THE REFORM BILL
…
Mr. SCLATER-BOOTH said he spoke as a disinterested member, and as one who was sincerely anxious that the question should be brought to an issue and termination during the present session. The objections to this measure were matters of principle. and the first which he entertained was to the addition of a third member to populous places. (Hear. hear.) An unfortunate precedent had been made in what were called the uniform counties. He did not think it ought to be carried further, if a grievance was to be remedied, and that town was so large that it required more than two members, they should go further than the government proposed, and remedy it in all cases. Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham, and Leeds were each to have three representatives, while the borough of Finsbury, which was as large as three of the four, and as large as Manchester and Salford, was to have only two members. The anomaly did not cease there. A second member was to be given to Salford. the propriety of which nobody could question. But Salford contained a population of about 100,000, while the new borough of Chelsea and Kensington, which contained a considerably larger population, was to have but one member. He objected in common with the hon. members who had preceded him to the principle of grouping contained in the bill. It was a remarkable circumstance that different principles were adopted for England, Scotland, and Ireland. In Scotland there was to be no grouping of represented or unrepresented boroughs; in England there was to be a grouping of represented boroughs only; while in Ireland eleven unrepresented towns were grouped with existing constituencies, and this principle might have been followed in the case of England. One great objection to the bill was that it would take away seven members from England, and give them to Scotland. (Hear, hear.) If it could be shown that the claims on the part of English constituencies to representation were exhausted, and that there were no more towns to be enfranchised, or counties to be divided in England, then these seats might be fairly given to Scotland, but no such case could be made out. He would not object to strain a point, and give a member to the University of Edinburgh or Glasgow, but he opposed the government proposal. He desired to see the Redistribution of Seats Bill before he committed himself to an extension of the franchise, but at the same time he thought that by a very simple arrangement it might be possible for the house to consent to a comparatively low amount for the franchise of counties. At present the constituency of West Kent consisted of 9,000 electors, and by the adoption of a 14l. county franchise they would be nearly doubled, thus swamping the existing electors. The same would be the case in East Surrey and Middlesex. He was not one of these who were afraid of a low property qualification for counties, but he would not be a party to giving enormous masses the franchise unless he felt assured that they would have the means of exercising it. What was the use of giving a 14l. occupier a vote if he lived eight or ten miles from a polling place? The question of polling places was germane to the subject before the house, and was dealt with in Lord Derby’s bill. Experience had satisfied him that the machinery as to polling places was very inefficient and required to be dealt with. Another matter was the conveyance of voters to the poll, which opened the door to bribery and corruption in various forms. In all these respects the bill was deficient and different from others which had been proposed. It was impossible in committee to render it efficient for carrying out the objects proposed. Representing the constituency of North Hants, he could not help referring to the case of Andover and Lymington. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer had declared that the government went on the principle of extinguishing all small boroughs, whatever their geographical position, they could have understood him, but he said that the greatest care ought to be taken not to violate geographical considerations. The grouping of Andover and Lymington was the most flagrant case which had been brought before the house. (Hear, hear.) Then there was the group of the Horsham boroughs. Petersfield, in Hampshire, which was not properly a town, but an agricultural district, comprising several parishes, was to be united to three towns in Sussex. He protested against this act of flagrant injustice on behalf of his constituents, who would rather vote for the county than being joined to Arundel, Midhurst, and Horsham. Was it conceivable, putting all these circumstances together, that the house could go into committee with the hope of passing a bill which would redress all anomalies? He did not wish to hold himself out as an advanced reformer, but he confessed he had received more complaints of this bill from his political opponents than from his supporters among his constituents. They were jealous of the proposed great transfer of power and shuffling of seats. It was impossible to bring to a settlement the question of parliamentary reform by a measure which was distasteful to so large a portion of her Majesty’s subjects. He had come to the conclusion that the question of redistribution of seats had been proposed in an inverted form. Instead of beginning by grouping all the small boroughs, and thereby creating as many seats as were possible, it seemed to him that the proper course of the government, if they wished to introduce a conciliatory measure and one that was likely to pass, was to see how many new members were necessary to make the representation adequate; and having done that they might, without fixing any invidious limits of 9,000 or 10,000 population, have taken a second member from the smaller boroughs, and added them to larger constituencies. Inasmuch as the government had not taken that course, those with whom he acted had no alternative but to support the amendment, which he thought was recommended by common sense and sound argument. (Hear, hear.)