>^^ 
 
 ' ' lyA / 
 
 ,j^.;t> 
 
 
 
 '..-^^,. ^'
 
 LI E> RAR.Y 
 
 OF THE 
 
 UNlVtRSlTY 
 
 or ILLINOIS
 
 2/ 
 
 PROPOSALS 
 
 RELATING TO 
 
 PARLIAMENTAEY REFORM 
 
 A SKETCH 
 
 OF THE 
 
 HISTORY OF THE QUESTION 
 
 SINCE 1832. 
 
 CONSERVATIVE CENTRAL OFFICE, 
 
 ST. STEPHEN'S CHAMBERS, LONDON, S.W.
 
 A SUMMARY OF PROPOSALS 
 
 EELATING TO 
 
 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM 
 
 At the present time, when the question of Reform promises 
 to be soon once more before the pubhe, it has been thought that a 
 short account, hov/ever incomplete, of previous measures and 
 schemes for dealing with the problem may perhaps be of some service. 
 For such purpose it is unnecessary^ to go behind the great measure 
 of 1832. Parliamentary Reform had indeed at that time been the 
 subject of much discussion for more than a hundred years. Origin- 
 ally advocated by Bolingbroke and the Tories (and for the same 
 reason, it would appear, which afterwards, in the years immediately 
 following the Act of 1832, led the young Disraeli to advocate 
 Triennial Parliaments and vote by ballot, namely, the fear of the 
 permanent predominance of a Whig oligarchy), it first came within 
 the limits of practical politics iu 1785, when a Bill was brought 
 forward by Mr. Pitt, the first Lord of then Treasury and Chancellor mt Pitt 
 of the Exchequer, by which 36 small nomination boroughs were to 
 be purchased and the 72 seats thus obtained transferred to counties ; 
 a sum was also to be gi\anted for the further purchase of boroughs' 
 by means of which some of the large towns which were then 
 becoming populous would obtain the right of sending members to 
 Parliament. He also proposed a great extension of suffrage in 
 some of the large towns. This proposition, however, was rejected 
 by the House of Commons. 
 
 The conduct of Pitt in afterwards abandoning the cause of Par- 
 liamentary Reform has been the subject of much criticism, but it 
 may well be doubted whether a more popular form of Govern- 
 ment, however desirable in other respects, could have shown the 
 same capacity and persistence in carrying on the struggle with France, 
 which ended in the battle of Waterloo. Be this as it may, in the 
 years which followed the peace of 1815, the cry for Parliamentary TheFrenchWc 
 Reform became louder and louder ; a retrograde school of politicians 
 had, according to the theory of Lord Beaconsfield, usurped the name 
 and place of the old Tory party, and even the brilliant pupil of Pitt, 
 George Canning, opposed every scheme of Parliamentary Reform, 
 upon grounds which were certainly not derived from his great 
 master. In this state of things the reform of Parliament became 
 naturally the perquisite of the Whigs. They had advocated it in 
 their long years of opposition, and were well entitled now to reap
 
 'JesmrnVn^ the fruits of their constancy. He would be a bold man who should 
 1815. seek to defend in theory the condition of representation at that day, 
 
 a state of things under which 70 members were returned by 35 
 places, where right of voting vested in burgage tenures, there 
 being virtually no electors, and under which 90 other members 
 were returned by 46 places where the number of electors did not in 
 any case exceed 50, might (as, indeed, we have the high authority of 
 Mr. Gladstone for saying that it did), produce an efficient House of 
 Commons, but can scarcely be said to have given a fair representa- 
 tion of the people. 
 
 Ancient Rights or Voting. 
 Nor can it at the present day be fairly contended that this 
 state of things was in accordance with the traditions of the 
 English constitution. "It is most probable, on the evidence of 
 records, on the analogies of representative usage, and on the testi- 
 mony of later facts, that the knights of the shire were (in early 
 times) elected by the full County Court. . . But by whomsoever 
 the right was actually used, the theory of the election was that it 
 was out of the shire moot, i.e., of all the suitors of the County 
 Court assembled in the County Court, irrespective of the question of 
 whom or by what tenure their lands were held."* 
 
 An Act of Parliament in 1430 (8 Henry VI., cap 7) restricted 
 the right of voting to forty shilling freeholders ; and another in 
 1482 ordered that the freehold qualifying the elector should be situ- 
 ated within the county. With regard to elections in boroughs, with 
 which alone the Reform Bill of 1832 was intended to be concerned, 
 it appears " that the exercise of the local franchise was a matter of 
 local regulation until the cognizance of elections was claimed and 
 recognized as a right and duty of the House of Commons." "The 
 most ancient, perhaps, of the franchises was that depending on 
 burgage tenure ; this was exactly analogous in origin to the free- 
 holders' qualification in the counties ; but as the repressive principle 
 extended the right of a burgage vote had become in many places 
 attached to particular houses or sites of houses, probably those 
 which were originally liable for a quota of the Jirma hurgl (or 
 borough tax) ; in others the rights still belonged to the whole body 
 of freeholders ; and this may be regarded as a second sort of 
 franchise. A third custom placed the right to vote in the freemen 
 of the borough, or of the guild which was co-extensive with the 
 borough ; the character of a freeman being personal and not con- 
 nected with tenure of land or contribution to the public burdens. 
 A fourth gave the electoral vote to all householders paying scot 
 and lot; i.e., bearing their rateable proportion in the payments 
 levied from the town for local or national purposes. A fifth lodged 
 the right in the hands of the governing body, the corporation ; 
 
 * Stubbs' Const. Hist., vol. 2., pp. 225 and 232. 
 
 -- 'S 
 
 UIUC 
 
 L./
 
 the constitution of which again varied from comparative freedom in 
 one place to oligarchic exclusiveness in another."* 
 
 It cannot be attempted here to trace the manner in which the 
 apathy of voters and the encroachments of individuals, together 
 with the exercise of the royal prerogative in selecting and omitting 
 boroughs to return members, tended to narrow the limits of the 
 constituent bodies, nor can any arguments be founded upon what 
 obtained under a wholly different condition of things. The above 
 facts are merely adduced to show that whether wise or unwise the 
 abolition of nomination boroughs cannot fairly be charged as a 
 measure revolutionary in character. 
 
 The Reform Bill of 1832. 
 
 The principal alterations effected by the Reform Bill of 1832 
 were — (1) the abolition of 56 nomination boroughs ; (2) the 
 enfranchisement of certain new and populous boroughs and 
 the giving of new members to certain counties ; (3) the 
 institution of an uniform qualification of £10 value for 
 voting in boroughs. Upon the second reading Lord John Russell 
 quoted the words of Fox, spoken in 1797, which at the present 
 moment, after certain utterances of a Cabinet Minister, may bear 
 repetition : — " My opinion is that the best plan of representation is 
 that which shall bring into activity the greatest number of indepen- 
 dent votes ; and that that plan is defective which. would bring 
 forward those whose situation and condition take from them the 
 power of deliberation ; I can have no conception of that being a 
 good plan of election which should enable individuals to bring 
 
 regiments to the poll That I take to be the most 
 
 perfect system which shall include the greatest number of indepen- 
 dent electors, and exclude the greatest number of those who are 
 necessarily by their condition dependent.-]-" 
 
 Lord John explained J that, in order to be an elector, a man 
 must be — " first, a householder ; secondly, a man who is answer- 
 able for property of a certain value ; thirdly, a resident of the town 
 permanently dwelling therein ; fourthly, a man who is able to con- 
 tribute, and does contribute to the rates and taxes of his borough." 
 The nomination boroughs which were abolished by the first section Abolition of 
 of the Reform Act, 1832, were Old Sarum, Newtown, St. Michael's BZiUgS"' 
 or Midshall, Gatton, Bramber, Bossiney, Dunwich, Ludgershall, 
 St. Mawe's, Beeralston, West Looe, St. Germans, JN'ewport, Bletch- 
 ingley, Aldborough, Camelford, Hindon, East Looe, Corfe Castle, 
 Great Bedwyn, Yarmouth, Queenborough, Castle Rising, East 
 Grinstead, Higham Ferrers, Wendover, Weobley, Winchilsea, 
 Tregony, Haslemere, Saltash, Orford, Callington, Newton, Ilcester, 
 Boroughbridge, Stockbridge, New Romney, Hedon, Plympton, Sea- 
 
 * Stubbs' Const. Hist., vol. 3, p. 420. t Hansard, 3rd series, vol. 9, p. 497. 
 
 I 7cf.,;?.498.
 
 6 
 
 I ford, Heytesbury, Steyning, Whitchurch, Wootton Bassett, Down- 
 
 ton, Fowey, Milborne Port, Aldeburgh, Minehead, Bishop's Castle, 
 Okehampton, Appleby, Lostwithiel, Brackley, and Amersham. 
 
 Curtailment of The following boroughs (sec. 2) were in future to return only 
 
 Representation. ^^^ ^lember :— Petersfield, Ashburton, Eye, Westbury, Wareham, 
 Midhurst, Woodstock, Wilton, Malmesbury, Liskeard, Reigate, 
 Hythe, Droitwich, Lyme Regis, Launceston, Shaftesbury, Thirsk, 
 Christchurch, Horsham, Great Grimsby, Calne, Arundel, St. Ives, 
 Rye, Clitheroe, Morpeth, Helston, Northallerton, Wallingford, and 
 Dartmouth. 
 
 Vrmls^ ^'^^ ^^® following new boroughs (sec. 3) were hereafter to return 
 two members: — Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds, Greenwich, Shef 
 field, Sunderland, Devonport, Wolverhampton, Tower Hamlets 
 Finsbury, Marylebone, Lambeth, Bolton, Bradford, Blackburn, 
 Brighton, Halifax, Macclesfield, Oldham, Stockport, Stoke-upon^ 
 Trent, and Stroud. 
 
 And the following (sec. 4) were given one member : — Ashton 
 under-Lyne, Bury, Chatham, Cheltenham, Dudley, Frome, Gates 
 head, Huddersfield, Kidderminster, Kendal, Rochdale, Salford 
 South Shields, Plymouth, Wakefield, Walsall, Warrington, Whitby 
 Whitehaven, and Merthyr Tydvil. 
 
 iZr'Srmgh^ The boroughs of Shoreham, Cricklade, Aylesbury, and East 
 Retford were to include (sec. 5) certain adjacent districts. The 
 boroughs of Weymouth and Melcombe Regis were together to return 
 (sec. 6) two members only ; the borough of Penryn was to include 
 the town of Falmouth ; and to Sandwich were added Deal and 
 Walmer. By section 7 the boundaries of existing boroughs were to be 
 settled by a future Act to be incorporated with the Reform Act. The 
 Welsh boroughs were grouped (sec. 8) so as to have each its share 
 in electing members for shire towns. 
 
 Cmlites^'^ ^^"^ Yorkshire obtained six (sec. 12) mstead of four members, Lincoln 
 four (sec. 13) instead of two. The following counties were to be 
 divided (sec. 14) and return two members for each division : — 
 Cheshire, Cornwall, Cumberland, Derbyshire, Devonshire, Durham, 
 Essex, Gloucestershire, Kent, Hampshire, Lancashire, Leicester- 
 shire, Norfolk, Northumberland, Northamptonshire, Nottingham- 
 shire, Shropshire, Somersetshire, Stafi'ordshire, Sufi'olk, Surrey, 
 Sussex, Warwickshire, Wiltshire, and Worcestershire. 
 
 Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, Cambridgeshire, Dorsetshire, Here- 
 fordshire, Hertfordshire were (seel 5) to return three members 
 each ; and Carmarthen, Denbigh, and Glamorgan two instead of one. 
 By section 16 the Isle of Wight was severed from Hampshire and to 
 return a member. The following towns, being counties in them- 
 selves, were to be included (sec. 17) in the adjoining counties for 
 county elections: — Carmarthen, Canterbury, Chester, Coventry, 
 Gloucester, Kmgston-upon-Hull, Lincoln, London, Newcastle-upon- 
 Tyne, Poole, Worcester, York, and Ainsty, and Southampton.
 
 As before stated, the Act did not originally contemplate any inter- ^rl'SSe!^ 
 ference with the qualification of county voters, it being intended 
 that occupation should give the right to vote in boroughs and tenure 
 in counties, but an amendment, proposed by Lord Chandos, and 
 supported by the Conservative party, was carried, by which occupiers 
 payi7ig a yearly rent of not less than £50 became entitled to vote in 
 county elections. This proposal is what is known as the " Chandos 
 Clause," which is represented by the 20th section of the Act. 
 
 No person was to vote for a county in respect of any house 
 which would confer a vote for a borough (sec' 24 and 25). 
 
 An amendment, proposed by Mr. Praed, upon the lines afterwards 
 followed in the Bill of 1859, to the effect that freeholders in boroughs 
 should vote for boroughs and not for the county, was, upon a divi- 
 sion, lost by a large majority. 
 
 The right of voting in boroughs was (sec. 27) to be enjoyed by Tiie Borougk 
 occupiers of houses of the annual value of £10, provided that such ^^«"^^^«*- 
 occupiers had occupied such premises for twelve months, and been 
 rated to the poor rate and had paid their rates and assessed taxes. 
 By sec. 30 occupiers were entitled to demand to be rated, &c., and 
 such demand having been made, were to be taken as duly rated 
 for the purpose of voting. 
 
 Through the action of the Conservative party existing rights to 
 vote were reserved to voters during their lives. But such provisions 
 have now merely a historical interest. 
 
 Such in brief were the main provisions of the Reform Bill of ^;^"j*;,f ^^ 
 1832. The great defect was, as often pointed out afterwards by 
 Mr. Disraeli, the substitution of the uniform and monotonous £10 
 franchise for the variety which had previously existed. It placed 
 the government of the country in the hands of the lower middle 
 class. So far as the working classes were concerned, it was in a 
 great measure a disfranchising bill. In 1864 Mr. Gladstone said * 
 — " I myself was elected for a scot and lot borough, Newark. The 
 constituency was then 1,600, in 1864 it was 700 and declining. 
 I greatly doubt whether, after making fair allowance for the bettered 
 circumstances of worJdng me7i, as large a number hold the suffrage 
 now as in December^ 1832." 
 
 However this may have been, the Whigs appear to have 
 honestly believed that their Reform Bill would prove a final 
 settlement of the question, hence the nickname of "Finality" 
 given to Lord John Russell at this time. In this state of 
 opinion the Tories, under Sir Robert Peel, entered in 1835 
 into a kind of compact with the Whigs not to disturb their settle- 
 ment, a compact from which, however, they were released by the 
 Whigs themselves, under Lord John Russell, renewing the subject 
 of Reform in 1852. 
 
 •Hansard, .3id ser., vol. 17,',r. 320.
 
 Further Demands. 
 
 Between the years 1832 and 1852 periodic motions were brought 
 forward by Mr. Joseph Hume in favour of household suffrage, vote 
 by ballot, triennial Parliaments, and more equal apportionment of 
 members to constituents. In 1848 Mr. Hume said'--'' — "It was 
 not his intention to adopt the plan proposed by some of cutting 
 the country into squares. . . . He did not therefore propose 
 to divide the county area, nor alter the proportion of members for 
 England, Scotland, and Ireland." In the course of the same debate, 
 Mr. Disraeli used the following significant language : — '* In opposing 
 the measure of the hon. member for Montrose, I protest against 
 being placed in the category of finality, or as one who believes 
 that no change is ever to take place in that wherein there has been, 
 throughout the history of this ancient country, frequent and con- 
 tinuous change — the construction of this estate of the realm." 
 \p. 900.) 
 
 In 1851 Mr. Cobden said at Manchester f — "We don't propose — 
 Mr. Hume never proposed — that you should cut the country into 
 parallelograms in a new fashion ; he has always said in the House 
 of Commons — we have always said in the country — that we will 
 take the ancient landmarks and respect them so far as we can. 
 Keep to the bounds of your counties ; group boroughs together 
 when they are too small to have a representative of their own, that 
 by such means you may get an equalization of political power, a 
 fair distribution of the franchise, which alone can give anything like 
 a fair representation to the whole country." 
 
 Lord John Russell's Bill of 1852. 
 
 In 1852 Lord John Russell introduced a Reform Bill, which was 
 withdrawn after having been read a first time. It proposed to sub- 
 stitute a rated value of £5 for £10 as a quahfication for the borough 
 franchise ; and to give a vote in counties to persons occupying pro- 
 perty of the rated value of £20. The payment of forty shillings a 
 year in direct taxes was also to confer a vote in both counties and 
 boroughs. The measure further contained a proposal to add 
 places to all boroughs having less than 500 electors. 
 
 Lord John Russell's Bill or 1854. 
 
 In the year 1854 Lord John Russell again brought forward a 
 Bill for the reform of Parliament. In introducing it J he called attention 
 to three main defects in the Act of 1832 — (1) the insufficiency 
 of its disfranchising clauses ; (2) its tendency to divide the country 
 into^two hostile camps of land and trade, represented by the counties 
 and towns ; (3) the uniformity of the £10 borough franchise. 
 
 Hansard, 3rd ser., vol. 99, p. 900. t Cobden's Speeches, vol. 2, p. 504. 
 
 I Hansard, 3rd ser., vol. 130, p. 49L
 
 9 
 
 To remedy the first he proposed totally to disfranchise the -f^ ^^j£S£f- 
 following boroughs, having less than 300 electors or a population 
 of 5,000, and returning 29 members. Andover (2), Arundel (1), 
 Ashburton (l),Calne ( 1), Dartmouth (1), Evesham (2), Harwich (2), 
 Honiton (2),Knaresborough (2), Lyme Regis (1), Marlborough (2), 
 Midhurst (1), Northallerton (1), Reigate (1), Richmond (York- 
 shire) (2), Thetford (2), Totnes (2), Wells (2), Wilton (1). 
 The following 33 boroughs, having less than 500 electors or 
 10,000 population, were to lose one seat each. Bodmin, Bridg- 
 north, Bridport, Buckingham, Chichester, Chippenham, Cirencester, 
 Cockermouth, Devizes, Dorchester, Guildford, Hertford, Hunting- 
 don, Leominster, Lewes, Ludlow, Lymington, Lichfield, Maldon, 
 Malton, Marlow (Great), Newport (Isle of Wight), Peterborough, 
 Poole, Ripon, Stamford, Tamworth, Tavistock, Tewkesbury, Tiver- 
 ton, Weymouth, Windsor, Wycombe. 
 
 To remedy the second defect, Lord John proposed that the follow- Redistribution 
 ing counties and towns, having a population of over 100,000, should o/'S'ea«s. 
 return three instead of two members each, the voters having only two 
 votes each, so as to secure representatmi for miyiorities. Bedford, 
 Cheshire (S), Cheshire (N) , Cornwall (W), Cornwall (E) , Derby (N), 
 Derby (S), Devon (S), Devon (N), Durham (N), Durham (S), 
 Essex (S), Essex (N), Gloucester (W), Hampshire (N), Kent (W), 
 Kent (E), Lincoln (Parts of Lindsey), Lincoln (Parts of Kesteven 
 and Holland), Middlesex, Monmouth, Norfolk (W), Norfolk (E), 
 Stafi'ord (N), Stafi'ord (S), Somerset (W), Somerset (E), ^alop (N), 
 Suffolk (E), Suffolk (W), Surrey _(E), Sussex (E), Warwick (N), 
 Worcester (E), York (East Riding), York (N), Glamorgan, 
 Birmingham, Bristol, Bradford, Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, 
 Sheffield, Wolverhampton. Salford was to return in future two 
 members instead of one. The West Riding of Yorkshire and Lan- 
 cashire (S) were to be divided, each division returning three mem- 
 bers, making a total of eight additional members. The following 
 unrepresented towns were to return one member each : Birken- 
 head, Burnley, and Staleybridge. Chelsea and Kensington were to 
 be formed into a borough, and return two members. The Inns of 
 Court were to return two, and London University one. 
 
 As his third remedy, Lord John Russell proposed several new Proposed New 
 franchises ; 
 
 (1) Franchises common to both counties and towns (a) £100 
 a year salary, paid annually, half-yearly, or quarterly ; (b) 
 income of £10 a year derived from the funds, bank stock, 
 or India stock ; (c) the payment of 40s. to assessed taxes, 
 income tax, or licence duty ; ((/) graduates of any uni- 
 versity in United ffingdom to have a vote ; (e) £50 de- 
 posit in Savings Bank when resident, such deposit being 
 of not less than three years' standing. 
 
 (2) New franchise in counties : £10 occupiers were to have
 
 10 
 
 votes provided that except with respect to dwelHng-houses, 
 building, attached to land which conferred vote, was to be 
 of the value of at least £5 a 3''ear. 
 (3) In boroughs : £6 occupiers were to have votes provided 
 that they should have fulfilled the municipal term of resi- 
 dence (viz., 2^ years) before being placed upon the register. 
 Lord John further proposed to do away with the condition prece- 
 dent to right to vote of payment of rates and taxes in case of both 
 county and borough voters. The old £10 borough ffanchise was to 
 remain concurrently with the new £6 one. 
 
 The Keform Bill of 1854 was not persevered with. In with- 
 drawing it, Lord John Russell complained of the apathy of the 
 country on the question, and Mr. Disraeli pointed out that if the 
 measure had been the object in the House of tacit opposition, that 
 opposition had proceeded rather from the supporters of the Gover7i- 
 ment than from the members of the Tory party.* 
 
 Lord Palmerston's Inaction, 1854 — 8. 
 Between the years of 1854 and 1858 the question of reform, 
 so far as Government was concerned, was allowed to slumber. 
 It, however, was mentioned in the Queen's speech of December, 
 1857, and Lord Palmerston stated, on the 16th April, 1858-|- 
 that his Government intended to have introduced a Reform Bill 
 in the Session of 1858 had they not been turned out of office 
 before they were able to fulfil their pledge. 
 
 The Conservative Measure of 1859. 
 In this state of things Lord Derby and Mr. Disraeli, upon suc- 
 ceeding to office, recognized the necessity of making yet another 
 efi'ort to settle a question which it appeared equally difficult 
 to deal with or to ignore, and the Reform Bill of 1859 was in 
 consequence introduced. In introducing it, Mr. Disraeli said: — 
 +'*I cannot agree with the principles of the new school (of 
 reformers) either if population or property is their sole, or if both 
 together, constitute their double standard. I think the function 
 of this House is something more than merely to represent the 
 population and property of the country. The House, in my 
 opinion, ought to represent all the interests of the country. Now 
 those interests are sometimes antagonistic, often competing, always 
 independent and jealous ; yet they all demand a distinctive repre- 
 sentation in this House If the function of this House 
 
 is to represent all the interests of the country, you must, of course, 
 have a representation scattered over the country ; because interests 
 are necessarily local.'" Mr. Disraeli alluded to the objection that 
 the identity between the county and borough franchise proposed 
 by the Bill would lead to " electoral districts," and said : §" Now, 
 
 • * Hansard, 3rd ser., vol. lo2, p. P62. t Hansard, 3rd ser., vol. 149, p. 1178. 
 
 il;' I Hansard, 3rd ser., vol. 152, p. 973. ^ Id., p. 994.
 
 11 
 
 if the only protection of the English people from electoral districts 
 is a difference of £10 in an occupation franchise between the 
 county and the town, then I am afraid that electoral districts 
 cannot be resisted. But believing as I do that there is nothing 
 more unpopular in this country than electoral districts, and that they 
 are alien to all the customs, manners, and associations of the people, 
 I have no fear whatever that that scheme will be adopted until 
 Englishmen have lost all pride in their country and all fondness for 
 the localities in which they have lived." 
 
 By the Reform Bill of 1859 the following qualifications were to ns Leading 
 give right to vote in either counties or towns according to where ^eaiwres. 
 ithe qualifying property was situate or the voter was resident : — 
 
 (1) 40s. freehold. 
 
 (2) d65 copyhold or other tenure. 
 
 (3) Occupation of lands or tenements of £10 value. 
 
 (4) Lodgings at 8s. a week, or £20 per annum. 
 
 (5) Personal income of £10 yearly from 
 {a) National Debt. 
 
 (6) Any dividend or interest from the Parliamentary stock 
 
 or funds. 
 [c) From the stocks, shares, or bonds of the East India 
 
 Company or Bank of England. 
 
 (6 ) Pension of not less than £20, Naval, Military, East Indian, 
 or Civil. 
 
 (7) Deposits in Savings Bank of not less than £60. 
 
 (8) {a) University graduates. 
 
 {h) Ministers of any religious denomination and duly 
 appointed and officiating as ministers of any chapel or 
 place of worship. 
 
 (c) Barristers, solicitors, doctors, and schoolmasters. 
 Polling places were to be appointed in every parish or township 
 in which there should be 200 resident electors. 
 
 Voting was to be allowed by means of voting papers, and the 
 payment of money on account of the conveyance of voters to the 
 poll was rendered illegal. 
 
 Fifteen boroughs were to lose one member, three counties were 
 to be divided, and seven new boroughs were to return one mem- 
 ber each. The boundaries of boroughs were to be enlarged. 
 
 Mr. Disraeli some years afterwards * gave the reason why the 
 Reform Bill of 1859 did not contain a proposition to lower the borough 
 franchise. Between the £10 franchise and household suffrage the 
 Government saw no probabilityof a lasting settlement. Mr. Disraeli 
 distinctly asserted that the question of household suffrage was, in fact, 
 mooted at a meeting of the Cabinet, and rejected, not on principle, but 
 because at that time it was in advance of pubHc opinion upon the 
 
 * Lord Beaconsfield'B Speeches, Edited by Kebbel, toI. 1, p. 610. 
 
 \
 
 12 
 
 subject. Moreover, it was expected that the new franchises would 
 admit large numbers of the working classes to the suffrage. 
 Attitude of Lord After the second reading of the Bill, Lord John Russell proposed 
 Mr!Brfght. '^^ an amendment directed against the interference by the Bill with the 
 freehold franchise in boroughs, and advocating a greater extension 
 of the suffrage in cities and boroughs. In the course of the debate) 
 Mr. Bright said''': — "I shoul'd think it was a great mistake 
 to have by my side 150 gentlemen who represented either 
 ironworks, ships, or cotton and woollen factories from Lanca* 
 shire and Yorkshire only. I believe it is essential almost 
 to a good member of this House, so far as external circumstances 
 are concerned, that he should have among his constituents a variety 
 of what I presume the Chancellor of the Exchequer would call 
 interests — persons of various classes with various occupations and 
 DefenceofSmaM various opinious." Mr. Gladstone delivered a speech of great 
 Boroughs. moderation, and, in the light of subsequent events, singular interest. 
 
 Defending small boroughs, he said: — "I must frankly own it 
 appears to me that to proceed far in the disfranchising of small 
 boroughs is a course injurious to the efficiency of the House of 
 Commons. You must not consider in this matter the question only 
 of the electors. You must consider quite as much who are likely to 
 be elected." Towards the close of his speech, he used the following 
 words, remarkable both in themselves and in their speaker : — " A"o 
 individual can he constantly watching the state of his own health 
 without injuring it ; and a disposition to be continually agitating a 
 question of organic change has not only an unwholesome efect upon 
 us, ivithdraiving our attention from other important matters^ hut 
 it diminishes the stability of our institutions, and tends to disqualify 
 England for the jjerformance of those great duties which she has to 
 discharge both to herself and to the world." 
 The Bill rejected. After a debate of seven nights the amendment of Lord John 
 Russell was carried by a majority of 39, and the Government 
 dissolved Parliament. Being in a minority in the new Parliament^ 
 Lord Derby and Mr. Disraeli resigned, and were succeeded in 
 office by Lord Palmerston. 
 Mr.cobden's In 1859 Mr. Cobden said at Rochdale f : — *' It would be 
 
 tSitiZ. ^^^^^' the most convenient and the fairest plan if you apportioned 
 your large towns into wards, and gave one representative 
 
 for each ward For instance, you will find in 
 
 a town, generally, that which is called the aristocracy of the town 
 live in one part, and the working classes in another. Now, I say^ 
 if, in dividing a town into three or four wards, it should happen 
 that one of the districts where the working class predominates 
 shall have the opportunity of sending a member which that class 
 may consider will most fairly represent their views, and if in 
 
 * Hansard, 3rd ser., vol. 163, p. 779. t Cobden's Bpeecho, vol. 2, p. 561,
 
 13 
 
 another part of the town another class, living there, choose a mem- 
 ber that more completely represents theirs, I do not see why the 
 different classes or parties in the community should not have that 
 opportunity of giving expression to their opinions." 
 
 The Reform Bill of 1860. 
 
 In the Session of 1860 a Reform Bill was again introduced. It 
 proposed to create an occupation franchise of £10 in counties, and 
 £6 in boroughs. 
 
 Twenty- five towns having two members were each to lose one. 
 Three new boroughs were to return one member each. Chelsea and 
 Kensington were to form a borough and return two members. The 
 West Riding of Yorkshire was to return four instead of two mem- 
 bers. Thirteen counties and towns were to return three instead of two 
 members, viz. : — Lancashire (S), Lancashire (N), Middlesex, Kent 
 (W), Devonshire (S), Staffordshire (S), Yorkshire (N), Lincolnshire 
 (Parts of Lindsey), Essex (S), Somerset (E), Norfolk (W), Corn- 
 wall (W), Essex (N), Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham, and 
 Leeds. London University was to return one member. 
 
 In the course of the debate on the second reading, which was 
 carried without a division, Sir George Lewis, a leading authority 
 on the Liberal side, said : — " The representative system, everybody 
 must admit, is mainly founded on three important element^ — popu- 
 lation, property, and intelligence. Hon. members, on whichever side 
 of the House they may sit, do not, I apprehend, wish that that system 
 should rest on any one of these elements, but desire that it shall be 
 founded on a combination of the three. In addition to these, 
 however, there is another to which I trust the House of Commons 
 will ahvays firmly adhere, inasmuch as it ought, I contend, to be 
 recognized in every wise system of representation — I allude to locality. 
 The people of every district, however unimportant in respect of 
 population or wealth it may he, have certain interests and feelings 
 in common which would not he represented in this assembly if it were 
 to he mixed up ivith an aggregate constituency of great extent. 
 , , . , I do not wish to go to the other extreme, with the 
 system of locality ; hut I must impress upon the House my opinion 
 that no sound system of representation can exist that does not to a 
 great extent, even with regard to towns of moderate magnitude, recog- 
 nize the principle of a local franchise.*^ ''' 
 
 In spite of the fact that the Bill of 1860 passed its second ^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^ 
 reading without a division, the real feeling on both sides of the ^°^^^'^' 
 House was secretly hostile to it. Lord John Russell declared that 
 " it was defeated by the Liberal party, and not only by the Liberal 
 party, but by those members of it who represent great con- 
 stituencies, "t Nor was there at this time any strong feeling in the 
 
 * Hansard, 3rd ser., vol. 157, p. 2185. f Quoted in Hansard, vol. 183, p, 893.
 
 14 
 
 country on the subject of Reform. The year before Mr* 
 Cobden, at a public meeting, had said* : — "I must deal frankly 
 because I like to speak my mind fairly, and though it may 
 not excite cheers or be very acceptable, it is the best way 
 to tell the honest truth. I must say that there has not been 
 very much stir in this country in the cause of Parliamentary Reform ;" 
 and no change of feeling had taken place between the years 1859 
 or 1860. These facts, together with the well-known indifference, 
 if not hostility, of Lord Palmerston to Parliamentary Reform, explain 
 why the F3ill of 1860 was not persevered with, and why for some 
 years after the question was allowed to rest, so far as the Govern- 
 ment was concerned. 
 
 The Pekiod fkom 1860 to 1866. 
 
 With regard to the extension of the franchise to £10 occupiers in 
 counties, a measure, first brought forward by Mr. Locke King in 
 1850, came continually before the House, it being read a second 
 time in 1858 and again in 1861. 
 
 An Act passed in 1861 for the appropriation of the seats vacated 
 by the disfranchisement of the boroughs of Sudbury and St. Albans 
 conferred two additional members on the West Riding (it being 
 divided into a northern and southern division,) one additional 
 member upon South Lancashire, and one member upon Birkenhead. 
 
 In the year 1864 Mr. Baines brought forward his Bill to extend 
 the franchise to £6 occupiers in boroughs. The Bill, however, 
 although supported by the whole force of Mr. Gladstone's 
 eloquence, was, upon the second reading, defeated by a majority of 
 56, which in the following year was increased to 74. 
 
 Mr. Gladstone's Refoem Bill of 1866. 
 
 On the 12th of March, 1866, Mr. Gladstone brought forward 
 his Reform Bill, -j- the Government having decided to deal with 
 the question of redistribution in a separate measure. 
 
 " The Representation of the People Bill " proposed an occu- 
 pation franchise of £14 in the counties. The £50 occupation 
 franchise was not to be abolished, but to exist side by side with 
 the £14 one, and with regard to the latter, there would have to be 
 a house upon the land of the value at least of £6, unless inhabited 
 by the voter, in which case there would be no stipulation as to 
 value. 
 
 With respect to the franchise in boroughs, Mr. Gladstone pro- 
 posed a £7 occupation franchise, to abolish tax and ratepaying 
 clauses, and to place compound householders on the same footing, 
 as ratepaying householders (the term "compound householder" 
 meant the occupier of rateable premises, the rates of which, how* 
 
 * Speeches, vol. 2, p. 557. . t Hansard, vol. 182, p. 19.
 
 15 
 
 ever, were paid not by the occupier, but by the landlord) . He 
 further proposed a lodger franchise of £10 value, which, however, 
 he spoke of as a small matter.* The necessity of resi- 
 dence at the time of voting was in the case of registered voters to 
 be abolished, and the example of the Bill of 1859 was followed in 
 the proposal that persons employed in Government yards should be 
 disabled from voting. Depositors of £50 and upwards in a savings 
 bank, who had possessed that deposit for two years, were to have 
 a right to vote in either counties or boroughs. 
 
 Upon the second reading, after a debate of eight nights, Siji^*^^^J" 
 amendment, moved by Lord Grosvenor, to the eflect that the questions 
 of redistribution and of the reduction of the franchise should be dealt 
 with together in the same Bill, was defeated by a majority of five. 
 
 Mr. Gladstone's Redistribution Scheme. 
 
 The Redistribution of Seats Bill was introduced by Mr. Glad- 
 stone on the 7th of May. He proposed absolutely to extinguish no 
 borough, but to take one member from every borough returning 
 two and having a population of less than 8,000. He further 
 proposed to group as many of such boroughs as could be joined 
 together with geographical convenience. 
 
 The proposed groups and the number of members to be Groups of 
 returned were as follow :— Boroughs. 
 
 Woodstock X 
 
 
 Ludlow 
 
 -I 
 
 Eye* 
 
 Wallingford 
 
 2 
 
 Leominster | 
 
 Thetford 
 
 Abingdon 
 
 
 Andover ^ ^ 
 Lymington f 
 
 Ripon 
 
 Bodmin ■ 
 
 
 Knaresboro' 
 
 Liskeard 
 
 1 
 
 Cirencester 
 
 Thirsk 
 
 Launceston 
 
 
 Evesham . 2 
 
 Devizes 
 
 Bridport \ 
 
 
 Tewkesbury 
 
 Marlborough 
 
 Honiton 
 
 1 
 
 Chippenham 
 
 Dorchester 
 
 Lyme Regis 
 
 
 Malmesbury ■ 2 
 
 Wareham 
 
 Westbury ] 
 Wells 1 
 
 1 
 
 Calne 
 
 Horsham 
 
 Totnes 
 
 
 Midhurst 
 
 Richmond 
 
 1 
 
 Dartmouth 
 
 1 
 
 Petersfield 
 
 Northallerton 
 
 Ashburton 
 
 
 Arundel 
 
 Twenty -six new seats were to be given to counties. South Lanca- Re-arrangetnen\ 
 shire was to be divided and to have six instead of three representa- ^•' °""'^'**- 
 tives. I 
 
 Every county or division having a population above 150,000, and 
 not already possessing three members, was to obtain a third. 
 
 The following is a list of such counties and divisions : — Che- ; 
 
 shire (N), Cheshire (S), Cornwall (W), Derby (N), Devon (N), 
 Devon (S), Durham (N), Durham (S), Essex (N), Essex (S), 
 Kent (W), Kent (E), Lancaster (N), Lincolnshire, Norfolk (W), 
 
 » Hansard, vol. 192, p. 47.
 
 16 
 
 Additional 
 
 Borough 
 
 Members, 
 
 Scotch Represen- 
 tation. 
 
 Boundaries. 
 
 The Debate: 
 Mr, Disraeli's 
 .Speech. 
 
 government de- 
 feated and Bill\ 
 oithdrauii. 
 
 Somerset (E), Somerset (W), Stafford (N), Stafford (S), Surr^- 
 (E), North Biding, West Hiding (N), West Riding (S). 
 
 Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham, and Leeds were to have a 
 third member and Salford a second. The Tower Hamlets was to 
 be divided and have two members for each division, and a new 
 borough was to be formed out of Chelsea and Kensington, and to 
 return two members. The following new boroughs were to return 
 one member each : — Burnley, Stalybridge, Gravesend, Hartlepool, 
 Middlesbrough, and Dewsbury, as also was the University of 
 London. 
 
 Seven seats were to be taken from England and given to Scot- 
 land, providing for an additional member for the counties of Ayr, 
 Lanark, and Aberdeen, the towns of Glasgow, Edinburgh, and 
 Dundee, and for a representative of the Scotch Universities. 
 
 With regard to the boundaries of boroughs, Mr. Gladstone pro- 
 posed that wherever the municipal boundary included an area that 
 was not then within the Parliamentary boundary, the Parliamentary 
 boundary was to be so far enlarged as to include that area. The 
 Commissioners of Inclosures were to consider and arrange the 
 boundaries of new boroughs. As to the future, Mr. Gladstone 
 proposed that Parliamentary boundaries should prospectively follow 
 the local line, whether the boroughs should be municipalities or 
 incorporated under the Local Government Act or some special local 
 Act of their own. 
 
 The second reading was taken on the 14th of May, and in the 
 debate Mr. Disraeli used the following words: — "If our con- 
 stituencies were founded upon the rights of man or the rights of 
 members, I could easily understand that you must immediately 
 defend the minority ; and I do not know that there is any more 
 obvious or easier method of doing so than to establish plurality 
 of voting. In fact, I have always held that if you went as far as 
 universal suffrage, or if you submitted to any very considerable exten- 
 sion of the franchise, jjlurality of votinr/ would be the necessary conse- 
 quence If you once adopt the principle that 
 
 the population and property of places are only to be considered in 
 apportioning members, you cannot stop at three, and the small 
 constituencies may by degrees be entirely absorbed." Mr. 
 Disraeli was in favour of applying the system of grouping, but only 
 in the case of new boroughs. 
 
 In deference to the feeling in the House, the Government con- 
 sented that the Bills for the representation of the people and the 
 redistribution of seats should be united. 
 
 After a somewhat stormy progress in Committee, during which 
 the attitude assumed by Mr. Gladstone did not tend to facilitate 
 matters, the Bill was finally wrecked upon an amendment brought 
 forward by Lord Dunkellin" to substitute the " rateable " for the 
 
 Hansard, vol. 184, p. 536.
 
 17 
 
 '* clear yearly value " in the case of the occupation franchise for 
 voters in boroughs. Upon this question the Ministry were, on the 
 18th June, left in a minority of 11, and in consequence withdrew 
 their Bills and resigned.* 
 
 Accession of Conservative Ministry, 1867. 
 
 In consequence of the action of Mr. Gladstone, the Conservative 
 party found themselves obliged to take office with a large majority 
 against them in the Lower House, and in this difficult situation to 
 attempt once more to solve the problem of Parliamentary Reform. 
 Lord Derby and Mr. Disraeli at first determined to proceed by way 
 of resolution. In moving with respect to these, on the 11th of Feb- 
 ruary, 1867, Mr. Disraeli-j- (speaking of those countries where 
 universal suffrage obtains) said : — " We have these extremely popular 
 and representative institutions elected by one preponderating class ; 
 and what do we see are the consequences ? Why, that the assembly 
 loses all that we believe, and justly believe, to be the characteristic 
 of the House of Commons. It loses it from the want of that variety 
 of elements which gives various wisdom, various knowledge, delibera- 
 tive power, and by deliberative power such a moral command over 
 society that it willingly intrusts to it a great portion of the execu- 
 tive of the country." "Any attempt to portion, according to 
 certain symmetrical arrangements, the representation of the country 
 ■would probably end in altering the character of the House, and, by 
 .altering its character, deprive it of its authority." • 
 
 Mr. Disraeli's Resolutions. 
 
 The following were the resolutions referred to by the Chancellor 
 of the Exchequer on the 11th February J : — 
 
 1. That the number of electors for counties and boroughs in 
 England and Wales ought to be increased. 
 
 2. That such increase may best be effected by both reducing 
 the value of the qualifying tenement in counties and 
 boroughs, and by adding other franchises not dependent on 
 such value. 
 
 3. That while it is desirable that a more direct representation 
 should be given to the labouring class, it is contrary to the 
 constitution of this realm to give to anyone class or interest 
 a predominating power over the rest of the community. 
 
 4. That the occupation franchise in counties and boroughs 
 shall be based upon the principle of rating. 
 
 5. That the principle of plurality of votes, if adopted by 
 I'arliament, would facilitate the settlement of the borough 
 francise on an extensive basis. 
 
 * Mention may here be made of the Elective Franchise Bill of Mr. Clay, which 
 proposed an educational test for the franchise, a proposal uhich appears to have 
 excited in a peculiar degree the wrath of Mr, Bright.— Ban sard, vol. 183, ;9. 1511. 
 
 t Hansard, vol. 185, p. 2.3.3. J Hansard, vol. 185, Appendix.
 
 18 
 
 6. That it is expedient to revise the existing distribution of 
 seats. 
 
 7. That in such revision it is not expedient that any borough 
 now represented in Parliament should be wholly dis- 
 franchised. 
 
 8. That in revising the existing distribution of seats, this- 
 House will acknowledge, as its main consideration, the 
 expediency of supplying representatives to places not at 
 present represented, and which may be considered entitled 
 to that privilege. 
 
 9. That it is expedient that provision should be made for the 
 better prevention of bribery and corruption at elections. 
 
 10. That it is expedient that the system of registration of 
 voters in counties should be assimilated, as far as possible, 
 to that which prevails in boroughs. 
 
 11. That it shall be open to every Parliamentary elector, if 
 he shall think fit, to record his vote by means of a polling 
 paper duly signed and authenticated. 
 
 12. That provision be made for diminishing the distance 
 which voters have to travel for the purpose of recording 
 their votes, so that no expenditure for such purpose shall be 
 hereafter legal. 
 
 13. That a humble address be presented to Her ^fajesty,. 
 praying Her Majesty to issue a Royal commission to form 
 and submit to the consideration of Parliament a scheme for 
 new and enlarged boundaries of the existing Parliamentary 
 boroughs when the population extends beyond the limit now 
 assigned to such boroughs ; and to fix, subject to the de- 
 cision of Parliament, the boundaries of such other boroughs 
 as Parliament may deem fit to be represented in this 
 House. 
 
 The feeling of the House being adverse to proceeding by way of 
 resolutions, they were on the 26th February withdrawn, the pro- 
 visions of a proposed Bill having been sketched out by Mr. Disraeli 
 on the previous day. Under this Bill, which was designed merely 
 to prevent the secession of i ord Carnarvon, Lord Cranborne, and 
 General Peel from the Cabinet, a £6 rating occupation franchise was 
 to obtain in boroughs, and a £20 rating occupation franchise in 
 counties. Four new franchises were proposed — (1) an educational 
 franchise ; (2) a savings bank franchise of £30, retained in the bank 
 for one year ; (3) a franchise for possession of £50 in the public 
 funds ; (4) a fraiicliise for the payment of 20s. a year in direct taxa- 
 tion. The Bill, as indicated in outline by Mr. Disraeli, was after- 
 wards described by Lord Derby, when announcing the revised 
 proposals, as one which " was not accepted by the members of the 
 late Government, and was felt by the supporters of the present 
 Government to be such a measure as could not be regarded as a
 
 19 
 
 final and satisfactory settlement of this vexed question."* . . " The 
 Ministry thereupon determined to recur to that proposition which 
 commanded the support of the great majority of the Cabinet, 
 and, at a cost of a sacrifice of three most esteemed and valuable 
 colleagues, to present to Parliament that measure which, in the 
 first instance, the majority of the Cabinet considered the most 
 desirable one." 
 
 The Reform Fill of 1867. 
 
 The final Bill was introduced into the House of Commons on 
 .the 18th of March by Mr. Disraeli. f The Bill proposed household 
 suflrage in boroughs, limited by the provision that the voter must 
 have occupied a house two years, and been rated to the relief of the 
 poor and personally paid his rates. Compound householders were 
 to have facilities to enter their names upon the rate book and tp 
 pay their rates in person. The Bill further proposed a franchise, 
 founded upon payment of 20s. a year in direct taxation (such 
 franchise to be in addition to the one derived from occupation of 
 house and payment of rates) ; a savings bank franchise of £50 ; 
 and a franchise for possessors of £50 in the public funds. 
 
 The county franchise was to be given to rated occupiers of £20 
 annual value. 
 
 Upon the 27th of March the Bill was read a seconA time without Deba^eonS 
 a division. In the course of the debate, Mr. Disraeli saidj: — "It ^" *"^' 
 is a mistake to suppose that mere numbers make democracy. So 
 long as you have fitness and variety it is impossible that democracy 
 can prevail." A suggestion made by Mr. Headlam may, perhaps, 
 be mentioned, which was to leave counties as they were, while 
 merging small boroughs in surrounding districts, by which means 
 the county and borough franchises would exist side by side in the 
 same locality, and return their separate representatives. § 
 
 The conduct of the Bill through committee was, perhaps, the great- ^'^^^^^l^''^ 
 est achievement of Mr. DisraeU's life. Although the great majority °"""' '"' 
 of the Liberal party were anxious that the question should be 
 settled, the action of Mr. Gladstone throughout the committee was 
 altogether hostile. It is true that the Bill emerged from committee 
 greatly altered, but not in such ways as that its author had reason to 
 complain . The feeling at that time with respect to household suffrage 
 may be gathered from words used in the House of Commons by 
 Mr. Bright II : — "And therefore, though I have been, and Mr. SngAe ( 
 am now, in favour of household suffrage as the basis of;^^^?^^^^ 
 the franchise, still I believe it would be wise — and I am afraid 
 our population will not have so much improved by that time 
 as to make it then unwise — to draw the line a little above the pure 
 
 * Hansard, vol. 185, pp. 1287-8. I Id., p. 660. 
 
 t Hansard, vol. 186, p. 6. $ Id., p. 521. 
 
 II Hansard, vol. 186, p. 1671.
 
 20 
 
 and simple houseliold suffrage." In committee the period of 
 residence was altered from two years to 12 calendar months A 
 franchise for lodgings of £10 value, after one year's residence,* was 
 adopted, Mr Disraeli explaining that he was the original father 
 ol the lodger franchise, and that the reason why it had not been 
 contained in the original Bill was that it seemed at variance with 
 the provision of a franchise depending upon payment of rates and 
 had been spoken of by Mr. Gladstone in the previous year as a 
 small matter. ^ 
 
 The ''fancy franchises," as they were called, were dropped, 
 there being no feeHng on either side in their favour, and the result 
 they aimed at being in great measure obtained by the lodger fran- 
 chise. ° 
 
 An amendment was carried reducing copyhold or 60 years' 
 leasehold entitling to vote to £5 value. 
 
 The county occupation franchise was fixed at £12 instead of £20 
 or £15. 
 
 The great cnw, however, of the Bill was the question of the rate- 
 jDaymg clauses. The Reform Act of 1832 had enacted that all 
 householders of £10 and upwards should be enfranchised, but the 
 clauses enforcing the payment of rates excluded the case of the 
 compound householder (whose rates were paid by the landlord). 
 To remedy this state of things an Act of Parliament (Sir 
 William Clay's Act) was passed in 1851, by which compound 
 householders were to possess votes in the same way as if 
 they had personally paid their rates. In the course of the com- 
 mittee Mr. Gladstone brought up a series of amendments, which, in 
 fact, proposed another measure founded on a rating occupation 
 franchise of £5, and extending to the new class of voters the 
 benefit of Sir William Clay's Act. Mr. Disraeli did not desire to ex- 
 clude the class of compound householders from the benefits of the fran- 
 chise, but at the same time was desirous of adhering to the principle 
 of personal payment of rates. The difiiculty was at length solved 
 by the abolition of the compound householder, it being decided that 
 the occupier m the future should be the person rated to the 
 parochial rates. 
 
 • 1Q?^ ^ subsequent Act of Parliament, however, passed in the year 
 1869, - the vestries may (sec. 4), where the premises are under 
 a certain value, order that the owners shall be rated instead 
 ol the occupiers. And by the 19th section of the same Act, 
 The overseers m making out the poor rate shall, in every 
 case, whether the rate is collected from the owner or occupier, 
 or the owner is liable to the payment of the rate instead of the 
 occupier, enter m the occupier's column of the rate book the name 
 ol the occupier of every rateable hereditament, and such occupier 
 
 * The Poor Eate Assessment and Collection Act, 32 and 33 Vic, c. 40.
 
 21 
 
 shall be deemed to be duly 7'ated for miy qualification or fran- 
 chise.'' This provision is declared to be of general application by the 
 Parliamentary and Muncipal Registration Act, 1878, which also 
 defines the term "dwelling-house" as including part of a house 
 separately occupied. 
 
 The result, therefore, of these Acts taken together is, in 
 the words of the late Master of the Rolls, that "the householder 
 who occupies a portion of a dwelling-house, which portion is 
 capable of being rated or is rateable, whether he is rated or not, 
 and whether he pays rates or not, is entitled to vote." ''••' 
 
 Instead, therefore, of the test being, as intended by Mr. Disraeli, the 
 payment of rates, the test under the present interpretation of the laic 
 is the occupation of a rateable hereditament. 
 
 With regard to the distribution of seats, the measure dealt with The Redistn- 
 a somewhat greater number than was originally intended. But the ^"*^°" ciaiises. 
 principle that in no case should absolute disfranchisement take 
 place was adhered to. 
 
 The following boroughs, having a less population than 10,000 in Boroughs de- 
 1861, were to return one member each :— Evesham, Bridport, E£{ ^^ 
 Leominster, Buckingham, Great Marlow, Marlborough, Stamford, 
 Tewkesbury, Newport (I.W.), Devizes, Harwich, Wycombe, Ludlow, 
 Malton, Hertford, Richmond, Poole, Ripon, Tavistock, Dorchester, 
 Lymington, Knaresborough, Huntingdon, Lewes, Cirencester, 
 Lichfield, Chippenham, Andover, Maldon, Bodmin, Cgckermouth, 
 Bridgnorth, Guildford, Chichester, and Windsor. 
 
 The following new boroughs were to return one member each, mw Boroughs. 
 except Chelsea, which was to return two : — Chelsea, Stockton, 
 Wednesbury, Darlington, Gravesend, Middlesbrough, The Hartle- 
 pools, Stalybridge, Dewsbury. Merthyr Tydvil and Salford obtained 
 two, instead of one each. Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham, 
 and Leeds were to have three members. The Tower Hamlets was 
 divided into two divisions. Hackney and the Tower Hamlets, each 
 to return two members. The University of London obtained one 
 representative. 
 
 By the Bill, as passed, the boroughs of Totnes, Reigate, Yar- 
 mouth, and Lancaster were disfranchised. 
 
 The following counties were to be divided : — Divismi of 
 
 Cheshire into East, Mid, and West. Counties. 
 
 Derbyshire into North, South, and East. 
 
 Devonshire into North, East, and South. 
 
 Essex, into West, East, and South. 
 
 West Kent into West and Mid. 
 
 North Lancashire into North and North-east. 
 
 South Lancashire into South-east and South-west. 
 
 Lincoln into North, Mid, and South. 
 
 * Bradley v. Baylis (8 Q.B.D., p. 217).
 
 22 
 
 Noi-folk into West, North, and South. 
 
 Somersetshire into East, Mid, and "West. 
 
 Staffordshire into North, West, and East. 
 
 East Surrey into East and Mid. 
 
 Yorkshire (West Riding) into Northern, Eastern, and Southern 
 divisions. 
 Each division of the above counties was to return two memberB. 
 The Bill was read a third time in the House of Commons upon 
 the 15th of July. In Mr. Disraeh's speech on that occasion 
 will be found a vindication of the conduct of the Ministry, in which 
 he proves that, so far from having acted under the dictation of Mr. 
 Gladstone, they had been opposed by him in 18 out of 26 con- 
 siderable divisions on the Bill/- The second reading took place in 
 the House of Lords on the 22nd and 23rd of July. In the course of 
 the debate, Lord Oairns said :—" I want your Lordships to consider 
 what was the consequence of the rul6 of the constitution that each 
 constituency returned two members only. It was the constitutional 
 way in which minorities were represented. You had got constitu- 
 encies all returning the same number of members. If the advo- 
 cates of any view were in a minority in one place they were in a 
 majority in another ; and in that way all opinions in the country 
 were represented. The more you accumulate votes upon any 
 particular constituency, of necessity you must lower the total 
 number of constituencies in the kingdom. You cannot accumulate 
 members upon constituencies without taking from others; you 
 therefore reduce the chance of the minority throughout the country 
 
 of having their opinions represented With regard to 
 
 these three-cornered constituencies, if you are going to add to their 
 number, there is a proposal made by the noble earl opposite (Earl 
 Russell) in 1854, which I do say is well worthy of consideration. 
 I allude to the proposal that in these three-cornered constituencies 
 the electors should vote for two out of the three members. I 
 cannot help thinking that a measure of that kind would be produc- 
 tive of excellent consequences. ... It would be an excellent 
 thing to find the homogeneousness and monotony of the represen- 
 tation of large manufacturing towns broken in upon by an arrange- 
 ment which would enable a member of opinions differing from 
 those of the majority to come in contact both with electors 
 and the Legislature as the representative of that which, after 
 all, is one of the most important of constituencies, the 
 minority of a large commercial or manufacturing town."t 
 
 The raison d'etre of the Bill was in the same speech thus 
 forcibly stated :—" Such is the force, such is the strength, such 
 is the rapidity of the formation of public opinion and its effect in 
 this country, that I believe it is utterly impossible for this country 
 
 Hansard, vol. 188, p. 1600. 
 
 t Hansard, vol. 188, p. 1993.
 
 23 
 
 to be governed by any party oliierwise than in accordance with the 
 opinion of the great majority of the householders in this country. 
 As that is so, and is a fact which tve must all'acknowledge, I maintain 
 that it is safer to have the expression and the force of that opinion 
 inside rather than outside the legislative power of the country. '' '-•■' 
 
 The proposal that at any election for any county oy borough 
 represented by three members no person should vote for more than 
 two members, which had already been unsuccessfully brought 
 forward in the House of Commons by Mr. Lowe, was afterwards 
 embodied in an amendment moved by Lord Cairns in committee 
 on the 30th of July. This amendment, although opposed by the 
 Government, was carried by the large majority of 91. A further 
 amendment was agreed to without a division to the effect that in 
 the city of London no person should vote for more than three 
 candidates. 
 
 In the House of Commons, Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Bright ^p^^^. ji^^^d- 
 attempted to reverse this decision of the House of Lords, but ments. 
 without success, the Lords' amendment being upheld by a 
 majority of 49. 
 
 A provision which had been inserted in the Lords to enable 
 voting by means of voting papers was disagreed with, and the 
 Commons insisted on the clause by which the qualification for the 
 leasehold and copyhold franchise was reduced from £10 to £5. 
 
 Subsequent Proposals. 
 The Bill finally received the Royal Assent on the ISth'of August. Hoyai Assent. 
 In the year 1870 an attempt was made to repeal the provisions 
 of the Act of 1867 with regard to the minority representatives in ciaifse"^^'^*^'^ 
 *' Unicorn " constituencies, but in spite of the advocacy of Mr. 
 Gladstone, the motion was rejected by a majority of eight. f 
 
 HousEHOLD Franchise in Counties. 
 
 In the year 1872, Mr. Trevelyan moved a resolution that it was -^Jr. Treveiyan's 
 expedient to extend to counties the occupation and lodging franchise ^ °^^°"' ^^'^' 
 now in force in boroughs. The resolution was opposed by Mr. 
 Gladstone on the ground that the time was not favourable for enter- 
 ing upon a new measure of reform, and was rejected by a large 
 majority .ij: 
 
 In the year 1873, Sir Charles Dilke moved a resolution to the effect ,vtv charies 
 that it was desirable to redress the inequalities in the distribution of ^on%?fi^°^^' 
 electoral power in England and Scotland as well as Ireland. The 
 resolution was opposed by Mr. Gladstone, and defeated by a majority 
 of 191. § In the same year a Bill was introduced by Mr. Trevelyan ^^:''- Treveiyan's 
 to establish household franchise in counties. In the course of the * " 
 debate upon the second reading, Mr. Forster said||: — " I think a 
 
 * Hansarcl, vol. 188, p. 2007. I Hansard, vol. 210, p. ]?84. 
 
 t Hansard, vol. 202, p. 180. $ Hansard, vol. 215, p, 156J. 
 
 II Hansard, vol. 217, p.837.
 
 24 
 
 very strong line can or ought to be drawn between household suffrage^ 
 
 or rather what I should be inclined to call hearthstone suffrage, and 
 
 universal manhood and womanhood suffrage. The man who is the' 
 
 head of the family seems to me to give a very clear line of distinction 
 
 as to the point at which the suffrage should stop." Mr. Forster was 
 
 further the bearer of a message from Mr. Gladstone, who was 
 
 unable to be present, giving a general support to the measure. The' 
 
 Bill was ultimately withdrawn. 
 
 BU/, f^'Ji'f^""'" In the following year it was again introduced.* In the course of 
 
 Mr.' Disraeli's the debate upon the second reading, Mr. Disraeli said : — "Now, 
 
 'Speech. ^g regards the classes which the hon. member by his Bill seeks 
 
 to invest with the franchise, I have no hesitation ingiving my 
 
 opinion. T have no doubt that the rated householder in the 
 
 ■ county is just as competent to exercise the franchise with advantage 
 
 to the county as the rated householder in the towns. . . . My 
 
 great objection to the Bill of the hon. gentleman is this — that there 
 
 is no case in which large classes of our fellow subjects have been 
 
 invested with the franchise without a general distribution of power 
 
 in consequence being considered I may remind the- 
 
 hon. member that in the year 1866 the House came to a most 
 deliberate — I may say a most solemn — decision, in one of the fullest 
 Houses I ever recollect, that any enfranchisement of large classes 
 of the country must be accompanied by a redistribution of seats. 
 . . . . Assuming that the county householders would come 
 upon the register in the same ratio as borough householders now 
 come, the^ county votes under the Bill of the hon. member would 
 number 1,740,000, while the borough voters would remain at the 
 number 1,250,000; that is to say, household suffrage 
 would add 1,000,000 to county voters, and cause county 
 voters to exceed borough voters by 500,000. And now 
 as the result 1,740,000 county voters would return 187 
 members of Parliament, while 1,250,000 voters would return 
 
 297 members I do not mean to say that there 
 
 is no remedy except by resorting to absolutely equal electoral 
 districts. I do not want to put the case in that extreme position. 
 Est modus in rebus, and we must remember that in all these ques- 
 tions great difficulties can be avoided by an assembly which has 
 such vast experience of practical politics as the House of 
 Commons. ... No one can deny that (in enfranchising 
 these classes and re- distributing seats) we must move in the 
 direction of electoral districts. Why, all our late legislation for 
 the last 40 years with respect to Parliamentary reform and the 
 distribution of seats has been leading to electoral districts. And 
 although I, for one, should think it a great misfortune if we entirely 
 destroyed all local influences and distinctions — although I believe^ 
 
 * Hansard, vol. 219, p. 206.
 
 25 
 
 if we did we should mucli weaken the spirit and character of the 
 country, and although I hold we ought to cling as much as possible 
 to maintaining these local influences and distinctions — still it is 
 impossible not to see that if you do re-consider and re-distribute 
 political power in deference to these views, you must to a great 
 extent be approaching electoral districts." Upon a division the 
 measure was rejected by a majority of 114. 
 
 In 1875 the Bill was again introduced. * In the course of the Debate ini87o. 
 debate Mr. Fawcett said :— "Last year a remark was made to the 
 effect that if this Bill were accompanied by a measure for the re- 
 distribution of seats, that measure must be based on some gigantic 
 proposal for equal electoral districts, which would disfranchise every 
 borough with less than 40,000 population ; but there is not the 
 shghtest reason why that should be the case. He did not want to 
 see simple uniformity but variety in the representation in that 
 House, and he believed that equal electoral districts would not 
 conduce to secure that variety." Upon a division the Bill was re- 
 jected by a majority of 102. 
 
 In the following year Mr. Trevelyan proceeded by way of Mr. Treveiyan's 
 resolutions. t In the course of the debate, Mr. Bright said: — " It liesoiuHon, i876. 
 has been said that one result of passing the resolution which has 
 been proposed would be to lead to agitation for manhood or 
 universal suffrage. So far from holding that view, my opinion is 
 that the best means of putting an end to the possibility or j^robability 
 of any such agitation would be to give a free vote to every house- 
 holder in the county. Depend upon it you will leave the discontented 
 then of no authority. ":t Mr. Disraeli said : — " But do not conceal 
 from yourselves that it (a reconstruction of political power) will 
 immensely alter the character of Parliament and in a great degree 
 affect its popular character. The variety of character ivhich this 
 House derives from its municipal coynmunities is one of the important 
 features of Parliament and one of the richest elements of representative 
 power.'' § Upon a division, the House rejected Mr. Treveiyan's 
 resolution by a majority of 99. 
 
 In the year 1877 Mr. Trevelyan again brought forward his The same, im. I 
 resolutions. In the course of the debate. Lord Edmond Fitz- 
 maurice said : — " By far the best plan to adopt would be to give one 
 member to all large towns that were not represented at all, and 
 which had as large a population as those towns which were partially 
 disfranchised, and to which they would still leave one member. He 
 believed that the remaining seats would be distributed by retaining 
 on the whole the existing electoral divisions of the county — not 
 mapping the county into districts returning one member each ; 
 but giving a large enfranchisement to the householders in counties 
 and then adopting either a minority vote or the cumulative vote. 
 
 * Hansard, vo\ 225, p. 1061. J Id., p. 1479. 
 
 t Hansard, vol. 229, p. 1443. $ Id., p. 1490.
 
 The same, 1878 
 
 2G 
 
 . . . Minority representation has now stood the test of ten 
 years' experience among the largest towns and counties in England, 
 and he could not see that the objections to it at all outweighed these 
 advantages." * After a remarkable speech by Mr. Goschen against 
 the proposed change, and after Lord Ilartington had for the first 
 time given it his support as loader of the Opposition, the resolution 
 was defeated by a majority of 56. In the following year (1878) 
 andim!'^^'^ Mr. Trevelyan again proceeded by way of resolutionst and was 
 defeated by a majority of 52. 
 
 In 1879 Mr. Trevelyan once more brought forward his resolu- 
 tions in favour of household suffrage in counties and a redistribution 
 of seats, X Mr. Blennerhassett having an amendment on the paper 
 to add words providing, as far as possible, for the fair represen- 
 tation of minorities. Upon a division Mr. Trevelyan' s resolution 
 was defeated by a majority of Q5. 
 
 EXTRA-PAELIAMENTARY PROPOSALS. 
 
 An attempt having been made in the foregoing pages to give an 
 account of the principal proposals with regard to reform which 
 have been brought forward in the House of Commons between the 
 time of the Reform Bill of 1832 and the coming into power in 1880 
 of the present Government, there only remains to describe very 
 shortly some of the schemes which have been advocated by theorists 
 outside the House. 
 
 Lord Grey's Suggestions. 
 
 In the year 1864 Lord Grey published a second and enlarged 
 edition of a work on " Parliamentary Government considered with 
 reference to reform," in which are contained "suggestions for aReform 
 Bill." Among these he advocates (p. 203) (1) " the cumulative 
 vote," i.e., the principle of giving to every elector as many votes as 
 there are members to be elected by the constituency to which 
 he belongs, with the right of either giving all his votes to a single 
 candidate or of dividing them, as he may prefer. (For this dur- 
 pose each constituency should have at least three members.) 
 
 Lord Grey further suggested (2) the institution of non-local 
 constituencies on the lines of the system recognized in University elec- 
 tion. By this means Oxford and Cambridge might have four members 
 each,Dublin three, London and Durham one, the Universities of Scot- 
 land one, and the Queen's College, Ireland, might also obtain a 
 representative. "The learned professions might also furnish con- 
 stituencies {}). 211) constituencies might be formed of persons 
 engaged in some of our great branches of industry irrespective of 
 the places of their abode." {F. 213.) Members of certain trades 
 might be registered and formed into a corporate body with the right 
 of electing members of the House of Commons. 
 
 * Hansard, vol. 235, p. 5:^3. fHansard, vol. 238, p. 159. 
 
 I Hansard, Vol. 241, p, 137.
 
 27 
 
 Lord Grey thought (3) that " a limited nu^iber of members, say 
 from 12 to 15, might be chosen for life by the House of Commons 
 itself by cumulative vote, not less than three being elected together." 
 (P. 219.) 
 
 Lastly, to guard against the danger of habitual weakness in the 
 Government, he advised that at the beginning of every new Parlia- 
 ment the House of Commons should elect a limited number of 
 members (about 50) from that Parliament, not by cumulative vote 
 but by lists, so that the majority of the House, by acting in concert, 
 would have the power of naming the whole. Thus in effect giving 
 the nomination of these members to the Ministers of the Crown. 
 (P. 229.) 
 
 Lord Grey further advocated the relieving of members of 
 the House of Commons from the necessity of being re-elected 
 on their appointment to Parliamentary of&ces. (P. 288.) 
 He proposed to assimilate the right of voting in towns and 
 counties (j). 240) without lowering the existing occupation franchise 
 in boroughs. 
 
 With regard to a redistribution of seats, Lord Grey suggested the 
 adoption of the principle of allowing no separate constituency to fall 
 below some minimum, or to exceed some maximum, both to be 
 determined after due enquiry. (P. 254.) The assimilation of the 
 town and county franchise would enable towns to be thrown into 
 surrounding districts. In conclusion Lord Grey advised «that the 
 subject of reform should be referred to a committee of the Privy 
 Council, either party having shown itself in turn incapable of deal- 
 ing with the question. 
 
 Whatever may be the abstract merits of Lord Grey's propositions, 
 they seem scarcely to belong to the world in which we find our- 
 selves. At once, in a sense extremely Radical, and at the same 
 time anti-popular, they have little in them to satisfy either party. 
 If a refuge is to be found from the advancing waves of a predominant 
 Democracy it must be sought elsewhere than on the cold peaks of 
 doctrinaire Whiggism. 
 
 J. S. Mill's Opinions. 
 
 J. S. Mill, in his work on "Representative Government," advo- 
 cates a very wide extension of the franchise, coupled, however, 
 with plurality of votes, to be apportioned upon an educational test, 
 and the adoption of the scheme of minority representation known 
 as that of Mr. Hare. In his autobiography Mill has described in 
 glowing terms the effect left upon his mind by the first perusal of 
 Mr. Hare's "Treatise on the Election of Representatives." It 
 seemed to open out a promised land in which all the salutary effects 
 of democracy upon the individual might be obtained, without the 
 presence of that despotism of the lowest and most illiterate classes,
 
 28 
 
 which had hitherto appeared the inevitable go\l of all democratic 
 movement. 
 
 Mr. Hare's Scheme. 
 
 The last edition of Mr. Hare's treatise is dated 1873. The 
 work contains a complete draft of the clauses of the proposed elec- 
 toral law. Professor Fawcett published in 1860 a pamphlet 
 entitled " Hare's Keform Bill simplified and explained." (In the 
 year 1872 Mr. Morrison introduced a Bill on the lines of Mr. Hare's 
 scheme, which on its second reading was rejected by a majority of 
 128.) The main provisions of Mr. Hare's scheme are, shortly, as 
 follows : — 1. The number of voters throughout the country is to 
 be divided by the number of members composing the legislative 
 assembly, The quotient will thus form the electoral basis, i.e., 
 every candidate obtaining the quota of votes will be returned. 2. 
 No more than the strictly necessary quota of votes are to be 
 counted for any candidate. 3. The voter is to vote by means of 
 voting places. He may insert as many names as he likes upon the 
 paper taken from a published list of candidates. Upon the first 
 candidate upon his list having the required quota, his vote will go 
 to the second, and so in the case of the second and others succes- 
 sively. (4.) In order to make up the requisite quota, the voting 
 papers are to be taken first which contain the fewest names of 
 candidates, while in the case of candidates standing for 
 two or more constituencies votes given for a candidate in the first 
 constituency for which he declares himself a candidate, and where 
 he has been unsuccessful, shall be taken first, in the second or other 
 .constituency for which he is a candidate. (5.) The present local 
 constituencies would remain as they are. Indeed Mr. Hare would 
 allow boroughs to obtain representation in Parliament by petitioning 
 the Queen in Council. (No borough, of course, being able to return 
 by itself a member which had not the necessary quota of votes.) 
 IVl r. Hare's scheme is exposed to three main objections. — (1.) That 
 it is too complicated to be practical ; (2) that it is hostile to our 
 local system ; (3) that it would admit of abuse by party organiza- 
 tion. 
 
 With regard to the first objection (1) there can be little 
 doubt that its complications have been a good deal exaggerated. 
 As a matter of fact a precisely similar scheme has been tried 
 in practice, and has been found altogether feasible. In the 
 year 1855 M. Andre procured the adoption in Denmark of an 
 electoral law for the election of the " Kigsraad," or. Supreme 
 Legislative Council, of what was then the United Kingdom of Den- 
 mark and the Duchies, almost in terms identical with that of Mr. 
 Hare. An account of its working will be found in an extremely 
 interesting paper written by the present Lord Lytton and published 
 ftmong " The Reports of Her Majesty's Secretaries of Embassy and
 
 29 
 
 Legation of the Manufactures, Commerce, &c., of the Countries in 
 which they Reside." No. 7, 1864. *'In point of fact," writes 
 Mr. Lytton, "I believe it usually happens that in all cases except 
 where the candidate happens to be a man of great and exceptional 
 public eminence, the persons put forward for the representation of 
 each constituency are connected by associations, more or less direct, 
 with the local interests of the district which they are invited to 
 
 represent Not only is it the object, but I am satisfied 
 
 that it is also the result, of M. Andre's electoral system (so far as 
 that system has been applied) to facilitate the introduction into 
 the national legislature of the greatest amount of intelligence and 
 high character, and to hinder the entrance of a great amount of 
 ignorance and passion. I am disposed to think that this system 
 in its practical results attains many of the objects of an educational 
 franchise without invalidating the salutary influence of property." 
 
 With regard to the second objection (2), Mr. Hare's position has 
 been somewhat misunderstood. Mr. Hare himself does not share 
 the contempt for locality representation of our latter-day reformers* 
 As Mr. Lytton says, " The general tendency is to dislocalize repre- 
 sentation, but Mr. Hare obviously clings with afi'ection and respect 
 to those local features in the character of the representation M'hich 
 his system would certainly obliterate if he had not laboriously and, 
 as it seems to me, lovingly set himself to counteract and restrain 
 its tendency to uniformity by a variety of useful contrivances for 
 the maintenance of local relations between the constituencies, as 
 well as for the distinction of one from another." In Mr. Hare's 
 own words — " None of the legal sub-divisions of the constituency 
 are effaced, nor any of the visible landmarks of the electoral field 
 swept away." {Preface to third edition.) 
 
 The most serious objection to Mr. Hare's system appears to me to 
 be the last (3), that it would admit of abuse from party organization. 
 And upon this the example of the Danish Rigsraad affords no infor- 
 mation, because we are told that that assembly was not one in which 
 the large body of the community were to any extent politically 
 interested. tjpon this point I would refer to the language 
 of the late Mr. Bagehot, (" English Constitution," p. 152): — 
 "Under the voluntary system of constituencies (such as that of 
 Mr. Hare) the crisis of politics is not the election of rhe member, 
 but the making of the constituency. President-making is already 
 a trade in America, and constituency-making would under the 
 voluntary plan be a trade here. Every party would have a numeri- 
 cal problem to solve. The leaders would say, ' we have 350,000 
 votes, we must take care to have 350 members,' and the only way 
 
 to obtain them is to organize We now propose to 
 
 group boroughs ; but they would combine chapels. There would 
 be a member for the Baptist congregation of Tavistock-cum-Totnes- 
 cum, &c., &c. . . . A voluntary constituency will nearly
 
 30 
 
 always be a despotic constituency." He had already written, 
 p. 144 : " The feeling of a constituency is the feeling of a dominant 
 party, and that feeling is elicited, stimulated, sometimes even manu- 
 factured by the local political agent Constituency 
 
 government is the precise opposite of Parliamentary government. It 
 is the Government of immoderate persons far from the scene of action, 
 instead of the Government of moderate persons close to the scene 
 of action. . . . The scheme to which the arguments of our 
 demagogues distinctly tend (viz., that of manhood suflfrage and equal 
 electoral districts) and the scheme (that of Mr. Hare) to which the 
 predilections of some most eminent philosophers cleave, would not 
 only make Parliamentary government work ill, but they would 
 prevent it working at all ; they would not render it bad, for they 
 would render it impossible." 
 
 Representation in Ameeica. 
 
 So much space has been given to a discussion of the scheme of Mr. 
 Hare, not because it is likely to enter within the limits of practical 
 politics, but as illustrating the consciousness displayed by thought- 
 ful men of various schools of opinion, that some means or other 
 must be found to check the action of democratic majorities. In the 
 United States the aggregate population, according to the last census, 
 is divided by the number of members to be elected to the House of 
 Ptepresentatives, and the product is taken as the ratio of apportion- 
 ment. Each State is then broken up into as many districts as it is 
 entitled to return members, each district returning one member. 
 It is to be observed, however, that in the American Constitution the 
 Senate is by far the more important member of Congress, and that 
 for the election of the Senate the system of equal electoral districts 
 does not prevail, the small State having for that purpose the same 
 powers as the larger and more populous. The election to the 
 House of Representatives is by the same suffrage as that which may 
 prevail at the election of the State Legislature, so that the question of 
 the suffrage is in the United States one of State jurisdiction. 
 As a matter of fact, however, the suffrage is in all the 
 States one of a very wide nature. An important innovation has 
 been lately made in Illinois by the adoption in that State of the 
 principle of the cumulative vote. This system is described as 
 having worked well in the first election held under it in 1872, and 
 to have secured for the minority a fairer representation than under 
 the previous system they had ever obtained. 
 
 conclusion. 
 
 An endeavour has been made in the foregoing pages to put 
 tDgether in a handy form some information from the past, 
 which may, perhaps, be of some slight value to persons approaching 
 anew the question of Parliamentary Reform. In conclusion, I may
 
 31 
 
 be allowed to call attention to the words of one who, so long as he 
 lived, might fairly claim to be the Nestor of Eeform : — " If there were 
 to be any deviation from our customary habits and rooted ideas on 
 the subject of representation, I should like to see such a change as 
 I once proposed in order to obtain the representation of the minority 
 in large and populous counties and towns. If when three members 
 are elected each elector were allowed to give two votes, we might 
 have a Liberal country gentleman sitting for Buckinghamshire and 
 a Conservative manufacturer for Manchester. The local majority 
 would have two to one in the House of Commons, and the minority 
 would not feel itself disfranchised and disgraced." (Lord FiUsselVs 
 *' Esmy on the English Constitution^ Edition of 1865.) 
 
 To a certain extent already, by the Bill of 1867, Lord Russell's 
 idea has been realized. The disfranchisement of boroughs below a 
 certain population, the apportionment of seats thus obtained between 
 the new and growing communities which may require representa- 
 tion, and the counties, which, after the assimilation of the county 
 to the borough franchise, would require additional members, such 
 apportionment in the case of the counties being made on the prin- 
 ciple of three-cornered constituencies, so as to secure the due repre- 
 sentation of minorities — it is for Conservatives to decide whether in 
 some such form as this may be shadowed the outhnes of a Conser- 
 vative measure, if the question of the distribution of seats has to be 
 again re-opened. 
 
 HUGH E. EGEflTON. 
 
 August J 1883.
 
 ™
 
 
 
 ;*-:.*■