%.= L I E> RARY OF THE U N IVLR5ITY or ILLI NOIS THE RESULTS OF THE GENERAL ELECTION, WITH AN APPENDIX CONTAINING SUMMARIES OP THE ELECTORS, POLLING, MEMBERS, AND POPULATION OF THE COUNTIES AND BOROUGHS. R DUDLEY BAXTER, M.A. LONDON: ROBERT JOHN BUSH, 32, CHARING CROSS, S.W. 18G9. HAURlSON AND SOJSS, tftlNTlSftS IN ORDINAEY TO HER MAJESTY, ST. martin's lane. THE RESULTS OF THE GENERAL ELECTION 1. The three years' contest about Reform, and the campaign of last Session respecting the Irish Church, have been brought to a close in the great battle just fought in the Constituencies. It may be useful to analyze the results of the struggle, and to ascertain the answers which have been returned by the different Nationalities and Classes of Voters ; and especially to enquire into the causes which have been most powerfully at work during the conflict, and to endeavour to throw light on two important questions. 1. Was the Reform poHcy of the late Govern- ment a wise policy ? 2. What was the influence of the Irish Church controversy upon the elections, and what the results arising from it 1 2. In examining the first question it is necessaiy to recaU the events of the Reform Bill of 1832. The hurricane which then broke over the country was almost fatal to the Tory party, and cost them B 2 many years to recover from its effects. The majorities in successive Parliaments, for a period of ten years, are like the readings of a barometer during a storm. In 1831 the Reform Bill was intro- duced by a majority of . . . . . . 1 In 1832, after its passing, the Ke- formed Parliament increased this majority to . . . . . . . . . . . . 360 The Election of 1834 diminished the majority (on an Irish Church division) to. . 67 The Dissolution of 1837 further re- duced it to . . . . . . . . 16 The General Election of 1841 converted it into a Conservative majority of . . 82 It is a curious series of figures, shewing the disastrous effects on the Conservatives of a Heform agitation and lowering the suffrage, but shewing also the gradual reaction as the new voters divided themselves between the two politi- cal parties, and (if I may coin a word) became Conservatised. There can be little doubt that a similar disaster, though less in degree, would have resulted from the Beform Bill of 1866, to be foUowed by a like series of years of depression. Besides this, the adoption of a 7/. franchise w^ould have given the Liberals the power of making similar reductions after periods of fifteen or twenty years, to be used as an engine of destruc- tion against the Conservatives as often as they might become formidable. 3. For a policy of self-defence, two alternatives were open to the Conservative Ministry of 1867. The first was to propose a Eeform Bill with safe- guards. In case the safeguards were knocked away, the second course was to trust boldly to the good feeling between the upper and lower classes, and the speedy reaction against extreme principles, and to give at once a large extension of the Borough Suffrage, thus rendering impos- sible the periodical annihilation of the Tory party. As regards the Counties, the case was plainer and less hazardous. The enfranchisement of rural voters in England must increase the agricultural, and therefore the Conservative strength, leaving only a doubt respecting the suburban counties. In a letter to the Times more than a year ago (November 16, 1867), founded on an analysis of the West Hiding county constituencies, I advanced this view, and the recent elections have fully con- firmed its accuracy. It is now possible to state with some degree of accuracy the increase of Electors by the Reform Act of 1867. The totals for the Counties and Boroughs of each of the four Countries of the United Kingdom are given at page 22 of the Appendix, together with the numbers under the old law. The total increase is as follows : — Electors. United Kingdom. Increase in Counties . . . . 280,000 Do. Boroughs.. .. 830,000 Total Increase . . 1,119,000 An increase which, both in proportion to the old Electors and in actual numbers, far exceeds the enfranchisement of 1832. After the Reform Act, and modifying its effects, came the Irish Church question. Like wind and tide in different parts of the British seas, these two influences ran in some localities in the same direction, while in others they ran counter to each other. In Scotland, Wales, and Ireland, the Church question was unfavourable to the Conser- vative party (since the bulk of the population are not adherents of Established Churches), and thus increased the Liberal effect of the lowered suffrage, so that in these portions of the United Kingdom both Boroughs and Counties enlarged the Liberal majority. But in England, the Church feeling was against the Liberal party, bringing over many voters to the Conservative side, and counteracting much of the Liberal effect of the immense en- franchisement in the Boroughs, while it increased the Conservative effect of the rural enfranchise- ment in the Counties. 4. What then was the effect of the Dissolution ? That is to say, what alteration has been made in the politics of Borough Members by Household Suffrage and the Irish Church question, and in the politics of the County Members by the 12l. Franchise and the same question. And what the net gain to the Liberals or Conservatives ? This is the real point at issue ; and it is a mistake for any one (like a writer, under the signature of ^' Scrutator,^' in the Times of December 18) to attribute all the Borough Liberal Members, and the whole Borough Liberal majority, to the operation of the new fran- chise, and to cry, " The Tories have been undone by Household Suifrage ! " What are the real facts? Out of the 234 Liberal Borough seats of Great Britain, no less than 177 are old seats w4iich were held by Liberals under the 10/. Franchise, and 14 more of them are new seats and minority seats which would indisputably have returned Liberals had they possessed Members in the last Parliament. The remainino- 43 alone can attribute their Liberahsm to the effect of the new franchise, and against them must be set off the 28 Borough seats (ex- clusive of minority seats) gained by the Conserva- tives. The small balance of 15 seats represents the real Liberal gain in the English, Welsh, and Scotch Boroughs from Household Suffrage ! The simplest mode of arriving at the net gain or loss in the late Elections is to avoid comphcated classifications of disfranchised, altered, and newly created constituencies, and to ascertain the total number of Liberals and Conservatives in the old and also in the new Parliament, and the majorities. The increase or diminution of majority will be the answer required. Only it will not be a gain of which each unit counts two in a division, but will itself be the total " gain on a division.'' The numbers are as follows:— The 658 seats in the Old Parliament, counted by the politics of their last occupants, gave 366 Liberals and 292 Conservatives, or a Liberal majority of 74. 8 The 658 seats of the New Parliament (counting Horsham on both sides) give 385 Liberals and 274 Conservatives, or a Liberal majority of 111, being a gain on a division of 37. These majorities were divided between the four countries of the United Kingdom as follows : — Gain of Members. Liberal Majority. Gain on a Division. Old Parliament. New Parliament. Conser- vative. Liberal. England . . Wales . . Scotland Ireland . . 31 5 31 7 26 14 44 27 5 9 13 20 United Kingdom 74 111 5 42 Net gains on a ") Division ( •• •• •• 37 Distinguishing between the Borough and County constituencies, we find that — In England, the Borough Liberal Majority in- creased from 76 in the Old Parliament to 104 in the New ; while the County Conservative Majority increased from 4.5 to 78. In Wales, the Borough Liberal Majority in- creased from 8 to 11, while the County Conser- vative Majority of 3 was converted into a Liberal Majority of 3. In Scotland, the Borough Liberal Majority in- creased from 23 to 27, and the County Liberal Majority from 8 to 17. In Ireland, the Borougli Liberal Majority in- creased from 3 to 15, and the County Liberal Majority from 4 to 12. In the United Kingdom, the Borough Liberal Majority increased from 110 to 157, while the County Conservative Majority increased from 36 to 46. 5. But the test of Population ought also to be applied, to weigh as well as couut the successes. Some writers object to reckon the population of the Counties, though ready enough to reckon that of the Boroughs. But if the present representatives fairly represent the Counties, Ave must in fairness credit them with the county population. Is it asserted that Household suffrage would diminish the number of Conservative County Members ? I must challenge such an assertion. Speaking \\ith some knowledge of the subject, I beheve that Household suffrao^e would increase the Conser- vative strength in the Counties. If another Avit- ness is required, I will only say — ask Mr. Bright. I have taken some pains, with the valuable a,ssistance of Mr. Stanford, to ascertain the correct populations of the new and altered Constituencies, following the rule of crediting Counties with no Borough population, — an unjust rule, because Borough Fi'eeholders exercise a very large voting power in the Counties, and ought to be reckoned as making a large addition to their Populatiou. Next, I have divided the population of each con- 10 stituency in proportion to the number of Liberal or Conservative members returned — (giving half to each party where the Members are one and one, and so on) — and adding up the results, so as to ascertain the total population which in each Parliament should be classed on one side and on the other. The result is, that in the whole United Kingdom the population represented by the Old Parliament was, in round numbers — Liberal 17,027,000 Conservative .. .. 11,890,000 Majority, 5,137,000 The population represented by the New Par- liament is — Liberal 16,811,000 Conservative . . . . 12,106,000 Majority, 4,705,000 These majorities were divided between the four countries as follows : — ' Gain in Population Eepresented. Liberal Majority. Gain on a Division. ' Old Parliament. New Parliament. Conserva- tive. Liberal. England Wales Scotland . . Ireland 3,092,900 190,700 J, 894,900 — 41,300 (minority) 926,100 516,900 2,479,300 782,800 2,166,800 326,200 584,400 824,100 L'NITED ) Kingdom j 5,137,200 4,705,100 2,166,800 1,734,700 Net gain on ) a Division j •• •• 432,100 11 Hence, in round numbers, the results of the General Election are these — 1. England gives a Conservative gain on a division of 5 votes and 2,167,000 population* 2. tVales, Scotland, and Ireland give a Liberal ^ain on a di\'ision of 42 votes and 1,735,000 popu- lation. 3. The United Kingdom gives on a division a Liberal gain of 37 votes, but a Conservative gain of 430,000 population.'"' Such are the facts of the Elections, fau4y, I hope, and accurately stated. What answers do they afford to the questions proposed at the com- mencement of this pamphlet ? First, as regards Reform, they seem to show that, as a policy of self-defence, the policy of the late Government was a prudent policy, and has been justified by the result. The total loss of the Conservatives is 37 on a division, equivalent to- a transfer of 1 9 seats ; a mere nothing, when con- sidered as the total effect of so great an enlarge- ment of the suffrage, and when compared with the wholesale losses of 1832. But in population the Conservatives have a net gain on a division of * This is without including the later election for Warehara, which would hicrease the Conservative gain on a division in England and the United Kingdom by 2 votes, and 12,000 population. 12 430,000, a result which goes far to compensate in moral effect for their loss in votes. By the analogy of the former Keform epoch they may hope to retrieve this loss, when the new Borough electors divide between the two political parties, and be- come Conservatised. Under able leadership, in consonance with the feelings of the enlarged consti- tuencies, the Conservative party may conciliate the support of the newly-enfranchised classes, as in the days of Sir Eobert Peel, and gain largely in strength. I speak as one of those Conservatives who shrunk from the leap into the gulf profound — for such it then appeared — of Household Suffrage ; and who would then have preferred (and would still for some reasons prefer) the certain loss from a 5/. Eating Suffrage, with a lowering of the Com- pounding Acts to that point, to the hazard of so large an enfranchisement. I do not now forget that the full consequences of important changes may not at once appear. But, judging from actual results, are we not bound to admit that there is no apparent cause for alarm ; and that, so far as we can see, the Reform Act bids fair to be suc- cessful ? Second, as regards the Irish Church, the Tables show how strong the feeling is in Scotland, Wales, and Ireland against her maintenance ; and how powerful in England in her favour. In the first three countries, the Counties, as well as Boroughs, show a uniform gain by her opponents. In Eng- land fewer Boroughs were gained by the Liberals and more Counties won by the Conservatives through the operation of this cause. Take as an 13 example the County of Middlesex, where in 1857 the Liberals polled 5,400 to the Conservative 2,900, wliile in 1868 the Conservative headed the poll by a majority of 1,400. This was partly owing to the I2l. suffrage, which trebled the voters of the suburban and rural districts where the Conservative strength lay, and partly to per- sonal squabbles. But the Irish Church question sent over a large reinforcement, estimated by Mr. Labouchere, in a letter to the Times, at 1,000 votes, and decided the election. Another case in point is the South- West Riding ; a manufacturing constituency, denuded of rural districts, which polled in 1865 a majority of 1,000 for the Liberals. This year the Conservative Candidate was only defeated by a majority of 8 out of 16,000 voting, a result partly owing to the 12l. franchise, but partly also to the Irish Church 8. One more enquiry remains. What arguments on either side in Politics do these facts suggest as to the future ? As regards the Irish Church, the Liberals will point to their Parliamentary majority of 1 1 1 mem- bers and 4,700,000 population; and the unmis- takeable manner in which Scotland, Wales, and Ireland, have thrown their weight into that ma- jority ; and they will argue that so great a pre- ponderance cannot fail to obtain a legislative measure which in some degree will carry out the object of its wishes. But on the other hand, the 14 Conservatives will warn the Liberals of the un- wisdom of ignoring the feeling of England, shewn by the immense Conservative gain of more than 2,000,000 of her population, and the historical fact that a Reform Bill is soon followed by a Conservative reaction. It will not be politic for the Liberals to provoke and hasten this reaction by pushing mea- sures to extremes. The Liberals cannot afford to alienate England ; and they will alienate her, if they attempt to force through to its bitter end a measure of total spoliation — delayed only by life pensions — of the Church revenues of the Irish Protestants. As regards the Conservative party, it is a singular instance of the anomalies of our repre- sentation that so large a gain of county population in England should only have brought them a gain of 5 votes on a division, and that a gain of 430,000 population in the United Kingdom should be accompanied by a loss of 37 votes on a division. But the important fact has been shown by the elections of the large extent to which the Conservatives have ceased to be regarded as the anti-popular party. That obstacle is out of their way. They can now pursue a popular policy and, with energy and organization, they have it in their power to win and keep the affections of the people. Hampstead, Jan. 1, 1869. APPENDIX. CONTENTS. Page. I. Comparison of Electors in Counties and Boroughs November 1868 and 1866 17 XL SuMBiART of Polling in Counties and Boroughs . . 20 III. Su:\niARY of Gains in Members and Population . . 21 IV. Comparison of Members and Population for Counties and Boroughs in the New and Old Parliaments , . . . . . . . . . 22 V. Note on the Increase of County and Diminution of Borough Representation . . . . . . 24 VI. List of the Constituencies by Counties, with their Population and Members in the New Pai'Uament 25 17 APPENDIX. I. Increase of Electoes. One of the first points 'of interest is the number of new- Electors. In the absence of official information, the accompanying table will give the approximate facts. The figures for 1868 are summarised from a valuable table of the Constituencies of the United Kingdom vrith their Electors and Polling in the General Election, published by the Morning Sfa?% and stated to be derived from returns obtained in almost all cases from the official autho- rities of each place. The figures for 186G are from Parliamentary Eeturns. Eor three English Constituencies (Soutli Lincolnshire, Gla- morofan, and Thirsk), and four Irish Constituencies (Kilkenny County, Carrickfergus, Clonmel, and Dovrnpatrick),the new Electors have been calculated at the same percentage of increase as neigh- bouring Constituencies of the same classes. ELECTORS. New and Old Parliaments. Counties. Boroughs. Total. ENGLAND. 18C8 728,270 1,169,112 1,897,382 1866 501,979 499,668 1,001,647 AYALES. 1868 62,983 55,930 118,913 1866 40,654 14,358 55,012 SCOTLAND. 1868 74,978 152,312 227,290 1866 49,979 55,515 105,494 IRELAND. 1868' 180,090 53,070 233,160 1866 164,408 30,958 195,366 UNITED KINGDOM. 1868 1,046,321 1,430,424 2,476,745 1866 757,020 600,499 1,357,519 Increase (U. K.). . Per cent. Increase 289,301 38 829,925 1,119,226 138 82-5 18 This Table stows the important result that the increase of the ConstitueDcies of the United Kingdom, by the new Eeform Act, has been from 1,357,000 to 2,476,000 Electors, or nearly 1,120,000 ; being 82 per cent, or more than four-fifths in excess of the old voters. Of this increase 830,000 are in the Boroughs^ which are now 138 per cent, or seven-fifths larger than the old Constituencies ; and 289,000 in the Counties, which are now 38 per cent, or nearly four-tenths larger than before. As regards the Boeoughs, and changing the mode of stating the increase, Wales shews the highest rate of augmentation, having nearly quadrupled her Borough votes ; Scotland is next in order, having nearly trebled her Borough Constituency ; England stands third, with two and a third times as many as under the old law; and Ireland comes last, with only one and three-quarter times the old Electors. As regards the Counties, Wales is again the first, with one and three-fifth times as many Electors as in 1866; Scotland second, with one and a half times as many ; JEngland third, with one and nine-twentieths as many; Ireland last, with less than one-tenth Increase. The increase in 1832 under the Old Eeform Act, was far less considerable, both in numbers and in its proportion to the old Electors. The numbers for the English and "Welsh Boroughs are given in the Commons Eeturn, 129, 1860. INCREASE 1^ 1832. Borough Constituencies of Ungland and Wales. Total Borough Electors, 1832-3 . . . . 286,234 Do. 1830 .. .. 168,375 Increase . . . . . . 117,859 Thus the Borough increase in England and Wales in 1832 was in actual numbers only 118,000 against 711,000 in 1868 ; and in pro- portion to the old Electors only 70 per cent, against 138 per cent, in 1868. The increase of County Electors in 1832 is not given, but the Electors introduced by the first Eeform Act, the 50Z. Tenants and the Leaseholders and Copyholders formed less than 30 per cent, of the New Constituencies, or about half the increase in the English and "Welsh Counties in 1868. Judging therefore by the statistics respecting England and "Wales, it appears that the enfranchisement by the Second Eeform Act is twice as great as the enfranchisement by the Eirst in pro- 19 portion to the old Electors ; and many times greater if measured by the numbers enfranchised. II. Polling. Many Summaries have been published in the newspapers of the Votes polled on the Liberal and Conservative sides at the General Election, which are practically useless from not stating the principle on which they are compiled. Apparently they add up the totals of all the candidates, a principle which is unfair to the side with the fewest candidates. For instance, in the "Westminster Election, such a principle would represent the Liberal strength as 12,800 and the Conservative as only 7,600 ; whereas a larger number of actual voters polled for Mr. W. H. Smith than for either Captain Gros- venor or Mr. Mill. The Table on the next page gives the data for a more correct calculation. The method which most fairly represents the strength of botli parties in the Polling, is to take the First Candidates on each side. That strength is shown in the Table to be — Liberal Pirst Candidates 734,182 Conservative do. . . . . . . 588,855 Net Liberal Majority on the Foiling at) -.^^ oo-' the General Election . . . . J ' As the Constituencies contested in 1868 do not correspond with those contested in 1865, it is scarcely possible to institute a comparison between them. Por the details which form the groundwork of the Summary I must again acknowledge my obligations to the Tables published by the Morning Star^ and in Mr. Stanford's Guide Map. C 2 20 Stjmmaet of Polling. C CO Conservative Candidates. Liberal Candidates. 1st. 2nd. 3rd. 1st. 2nd. 3rd. 4th. ENGLAND. Counties . . Boroughs . 52 146 212,795 306,431 168,224 130,576 3,455 16,722 180,219 427,438 127,303 328,476 7 93,599 21,24C Total .. 198 519,226 298,800 20,177 607,657 455,779 93,606 21,24( WALES. Counties . . Boroughs . 5 9 10,030 6,947 2,828 1,340 10,037 21,997 2,412 8,090 5,776 Total .. 14 16,977 2,828 1,340 32,034 10,502 5,776 SCOTLAND. Counties . . Boroughs . 15 6 12,615 17,213 •• •• 14,939 48,723 1,043 35,556 21,631 Total .. 21 29,828 •• •• 63,662 36,599 21,631 IRELAND. Counties . . Boroughs . 3 15 6,512 16,312 6,077 10,259 •• 11,825 19,004 6,610 11,367 3,717 1,031 Total .. 18 22,824 16,336 30,829 17,977 4,748 UNITED KINGDOM. Counties . . Boroughs , 75 176 241,952 346,903 177,129 140,835 4,795 16,722 217,020 517,160 137,368 383,489 3,724 122,037 21,246 Total .. 251 588,855 317,964 21,517 734,182 520,857 125,761 21,246 21 III. Gain. The next Table states the net Grain in Members and Population in the four countries of the United Kingdom. This Grain is not of so many seats (or so much population) counting two on a division, but is itself the total gain on a division. SUMMAET OF GrAINS ON A DIVISION. In Members. In Population. Conser- vative. Liberal. Conserva- tive. Liberal. England Wales Scotland Ireland 5 • • 9 13 20 2,160,800 326,200 584,400 824,100 Total gains 5 42 2,166,800 1,734,700 United Kingdom •• 37 432,100 This Table is curious, on account of the regular gradation, both in Members and Population, from a Conservative gain in England, through increasing Liberal gains in Wales and Scotland, to the largest Liberal gain in Ireland ; and as regards the United King- dom, for the discrepancy before noticed, between the Liberal gain of 37 Members, and the Conservative gain of 432,000 population. ly. Members and Population. The next Table shows, for each of the four Countries and tho United Kingdom, and their Counties and Eorouglis, tho Members returned in the New and Old Parliament and their politics, and arranges the Population according to the politics of tho Members of 22 each constitueucy, — 1\ method much in favour with many Liberal journals to show the large population represented by Liberal Mem- bers in great divisions. It is a fairer test than the Polling, because it does not omit the large number of Constituencies who elect their representatives without contests. The recognized rule has been followed in this Table, of reckoning the whole population on one side, where all the representation is on that side in politics ; of dividing half and half where the Members are one and one ; or two- thirds and one-third where the Members are two and one ; or three- fourths and one-fourth where they are three and one. The majorities and gains on a division can easily be worked out from the Table, and will be found to correspond with the statements in the text. SUMLIARY OF Members and Population. Members. Population. o C. L. Total. C. L. ENGLAND. Counties. New Parliament. . 172 125 47 9,988,500 7,047,0300 2,940,900 Old Parliament . . 14*3 oe 51 io,654,';oo 6,061,600 4,593,100 JBorouglis. New Parliament. . 291 94 198 8,956,800 1,962,000 6,994,800 Old Parliament . . 324 124 200 8,290,600 1,864,600 6,426,000 Total. New Parliament. . 4G3 219 245 18,945,300 9,009,600 9,935,700 Old Parliament . . 411 22© 251 18,945,300 '?,926,200 11,019,100 WALES. Counties. New Parliament. . 15 G 9 732,500 268,200 464,300 Old Parliament . . 15 9 6 ';gc,300 427,100 339,200 Boroughs. New Parliament. . 15 2 13 379,000 29,100 349,900 Old Parliament . . 14 3 11 345,200 33,300 311,900 Total. Ne-^k^ Parliament. . 30 8 22 1,111,500 297,300 814,200 Old Parliament . . 29 12 19 1,111,500 460,400 651,100 POSTSCRIPT. Objection has been taken in the Times and many Liberal journals to the Classification of Population as Conservative or Liberal according to the politics of the Members. I will therefore ask the reader to make the following coiTections, changing the classification to Population repre- sented hy Conservatives or Liberals^ which will make it perfectly accurate. Corrections. Page 10, line 6, for '•^classed on one side and on the other" read " classed as represented by Liberals and by Conservatives." Page 10, lines 10 and 14, for " Liber aV read "-By Liberalsr Page 10, lines 11 and 15, for " Conservative" read " By Conservatives." Pages 22 to 25, in the headings of the tables in each page, read — Population represented Total. By Con- servatives. By Liberals. instead of Population C. Total C. L. No reasonable person can then object to the classification. 23 Summary — continued. Members. PopulatioD. 3 c. L. Total. c. L. SCOTLAND. Counties. New Parliament. . 33 8 25 1.797,500 291,400 1,506,100 Old ParUament . . 30 11 19 1,818,000 583,600 1,234,400 Boroughs. New Parliament. . 27 . , 27 1,264,600 1,264,600 Old Parliament . . 23 23 1,244,100 , . 1,244,100 Total. New Parliament. . 60 8 52 3,062,100 291,400 2,770,700 Old Parliament . . 53 11 42 3.062.100 583,600 2,418,500 IRELAND. Counties. ' New Parliament. . 64 26 38 5,004,200 2,274,700 2,729,500 Old Parliament . . 64 30 34 5,004,200 2,585,100 2,419,100 Boroughs. New Parliament. . 41 13 28 794,200 233,100 561.100 Old Parliament . . 41 19 22 194,200 334,150 459,450 Total. New Parliament. . 105 39 66 5,798,400 2,507,800 3,200,600 Old ParUament . . 105 49 56 5,198,400 2.919,850 2.818,550 UNITED KINGDOM Counties. New Parliament. . 284 165 119 17,522,700 9,881.900 7,640,800 Old ParUament . . 256 146 llO 18,243,200 9,651,400 8,585,800 Boroughs. New Parliament. . 374 109 266 11,394,600 2,224,200 9,170,400 Old ParUament . . Total. New Parliament. . 402 146 256 10,614.100 2.232,650 8,441,450 658 274 385 28,917,300 12,106,100 16,811,200 Old ParUament . . 558 292 366 28,911,300 11,890,050 11,021,250 24 Counties and Boroughs. It may be noticed from tliis Summary that the number of County Members bas been increased by 25 in England and 3 in Scotland, total 28 ; and that the CouDty Population (exclusive of Boroughs) has been diminished by 666,200 in England, 33,800 in Wales, and 20,500 in Scotland, total 720,000. The Dumber of Borough Members has been diminished by 33 in England, and (including the Universities) increased by 4 in Scotland and 1 in Wales. The Borough population has, of course, been increased by the same numbers as the diminution of the Counties. The result is to diminish, thougb not by any means to remove, the great disproportion between the number of Members to Popu- lation in Counties as compared with Boroughs. In the old Parlia- ment the Counties had a Member for every 70,000 Population while the Boroughs had a Member for every 26,000, or nearly one- third the County population. In the New Parliament the Counties have a Member for every 60,000 Population, while the Boroughs, have a Member for every 30,000 or one-half the County population. The result of the New Reform Act, therefore, is that instead of having three times as many Members in proportion to Population under the old law, the Boroughs have now only tivice as many Members as the Counties in proportion to Population. YI. The next Table gives the detail of the Constituencies, and with their Members and Population made out by Counties. The County Constituencies and the New Boroughs are in italics. The disfranchised Boroughs and Seats taken away from existing Boroughs are given at the foot of each County. The gain to each side is shown by the small g for one and gg for two old seats, and by n for one and nn for two new seats. The disfranchised seats and the politics of their Members are also given, and the cases where populations are altered by enlarge- ment of Borough boundaries are marked by *, and the divided Counties by t- It thus forms a complete record of the changes of representation and population in each County. 25 UNITED KINGDOM. Constituencies by Cou>'ties, with theie Members, Popula- TIOI^", AXD Cha>'ges. ENGLAND. No. of Members. Population "3 o C. L. Total. C. L. BEDFORDSHIRE Bedfordshire. . Bedford 2 2 4 1 1 ^2 121,800 13,400 60,900 60,900 13,400 1 3 135,200 60,900 74,300 Old Parliament 4 2 2 135,200 67,600 67,600 BERKSHIRE. Berkshire'^ . . Abingdon* . . Reading Wallingford Windsor* . . 3 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 123,500 6,100 25,000 7,800 14,100, 84,100 6,100 7,*800 39,400 25,000 14,100 8 4 4 176,500 98,000 78,500 Old Parliament Including taken away — Windsor, i L. 9 4 5 176,500 134,200 42,300 BUCKINGHAM. Buckinghamshire Aylesbury . . Buckingham Wycombe . . Great Marlow 3 2 1 1 1 2 1 i 1 1 1 119,100 27,000 7,600 8,300 6,500 79,400 13,500 6,500 39,700 13,500 7,600 8,300 8 4 4 168,500 99,400 69,100 Old Parliament Including taken away — Buckingham, i C. Wycombe, i C. Great Marlow, i C. II 7 4 168,500 142,900 25,600 * Altered population. y. Gain of one old seat. 26 No. of Members. Population. C. L. Total. C. L. CAMBRIDGE. Camhridgeshire* Cambridge*. . Cambridge Univer- sity 3 2 2 2 2 1 99^ 146,600 29,400 97,800 48,800 29,400 7 4 3 176,000 97,800 78,200 Old Parliament 7 6 I 176,000 126,200 49,800 CHESHIRE. E. Division] . . Mid Division] W. Divisionf Birkenhead . . Chester* Macclesfield Stockport . . Old Parliament 2 2 122,500 122,500 2 7in2 119,400 119,400 2 2 97,700 97,700 1 1 . . 51,600 51,600 2 .^1 1 34,200 17,100 17,100 2 .^2 36,000 36,000 2 ^1 1 54,600 27,300 27,300 13 9 4 516,000 435,600 80,400 II 6 5 516,000 412,400 103,600 CORNWALL. JE. Division . . W. Division* Bodmin Helston Launceston . Liskeard Penrhyn* . St. Ives Truro Old Parliament Inlcuding taken away- Bodmin, i L. 2 , , 9^ 137,000 . . 137,000 2 . . 2 168,500 168,500 1 . . 6,400 6,400 1 .vi 8,500 8,500 1 1 5,100 5,100 1 . , 6,600 6,600 2 99^ , , 15,600 15,600 1 .^1 10,300 10,300 2 1 11,400 5,700 5,700 13 4 9 369,400 26,400 343,000 14 5 9 369,400 98,100 271,300 g. Gain of one old seat ; gg. Ttvo ditto. * Altered population. nn. Grain of two new seats. + Divided constituency. 27 No. of Members. Population • 3 o C. L. Total. C. L. CUMBERLAND. E. Division . . W. Division. Carlisle Cockermouth Whitehaveu 2 2 2 1 1 ^1 2 1 1 ^1 76,000 74,000 29,400 7,000 18,800 38,000 74,000 18,800 38,000 29,400 7,000 8 4 4 205,200 130,800 74,400 Old Parliament Including taken away — Cockermouth, i C. 9 6 3 205,500 1 14,500 90,700 DERBYSHIRE. N. Division] S. Division], . E. Division] Derby* 2 2 2 2 ^1 1 n?i2 ?2 90,200 106,100 89,800 53,000 45,100 106,100 45,100 89,800 53,000 8 3 5 339,100 151,200 187,900 Old Parliament 6 I 5 339,100 21,500 317,600 DEVONSHIRE iY. Divi'tion] S. Division] E. Division] Barnstaple* Devonport Exeter Plymouth* Tavistock Tiverton Old Parliament Including disfranchised seats — Ashburton, i L. Dartmouth, i C. Honiton, i C. i L. Totnes, 2 L. And taken away — Tavistock, i L. rf. Gain of one old seat ; rjg. Two ditto. * Altered population. 2 1 1 131,600 65,800 65,800 2 2 101,800 101,800 2 nn'2 . . 150,500 150,500 2 1 1 11,000 5,500 5,500 2 2 64,800 64,800 2 ,72 41,800 41,800 2 2 63,600 63,600 1 1 8,800 8,800 2 9^ 10,400 •• 10,400 17 6 11 584,300 323,600 260,700 22 1 8 14 584,300 335,900 248,400 nn. Gain of two new seats, t Divided constituencj. 28 No. of Members. Population. O H C. L. Total. C. 2,100 6,800 9,700 5,*700 L. DORSETSHIRE. Dorset* Bridport Dorchester . . Poole Shaftesbury Wareham . . Weymouth . . 3 2 2 "l 1 1 "l 1 1 138,900 7,700 6,800 9,700 9,000 6,700 11,400 9 46,800 7,700 9,000 6,700 5,700 10 5 5 190,200 114,300 75,900 Old Parliament Including disfranchised Borough and seats — Lyme Regis, i C. Bridport, i L. Dorchester, i L. Poole, I L. 14 5 9 190,200 102,800 87,400 DURHAM. N. Division'* S. Division* Durham* Gateshead . . South Shields Sunderland . . Darlington . . Hart'Cpool . . Stockton 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 ^1 n'l 1 ^2 ^2 1 1 nl ni 169,300 108,400 14,300 33,600 35,200 85,800 15,8(10 27,500 18,700 8 2 4,650 r,*500 84,650 108,400 14,300 33,600 35,200 85,800 15,800 18,700 13 2 11 508,600 112,150 396,450 Old Parliament ID 3 7 508,600 i35jIoo 373^500 ff. Gt-ain of one old §eat. n. Gain of one new seat. * Altered population. 29 No. of Members. Population. 3 o C. L. Total. C. L. ESSEX. E. Division] S. Division] W. Division] Colchester . . Harwich Maldon 2 2 2 2 1 1 9-2 nn2 1 99^ 9^ 9'^ 127,900 130,700 111,100 23,800 5,000 6,200 127,900 lliilOO 5,000 130,700 23,800 0,200 10 5 5 404,700 244,000 160,700 Old Parliament Including taken away — Harwich, i C. Maldon, i C. 10 8 2 404,700 311,600 93,100 GLOrCESTEK. E. Division* W. Division Bristol Cheltenham* Cirencester* Gloucester* . . Stroud Tewkesbury 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 ^2 2 9^ "2 2 5^1 87,500 143,400 154,000 41.500 6,800 30,500 35,500 5,900 87,500 6,'800 143,400 154,000 41,500 30,500 35,500 5,900 13 3 10 505,100 94,300 410,800 Old Parliament Including taken away — Cirencester, i C. Tewkesbury, i C. 15 9 6 505,100 304,400 200,700 ff. Grain of one old seat ; gg. Tavq ditto. * Altered population. iiii. Gain of two new seats, t Divided constituency. 30 No. of Members. Population. ^ % H C. L. Total. C. L. HAMPSHIRE. JV. Division . . S. Division . . Isle of Wight^ Andover Christcburch Lymington . . Newport* . . Petersfield .. Portsmouth. . Southampton Winchester . . 2 2 2 2 2 2 y2 0^ "l 131,600 112,600 45,900 5,400 9,300 5,200 9,500 5,600 94,800 47,000 14,800 131,600 56,300 5,'200 47,*400 47,000 7,400 56,300 45,900 5,400 9,300 9,500 5,600 47,400 7,400 16 8 8 481,700 294,900 186,800 Old Parhament Including taken away — Andover, i C. Lymington, i L. Newport, i C. 19 9 lO 481,700 237,400 244,300 HEREFORDSHIRE. Herefordshire Hereford City Leominster . . 3 2 1 2 1 1 ^2 102,300 15,600 5,600 68,200 5,600 34,100 15,600 6 3 3 123,500 73,800 49,700 Old Parhament Including taken away— Leominster, i C. 7 5 2 123,500 81,600 41,900 HERTFORDSHIRE. Hertfordshire'^ Hertford* .. 3 1 1 1 ^2 165,900 7,400 55,300 7,400 110,600 4 2 2 173,300 62,700 ,110,600 Old Parliament Including taken away— Hertford, i L. 5 3 2 173^300 114,400 58,900 * Altered population. g. Gain of one old seat. 31 No. of Members. Population. 1 C. L. Total. C. L. HUNTINGDON- SHIRE. Huntingdonshire 2 2 , , 58,000 58,000 Hunting-don 1 1 •• 6,200 6,200 3 3 64,200 64,200 Old Parliament 4 4 64,200 64,200 Including taken away — Huntingdon, i C. KENT. 1 E. Division-^ 2 9'^ 165,200 165,200 W. Division^ 2 101,500 101,500 Mid. Birisionf 2 nn'2 . . 119,400 119,400 Canterbury . . 2 9^ 21,400 10,700 10,700 Chatham* . . 1 40,600 40,600 Dover 2 .71 25.400 12,700 12,700 Greenwich* 2 2 160,900 160,900 Hythe 1 1 21.300 21,300 Maidstone . . 2 2 23,000 23,000 Rochester . . 2 2 16,900 16,900 Sandwich . . 2 .72 13,800 13,800 Grave send . . 1 ;il 24.500 •• 24,500 21 8 13 733,900 409,200 324,700 Old Parliament i8 8 lO 733.900 413,300 320,600 g. Gain of one old seat. * Altered population. rt. Gain of one new seat ; nn. Two ditto, t Divided constituency. 32 No. of Members. Population. C. L. Total. c L. LANCASHIRE. N. E. Division^ . . 2 2 . . 167,200 167,200 iY. TF. Diviswnf . . 2 /?«.2 177,500 177,500 >S'. E. Divis{o7v\ 2 2 301,700 301,700 S. W. Division-^ . . 2 nn2 . . 263,400 263,400 Asliton* 1 i/1 , . 41,900 41,900 Blackburn* . . 2 2 70,800 70,800 Bolton* 2 ^-^ 78,400 78,400 Bury 1 1 37,500 , . 37,500 Clitheroe 1 1 10,900 10,900 Liverpool . . 3 9 7ll 444,000 296,000 148,000 Manchester. . 3 wl 2 358,000 119,500 238,500 Oldham* . . 2 . . 2 97,900 . . 97,900 Preston 2 2 83,000 83,000 Rochdale* .. 1 1 41,200 . . 41,200 Salford 2 71^2 102,500 102,500 Warrington 1 , . /7I 26,900 26,900 Wig-an 2 , . ^2 37,600 . . 37,600 Burnley 1 nl 38,000 38,000 Staled/bridge . . 1 n\ •• 39,900 39,900 33 22 11 2,418,300 1,752,700 665,600 Old Parliament 27 13 14 2,418,300 1,287,500 1,130,800 Including disfranchised Borough — Lancaster, 2 L. LEICESTERSHIRE. JV. Division . . 2 2 92,100 92,100 S. Division . . 2 .^2 72,200 77,200 Leicester . . 2 6 2 68,000 •• 68,000 4 2 237,300 169,300 68,000 Old Parliament 6 3 3 237, 00 130,700 106,600 ff. Grain of one old se at. n. Gain of one ne^ r seat. * Altered populatior t DiT dded conetitv lency. 33 No. of Population Members. 1 3 c. L. Total. C. L. C H LINCOLNSniRE. . Alid Division'\ 2 nl nl 102,300 51,200 51,100 N. Division^ 2 1 1 114,700 57,300 57,400 S. Division^ 2 ff2 . . 123,400 123,400 Boston 2 fr2 . . 17,800 17,800 Grantham . . 2 qq2 11,100 , , 11,100 Grimsby 1 1 15,000 15,000 Lincoln 2 . . 2 21,000 . . 21,000 Stamford . . 1 1 •• 8,000 8,000 14 7 7 413,300 257,700 155,000 Old Parliament n 7 6 413^300 198,200 215,100 Includint^ taken away — Stamford, i C. MIDDLESEX. Middlesex* . . Finsbury* . . Marylebone. . London Tower Hamlets* Westminster London University/ Chelsea Hackney Old Parliament 14 9I 1 2 2 3 2 1 nl nn2 nn2 16 14 193,900 387,800 436,200 112,000 336,700 254,600 174,000 311,100 96,950 28,000 2,206,300 252,250 1,954,050 96,950 387,800 436.200 84,000 336,700 174,000 311,100 2,206,300 2,206,300 MONMOUTH. Monmouth* . . Monmouth District^ Old Parliament 2 1 3~ 3 2 yi 140,500 34,000 140,500 34,000 2 1 174,500 140,500 34.000 3 • • 174,500 174,500 g. Gain of one old scat ; gg. Two ditto. n. Gain of one new seat ; nn. Two ditto. 34 No. of Members. Population. c. L. Total. C. L. NORFOLK. iV. Division^ S. Divmon^. . W. Division^ King-'s Lynn* Norwich 2 2 2 2 2 2 ?Z7«2 2 ^1 i 112,800 113,600 117,300 17,000 74,800 112,800 113,600 117,300 17,000 37,400 37,400 10 9 1 435,500 398,100 37,400 Old Parliament Including disfranchised Yarmouth, 2 C. Thetford, 2 C. 12 9 3 435,500 352,600 82,900 NORTHAMPTON. N. Division* S. Division*. . Northampton* Peterboro'* . . Old Parliament 2 2 2 2 2 2 *2 2 89,400 86,200 36,200 13,600 89,400 86,200 36,200 13,600 8 4 4 225,400 175,600 49,800 8 4 4 225,400 180,900 44,500 NORTHUMBER- LAND. N. Division* S. Division Berwick Moipeth* . . Newcastle- on- Tyne Tynemouth . . Old Parliament 2 2 2 1 2 1 10 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 56,800 106,800 13,300 23,000 109,100 34,000 56,800 53,400 •• 53,400 13,300 23,000 109,100 34,000 3 7 343,000 110,200 232,800 10 3 7 343,000 119,400 223,600 g. Gain of one old seat. * Altered population. n. Gain of one new seat, t Divided constituency. 35 No. of Members. Population. Is p C. L. Total. 0. L. NOTTINGHAM. N. Division . . S. Division . . Retford Newark Nottingham 2 2 2 2 2 ^1 2 1 1 88,800 71,400 47,^00 11,500 74,700 44,400 71,400 23,700 74,'700 44,400 23,700 11,500 10 6 293,800 214,200 79,600 Old Parliament lO 3 293,800 95,100 198,700 OXFORDSHIRE. Od-fbrdskire^^ Banbury Oxford* . . Oxford University . . Woodstock . . 3 1 2 2 1 2 '2 1 5^1 122,900 10,200 30,000 7,800 82,300 7.'800 40, 600 10,200 30,000 9 5 4 170,900 90,100 80,800 Old Parliament 9 6 3 170,900 133,200 37,700 RUTLAND. Rutlandshire . . Old Parliament SHROPSHIRE N. Division. S. Division . Bridgnorth . Ludlow Shrewsbury Wenlock Old Parliament Including taken away- Bridgnorth, i L. Ludlow, I C. g. Gain of one old seat ; r/ff. Two ditto. 2 2 21,900 21,900 2 2 •• 21,900 21,900 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 "1 91 114,200 69,400 7,60J 6,000 22,200 21,600 114,200 69,400 7,600 6,000 11,100 10,800 11,100 10,800 10 12 8 2 241,000 219,100 21,900 8 4 241,000 180,300 60,700 * ^Utcred populatiou. D 2 SOMERSET. E. Division'\ W. Divisioiv^ Mid. Division'\ Bath* Bridgewater* Frome Taunton* . . Old Parliament Including disfranchised Wells, I C. I L. 36 No. of Members. 13 13 2 2 nn2 2 1 1 Population. Total. 105,100 110,300 119,700 53,100 11,800 9,500 15,300 424,800 424,800 105,100 110,300 119,700 7,650 342,750 360,800 53.100 11,800 9,500 7,650 82,050 64,000 STAFFORDSHIRE. N. Division'\ E. Division\ W. Division] Lichfield Newcastle - under Lyme Stafford* . , Stoke-upon-Trent* T am worth . . Walsall* . . Wolverhampton Wednesbury. . Dudley, part of Old Parliament Including taken away- Lichfield, i L. 2 2 2 1 1 nn2 1 1 2 100,800 71,900 119,600 6,900 50,400 119,600 6,900 50,400 71,900 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 12,900 13,200 107,500 10,200 40,300 6,450 6,600 6,450 6,600 107,500 10,200 40,300 2 1 2 147,700 105,500 10,300 * * 147,700 105,500 10,300 19 6 13 746,800 189,950 556,850 17 4 13 746,800 94,200 652,600 g. Gain of one old seat. * Altered population. n. Grain of one new seat ; nn. Two ditto. t Divided constituency. 37 No. of Members. Population. O H C. L. Total. C. L. SUFFOLK. E. Division* W. Division Bury St. Edmunds . . Eye. Ipswich 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 i/2 151,300 126,600 13,400 7,000 38,000 151,300 126,600 6,700 7,000 6,700 38,000 9 9 6 3 336,300 291,600 44,700 Old Parliament 7 2 Zo^,2>^^ 310,600 25,700 SURREY. E. Division-^ W. Division-^ Mid. Divisio7if Guildford* .. Lambeth Southwark . . Greenwich, part of Old Parliament Including disfranchised Reigate, i L. Guildford, i C. 2 2 2 1 2 2 11 1 nn2 2 1 *i 2 2 97,700 109,300 121,600 8,300 294,900 193,600 5,700 54,*650 121,600 97,700 54,650 8,300 294,900 ] 93,600 5,700 3 8 831,100 176,250 654,850 II 2 9 831,100 58,800 772,300 ff. Grain of one old seat. * Altered population. WM. Gain of two new seats, t Divided constituency. 38 No. of Members. Population. 1 C. L. Total. C. L. H SUSSEX. E. Division^ 2 .Vl 1 121,500 60,750 60,750 W. Division* 2 2 54,400 54,400 Brig-hton* . . 2 2 88,700 . . 88,700 Chichester* , . 1 9,100 9,100 Hastings* . . ff2 26,700 . , 26,700 Horsham . . f/l 1 6,800 3,400 3,400 Lewes 1 9,700 9,700 Midhurst . . 1 . . 6,400 6,400 N. Shoreham 2 2 , . 32,600 32,600 Rye 1 ^1 •• 8,200 8,200 15 9 7 363,700 174,850 188,850 Old Parliament i8 7 II 363,700 107,500 256,200 Including disfranchised Arundel, i L. and taken away Lewes, i L. Chichester, i L. WARWICK. A^. Division* S. Division . Birmingham Coventry* . Warwick . Old Parliament 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 1 ^3 i 115,600 90,900 296,100 43,100 10,600 115,600 90,900 43,100 5,300 296,100 5,300 11 7 4 556,300 254,900 301,400 10 6 4 556,300 235,100 321,200 WESTMORELAND. Westmoreland Kendal Old Parliament 2 1 2 i 48,800 12,000 48,800 12,000 3 2 1 60,800 48,800 12,000 3 2 I 60,800 48,800 12,000 * Altered population. g. Gain of one old seat, n Gain of one new seat. 39 No. of Members. Population. li C. L. Total. C. L. o WILTSHIRE. iV'. Division . . 2 1 79,400 39,700 39,700 S. Division . . 2 1 74,000 37,000 37,000 Calne 1 , , 1 5,200 5,200 Chippenham 1 , . 7,000 7,000 Cricklade 2 ^1 37,000 18,500 18,500 Devizes 1 6,000 6,600 Malmsbury . . 1 ^1 6,900 6,900 ]\Iarlboroiigh 1 1 4,900 4,900 Salisbury . . 2 2 12,300 12,300 Westbury . . 1 6,500 6,500 Wilton 1 •• 1 8,000 8,600 15 8 248,400 122,200 126,200 Old Parliament i8 9 9 248,400 133,800 114,600 including taken away — Chippenham, i C. Devizes, i C. Marlborough, i L. WORCESTER. E, Division* 2 ^1 1 101,600 50,800 50,800 W. Division* 2 2 . . 63,800 63,800 Bewdley* . . 9^ . , 7,300 7,300 Droit vvich* . . 1 . . 8,400 8,400 Dudley , , 1 71,700 . , 71,700 Evesham . . 1 . 4,600 4,600 Kidderminster* . , ^1 16,100 16,100 Worcester*. . 2 ^1 1 33,800 16,900 16,900 11 7 4 307,300 151,800 155,500 Old Parliament 12 5 7 307,300 92,100 215,200 including taken away — Evesham, i L. g. Gain of one old scat. * Altered population. 40 No. of Members. Poi3ulation. o H C. L. Total. C. L. YORK, N. RIDING. N. Padmg-^' . . 2 1 1 170,800 85,400 85,400 Malton ] 1 8,000 . . 8,000 Northallerton 1 1 4,700 4,700 Richmond* . . 1 . , 1 5,300 , . 5,300 Scarborough 2 . , 2 18,400 . . 18,400 Thirsk 1 1 5,300 5,300 Whitby . . 1 , .