CONSIDERATION. (Hansard, 11 June 1868)

§ MR. NEATE
rose to move the following clause:— Whereas the county of Sutherland does not now contain but is capable of containing a sufficient number of independent owners or occupiers to form a fit constituency for the exercise of the franchise, the right of the county of Sutherland to return a Member to Parliament shall from and after the passing of this Act be suspended until Parliament shall otherwise direct. The proposal that Sutherland, with only 181 electors, should retain its Member, had never been brought before the House in its naked deformity. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) had said a great deal of what Sutherland was not, but might be; and this clause was exactly in conformity with the right hon. Gentleman's views, for it proposed the suspension of the seat until these bright prospects were realized, and Sutherland became really less of an estate and more of a county. At present, in an electoral sense, it was nothing but a stagnant pool. The number of its voters and its population had declined; and the next lowest county population in Scotland was that of Bute, which had 510 electors against 181 in Sutherland. Even if Caithness were added to Sutherland it would still be in population and electors among the four lowest of the Scotch counties. He was not adverse to the representation of the agricultural population of Scotland, and no class of men would return better Members than the Scotch farmers, but they were not represented in this case. He protested against the sort of compromise that had taken place on this question. Parliament had taken the nomination boroughs from the English Dukes, but the Scotch Dukes 1445 were archdukes, whom nobody seemed to dare to look in the face. He hoped that the House would not allow any Duke, Scotch or English, to make a solitude and call it a county. If ten Members were prepared to go into the Lobby with him he would go.

MR. WHITE
seconded the Motion.

§ MR. FAWCETT
wished to say a word or two. He never gave a vote in that House with more pleasure than the other night, when this question was brought before them; nor did he ever hear a speech with which he so entirely disagreed as with that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire. There was not a single argument in it which the duty of a Liberal Member would not lead him to oppose, All the arguments which applied to small English boroughs like Honiton and Arundel applied with far greater force to the county of Sutherland. By retaining a nomination county like this Parliament was encouraging the aggregation of large landed estates, because the possession of such estates was thereby associated with political power. From what he had heard he doubted whether out of the constituency of 181 there were twenty independent electors in Sutherland, and he (Mr. Fawcett) was determined to challenge a division. The great question of re-distribution had yet scarcely been touched, and it would be useful, in the Reformed Parliament, to have a case of this kind to give point to the argument.

§ MR. CARNEGIE
protested against imputations on the independence of the Scotch tenantry, who were not so subservient to landlord influence as some Gentlemen wished to make it appear.

§ MR. CRAUFURD
said, he was one of those who supported the union of Sutherland with Caithness; but, as the House had expressed an opinion against that, he hoped his hon. Friend would not put the House to the trouble of a division upon a clause, the effect of which would be to deprive Scotland of one Member.

§ MR. M'LAREN
said, he could not support the Motion in its present form, as in its present form it would extinguish a Member. It did not propose to unite Sutherland to another county, nor to give its Member to another constituency, as was proposed on former occasions. But 1446 if the hon. Member would alter his Motion he would support it.

THE LORD ADVOCATE
said, he could not agree to the insertion of such a clause in this Bill which proposed to deal only with the election of Members of Parliament. The matter of the municipal franchise had been considered by the Government, and they were of opinion that a separate Bill should be introduced on the subject. In a great many boroughs the Parliamentary limits and municipal limits were different, and it would be necessary to delay the municipal elections, as the Register would not be completed in time for these elections, which take place in the beginning of November.

§ SIR JOHN OGILVY
asked if the Lord Advocate would introduce a Bill this Session?

THE LORD ADVOCATE
said, that the matter would be taken into consideration.

§ MR. CRAUFURD
said, they should have a positive pledge from Her Majesty's Government that they would bring in a Bill this year.

§ MR. DALGLISH
urged the importance of providing for the election of municipal representatives as soon as possible.

§ MR. M'LAREN
said, that the House ought to receive an assurance from the Government either that they would accept the clause or make the necessary provision by a separate Bill for the re-election of the municipal body.

§ SIR JAMES FERGUSSON
said, that the Lord Advocate had already given on assurance that the subject should be attended to.

§ MR. MONCREIFF
said, that as the election to the municipal body would no 1447 longer be made from the electoral roll, it was necessary that a supplementary Bill should be introduced if his hon. Friend's clause was not accepted.

THE LORD ADVOCATE
repeated that the question could be most conveniently dealt with by a separate Bill.