough in England and Wales for the purpose of examining the boundaries, and who should report to the Secretary of State wherever any enlargement of boundaries was in their judgment necessary in order to include within the area thereof the population "properly" belonging to such boroughs respectively.
Now, the difficulty which occurs to us, and which appears almost, if not wholly, 499 insurmountable, is this: that a general enactment of that kind, creating an authority to visit every borough in England and Wales, would have no adequate guide supplied by such words as I have cited, to enable it to perceive the purpose of Parliament to interpret the commission under which it was to act. Again, there is another point which cannot be excluded from consideration. In England we have a great many boroughs, Parliamentary boroughs, which have already been extended far beyond their natural limits. It must never be forgotten, in considering the apparent disparity between the representation of boroughs and counties with reference to their population, that quite apart from the important circumstance that many small boroughs are in point of fact merely head-quarters of the rural districts to which they belong, a large number of small boroughs are under a great, even a dominant, influence from purely agricultural and farming districts, which have at previous periods, and mainly at the great epoch of the Reform Act, been attached to them. If, then, we are to adopt this as a principle, that the limits of the Parliamentary borough are in all cases to be the limits of the town, and if, accordingly, we are to have a general re-consideration of the boundaries of boroughs on the principle of including everything that substantially belongs to them, how are we to reply to the argument that we ought to re-consider these boundaries with a view to abridgment, where by an artificial arrangement they now include, as they do in many, perhaps in scores of cases, rural districts of the kind I have described. We are not willing to set in motion any such universal disturbance of the boundaries as they exist at this present time. For if we are to have by our proposed legislation a consideration of the question of the boundaries of towns founded upon principles as broad as those which were included in the Bill of 1859, it seems impossible to avoid the conclusion that in equity a double process would be rendered necessary—a process of curtailing as well as of extending—and that upon such a process it is by no means desirable to enter.
But there is another great difficulty; how in the world would it be possible for any set of Commissioners to determine by their own wit what extent of area of population properly belongs, or substantially belongs, to these boroughs? If we 500 look at the large towns of the country, we see them in a state of general and somewhat rapid extension; but that extension is varied in its forms. There is one kind of extension which is locally continuous, and which includes all the various descriptions of building usually composing a town—the extension of buildings for purposes of business; along with that, an extension of shops, and also an extension of dwellings for the labouring population. But there is yet another movement of enlargement, entirely distinct from such an enlargement as I have last mentioned, and such I may presume roughly to call a residential extension, effected by or for the wealthier inhabitants of the borough, who, availing themselves of the facilities of locomotion now commonly afforded, seek to enjoy the advantages of something like a semi-rural residence, and who are loosely scattering the suburbs of many boroughs far and wide through their vicinities. But, it would be, I think, very difficult indeed, and without much more precise direction, absolutely impossible, for any body of Commissioners to undertake to deal with extensions of that class. Where the extension is perfectly continuous I grant it might, perhaps, be done. Where, however, the extension is not continuous, I think, first of all, the task would be in itself immensely difficult; and in the second place I think it would probably be found to become impracticable, from the mixture of political motives and objects, which—though they might not bias the minds of the gentlemen Parliament might appoint for this purpose—would necessarily bias our minds, as the representatives of the counties and the towns, when we came to watch the re-adjustment of these boundaries and to scrutinize the local re-distribution of power in each of the portions of the country dealt with.
Therefore, Sir, we have sought for some other method of proceeding less extensive, but, as we think, more natural and spontaneous, and unquestionably much more safe. I will state in detail the whole of what we propose to the House. In the first place, we propose two enactments—one of a positive and limited character, and another of a prospective character. With regard to provisions of a positive character, although it is not possible to settle any such boundaries by means of a Bill of this nature, inasmuch as a consideration of them, if it were to be generally undertaken, would require too much 501 time—together with information we do not at present sufficiently possess—yet such of the points as we can satisfactorily settle and dispose of, we propose to dispose of by positive enactment. These enactments would, however, only extend to a particular class of places. There are certain places, although we do not know that they are numerous, where the municipal boundaries appear to include certain districts not included in the Parliamentary bounds. Wherever that happens, that we think is a sufficient warrant for our assuming that the natural limits of the towns include something that is not included within the Parliamentary boundary; and therefore we propose a general provision to the effect that wherever the municipal boundary includes any area that is not now within the Parliamentary boundary, the Parliamentary boundary is to be so far enlarged as to include that area. The other positive enactment is of a similar and obvious character. It is that the Commissioners of Inclosures shall consider and arrange—subject to the approval of Parliament—the boundaries of all the newly-enfranchised towns; and also the proper boundary to be fixed between the two proposed sections of the Tower Hamlets. In the meantime, provisional boundaries are named in the Bill; following, I think, in that respect, the precedent of the Reform Act.
Now I come to the prospective and more comprehensive question; and the conclusion at which we have arrived is this. In order to avoid all feuds and differences from the mixture of considerations of practical convenience and considerations of political power, the best course will be to adopt a rule for the future which will tend to separate these conflicting motives. We propose that Parliamentary boundaries shall prospectively follow the local line— that is to say, the line which local considerations may cause, or devise, or recommend to be adopted. In the growth of our towns there is a progressive tendency to the enlargement of boundaries; and there is a law already by which in certain cases it is provided for. The question of municipal extensions has lately been before the House. My right hon. Friend the Secretary for the Home Department, in answer to an inquiry in this House a few nights ago, stated his intention to introduce a measure for the purpose of facilitating that process; and the principle of the measure I will state to the House.
502 I ought first, however, to remind the House that at present our Parliamentary boroughs are under three descriptions of governments. Most of them are municipal boroughs, with a regular municipality; some are boroughs which have been incorporated under the Local Government Act; and others are boroughs which have been incorporated under some special local Act of their own for the improvement of towns. I, however, draw no essential distinction between them. In all three classes of cases there is a local community, and there is a local authority. And where towns continuously extend themselves, it is commonly the interest of the inhabitants of the outlying portion for the purposes of police, and other purposes of self-government, to seek to be included in the municipal borough, or town community, however defined. The principle of the Bill of my right hon. Friend will be this: wherever the inhabitants forming the local community shall address Her Majesty, or address the Secretary of State, proposing that certain districts shall be added to the town, and the inhabitants of those districts so to be added shall at the same time express their willingness to be joined to the town, there shall be a power vested in Her Majesty in Council to sanction the union, subject, however, to the approval of Parliament; and the provision which we shall introduce into this Bill is that, wherever any such enlargements shall take place, the Parliamentary borough shall follow the enlargement made for local purposes. In this way we think we shall avoid the mixture of political controversy with a question which is properly a local one. A local community, whatever it is, should be represented; and we think the best and safest definition of a local community will be obtained by giving facilities to the inhabitants for fixing its limits from time to time as considerations of their own practical convenience may dictate and require. That, Sir, briefly described is the plan which we propose to adopt with reference to boundaries, and which will be found to be provided for in clauses contained in the Bill. I now ask to lay on the table a Bill which I hope will by to-morrow be in the hands of Members.
I next, and lastly, come to the question of procedure with reference to these Bills, on which I propose to say a very few words. I assume that leave will be given for the introduction of this Bill, and also 503 of the two Bills—leave for the introduction of which will be asked this evening by my hon. and learned Friend the Lord-Advocate, and by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland. We s hall then have, in fact, on the table of Parliament four Bills relating to the representation of the people; but the question of procedure, on which so much interest has been felt, is a question which mainly relates to the two which affect respectively the franchise and the re-distribution of seats, and what I have to say will be confined entirely to these two Bills. Now, looking back to the terms of the Amendment which we recently debated during a period so protracted, I find that those terms have been at this period literally complied with. The wish expressed in it was that the whole scheme of the Government, which was interpreted by common consent to signify the measures dealing with the re-distribution of seats and the boundaries of boroughs, together with the provisions relating to the franchise, should be laid before Parliament at the time when it was asked to proceed with the Franchise Bill. But although this was all which was asked by the Amendment, more, undoubtedly, was asked in the debate. And I cannot, perhaps, explain myself more correctly than by referring to the terms used by the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn. The noble Lord used the word "guarantee," and he said something like this—that he wanted some guarantee that the two subjects of the franchise and the re-distribution of seats should be in the hands of one and the same Parliament. That is the end which the House appears to have in view, and I may add that it has been an end invariably in our contemplation. We have never felt the same degree of jealousy or the same amount of apprehension of inconvenience with regard to the possible or casual separation of the two objects— even if that separation should in the extremest case chance to be attended with an intervening dissolution—which was expressed by the noble Lord and by others; but we have always thought and said that it was convenient, advantageous, and desirable that these two questions should be dealt with by the same Parliament.
The modes of attaining that end have been variously suggested. My right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead suggested the addition of something in the nature of a suspending clause to the Fran- 504 chise Bill; and my hon. Friend the Member for Wick suggested that these two Bills—the Franchise and the Seats Bills, should proceed pari passu, meaning, I presume, that the corresponding stages of each Bill should be taken in succession, one at a time. But then, if our minds are worked up to a certain high pitch of jealousy, even that arrangement does not meet the case, inasmuch as we cannot read two Bills a third time at one and the same moment. The Speaker must put the Question, on that as on every other stage, with regard to one of them before it is put for the other; and hence there is, at any rate, an abstract possibility of the separation of these two measures which it is desired to treat as Siamese twins. Another proposal—I do not remember that it was made in the late debate, but it has been suggested at various times—is the incorporation of the two Bills into one and the same measure. That, no doubt, would perfectly secure the simultaneous treatment of the two subjects, and there is but one point of view in which we must continue to feel difficulty or hesitation as to their combination. However, that point of view is under the actual circumstances one of much importance. When this measure was introduced, we did not feel ourselves in a condition to say to the House of Commons, "We now ask you to amend the representation of the people, and to make whatever sacrifices of time or personal convenience may be necessary for any extraordinary prolongation of the Session with a view to the complete treatment of the measure." But, at a subsequent stage of our discussion, I did state to the House that we had no objection whatever to go on contemporaneously or successively with these subjects, provided it was understood that they were not to be dropped on the score of mere want of time, but that we were to persevere and keep at the oar until they were disposed of. That was the correct meaning of the statement in which I adverted to an autumn sitting. An autumn sitting does not necessarily mean an autumn Session; because, as the House is aware, there is another method of proceeding which has on rare occasions been adopted, and which might be adopted again, so as to prevent the dropping for the year of a weighty measure under consideration—namely, a lengthened adjournment of the House in July or August, until the month of September or October, when the remainder of the work might 505 be performed. [Laughter and cries of" Oh, oh!"] It is quite evident from the way that observation has been received that some hon. Gentlemen are not exceedingly anxious about the combination of the two Bills. What, however, I wish to do is to describe simply, frankly, and clearly to the House the position of the Government. What the Government object to is the loss of the year. We are not willing to be parties to the loss of the year by the postponement of the subject. We may have been right or we may have been wrong in thinking it wise to bring forward this subject in the present year. We believe that we were right. But I think it must be obvious that, having proposed it, we ought not to recede from it. Our intention is to persevere with what we have proposed. If it be the desire, the general desire, of the House to adopt any method—and other methods may be suggested besides those that I have named—of attaining the object which the noble Lord has in view—namely, guaranteeing that these questions shall not be separated, we are perfectly ready to consider of and adopt that method, subject only to the condition that we shall go forward, and not throw over the subject, not for consideration, not even for recommencement, but for the chance of recommencement, in another year.
Looking to what had happened at the period of the Reform Act, and taking our measures of time from that period, I did state on a former night that we had come to the conclusion that it would be impossible to dispose in a satisfactory manner of the subject of re-distribution of seats within the limits of the Session. But the House must be aware of the difficulties under which any computation of that kind is formed; and if there be a disposition to agree upon the re-distribution of seats, there is no intrinsic difficulty in the matter, for there is nothing in the question itself of a nature absolutely to require prolonged discussion. [Laughter.] I do not know what excites the humour of my hon. Friends. I think that a true and a very plain statement. On the other hand, if there is a disposition to treat the redistribution of seats as matter of controversy and to stickle upon every topic as it arises, the points that may be urged, the varieties of arrangements that may be suggested, are so numerous as might create a very large demand indeed upon the time of Parliament. And it was in the expec- 506 tation that there probably would be such a large demand upon the time of Parliament that I said we had come to the conclusion that we should not be able to dispose of the whole subject during the Session. But on that matter we place ourselves in the hands of the House. We shall be very glad if it be the pleasure of the House to proceed with greater despatch than we are sanguine enough to anticipate; it would be in our opinion all the better for us and all the better for the country. Now let us consider what is required by the objectors and by us respectively. The point urged on us is that the subjects should not be separated, but that one should securely and certainly follow in the train of the other. The point we have to urge is that the year should not be lost. And therefore if it be proposed to combine the subjects, whether by consolidation of the two Bills into one, or by any other method less stringent but still satisfactory to the House, we shall give a willing consideration to the proposal, if only it be understood that we adhere to our original proposition, and that we have no intention to advise the prorogation of Parliament until the whole subject— meaning by the whole subject nothing lees than the question of the franchise and the question of the re-distribution of seats—shall have been disposed of by the judgment of the House.
What I have said I think and hope will convey clearly the position generally which the Government desire it to be understood that they occupy. At the present moment I will add nothing specific with respect to any form of the procedure upon this Bill for the re-distribution of seats. Our impression is that Members of this House have been waiting until to-day to learn the character and substance of this Bill, and that on being apprised of its character and substance that they will naturally and reasonably proceed to form a final judgment as to the question of procedure. Our desire is not to quarrel with any portion of the House which is really agreed with us as to the end in view, about any question of mere procedure. If we have had debates involving matter of warmth and deep political interest, the whole of those debates I put out of view and memory for the present purpose; and I assume that we are met now with a view to the prosecution of this Bill, and of the subject, with all the despatch compatible with its due consideration. There is no 507 element, as I hope the House will see, of reproach or controversy in the declaration that I now make. We are ready frankly to enter into such arrangements as will give the House the best security for retaining in its own hands the power of dealing with the whole subject; our only and I think legitimate desire being, that we may not lose the time and labour that have been already spent, and that we may not be forced to trust the matter to chance, to the unopened future, to the accidents of another Session, or of the interval before it arrives. I have only to add that in saying Her Majesty's Government would not advise a prorogation until the whole matter has been disposed of, if it be the desire of the House to combine the two Bills into one, of course I must be understood as reserving with respect to prorogation all causes of public policy or exigency arising aliunde for any exercise of any Royal Prerogative. I mean that in the absence of such causes in the usual course of business prorogation would not be advised, until this subject has been disposed of. In some manner or other, I cannot but entertain the hope that some method of proceeding with this question in a manner enabling us to arrive at a definite issue will be attained. I am sure it will be eminently satisfactory to the country that, having addressed ourselves to a settlement of a question of such vast importance, we should treat it with that earnestness of purpose which on every account it demands at our hands.
Sir, I move for leave to introduce a Bill to make provision for the Re-distribution of Seats.
§ MR. DISRAELII mean to touch only on one of the three subjects that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has brought under our consideration; and when the right hon. Gentleman rose, I did not contemplate that it would be necessary for me to trouble the House upon any of those points. I shall, however, confine myself entirely to the matter of procedure. I must say I have listened to the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon that topic with a feeling akin to astonishment. It is generally considered the duty of a private Member of the House, when he brings forward a Bill or proposes a measure for our consideration, that he should at least indicate the mode in which he intends to invite the opinion of the House, and the time at which he thinks it may be convenient to ask for that opinion. But, 508 as I could collect from the right hon. Gentleman's observations, he has not supplied any means to the House by which we can arrive at a conclusion as to the course which the Government proposes that the House should adopt. Irrespective of being a Member of this House, the right hon. Gentleman who brings forward this measure is also the leader of the House of Commons, and it is his duty to regulate the general course of business. Now, here is a measure which relates to the most important business now before the House—business which has already engaged its attention during a great portion of the Session, and which, as contemplated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, is likely to engage its time and attention during the rest of the year. But, as far as I am able to gather, the Chancellor of the Exchequer abandons the duties of his position. I am at this moment really at a loss to know on what day or in what manner the opinion of the House is to be elicited on this important subject, introduced by Her Majesty's Government. I must, therefore, put it to the Chancellor of the Exchequer not to shrink from that which is one of his principal duties; and I hope that after some conference on the Treasury Bench, we may be informed on what day and in what manner the opinion of the House is to be taken on this important proposition.
§ MR. BOUVERIEThe time for fixing the second reading of a Bill is after the Bill introduced has been read a first time. But though in appearance this may be a question of procedure, I think it is a very much deeper one in reality. It is a question of whether we shall go on with these measures or not. Sir, there are three parties, as far as I can make out, in this House. There is one party which, acting indirectly, is opposed to proceeding at all, either with the Franchise Bill or this Redistribution Bill—headed on this side of the House, perhaps, by my right hon. Friend who sits beside me (Mr. Lowe), and on the other side by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Huntingdon (General Peel). I think there is also a party in this House composed of those who are inclined to proceed with the Franchise Bill alone. Now, these parties, although influential in point of numbers, and influential in weight by the Members of which they are composed, do not, as I think, represent the feelings and opinions of this House, and do not, as I am con- 509 vinced, represent the feelings and opinions of this country. The third party is, I believe, composed of a majority of this House, and consists of those who desire to deal with this matter in a substantial manner, and to endeavour to arrive at a satisfactory and conclusive arrangement. We cannot afford—especially in such times as seem to be approaching in Europe—to be continually lighting this question. I am satisfied we shall be acting in accordance with the feelings of the country if we take advantage of the choice now offered us by the Government of the mode of proceeding with these measures; while we should not be acting in unison with public opinion if we now sought to escape from proceeding at all. The question about the re-distribution of seats I believe to be the real pinch of the problem—it is the difficulty—the crux in the problem—and I, for one, have always been desirous, and I believe the majority at both sides of the House have always been desirous, that in dealing with the subject of Parliamentary Reform this question should be brought before the House in conjunction with the other one of the franchise, in order that honestly and faithfully we might endeavour to come to a satisfactory conclusion on the whole matter. There is no difficulty about a proposition to lower the franchise. Anyone can propose to substitute another figure for £10 in boroughs, and another figure for £50 in counties. No conjuror is required for such a proposition as that. The real difficulty lies in this re-distribution of seats; for within this is involved the problem how to enlarge the numbers of the constituency without affecting the influence of property; how to add to the poorer classes of the constituency without increasing the means of corruption; how to improve the general representation of the people by getting rid of small boroughs. This is the real pinch of the problem, and it calls for the statesmanship of the Government and the energy and wisdom of the House. We cannot settle this matter in a short time and in a perfunctory way; and if we mean to treat it with a view to a settlement, we must deal with the question of these small boroughs. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has very handsomely abandoned his argument in favour of small boroughs which he advanced with so much eloquence on a former occasion, when he upheld them as schools for sucking statesmen. On looking into this matter, we find that almost the 510 whole of the boys sent into this House represent large and important constituencies; so that argument for the small boroughs is got rid of. We know that formerly there existed a great objection to these boroughs on the ground of their being nomination boroughs. Many of them used to be in the hands of great Peers or of other landed proprietors, and the owners sold them to persons ambitious of a seat in this House. That practice, with perhaps some very few exceptions, has disappeared. But what has been substituted for the system which prevailed at Gatton or at Old Sarum? Now, it is an attorney who in one of those small boroughs, by the power he possesses over the voters in those wretched places, is able to sell the borough. Therefore I, for one, am desirous to see as large a sweep made of those miserable places as can be made consistently with the prospect we have of being able to carry the Bill. By the opetion of the Reform Act some of those nomination boroughs were turned into a sort of electoral district. In old law books we find that boroughs are defined as ancient towns; but many of those boroughs are towns no longer—they are decrepit and decayed villages in the centre of an extended electoral district, and with respect to many of them the power of returning the Member is in the hands of one or two persons having large property in the district. Now, if we can deal with that state of things, I submit to the House we ought to do so. I, for one, quite approve the proposal of Her Majesty's Government. I think that grouping those boroughs is the only mode by which you can secure the absence of nomination and the comparative absence of corruption in future. As the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said, we have the system of grouping in Scotland, and it works satisfactorily and well. Mere local interest and local parties are neutralized by this grouping. Therefore, though I wish the Government proposal for grouping had gone still further, I think, as far as it goes, the attempt is one to carry out the system honestly and faithfully. I also approve generally the principle of giving the largest proportion of those seats to populous counties. Though some of them will go to Cornwall and Devon, it is in such counties as Lancashire, Derbyshire, Yorkshire, and Durham the greater number of those new seats will be created, and those are the counties in which the 511 centre of gravity of political power ought to be placed, as it is in them that the greatest wealth, industry, activity of mind and body, and intelligence are to be found. On these grounds, I think, as far as regards the substance of this proposal of the Government, it will be acceptable to the country, and acceptable to the large body of Members of this House who were inclined to suspend their judgment on the Franchise Bill till they knew what was proposed in the re-distribution of seats. Now, one word about the question of procedure as referred to by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire. It is quite true that we generally look to the Government, and especially to the leader of the Government, to indicate what course they are willing to propose to take with regard to any important measure before the House. But the House must recollect that in respect of this subject the Government did that, and that a very large and powerful minority—amounting almost to one-half of this House—agreed to a Resolution implying disapproval of the course which the Government proposed to take. Therefore, what more natural than that the Government should say, "We thought such a course right in the first instance; but, though supported by a majority of the House, we found a large and influential minority, including very many of our own supporters, express their disapprobation of that course, and, consequently, we are now anxious to consult the wishes of the House?" I have no doubt myself as to what the proper course ought to be, and I think it is a course which will be satisfactory to the great bulk of this House—that is, to those who are really desirous to see a measure pass which will substantially put the question at rest during the remainder of our lifetime. I think the Bills ought to be put together, and the second reading of this Bill taken before the Committee on the Franchise Bill. This Bill can then be submitted under a Standing Order of the House to the same Committee as the Franchise Bill, and that Committee, according to the ancient practice of the House, can be instructed to make them into one Bill. Then we shall have before us substantially the whole of this great measure—for it is now, I may tell the House, a very great measure. We shall then be able to discuss it as a whole in all its bearings, and we shall be able to 512 amend it if we think it requires amendment, or to reject it as a whole if we think it ought to be rejected. We shall be able to pass it whether it be amended or not, and with a perfect guarantee that the matter shall be dealt with in its entirety. This was professed to be the great object of the Amendment which was moved by the noble Lord the Member for Chester (Earl Grosvenor). I believe it was for this object that a great many Members of this House voted for the Amendment, being honestly desirous of seeing the scheme on this branch of the subject, and of having the two questions dealt with substantially as one. Therefore, if the course which I suggest be taken, the object they had in view, and which, I believe, all the House had in view, will be attained, and whether we pass or reject the measure we shall come to a clear deliverance on the question, and the House indoors and the country out of doors will be able to decide upon the opinion we may form.
§ SIR. HUGH CAIRNSThe observations of the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down are no doubt extremely interesting, and I dare say they have produced the effect which was intended, and have given to Her Majesty's Government an opportunity of considering the answer which they presently will give to the very distinct question that was put to them. The right hon. Gentleman is quite right in saying that the ordinary time for fixing the further progress of a measure which you have introduced is after the Bill has been read a first time. But the right hon. Gentleman entirely forgets that the Chancellor of the Exchequer informed us that he had to address his observations to three different questions—the question of the re-distribution of seats, the question of the extension and rectification of the borough franchise, and thirdly, to another question which he said was, perhaps, the most interesting one of all—namely, the procedure with the measures which were before the House. And the astonishment which was felt by some, certainly, on this side of the House was caused by the right hon. Gentleman, after having spoken some time with reference to the procedure, sitting down without having given us the slightest intimation as to what the procedure was to be. Now, are we unreasonable in asking the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Her Majesty's Government for some explanation upon this point? 513 Let me remind the House for a moment of the various modes of procedure which we have been told at different times by the Government would be resorted to. We were told that the Government, although they were prepared to admit in the abstract that re-distribution of seats formed a portion of Parliamentary Reform, yet that was the utmost admission they would make; and not only that, but, to use the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Government, considering it an unwise thing to make pledges as to future Sessions, would do no more than say this—that if at some future period it should be the duty of the Government to propose a measure for the re-distribution of seats, the Government thought perhaps this Parliament might consider that question. That was the first opinion of the Government as to procedure. What was the next? The next stage was when it was resolved by the Government to announce to the House that they would lay upon the table measures for the re-distribution of seats; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, as reported in The Times—
At the same time I cannot state too distinctly to the House, as we are desirous above all things not to be misunderstood, that our intention in laying the Bills on the table is confined at the present time to the object I have named—of giving information to the House, and that we propose to proceed with the Bill relating to the Franchise in England and Wales in the manner we announced, and with that Bill exclusively until its fate is determined.Now, what is the explanation we have tonight? The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down must remember what happened. There was a great House and a great division, and the Government had a small and almost imperceptible majority, composed, I believe, of those Scotch Members to whose country seats are to be added. But as regards England and Ireland the majority was against the Government. By the division so arrived at the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer said the House had plainly intimated to the Government that they disapproved the form of procedure which the Government had up to that time adopted. That being so—the House having in substance told the Government that it disapproved the Government procedure up to that moment—it was very natural, according to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bouverie), that the Government should come to the House and tell them that it was for them to tell the Government, and not for the 514 Government to tell the House, what form of procedure should be adopted; that the Government having been reproved and condemned by a minority of the House, which would have been a majority but for Scotch Members and Cabinet Ministers, on account of their form of procedure, it was now for the Government to come to the House and say, "It is for the House to dictate to us what our procedure should be, and not for the Government to tell you what it is to be." That is a doctrine which may be the doctrine of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bouverie), but we ought to know whether it is the doctrine of the Government. It is, I agree, very like what the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated to us; but if that is the doctrine which the Government is prepared to maintain, I think the House ought to know it, and to be made aware in language as to which there can be no doubt that the Government abdicates its functions, and that we are to resolve ourselves into a Committee to consider how the Government of the country should carry on its business.
GENERAL PEELI am not in the habit of making use of indirect means. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bouverie) tells us that there is one party in this House who wish to defeat this measure by indirect means, and he has coupled my name with them. Now, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that my opposition to it will be direct and open. I am anxious to see this question settled; for I have no wish to see the Reform Bill buried and dug up again whenever it pleases the right hon. Gentlemen opposite to do so. I am anxious, as I said before, to see the right of voting conferred on many people who do not now possess it; but I shall take the opportunity of opposing this Bill whenever an opportunity presents itself.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERI cannot accept, on the part of the Government, any portion of the rebuke which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire administered to me; nor does it appear to me that we, who were so largely charged a fortnight ago with domineering over the House and with dictating to it, and who then thought we were quite innocent of the charge, are a bit more chargeable with the abdication of duty now imputed to us. Our course has been this. We originally stated to the House our ideas of the form of procedure best calculated to attain the object we had 515 in view, that object being the settlement of the entire question; but I am not aware that the Government is precluded from accepting suggestions and amendments, even affecting the substance of its measure, if there be sufficient ground for doing so, and especially having some regard to the quarter from which they proceed. Much less is it to be precluded from paying that consideration which courtesy and deference, and principle as well as policy dictate as to its order of proceeding. We wished to ascertain the opinion of Gentlemen like my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock, whom we believe to be perfectly serious in his desire to attain the common object, and yet differ from our method of procedure, we not having kept back our own opinion on the subject. I have expressed a great willingness on the part of the Government—and I express it again—to learn the views of others with respect to the question of procedure, in order that we may have an opportunity of judging whether any modification which they may desire is a modification compatible with the attainment of the end which we propose to ourselves to reach. That appears to me to be a method of procedure which is practised every day in this House with regard to questions of all kinds, and I hope the time will never come when it will not be practised. What I gather from the speech of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Bouverie) is this—that the real and principal question with regard to the order and manner of proceeding on these Bills will be determined between the second reading of the Bill and the Committee, and that that will be the time when we shall be in the best position to judge what course we may finally adopt with a view to the attainment of our general object: and I think, bearing that in mind, I can hardly go wrong in saying that I will tonight, after the first reading, propose to read the Bill for the Re-distribution of Seats a second time on Monday next. I will postpone the Committee on the Franchise Bill till that day. And I must say I shall have felt not only justified in the course I took, but that I even could not, with propriety or decency, have taken any other course, knowing as I did, and as all my colleagues did, that hon. Gentlemen were wishing to learn the nature of our proposals with regard to re-distribution, before forming their opinion as to the mode of proceeding. I could not possibly form my own judgment as to the course 516 they desired us to pursue with regard to procedure, and I could not at the present time ask them to give a final indication of what they desired respecting that part of the question. If, however, the right hon. Gentleman thinks that because I intimated that desire of learning the wishes of hon. Gentlemen, and showed deference to the House in respect to this question, it may be inferred that the Government has altered its mind and abated something of its determination in regard to the main issues involved in the measure, I hope a very short time will be sufficient to undeceive him.
MR. ROBERTSONrose to express his great astonishment at the accusation the hon. and learned Member for Belfast (Sir Hugh Cairns) had brought against the Scotch Members of Parliament, and said he would repel the accusation in the strongest language that would be Parliamentary. He gave the House his word, as a Scotch Member, that until he heard the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer he had not the remotest idea how Scotland would be dealt with. He might even go further. They had heard extraordinary statements, and a very extraordinary one that night, about bribery at elections. As regarded Scotland, both the constituents and those whom they sent to Parliament were incapable of being bribed. He regretted that the hon. and learned Member for Belfast had unadvisedly made the accusation he had, and he repelled it with scorn.
§ SIR RAINALD KNIGHTLEYWe lately heard a good deal about standing or falling by the Franchise Bill. When I heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer make that statement it occurred to me whether it would be possible for him to strike out a third course and do neither one nor the other, and I must confess the right hon. Gentleman has accomplished that difficult task. The position the Chancellor of the Exchequer at present occupies reminds me of what we sometimes see when we return home late at night, and come across an unfortunate gentleman who has been "dining, not wisely, but too well," who is clinging convulsively to a lamp post, afraid to advance and unable to stand upright, but who is determined, if possible, not to fall:—so the Chancellor of the Exchequer now wants the House of Commons to bring him a stretcher to take him home.
§ Motion agreed to.
517§ Bill for the Re-distribution of Seats, ordered to be brought in by Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, Sir GEORGE GREY, and Mr. VILLIERS.
§ Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 138.]