MR BRIGHT’S REFORM BILL.
By the favour of the hon. member for Birmingham we are to-day enabled to lay before our readers all the schedules relating to the re-distribution of seats, included in the new Reform Bill which he intends to bring before Parliament during the ensuing session, should Lord DERBY’s measure not be considered satisfactory. Up to this time, as Mr HORSMAN said at Stroud last week, Lord DERBY, Lord JOHN RUSSELL (who is understood to have a No. 2 bill), and Mr BRIGHT have kept their secrets well, and the country has had only a vague idea of the provisions of the respective bills of these political leaders. Indeed the Times has frequently complained that Mr BRIGHT would not give them a sign. That journal has, however, notwithstanding its confessed ignorance of what Mr BRIGHT’s bill would be, attempted to demolish it by anticipation. It has certainly struck out most vigorously, but, like the pugilist who fought in a dark room, it has succeeded generally in bruising its own limbs without injuring anybody else. A man who occupies the position of Mr BRIGHT must expect to meet with violent opposition. He must be prepared to endure the sneers and sarcasms and the wilful misrepresentations of unscrupulous opponents. The Times has almost exhausted its thunder before Mr BRIGHT’s bill has appeared, and its prolific leaders on the hon. member’s politics have given the cue to a host of small fry who derive their inspiration from its columns. Now that a portion of the bill is before us, there will be little room for misrepresentations such as we heard from Lord PANMURE, at Brechin, a few days ago. The noble lord told his audience that Mr BRIGHT would not give a single vote to the counties at all, but would confine them all to burghs and large populous towns. Mr BRIGHT’s bill tells quite a different story.
It will be observed that the measure of the hon. member for Birmingham contains not less than eleven schedules, under which are grouped the various constituencies which will be affected by the new bill. Altogether the document, which we elsewhere print, shows that Mr BRIGHT has gone deeply into the question, and that the measure he intends to propose will be a most comprehensive one.
Schedule A contains a list of fifty-six English boroughs which it is proposed to disfranchise entirely. These boroughs are represented by 87 members, and yet the whole of them put together do not contain a population equal to Liverpool, which has only two members. The same schedule also proposes to disfranchise nine Irish boroughs—none of which at the last census had a population of 8,000—and twenty-one Scotch contributory boroughs, the population of which was under 3,000 at the last census.
Schedule B gives a list of sixty-nine boroughs which are to return one member; thirty-four of these, now returning two members, will consequently lose one member. All these boroughs have a population under 16,000.
Schedule C is a list of forty-one boroughs having under 25,000 inhabitants. In these no change is proposed, except in three of the largest Scotch groups, which are to be divided and have one member for each division; and an additional member to be given to Kilkenny.
Schedule D includes forty-three boroughs, each with a population of more than 25,000. These are to return two members each. At present sixteen in this list return only one member. This alteration would give an extra member to Swansea, Cheltenham, and Monmouth.
Schedule E contains twenty-three boroughs having over 54,000 inhabitants; four of these boroughs now return one member, and the rest two members each. It is proposed to give the whole of the twenty-three boroughs three members each.
Under schedule F are twelve boroughs with upwards of 127,000 population. The whole of these boroughs it is intended shall have four members each. It is proposed to divide the boroughs returning four members into two wards, each returning two members; each elector to be registered in one ward only. This arrangement would give four members to Bristol.
Schedule G proposes that five boroughs, having more than 316,000 inhabitants, now returning two members each, shall have six members each, and be divided into three wards, each elector being registered in one ward only.
Schedule H creates seven new boroughs with one member each.
Schedule I gives eighteen more members to English counties—including an additional member each to East and West Somerset.
Schedule K confers an extra member on eight Irish counties.
Schedule L takes a member from some of the smaller Scottish counties, and adds a member to some of the larger ones.
Whatever may be the merits or demerits of Mr BRIGHT’s propositions, it can scarcely be said he has pandered to any interest or party. He takes population as his basis, and makes no distinction for party purposes in the distribution of seats. In the Government bill of 1854 it was proposed to disfranchise Wilton, with population of 8,607, and to leave Leominster, which has only a population of 5,214, still represented. In the same bill it was proposed to disfranchise Midhurst, which has 7,021, and to leave Lymington, Thirsk, Ludlow, Petersfield, Tewkesbury, and Maldon, none of which have a population of 6,000, still on the list of represented boroughs. In Mr BRIGHT’s bill these anomalies are avoided. In the English boroughs which Mr BRIGHT proposes to disfranchise there are 87 members for 18,163 electors; in the borough of Finsbury there are only two members for upwards of 20,000 electors. In round numbers Glasgow has 18,000 electors, and this immense constituency returns precisely the same number of members to Parliament as Honiton, which has not 200 electors. Glasgow annually pays, in direct taxes, £830,000, Honiton pays under £2,000. Mr. BRIGHT’s bill does not, however, divide the country into exact electoral sections, and while it abolishes the most glaring anomalies, it can scarcely be said to be even an approximation to equality—whether we take population, taxation, or the number of electors as the basis of representation. For instance, it is proposed that the population of sixty-nine small boroughs, amounting in the agregate to 779,000, shall be represented by sixty-nine members; if the same proportion of representatives to population were arithmetically adhered to in the larger constituencies the boroughs of Liverpool and Marylebone, which together have upwards of 700,000 inhabitants, would also require sixty-nine members; whereas Mr BRIGHT’s bill gives them only six members each. There can be no doubt that Lord DERBY’s bill will contain a scheme for the re-distribution of the seats, and we believe the only difference in this respect between the Government measure and Mr BRIGHT’s will be as to the extent to which the disfranchisement can judiciously be carried. Government will endeavour to preserve some of the Tory pocket boroughs; they form such convenient seats for youthful aspirants to parliamentary honours. We believe, however, that no bill which aims at party aggrandisement will succeed in passing the present House of Commons, and if Lord DERBY wishes to prolong his stay on the sunny side of the Speaker’s chair he will frame a measure altogether independent of party politics.