REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE. (Hansard, 9 April 1913)

§ Sir HENRY KIMBER

I beg to move, "That leave be given to introduce a Bill to provide for the better Representation of the People in Parliament and for a Redistribution of seats."

This subject is well known to the House. It is a Bill which I have introduced in two or three previous Sessions, and it is a non-party measure. The subject-matter of the Bill is also a non-party subject. The proper representation of the people in this House will be admitted to be a subject which the whole House ought to make a matter of first interest. I recognise that it would not be fair or proper that I should go into all the arguments in favour of Redistribution, nor is it necessary, because the Bill which I ask leave to introduce is one which is supported by many respected Members on that side of the House and below the Gangway, and I also claim by Members of the Government themselves. The Prime Minister, in answer to a question which I put to him yesterday, agreed, if not to all the terms of the Bill, at all events to a fair and patient consideration of the Bill itself and the principle of Redistribution. The Prime Minister was good enough to refer me to a speech he made on 10th March which convinces me that at all events he recognises the subject is one which it is necessary to consider, and I may quote the opinion of the respected father of one of the respected Members of the Government, Sir William Harcourt, who in 1893, twenty years ago, said that this was a subject which sooner or later must be considered, and sooner rather than later. It 1207 will, therefore, I hope not need any apology and scarcely any reasons for my bringing this matter before the House on the present occasion. Perhaps half-a-dozen figures, which will be admitted by the whole House, because they are derived from an Annual Return of the Parliamentary constituencies in the whole of the Kingdom, will be the best preface I can make to the Motion with which I shall conclude. The total electorate of the Kingdom being 8,058,000, it will be obvious that the average, if they were equally distributed, would be 12,000 to each of the 670 Members, and, when I point out that, instead of that average obtaining the highest electorate returning one Member at the present time is over 57,000, very nearly 58,000, and that the lowest electorate returning one Member is 1,676, it will be obvious that nothing like an average representation of the people of the country has been obtained.

4.0 P.M.

The extreme disparity in 1884 was eight to one; the highest electorate was eight times the number of the lowest electorate. By 1897 it had risen to twelve to one; by 1901 the disparity had increased to eighteen to one, and in the present year of Grace it is no less than thirty-four to one. Taking another view of the figures, there are four constituencies in the United Kingdom each returning one Member which represent 184,000 electors of the country, while another 184,000 electors return to this House fifty Members. This institution is the machinery, to use Mr. Gladstone's simile, by which we boast that we govern ourselves by ourselves and for ourselves, and yet fifty Members are sent here by the same number of people as send four. Looking at it from another point of view, one half of the 670 Members out of a total electorate of 8,000,000 represent 5,500,000 and the other half represent a little over 2,500,000. In other words, one-third of the House represents one-half of the electorate and the other two-thirds represent the other half. The average representation of half the Members of this House is 16,306, and the average of the other half is only 7,746. Taking another point of view, half of the total electorate send here 459 Members, and the other half of the electorate send only 211 Members. The average electorate of Irish constituencies is 6,814, and of the English, Welsh, and Scotch over 11,000, that for England alone being 13,000. These few 1208 facts, which could be multiplied if time permitted, show the groundwork of the Bill. I have to submit reasons why this ought to be a subject on which, to use the Prime Minister's own words, we should hope to find room for agreement. I have never, in anything I have said or written on this subject during the past twenty years, either in the House or out of it, allowed myself even to think whether the Bill would be, for this party or that, advantage or disadvantage, and I feel quite confident that, if the House would only consider it was its first duty, as it is in my opinion, to put the machinery of the Government and this one machine of the Government, this House, in order that it might be possible, by means of a round table conference or a Select Committee to arrive at a conclusion as to what would be a fair thing between all the constituencies in the country. The provisions of the Bill may not be perfect.

I will state very shortly its outline. Granting that the average electorate is what I have stated, the average population in each constituency, if the whole electorate were equally divided among the 670 Members, would be 67,000. I propose to make the Redistribution first by giving every constituency containing a population of more than 65,000 a Member for every complete 65,000. Secondly, I propose to enlarge every constituency containing less than 60,000 and bring it up to or over 65,000, but not over 100,000. The constituencies now represented by two Members, which cannot be enlarged up to 100,000, will lose one seat. The number of Members of the House (670) it is not proposed to increase. The Universities will retain their existing representation. A Boundary Commission is proposed to be appointed to work out the alterations required to effect the above purposes, their report to become law, unless and except so far as amended, or negatived, or otherwise determined by Resolution of both Houses of Parliament and with the Royal Assent. Provisions are added for an automatic revision every fifth year, and there is a temporary provision to the effect that, until the above reform is carried out the Members for existing constituencies with more than 65,000 population shall have an additional vote in Parliament upon every question in respect of each complete 65,000 people over the first 65,000. I may summarise these provisions by saying that the Bill disfranchises nobody and no place. It 1209 equalises approximately by levelling up or levelling down, and it bases itself on population rather than on electorates—no question into which suffragists need come. They are left outside the temporary provisions until rectification has been made. I beg to move.