THE NEW REFORM BILL
LETTER XII
...
Then, my lord, I say, let us adopt this plan in all the small towns in England. I would ‟maintain the old distinctions.” I would overstep no county boundaries, except where two towns lay upon these boundaries; I would group together towns within reasonable distance, in the same counties, and having common interests, whether agricultural or otherwise. Take, for example, the west of England boroughs. What objection could there be to unite Lymington and Christchurch, Ashburton and Totness, Chippenbam and Calne, Petersfield and Midhurst, Malmesbury and Cricklade, St. Ives and Helstone, throwing Lyme Regis into Bridport, Arundel into Chichester, and Wareham into Poole? What objection could there be to a union between Wallingford and Abingdon, Northallerton and Thirsk, Leamington and Ludlow, Evesham and Tewkesbury, Great Marlow and High Wycombe. To show how the system would work, I cannot have a better illustration than the two last-named towns. Mr. Williams and Sir William Clayton divide the property of Great Marlow, and fight, like cat and dog, for its representation. In the adjacent borough of Wycombe, Lord Carrington is in the ascendant, opposed by a staunch party of independent electors. Throw these boroughs together, and what would be the result? A neutralisation of all the corrupt influences. The Williams’ property is limited to Marlow, the Carrington property to Wycombe. In Marlow, Lord Carrington is laughed at; in Wycombe, the Williamses and Claytons are despised. If the corrupt influences choose to fight, let them—they may eat each other to the tail if they like it. But I will tell you, my lord, who will win the day—the independent voters who care for neither party, and who gain strength by the antagonism of their opponents.
...
RUNNYMEDE.