§ MR. H. B. SHERIDANsaid, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether his attention has been drawn to the following statement of statistics with reference to Wednesbury, a town proposed to be enfranchised under the present Reform Bill, and West Bromwich, an adjoining town, namely:—That Wednesbury in 1861 contained 4,057 inhabited houses, West Bromwich 8,109; Wednesbury in 1861 had a population of 21,968, West Bromwich 41,795; that West Bromwich is the head of the Poor Law Union of which Wednesbury forms a small part; that West Bromwich is governed by special Improvement Acts, is rated to the poor in £107,000 per annum, has most important local manufactures, and between 1821 and 1861 increased in population from 9,505 to 41,795; that by the last Census West Bromwich contains 3,000 more inhabited houses than the highest of the proposed Boroughs and 6,400 more than the lowest, and has 13,000 more inhabitants than the most populous of such Boroughs and 29,500 more than the least; and, whether, if these statistics are to be relied upon and are, in fact, correct, he will have any objection to reconsider the question of enfranchisement with reference to Wednesbury, and either enfranchise West Bromwich or make some arrangement between West Bromwich and Wednesbury which will recognise the claims of West Bromwich to enfranchisement?
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERI understand, Sir, the Question of the hon. Gentleman to refer to the comparative claims of Wednesbury and 395 West Bromwich to representation in this House. I fear that the hon. Gentleman, who I know has great claims upon his time, has not been able to give his attention to the character of the schedules to the Bill. If he had done so he would have found that though the district was to have the title of Wednesbury, the constituency referred to was really to consist of the inhabitants of both Wednesbury and West Bromwich.