l^.#^r> Mm % '^ \ ^ ' '% f — <^^»: ELECTOEAL STATISTICS: A EEVIEW OF THE WORKING OF OUR REPRESENTATIVE SYSTEM FROM 1832 TO 1881, IN VIEW OF PROSPECTIVE CHANGES THEREIN, By JOHN BIDDULPH MARTIN, Esq., M.A. READ BEFORE THE STATISTICAL SOCIETY, FEBRUARY 19, 1884. LONDON: EDWARD STANFORD, 55, CHARING CROSS, S.W. 1884. .J HAKBISON AND SONS, PBINTEBS IN O&DINART TO B£B MAJESTY, ST. MABTIN S LANE. AN OUTLINE OF THE OBJECTS OF THE STATISTICAL SOCIETY. The Statistical Sociebij of London was founded, in pursuance of a recommendation of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, on the 15th of March, 1834 ; its object being, the careful collection, arrangement, discussion and publication, of facts bear- ing on and illustrating the complex relations of modem society in its social, economical, and political aspects, — especially facts which can be stated numerically and arranged in tables ; — and also, to form a Statistical Library as rapidly as its funds would permit. The Society from its inception has steadily progressed. It now possesses a valuable Library and a Reading Room ; Ordinary Meetings are held monthly from November to June, which are well attended, and cultivate among its Fellows an active spirit of inves- tigation : the Papers read before the Society are, with an abstract of the discussions thereon, published in its Journal, which now con- sists of forty-six annual volumes, and forms of itself a valuable library of reference. The Society has originated and statistically conducted many special inquiries on subjects of economic or social interest, of which the results have been published in tbe Journal, or issued separately ; the latest instance being the institution of the " Howard Medal " Prize Essay. To enable the Society to extend its sphere of useful activity, and accomplish in a yet greater degree the various ends indicated, an increase in its numbers and revenue is desirable. With the desired increase in the number of Fellows, the Society will be enabled to publish standard works on Economic Science and Statistics, espe- cially such as are out of print or scarce, and also greatly extend its collection of Foreign works. Such a well-arranged Library for reference, as would result, does not at present exist in England, and is obviously a great desideratum. The Society is cosmopolitan, and consists of Fellows and Hone- rary Members, forming together a body, at the present time, of over nine hundred Members. The Annual Subscription to the Society is Two Guineas, and at present there is no entrance fee. Fellows may, on joining the Society, or afterwards, compound for all future Annual Subscrip- tions by a payment of Twenty Guineas. The Fellows of the Society receive gratuitously a copy of each part of the Journal as published quarterly, and have the privilege of purchasing back numbers at a reduced rate. The Library (reference and circulating), and the Reading Room, are open daily for the convenience of Members. Nomination Foims and any further information will be fur- nished, on application to the Assistant Secretary, From the Jouenal of the Statistical Society, March, 1884. Electoeal Statistics : a Review of the Working of our Repre- sentative System from 1832 to 1881, in view of Prospective Changes therein. By John Biddulph Martin, Esq., M.A. [Read before the Statistical Society, 19th February, 1884. The President, Robert Giffeu, Esq., LL.D-, in the Chair.] CONTENTS : PAGE I. — Introductory 1 II.— Historical Sketch 2 a. The Distribution of Seats 2 /3. The Electorate 4 III. — The Present Position and the Conditions of the Problem 8 a, England and Wales .. 8 IV.- PAGE Deductions on account of — 1. Lunatics, &c 9 2. Paupers 9 3. Criminals 10 4. Aliens ]0 6. Deductions from Apparent Total of Electors 10 ^. Ireland 14 -Conclusion 18 Appendices. A to D 20 I. — Introductory^ It will be conceded tliat the present time is eminently opportune for bringing under the notice of this Society facts a/iid figures relating to the representative system of our country. A little more than fifty years have elapsed since that system was laid down on its existing principles : it is almost exactly fifty years since the Statistical Society was founded for the purpose of *' the careful " collection, arrangement, discussion, and publication, of facts " bearing on and illustrating the complex relations of modern " society in its social, economical, and political aspects." In spite of the exclamation of the poet — " How small, of all that human hearts endure. That part which laws or kings can cause or cure ! " good government is generally held to be directly contributory to the general happiness, and next after the pui^suit of wealth there is 2 Martin — On Electoral Statistics: a Beview of the perhaps no subject that commaiids greater attention and interest than that which under the comprehensive style of " politics " embraces not merely party questions, but every topic relating to the government of the country. HeprescDtation may be said to be the foundation stone 'and the key-stone of our political fabric, and our representative systeaai is naturally the theme of constant consideration and criticism. Our Society has not been backward in its recognition of the importance of the subject, and of its claims to investigation : our first volume has a note on the electoral statistics of the time, and the field of the present inquiry has been worked in already more than once. In ,1857 and again in 1859 the late Mr. William Xewmarch elaborately reviewed the electoral statistics of the preceding tweaity-five years ; in 1874 I was permitted to lay before the Society a comparison of the elections of 1868 and 1874; a year ago Mr. Arthur Ellis submitted a comparison of the electoral statistics of 1871 and 1881. Mr. Thomas Hare, working on another branch of the subject, laid before us in 1860 a paper on the theory of representative electioDS. Mr. Droop in 1881 contributed to our Joimial an essay 'of'Similar nature. [See Appendix C] The scope of the present paper is distinct from that of the tw^o last mentioned writers, but 1 maj^ at once acknowledge my indebtedness to those who, either as contributors to our Journal or otherwise, have gone before me, by whose labours in the collection and grouping of statistics vnj own have been lightened, and from wdiom I have perforce occasionally borrowed. On one point I hope to follow closely the example of Mr. William Newmarch ; namely, in laying down to myself the law that whatever be the opinion of the writer, his paper should be neutral and colourless. I purpose to limit myself to first a very brief historical account of the changes which fifty years have brought about in our representative system, and next to a contrast of the present state of thaA system with the epoch from whence the inquiry starts, as foreshadowing the course which events may be reasonably expected to fallow in the future. II. — Historical Sketch. a. The Distribution' of Seats.^-The Reform Act of 1832 restored to the House of Commons the character of a representative assembly, a character that it had altogether ceased to deserve. Its operation, so far as regards the redistribution of seats, may be shown tabularly thus : — Working of our Bepreseutative System, 1832 to 1881. Seats Lost. Seats G-ained. Boroughs — England— 55 (^ 2 each = 1101 1 . 1 „ = 1 . Boroughs — England 22 (^ 2 each" (Schedule C) J 19 (^ 1 each ~ (Schedule D) ' Wales 2 @ 1 each.... 44 (Schedule A) ^ III 19 2 Scotland 8 „ 1 „ .... 8 30 (^ 1 each = 30 " (Schedule B) Ireland 4 „ 1 „ .... 4 3^ Universities — 77 Weymouth and 1 Melcombe-Eegis ^ (amalgamated) J 2 Ireland 1 Counties — England 25 (^ 2 each\ (Schedule F) / 1 @ 1 eachi (Schedule F 2) J Yorkshire 1 ^^ „ each Lincolnshire../ ^ (Si ^ each 50 7 4 Isle of Wight Wales 3 (pleach 1 3 65 H3 143 After this sweeping measure tlie constituencies remained un- disturbed until the second Reform Act of 1867, save for the re- allotment of the seats forfeited by Sudbury and St. Albans. By the latter Act 4 boroughs were totally, and 42 half disfranchised, 1 1 new boroughs were created in England, and 2 in the metropolis ; I seat was attributed to London University, and 25 seats to 13 English counties. In the following year (1868) 11 seats lapsed owing to corruption in 9 English boroughs, of which 7 only were reallotted under the Scotch Reform Act of 18"'>8, viz., I each to the Universities of Edinburgh and Glasgow, 3 to boroughs, and 3 to counties (Selkirk and Peebles at the same time losing one member by consolidation). Save for the forfeiture of the two seats of the boroughs of Sligo and Cashel, no change has taken place in the balance of representative power in Ireland ; the franchise in Ireland has indeed been subject to alteration, but with this we are not at the moment concerned. In Appendix D will be found a chronological statement in full of the changes which hava^ thus been briefly referred to, and which may be summarised thus : — Seats lost, 1832-81, counties 1 ,, boroughs 62 - 63 gained, 1832-81, counties 31 boroughs 1 26 universities J 57 Net loss , Total seats, 1881 '32 6 652 658 A '^ Martin — On Electoral Statist ics : a Reviev; of the These changes may be presented tabalarly in another form and in greater detail,* thus : — Table \.-- Showing Seats (Jained and Lost l)i/ Counties, Boroughs, and Universities, 1832-81. Counties. Boroughs. Univeisitics. Total. England and Wales . Scotland Ireland + 28 3 ' 2'o 3 6o + 1 2 + 49 8 6o I 2 Total 31 ^ 23 62 3 57 (>l y3. The Electorate. — It is evident from the historical facts briefly touched on in the preceding remarks, tbat the period of forty-nine years that we have under I'eview is divisible into two unequal * Subjoined is a table, taken in great measure from the very interesting paper contributed by Mr. Benjamin Whitwortli to the Manchester Reform Club Debating Society in 1876 (William Porter and Sons, Manchester), wherein these changes are numerically shown thus: — Table 2. 1832. 1833. 1868. 1881. jEngland — 82 -1 103 144 4 3^3 172 5 286 172 5 281 Universities Boroughs Total 489 471 463 458 Wales— Counties 12 12 15 15 15 I c, Boroughs 16 Total 2 1 29 30 3. Scotland — 30 15 30 23 32 2 26 ^2 Universities Boroughs 26 Total 15 S}> (;o 60 Ireland — - Counties Universities Boroughs 64 1 35 64 39 64 2 39 64 2 37 Total 100 105 105 103 Grand total .... 658 658 658 (>6^ See also Table A 5. Worhing of our Representative System^ 1832 to 1881. 5 parts : viz., the thirty-five years 1832-G7, the fourteen years 1867-31. The break in continuity caused by the Act of 1867, affecting as it did not only the distribution of seats, but also the franchise, prevents us from comparing directly the years 1832 and 1881. With modifications that have been made in the electoral qualifi- cation for counties or boroughs it is not proposed here to deal, and the occupation franchises into which Mr. Newmarch elaborately examined have for us but an historical interest. Yet in dealing broadly with the changes that have taken place in the population and the electoral body of the realm, it is necessary not to ignore this intermediate point of new departure, and to select as a middle term some point of time on "this or that side, or both, of the Act of 1867, for the purposes of comparison with 1832 on the one hand, and 1881 on the other. The rapid growth of our large cities (represented during the decade 1871-81 by an increase of 21,000 electors in the county of Lancaster alone) renders it desirable that this middle term should 'coincide as nearly as may be with the decennial census, and as the addition of a fourth column of popu- lation and electors would have made the tables of Appendix A still more voluminous than they are, I decided on selecting the year 1861 as my intermediate point for the purposes of these tables. If we briefly summarise the evidence afforded by the totals of 1832 and 1862, we see at once the gravitation of population towards the boroughs throughout the United Kingdom, the relative variations showing as follows : — Table 3. 1832. 1861-62. I'opuliitioii Mild Electors. Population. Electors. Counties — England and Wales .... Scotland 100 100 100 100 100 100 133 1:^1 71 165 144 108 144 1 ^0 Ireland 289 182 166 Boronghs — England and W^les .... Scotland Ireland Thus in both England and Scotland the number of electors on the registers has more than kept pace both in counties and boroughs with the population. Ireland, however, presents, not for the first time, anomalous features : a small relative decrease in the electors of boroughs being recorded, while on the other hand there is an enormous increase in the electors on county registers, a phenomenon of which no explanation seems apparent. 6 Martin — On Electoral Statistics : a Btview of the Before passing to the consideration of the Act usually spoken of as the Reform Act of 1867, we may briefly glance at the result of the labours of the Boundary Commissioners, which bore fruit in the " Boundary Act " of 1868. By this Act the boundaries of 59 existing boroughs in England, and of 10 existing Welsh boroughs were enlarged. The alterations eff'ected in the case of English boroughs were not on a very radical scale, the total area of the 59 boroughs being enlarged from 421-2 square miles to 5007 square miles, or say a total increase of iS'y per cent. The alterations in the Welsh boroughs, from their general character as district boroughs, were more sweeping, but ow4ng to the absence in several instances of boundary maps in 1832, the increase of area is less easily ascertainable. In the aggregate of cases that are comparable the increase is 62 per cent. A more considerable change was ciFected by constituting as boroughs the important constituencies of ]3urnley, Chelsea, Darlington, Dewsbury, Gravesend, Middles- borough, Stalybridge, Stockton, and Wednesbury, with an aggregate area of 73I square miles, and a population and electorate (in 1881) of 838,850 and 100,833 respectively; to the depletion, pro tarito, of the electoral strength of their respective counties. But the effects produced by the redistribution clauses of this Act were of small account as compared with those brought about by its franchise clauses, the number of electors on the registers before and after the passing of the Act showing the following very considerable contrasts : — Table 4. Counties. Boroi glis.* 1865-66. 1869. 1866. 1869. England and Wales .. Scotland Ireland 542,521 1 49,979 t 172,010 § 791,916 76,07711 170,46011 458,368 53,198 31,721 1,167,473 H9>i34 45^524 764,510 1,038,453 543,587 1,36^,131 * Pari. Paper, No. 381 of 1874. Mr. Butt. f Dod, 1866. X Pari. Paper, 3651 of 1866. § Pari. Paper, 448 of 1865. II Pari. Paper, 388 of 1879. The figures of this table, both as regards the increase of county and borough electors at the two periods, and the relative increase of borough electors as compared with those of the counties, may be left to speak for themselves. It must however be borne in mind that in the case of Ireland no alteration was made in the county franchise by the Irish Reform Act of 1868, while the borough Working of our Bej)resentative System, 1832 to 1881. 7 francliise was reduced from an 8/. to a 4/. qnalification only. The dates above cited, and the figures corresponding thereto, may serve as stepping stones between the two extreme points of our course, viz., the years 1832-81, and we may now compare the figures afforded by the returns of these years, and set out in detail in Table A, and summarised in Tables Al — A 7. Table A 2 renders more easily comparable the bare figures given in Al. by reducing them to two places of decimals, in other words to the per- centage of every 10,000 inhabitants. We see herein that for every lOjCOO souls there was an increase in the Euglish counties of 319, and in English boroughs of 1,346 ; a small decline of 27 in Scotch counties, but an increase of 113 in Scotch boroughs ; the whole of this net increase of 1,751 being at the expense of Ireland, in the proportion of 1,702 in the counties, and 49 in the boroughs. In Tables A3 and A4 the number of electors on the registers at the two periods are similarly treated, and we find a notable transfer of electoral power from the English counties to the boroughs ; in Scotland the same effect is produced in a less marked manner, the net gain in both these divisions of the kingdom being again at the expense of Ireland. But the total gain or loss in each of the three countries is much less than the gain or loss in gross population, as will be more readily apparent from the following tabular statement : — Table 5. — Shoioing the Increase or Decrease in the Total Population, and Number of Electors per Ten Thousand in England and Wales, Scot- land and Ireland respectively from 1832-81. Popu] ation. Electors. Increiise or Decrease. Net Increase or Decrease. Increase or Decrease. Net Increas^e or Decrease. England and Wales — Counties Boroughs Uniyersities V 319 + 1,346 -H 1,665 + 86 - 14 Scotland — Counties Boroughs Uniyersities - 27 + 113 93 + 269 + 39 + 17Z + 215 Ireland — Coixnties Boroughs Uniyersities . . . - 1,702 49 + 1,751 - 1,751 - 199 - 174 + 387 - 387 8 Martin — On Electoral Statistics: a Beviciti of the Table A6 shows in detail as regards England and Wales the increase in the total population and number of registered electors at such periods between 1882 and 1881 as are available for com- parison. Unfortunately the Census Returns of 1841 do not dis- tino-uish the population of the registration districts in the manner which is now the case, and the table is so far incomplete. It appears that the population of the counties in 1881 was nearly as large as that of the entire kingdom in 1831, but the urban popula- tion having in the same interval much more than doubled itself, it is now approaching in volume to that of the rural districts ; so that whereas in 1881 the rural population was to the urban as lOO to 6o, it is now in the proportion of lOO to 89*5 only. As regards the number of electors it will be seen that this increased during the thirty years 1832-62 rather faster than did the population, the increase of electors being 54 per cent, as against an increase of 44 per cent, of population ; but owing to the Reform Act of 1867 the county electors increased during the following decade by 50 per cent., and its borough electors to 166 per cent. Finally, in Table A 7 is shown the population of the rural and urban inhabitants and of rural and of urban electors in every 100 of the respective totals at the same date ; from this table the dwindling importance of the counties, and the growing pre- ponderance of the boroughs is seen at a glance. III. — TTie Present Position and the Conditions of the Problem. The inquiry has now been brought down to the present time, and we are in a position to survey the state of affairs to which the lapse of fifty years has brought us, as well as to consider what is before us, and the probable effect of any alterations in the electoral system. The difference in the social phenomena presented by the different divisions of the realm, as well as their dissimilar laws, constitutional rights, and disabilities, renders it desirable to treat of them separately, and especially so as regards England and Ireland. The field of inquiry is a large one, and one in which it is equally difficult to be assured that exploration has been complete, or that the survey, so far as it is carried, has been correct ; it is therefore permissible to express at the outset my sense of the imperfect manner in which, with every intention of being pains- taking and accurate, I have succeeded in dealing with so intricate a matter as the one under consideration, a. England and Wales. — We have seen from Table Al that the total population of England and Wales consists of 25,960,276* souls, or (according to the slightly differing total of the Census Report) of 25,974,439, made up of — * From " Parliamentary Reformer's Manual." WorMng of our Bepresentative System, 1832 to 1881. Males over 20 years 6,643,167 = 25-6 per cent. „ tinder 20 years 5,996,735= 23-1 „ Females 13,334,537 = 51-3 „ 25,974,439 = 100 this total of over six millions and a half of adult males having o apparently (Table A3) among their number 2,537,810 (say 38 per cent.) of registered electors. But these gross totals are subject to considerable modification before we can arrive at an approximate estimate of the true total in each case. From the total adult population we have to deduct those who are in any way incapaci- tated from the exercise of civil rights ; that is, those who are mentally, socially, or legally, disqualified : the (1) lunatic, (2) paupers, (3) criminals, and (4) foreigners. (1). From the Census Returns of 1881 (General Report, vol. iv, p. 67) it appears that in England and Wales 39,789 males were recorded as lunatics, idiots, or imbeciles, of whom there were of the age of 20 years and over 33,958 (Census Returns of 1881, vol. iii, Table XVIII). Of this number 20,205 ( =59*5 per cent.) are returned as lunatics, and 13,753 ( =40-5 per cent.) as idiots and imbeciles. But while the former total is taken as fairly accurate, the latter is subject to very considerable modification, chiefly owing to the natural reluctance of parents or relatives to make a true return in this particular, especially in milder cases. Following then the calculations of the census report, we must add 9,527 unreturned imbeciles, making a total of 43,350 adult males labouring under mental disability. (2). In estimating the number to be deducted from the total population under the head of paupers there is always an element of uncertainty, since the total number in receipt of relief at any one date is naturally verjc far from representing the number of persons relieved during a period of twelve months. From the Report of the Local Government Board (1882-83, p. xvii) we find the following figures : — Table 6. — Showing Mean Number of Paupers and Adult Male Paupers in England and Wales^ 1881-82. Mean total ....-l Mean of adult 1 males J Year. 1881 '82 1881 '82 In-door. 183,872 183,374 22,516 22,251 Out-door. 607,065 604,915 82,485 79>957 790,937 788,289 105,000 102,208 Per 1,000. 30-0 30-0 4-0 3'9 But from the total at any given date a deduction of about 14*5 per cent, must be made in respect of lunatics and idiots B 2 10 Martin — On Electoral Statistics : a Review of the already taken into account, so that after making this allowance from the mean total of the two years, an average remains of 88,582 to represent the adult male recipients of public charity. It is evident that good or bad times, fine or rigorous seasons, &c., would considerably modify this estimate. Whatever the total arrived at as the average number of paupers at any one time, it evidently does not represent the number of persons relieved during the year. Any receipt of charitable relief would presumably under any circumstances be held as a temporary disqualification, and we must take the usually received estimate of three times the average number as representing the total number of persons annually relieved. Assuming this calculation not to apply to pauper lunatics, whose pauperism would naturally be more permanent, we have a total of 265,746 adult males other than lunatics who are annually relieved from public funds. (3). From the E-eport of the Commissioners of Prisons, 1881, it appears that on 31st March in that year there were in the local prisons of England and Wales, of 14,089 male prisoners, 10,777 males of 21 years and over ; and if we assume a similar ratio to exist among those discharged from prison during the year, we must add 99,735 to this number, making a total of 110,502 adult males under legal disqualification in respect of sentences of imprisonment. It is less easy to estimate from the Report of the Directors of Convict Prisons the number of adult males who, being under sentences of penal servitude, or released on licence or under police surveillaxice, would be disqualified from civic rights ; but from such data as are available, and making such allowances as have been suggested to me, the number can hardly be less than 9,000. This forms, with the total given above, what we may call for the purposes of the present inquiry a criminal class of 119,502. (4). From the Census Returns of 1881 (vol. iii, summary, Table XII) it appears that the number of adult male European foreigners enumerated was 55,097, and if w^e may assume a similar ratio in the case of foreigners other than Europeans (whose ages are not tabulated), of w^hom more than 90 per cent, are from the United States, the total of adult male aliens v^ill be 64,057. It must also be borne in mind that there is always a certain, or more properly an uncertain number of men, who from insujQBciently long residence, negligence on their own part or on that of election agents, want of fixed abode, &c., are not registered as electors, and the apparent proportion of unenfranchised male citizens relatively to their total number is subject to further reduction. (5). If we now turn to the number of registered electors, it is evident that the gross total is subject to revision, in order that we may take into account the holders of duplicate qualifications. These Working of our Bep'esentative System, 1832 to 1881. 11 duplicate qualifications, within the limits of a single constituency, whether county or borough, and arising either naturally in respect of separate qualification or from ancient rights, are ascertainable with comparative ease. But it is no less easy to imagine the interminable cross-examination of registers that would be necessary before arriving at an exact statement of the holders of qualifica- tions to vote in different constituencies ; of these the reverend gentleman lately quoted by Mr. Bright as holding twenty-four votes, and exercising seventeen at the last general election, may be cited as an extreme instance. Mr. Newmarch in 1852 {Journal, June, 1857, p. 175) estimated that from the then total of 920,000 county and borough electors a deduction of 6 per cent, was neces- sary in order to arrive at the total number of persons ; but it is natural to suppose that the percentage of holders of duplicate qualifications among the large class enfranchised by the Act of 1867 would be comparatively insignificant, while the ancient right voters are necessarily diminishing in number. It is estimated that at the present time a deduction of 10 per cent, should be made from the total county register, and not more than i per cent, from the borough electorate. The estimated deductions from the gross number of adult males and of registered electors may now be summed up tkus, in round numbers : — Table 7. — Population. Adult males 6,643,000 Less lunatics, idiots, &c 28,000 „ „ (paupers) 15,000 ,, paupers (other tlian lunatics) 266,000 „ criminals 120,000 „ aliens 6^,000 493,000 6,1 <50,oco „ adults 20 — 21 years = 3 per cent 184,500 Net total males 21 years and over 5)9^5,500 Table 8. — Electors. Total number of electors on register, 1881 a, 537,01c Less university electors i3)45'9 County electors 932,8601 Borough „ 1,591,451/ ^'^''■'^ Less 10 per cent, county electors 93,286 ,, I „ borough „ 15,911< 109,200 Total number of persons on registers 2,415,11 1 12 Martin — On Electoral Statistics : a Beviciv of the and we find that of the net number of adult males 40-48 per cent., or rather more than two in every five, are at present registered as electors. Comparing this percentage with that of 18-33 P^^ cent, as estimated by Mr. Newmarch in 1857 (an estimate that must be raised to 20-63 i^ allowances and deductions be made similar to those of the present paper), it appears that the electoral body has now almost exactly twice the importance (relatively to the total adult male population) that it had twenty-five years ago. We have now arrived at the conclusion that of the whole adult male population, 60 per cent., or three out of five, are at present without electoral rights. The changes that lie in the immediate future will undoubtedly enfranchise a certain proportion of this residue, and it remains to consider in what direction and how far such prospective changes, as far as we are able to forecast them, are likely to take effect. We have seen that the population of England and Wales may for parliamentary purposes be divided thus : — Counties 13,688,902 = 52-78 per cent. Boimiglis 12,285,537 = 47*-9 » 25,974,439 =100 And if we assume for the moment an uniformity in the distribution of adult males of 21 and over, we shall find these, and the present quota of electors in the two divisions to be as follows : — Adult Male^t. Electors. 3,112,000 = 5Z-7I 2,793,000 = 47-29 932,860 = 36-95 2,591,451 = 63-05 5,905,000 = 100 2,524,311 = 100 and it would therefore follow that other things being equal, the assimilation of the county franchise to that of the boroughs would raise the county electorate to 1,836,500, and their relative strength would undergo the following modification : — Adult Males. Electors. 3,112,000 = 52-71 2,793,000 = 47-29 1,773,715 = 52-71 1,591,451 = 47-29 5,905,000 = 100 3,365,166 = 100 But the assumption of equality in other things is a large one, and may require to be modified by a variety of considerations Worldng of our Representative System, 1832 to 1881. 13 wbich it is difficult to appraise at their true respective values. The comparative density of population in town and country, the differing social conditions under which they live, and difference in the tenure of their homes, must affect the percentage of adult males in the two divisions of the population ; but it is by no means easy to assign to each disturbing cause its proper effect. The population of England and Wales is lodged in 4,831,579 dwellings, which for census purposes are reckoned as "inhabited "houses;" of which 2,733,000 are scheduled in registration counties, and 2,098,000 in boroughs; and assuming an equal proportion of ad alt males in each case, the proportion would stand thus : — Adult Males. Inhabited Houses. Adult Males. Inliabited Houses. Counties Boroughs 3,112,000 2,793,000 2,733,000 2,098,000 = 1,000 = 1,000 878 The ratio may be shown in another form by comparing the number of persons to each house in different divisions of the country : — All Eng-land 1 inhabited house to 5*38 inhabitants. KegisLi'atioii counties 1 „ 5-01 „ boroughs 1 „ 5-85 Nineteen large cities of 100,000"] inhabitants and over — I , Maximum, London = yS^ C " 55° » Minimum, Leeds and Hull 4"76j 178 small towns in county consti- 1 , tuencies J ^ »» 5*4^ » But the fact that the large towns of Leeds, Sheffield, Bradford, Nottingham, Hull, Leicester, and Oldham, are apparently less thickly crowded than the average of counties, while such consti- tuencies as East Retford, with an area of 207,000 acres, or Cricklade, covering 157,000 acres, are counted as boroughs, shows the extreme difficulty of giving with any certainty the number of electors likely to be found or created in any given parliamentary area. A little light is thrown on the subject by the Census Returns (vol. iii, summary Table 2) of the population of the sanitary districts; whence we learn that the adult males of urban districts are in the proportion of 2,541 per 10,000 inhabitants, against 2,593 P^^ 10,000 inhabitants of rural districts. So that at least we may conjecture that if the parliamentary constituencies could be divided into hand fide urban and rural areas under an equal franchise, there would be 14 Martin — On Electoral Statistics : a Review of the presumably a proportion of electors per 10,000 greater by 52 in the case of the rural than in that of the urban districts. There are moreover considerations outside the province of statistics that would no doubt affect the total number of electors who might become eligible to vote under an assimilation of the county to the borough franchise. The agricultural labourer occupies his dwelling under conditions very different from those which affect the city artizan ; he is notoriously more under the supervision and control of his landlord, and the greater difficulty attendant on removal renders him less willing to incur the risk of disturbance. The extension of an occupation franchise to county constituencies might apparently enable any powerful landlord to suppress or manu- facture votes in a way that would not be practicable in towns. Nor must we omit to remember, as indeed we have been frequently reminded of late, that the county franchise rests on a different basis from that of the boroughs. The former is in theory a property qualification, the latter is one of occupation; and it is difficult to support by logical argument the retention of plurality of votes for counties, if the county vote be made an occupation franchise. How far it may be possible to reconcile the constitutional and time honoured rights of the 405. freeholder in half-a-dozen counties with a logical rearrangement of the franchise is a matter of expediency and of practical, perhaps of party statesmanship, but, as has been seen, the result would practically be that unless remedied by some simultaneous compensation, the county electorate, already dwindling in strength relatively to that of the boroughs, would suffer an immediate reduction of 10 per cent, of its strength. It must also be borne in mind that any attribution of members to boroughs at present unrepresented, or union of any such with boroughs at present represented, would act in the same direction. The removal of the 178 unrepresented towns of 10,000 inhabitants and over which are scheduled in the Financial Reform Almanac, from their respective county constituencies, and their formation or adoption into parliamentary boroughs, would not only deprive the counties of their quota of electors, but add to the borough constituencies a force of electors which if we may compare them with the 180 boroughs of not more than 50,000 inhabitants that now return 2 3 1 members to Parliament, may fairly be estimated at 477,000, or an increase of more than 15 per cent, of their existing strength. /3. Ireland. — As compared with England and Wales, Scotland exhibits, both in respect of population and electorate, changes similar in their direction, but very much modified in degree ; when we turn to Ireland we have to record contrasts rather than com- parisons. In place of the great numerical increase in the population WorJcing of our Tte^presentative System, 1832 to 1881. 15 of our counties, and a still greater Increase in that of our boroughs, we see a great falling off in the inhabitants of Irish counties, and an increase in her borough population, insignificant as compared with that of England and Scotland. Were it not for the strong con- viction of most impartial observers, that the general condition of Ireland has decidedly improved, it would be melancholy indeed to contrast the decrease of more than 50 per cent, in her total popu- lation, with the increase of more than 75 per cent, in the case of England and Wales. As far as the figures of 1801 may be trusted,* the population of Ireland was then much what it is now, say 5,100,000 out of a total of 15,629,000, or 30-5 per cent., but the astonishing increase of the Irish population during the subsequent forty years (total, 8,199,000 in 1841) only gave to the country a relative increase of less than 2 per cent, (see Table A 2) as compared with the whole. But in 1832 the electoral strength of Ireland (Table A 4) was only i r32 per cent, of that of the United Kingdom. Since that time her county electors have been reduced in relative importance by 27 per: cent., and her borough electors by nearly 50 per cent., so that Ireland has now only 7*45 per cent, of the voting power of the realm. But before we can institute an effective comparison between the growth in electoral importance of England and Scotland with the decline observable ki Ireland, we must bear in mind that the conditions of the social body in the case of the one are not precisely identical with those that affect the other ; in the administration of the poor laws, in the character of the crimes that have recently stained her soil, in the disposal of her superfluous population, Ireland is affected in a manner peculiar to herself, and the wide divergence of race, character, and religious belief that marks different parts of Ireland, makes it difficult to treat even of Ireland itself as an homogeneous nation. In endeavouring to ascertain the possible electoral strength of Ireland, I have found it impossible to make, province by province, the allowances and deductions that I have attempted in the case of England and Wales, and I have been compelled to content myself with a comparison of the total adult male population in either case. It is surprising in the first place to find that the ratio of males of 20 and over to total population is in Ireland only fractionally different to that which we find in Ens-land, viz , 2^84, as against 25*6 or 24 per 10,000. But this similarity disappears if we look into it more closely, and if we examine province by province the ratio of adult males, the number of electors furnished by each, and the ratio of these to the number of members returned to parliament, we find very wide divergencies. These are best shown in a tabular form thus : — * Thorn's "Official Directory," 1883, p, 565. 16 Martin — On Electoral Statistics: a Review of the Table 9. — Shelving the Population in Counties and Boroughs in Ireland, the Number of Adult Hales, the Number of Electors, the Ratio of Electors per Ten Thousand Adidt Males, the Number of Electors per Member, and Number of Members Returned to Parliament, 1881. Province. Populiition. lliitio of .Males 20 and over. Total Males over 20. Number of Registered Voters. Number of Electors ])er io,oco .Vdult .Male?. Number of Electors per Member. Number of .Members. Ulster Cos. Boros. Leinster .... Cos. Boros. Connaiiglit Cos. Boros. Munster .... Cos. Boros. 1,437,690 301,852 932,853 350,028 794,600 18,906 1,093,242 230,668 I 25-28 < j- 27-92 \ 1 24-16 \ 1 f p5-63 < 363,400 76,300 260,400 97,700 191,900 4,500 280,200 59>5oo 65,794 29,688 41,949 15.943 16,982 1,146 43,492 10,720 1,810 3,890 1,610 1,632 885 2,546 1,552 1,801 3,655 2,699 1,748 1,594 1,698 573 3,624 765 18 1 1 24 10 10 2 12 14 Total .... Cos. Total ....Boros. 4,258,385 901,454 I 25-84 \ 1,095,900 238,000 168,217 57,497 1,535 2,4^5 2,628 1,553 64 37 Grand total, 1 Ireland ....j 5,159,839 25-84 1,333,900 225,714 1,692 2,234 101 England .... Cos. Boros. 13,698,493 12,261,783 125-6 - 3,505,000 3,138,000 932,860 i>59i>45i 2,659 5,070 4,988 5^358 187 297 Grand total, "1 England .... J 25,960,276 25-6 6,643,000 2,524,311 3,798 5,215 484 We see from tliis table that the ratio of electors to the total adult males in Irish counties is but 1,535 per 10,000, as against 2,659 per 10,000 in English counties, a fact that we must set down as being mainlj caused by the greater wealth of the latter country. In Irish boroughs the ratio is 2,415 per 10,000, as against 5,070 per 10,000 in English boroughs, an effect due not merely to greater wealth in the one cage, but e^Iso to the dift'erence in the qualification for the franchise in Irish boroughs, In noting the differences observable between the figures afforded by the provinces of Ireland, it must be remembered that Connaught has but one borough, Galway City, and the figures in this line can therefore hardly be brought faii-ly into account. It must also be borne in mind that the character of Irish oounty coustituencies i§ more distinctly WorJdng of our Bejoresentative System, 1832 to 1881. 17 rural, and of Irish, borouglis more decidedly urban, than is the case in England. There are in Ireland no towns crying for distinct representation ; on the other hand the area of Irish boroughs averages 9*8 square miles, against 15*8 in the case of English boroughs. Against East Retford, with an area of 325 square miles, and Cricklade with 248, Ireland can show Carriokfergus = 26, Cork = 74, Gal way City =37, Kilkenny = 26, and Limerick = 52 ; the remaining 26 Irish boroughs have an aggregate area of 88 square miles, or very little more than 3 square miles on an average. This circumstance, taken in connection with the insignificance of several of the boroughs, and the fact that the boroughs at present have 37 out of lOi members, while they only have 18 per cent, of the electors of Ireland, seems to point towards an increase of the already preponderating majority of country members in Ireland, should a redistribution only of seats be deemed advisable. Note. — The following table, in part recapitulating Table 9, will bring the above facts into more clear relief : — PercentHtre of Adult Males to Electors. Percentage of Kleci-ors to Total Electors. K umber of Members. Ulster Counties Boroughs Leinster Counties Boroughs Connaught Counties Boroughs Munster Counties Boroughs 181 16-1 8-8 15-5 i 38-9 163 25-5 18-0 27-3 14-4 2ro 5'7 ' ri o'3 4-5 18 24 10 12 11 10 z Total 15-35 2415 8i-z 17-8 64 37 Of the effects of an assimilation of the Irish borough franchise to that of England, or of the establishment of an uniform occupa- tion franchise in both, it is very difficult for one who is not an expert to speak with any confidence. An occupation franchise in boroughs, if it raised the constituencies of the English level, would enfranchise some 63,000 electors, making the total borough electors in all 120,000, against the present 168,000 in the counties, while I am informed that the creation of a 40s. freehold vote would not enfranchise more than io,OQO voters iu all Ireland, But a franchise that would take m the mass of agricultui'al laboureris would create some J3|,ooQ voteg, and thus more than restore the prepondei^anoe of the county constituencies, Whether the number of jqq members allotted to Ireland in her 18 Maetin — 0)1 Electoral Statistics : a Ttevleio of the union with England is sacred or inviolable is a constitutional question with which I will not here presume to meddle ; many things have happened since then : the disestablishment of the Irish Church was hardly contemplated under the Act of Union, still less the existence of a pai'ty in the English Parliament avowedly pledged to its repeal. The problem is complicated by grave considerations of practical politics and expediency, and I do not do more than hint at the alternative of establishing an equilibrium by adding to the number, already unwieldy enough, of the English and Scotch members of Parliament. lY. — Conclusion. An attempt has been made in the preceding pages, imperfect and inadequate in many respects, and apparently inconclusive, to trace the steps by which our representative system has reached its present stage of development. An endeavour has been made to show the proportion of the population which is at present in the enjoyment of electoral rights, the manner in which this proportion is distributed, and the power which it exercises in the election of its representatives ; and some slight indication has been suggested of the effect which may be produced by alterations that the immediate future may bring forth. It has not been within the scope of the present paper to enlarge on the anomalies in which our existing system is prolific; to set forth the grievances of unrepresented towns, or the tyranny of the favoured landowning class ; to denounce the deference to the feelings of minorities that has equalised the influence in Parliament of Leeds or Manchester with that of Portarlington or Downpatrick ; or to dilate on the wrongs of the unenfranchised householder who is on the wrong side of the municipal boundary line. These are for the ardent reformer to expound, or for his antagonist to defend or excuse, but I trust that I shall not be held to stray from the path of strict impartiality by recording in a summary form, the manner in which the voice of the individual elector is weakened in county and borough proportionately to the importance of his constituency. Worhing of our Representative System, 1832 to 1881. 19 Table 10a. — Showing the Population, Electors, Ratio of Population to Members, and Ratio of Electors to Memhei^s, in Counties and Boroughs {United Kingdom), Classified according to Population. Counties. Con- Gross Kuniber Number Ratio of Ratio stituen- Limits of Population. Population, of Electors, of Population to of Electors to cies. 188L 1881. Members. Members. Members. 19 Under (;o,ooo 609,235 39,116 21 2,911 1,863 28 50,000 to 75,oco . 1,762,134 I 10,121 43 30,980 2,561 22 75,000 „ 100,000 . 1,947,490 140,902 41 47,499 3,436 23 100,000 „ 125,000 . 2,681,433 167,287 47 ';';,988 3,559 27 12*;, 000 „ I c;o,ooo . 3,554,281 202,706 54 65,838 3,755 15 150,000 „ 175,000 . 2,427,399 136,835 29 83,703 4,718 25 200,000 and over ... 7,105,149 400,680 48 148,024 8,347 159 20,037,121 1,197,647 283 — — Table 10/3. — Boroughs. Con- Gross Number Number Ratio of Ratio stituen- Limits of Population. Population, of Electors, of Population to of Electors to cies. 1881. 1881. Members. Members. Members. 42 248,990 30,913 33>662 42 '^,928 8,344 736 30 7,000 to 10,000 . 250,317 30 1,122 48 10,000 „ 20,000 . 713,137 91,826 72 9,904 1,275 22 20,C00 ,, 30,000 . 569,953 74,265 32 17,811 2,320 38 30,000 ,, A0,000 . 1,543,466 207,721 55 28,063 3,776 34 c;o,ooo „ 100,000 . 2,309,614 334,961 53 43,577 6,320 18 ico,ooo „ 200,000 . 2,430,047 340,340 33 73,637 10,313 19 200,000 and over .... 6,745,594 736,789 43 156,874 17,134 251 14,811,1^18 1,850,477 360 — — This table may furnisli a text to the advocate of more equal distribution of power between town and country, or of the formation of electoral districts : but it is obvious that in a country whose population is not only constantly on the increase, but is also perpetually changing its centre of gravity, the formation of anything like a symmetrical arrangement is not only practically unattainable, but if attained would be constantly liable to derangement : a tem- porary symmetry would be dearly bought at the cost of periodical disturbance. Nor would any apparent symmetry of arrangement be free from drawbacks : an ideal electoral district would presumably contain within itself a due proportion of every interest to be repro sented, and the reductio ad ahsurdum of the system would be the ultimate vesting of the destiny of the country in the vote of a single labourer or a single artizan ; or to come down to the realm of practical politics, the manipulation of electoral boundaries, an art known in the United States as "gerrymandering," is an 20 Martix — On Electoral Statistics : a Bevieiu of the abuse wliicli such a system would tend to foster, and from which this country has hitherto fortunately been exempt. When we speak of the importance of the adequate representation of class interests we are apt to forget that class representation may tend to class legislation : surely the theory of our House of Com- mons is that it is a judicial, not a forensic body : its members are not elected as the advocates of their particular constituencies, or of their particular class, but for deliberation of matters that affect the nation and kingdom as a whole. If the House of Commons is anything better than a vestry, this object must be the aim of any alterations which it may undergo, and the sole mandat imperatif that its members can hold from their electors is that their labours shall be for the common interest and the general good. APPENDIX. Table A. — Showing the Population^ Number of Registered Electors, and Number of Members in the United Kingdom from 1831 to 1881. I. England. — The Metropolis. Population. Electors. Number of Members. 1831. 1861. 1881. 1832-33. 1862-63. 1881. 1832. 1881. London (City) Westminster 1-2,531 206,547 240,294 234,629 361,783 154,613 134,117 63,172 112,063 254,623 436,254 387,278 647,845 294,883 193,593 139,436 50,526 228,932 366,516 498,311 524,480 [417,191 [438,910 498,967 221,866 206,651 18,584 11,576 8,901 10,309 \ 9,906 4,768 4,775 2,714 18,039 12,624 22,426 22,636 30,269 23,944 12,027 9,081 25,310 21,774 30,601 34,687 44,166 [45,130 140,681 49,040 4 2 2 l 2 2 2 2 4 2 Chelsea 2 2 Finsbury 2 Hackney 1 Tower Hamlets .... J Tambetli {: Soutliwark . ... 2 - 1,517,686 2,465,973 3,452,350 71,533 151,046 337,692 18 22 Woj'hing of our Rejpresentative System, 1832 to 1881. 21 L Table A Contd. — Population, Registered Electors, and Number of Members, 1831-81. I II. England. — The South-eastern District. Counties, Surrey E. „ E. „ M. „ :•• W. Sussex E. „ W. Kent E. „ M. , W. „ W. Hants N. „ S. Isle of Wight Berkshire BOEOUGHS A. Reigate Miclhnrst Shoreham Horsham Rye Lymington Christchurch Andover Petersfield Wallingford Boroughs B. Guildford Gravesend Maidstone Canterbury Doyer Sandwich Chatham Hythe Rochester Hastings Lewes Brighton Chichester Soiithauipton Winchester Newport Portsmouth Reading , Windsor Abingdon Arundel ., Population. 1831. 106,217 81,249 1 03 > 744 54^523 130,256 187,33.^; 96,387 82,358 28,731 111,526 ^,326 3,397 5,627 25,008 5,105 7.360 5,361 6,077 4,966 4,39^ 7,352 74,644 5,286 15,790 16,112 15,645 12,183 21,124 8,911 10,585 10,097 9,027 41,994 7,356 19,324 9,292 6,700 50,389 15,595 7,071 5,259 2,803 290,543 1861. 209,345 109,546 126,234 53,025 165,261 277,058 131,634 112,652 47,428 128,590 1,360,773 9,975 6,405 32,622 6,747 8,202 5,179 9,368 5,430 5,655 7,794 97,377 8,020 23,058 21,324 25,325 13,750 36,177 21,367 16,862 22,910 9,716 87,317 8,059 46,960 14,776 7,934 94,799 25,045 9,520 5,680 2,498 501,097 1881. 227,208 308,134 151,408 163,363 62,279 209,249 137,637 208,260 141,042 126,720 64,542 145,260 1,945,103 7,277 42,442 9,552 8.409 5,462 28,537 5,871 6,546 8,194 122,290 11,593 31,355 29,662 21,701 28,486 46,806 28,066 21,590 47,735 11,199 128,407 9,652 60,235 17,469 9,1 10 127,953 42,050 19,080 6,608 Electors. 1832-33. 1862-63. 1881 3,150 2,912 3,457 2,365 6,678 7,026 2,424 3,143 1,167 5>582 3 7,^ 152 252 1,925 257 422 249 206 246 234 453 4,396 342 1,108 1,511 1,651 916 677 469 973 574 878 1,649 852 1,403 531 421 1,295 1,001 507 300 351 714,323 17,409 9,181 3,948 6,368 2,717 7,092 9,420 3,522 5,502 2,218 4,996 54,964 737 365 1,866 372 383 335 379 244 322 347 5,350 716 1,689 1,758 2,207 1,074 1,754 1,17 1,584 1,513 650 5,476 597 4,124 901 643 4,302 1,647 619 307 185 32,923 20,438 23,449 7,972 10,635 3,88i 13,551 9,139 15,764 5,973 10,206 5,044 8,107 134,159 1,074 5,598 1,263 1,366 800 2,827 869 822 1,229 15, 1,454 3,486 3,899 3,238 4,326 2,207 5,641 3,080 2,938 4,282 1,445 12,657 1,253 7,419 1,937 1,332 17,912 5-312 2,115 876 Number of Members. 1832. 1881 20 13 36 22 Martin — On Elecforal Statistics: a Review of the Table A Contd.— Population, Registered Electors, and Number of Members, ] 831-81. III. ENGLA^'D. — The South Midland Division. Population. Electors. Number of Members. 1831. , 1861. 1881. 1832-33. 1862-63. 1881. 1832. 1881. Counties. i92,<^46 368.424 393,948 194,434 117,823 122,054 108,954 82,091 50,926 129,929 144.593 i 6,939 14,312 33.173 10,186 8,159 7,642 5.996 6,042 3,927 7,335 10,294 2 3 8 3 2 2 2 2 8 Hertford 131,213 104422 118,516 74,189 81,555 47,779 88,524 123,038 166,511 119,073 125,379 91,294 89,553 57,996 121,874 149,655 4,245 5.306 4.721 3,363 4.425 2,647 3.966 6.435 5,778 5,811 6,047 3,980 5,126 8,008 4,730 6,997 3 3 Oxford 3 Northampton .... N. .... S. Huntingdon Bedford 2 2 2 Canibrido"e 3 961,782 1,289,759 1.344.752 42,047 55,789 92,754 22 22 BOEOUGBS A. 23,434 7,418 6,175 7,115 27,090 7,626 6,496 7,827 28,899 6,859 6,779 7,027 1,654 300 457 317 1,297 366 334 316 4.440 1,135 909 1,071 2 2 2 1 2 Buckingham I I Woodstock I 44,142 49,039 49,564 2,728 2,313 7.555 7 5 BOEOUGHS B. Hertford 5,860 5,771 6,299 20,649 6,411 15.351 6,511 5^413 6,959 20,917 6,769 8,373 27,560 10,216 32,813 11,735 6,254 13,413 26,361 8,556 13,154 40,862 12,072 57,553 22,394 6,417 19,532 40,882 700 657 298 2,312 329 2,497 773 327 1,572 1.499 539 478 2,980 608 2,690 586 393 1,042 1,831 1,101 1,907 6,242 1,873 8,185 3.550 1,061 2,601 5,015 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 I St. Albans W^y combe I Oxford (City) .. . . 2 I 2 I Bedford Cambridge(Borough) 2 2 100,141 143,494 221,422 10,964 11,147 31.535 19 14 "Dniyeesities. — — — 2.319 2,496 5,095 3,744 6,250 2,090 5,159 2 2 2 London 1 Oxford 2 — — — 4.815 8,839 13,499 4 5 Working of our Representative System, 1832 to 1881. Table A Contd.— Population, Registered Electors, and Number of Memhei IV. England.— r/ie Eastern Dioision. 23 's, 1831-81. Counties. l&sex KE. „ N. „ s. Population. Electors. Number of Mem'ter:*. 1831. 1861. 1881. 1832-33. 1862-63. 1881. 1832. 1881. 146,747 145,401 135,072 113,673 144,315 146,676 162,44] 207,270 146,833 126,634 148,798 161,218 123,067 296,290 113.240 161,869 121,818 116,714 113,091 108,702 4,488 4,265 3,326 7,041 4,396 5,223 7,130 6,741 4,325 8,089 6,636 6,622 13,911 5,876 9,885 5,621 6,495 7,454 6,807 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 „ s. „ N.W. ufeolk E. „ w. Norfolk N. » E. „ s. 2 „ w. » w. 2 2 831,884 953,194 1,154,791 28,679 38,144 62,671 • 12 16 Boroughs A. :ye 7,015 3,462 7,038 4,208 6,293 253 146 322 232 1,020 1 2 'hetford 10,477 11,246 ^6,293 399 554 1,020 3 ■ BoROuaHS B. Jialdon 4,895 16,167 4,^97 11,436 5,500 20,201 6i,ii6 13,370 ^4,535 6,261 23,809 5,070 13,318 37,950 74,891 16,170 34,810 7,128 28,395 7,810 16,211 50,762 87,843 18,475 716 1,099 214 620 509 1,219 4,238 836 1,683 912 1,340 388 694 1,996 5,454 887 1,535 1,485 3,762 801 2,231 2,849 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 /olchester larwicli " Jury St. Edmunds.... udbury 2 pswich iforwicli king's Lynn Jreat Yarmoutli .... 161,517 212,-.:79 216,624 11,134 13,206 34,165 18 12 24 Maettn — On Electoral Statistics: a Review of the TatiT.k a Contd.—Poim., liegistered Electors, and No. of Members, 1831-81.— V. 'EsQX.k^-D—South-Westem DMsioir. Population. Electors. Number of Members. COFNTIES. 1831. 1861. 1881. 1832-33. 1862-63. 1881. 1831. 1881. Wilts N. „ s. Dorset . .. 79,940 74, '55 114,716 ^51,997 192,606 114,948 160,610 H5'9^5 79,362 73,932 135,695 150,178 220,209 136,998 169,614 172,712 159,551 80,313 64,760 137,294 165,372 122,460 98,33' 125,546 140,958 118,863 "5,319 116,960 3,614 2,450 5,632 7,453 5,348 4.462 3,353 8,996 7,884 4,3(i5 3,270 6,221 8,716 9,628 5,791 4,619 11,174 8,712 7,301 3,673 7,478 10,780 9,487 8,329 9,471 6,952 8,487 8,722 9,130 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 Devon E. » N. „ N. „ S. Cornwall E. W. Somerset E. E. ;: ::::.:: ^: „ w. 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 EOEOFGHS A. ]\Tf\,|i^^(is})nrv 1,172.177 1,298,251 1,286.176 49,192 62,436 89,810 19 23 6,136 5,270 4,795 7,753 28,494 4,186 7,324 8,969 5,596 4,165 5,602 9,766 4.094 5,22^ 7,115 5>4H 7,115 6,881 6,075 5,179 8,657 86,893 4,893 6,495 8,983 6,694 3,062 8,857 10,447 6,585 6,381 8,497 5,140 10,353 6,866 6,776 5,272 8,639 51,956 5,180 6,014 8,479 6,192 6,909 10,462 5.591 6,866 7,919 5,675 8,705 291 304 191 214 1,546 240 185 634 339 198 247 462 218 252 341 243 584 350 390 175 264 1,739 281 285 484 361 378 422 516 452 411 355 431 524 1,057 1,015 862 1,4' 5 7,469 658 1,ICI 1,372 1,073 870 1,405 759 895 1,021 852 1,012 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 Calne Wilton Cricklade We^tburv •••• Sliaftesbiiry Tavi'*tock Tiverton Ijoclniin Ilelston St. Ives Boroughs B. 127,022 151,072 157,501 6,489 7,818 22,836 23 18 11,672 6,367 4.940 6,684 8,216 8,439 33,552 31,080 9,272 44,454 8,2gi 11,881 12,148 50,800 10,370 7,279 3,345 4'597 3.509 3,308 4-603 12,278 6,638 6,823 7,719 9,759 11,383 41,749 62,599 10,743 64,783 11,337 14,485 14,667 52,528 9,522 11,320 3,215 4,444 3,301 4,001 4,618 ic;,6';9 6,645 7,568 6,790 12,303 13,704 47,098 77,401 12,494 63,870 10,663 i7,c;6i 16,611 53.761 9,376 576 315 322 426 412 475 2,952 1,461 720 1,777 405 875 949 2,853 322 484 212 243 511 217 338 669 331 455 461 546 875 2,580 2,869 738 2,758 655 842 827 3,288 399 610 245 277 272 357 303 1,962 921 886 1,070 1,949 1,694 7,562 6,366 1,785 3,917 1,522 2,307 2,326 6,017 1,396 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 Durchester Biidijort Poole Weymouth, &c Exeter BarnstMple Devon]3ort Penryn, &c Tanuton Bath Bridgwater Lyrae Regis Dartmouth — IToniton Totnes — AVeUs — 284,807 367,942 371,504! 16,845 20,357 41,680 39 25 WorJcing of our Representative System, 1882 to 1881. 25 Table A Contd. — Population, Registered Electors, and Nu77iber of Members, 1831-81. VI. England. — The West Midland Division. Population. Electors. Nun of Mti her ihei-s. 1831. 1861. 1881. 1832-33. 1862-63. 1881. 1831. 1881. Counties. Grloucester E. W. Hereford 87,566 119,98^ 94^327 98,384 64,094 1^0,319 129,447 83,151 f;6,c;36 81,336 71,651 103,804 143,410 102,321 114.247 69,346 162,986 260,262 129,690 67,256 117,127 90,938 88,631 177,509 95.083 119,119 68.420 138,824 132,634 85,740 208,348 67,081 169,270 99,470 6,43 7 6,521 5.013 4,682 2,791 8,756 3'io7 3.122 5,161 3.730 2.550 7,514 9,329 7,233 5,197 3,964 10,344 10,787 7,042 4,973 6,646 3,469 8,599 12,544 9,004 7,764 5,760 11,125 11,276 11,829 12,343 6,680 11,769 6,586 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 Salop N. „ s. Stafford E. K „ N. S. 2 2 » w. Worcester E. W. WarAvick N. S. 2 1,006,793 1,361,387 1,450,129 51,870 76,498 115,279 23 25 Boroughs A. Stroud 39,932 5.249 6,517 i7>43 5 7,18- 5>949 7,939 35,517 5,658 7,699 21,590 10,192 7,086 7,084 40.573 6,042 7,216 20,143 14,098 9,858 8,677 1,247 779 746 691 586 243 337 1,400 360 662 1,011 , 463 380 365 6,331 901 1,208 3,462 2,260 1.445 1,261 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 -> Wenlock . ,. Taiiiworfli Bewdley 90,203 94,826 106,607 4.629 4,641 16,868 12 10 Eo HOUGHS B. Bristol 104,408 13,000 22.942 5.420 5.780 10,934 21,297 5,870 7,583 8,192 51,589 6,499 -67,514 14,420 23.430 16,000 25,659 3 '99 1 143,986 27,298 9,109 154,093 16,512 39,693 6,336 5,876 15,585 22,163 6,033 12,532 12,938 101,207 6.893 147,670 37,760 44,975 15.399 31,227 4,680 296,076 41,647 10,570 206,503 36,c;52 46,844 8,431 5,100 19,822 26478 6,663 19.901 17,506 152,457 8,360 164,303 59.415 124,4^8 87,407 25,634 40.421 5,1 (2 400,757 47,366 11,802 10,315 1.427 919 604 386 920 1,714 359 1.176 973 1.349 861 1,700 597 670 390 2,366 359 4,000 3.285 1,340 13,548 1,817 2,576 439 383 1,096 1,501 407 1,520 977 2,591 698 4,517 1,250 1,051 531 2,731 340 10,823 5,206 660 25.744 5,3-0 5.134 i'.i57 757 2,821 3,821 996 3.344 3.1^- 19824 1,379 23^259 9,538 19,561 14,947 3.774 6,^9'> 821 63.709 8,263 1,729 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 9 2 2 2 2 Glouooster Cirencester TevN'kesbury £ Shrewsbury Ludlow . J Stafford Newcastle-ii.-Lynie... Stoke-on-Trent' Liclifield . ;; ] Wolverhampton Walsall Wednesbury Dudley Kidderminster Worcester 1 Evesham Birmingham Coventry Warwick ., 594,921 1,029,865 1,521.272 35,710 5t,662 225,643 38 35 c 2 26 Martin — On Electoral Statistics: a Eevieiu of tlie Table A Contd. — Population, Registered Electors, and Niimher of Members, 1831-81. VII. EiTGLAND. — The North Midland Division. Poi^ulation. Electors. Kuiiiber of Members. 1831. 1861. 1881. 1832-33. 1862-63. 1881. 1832. 1881. Counties. Leicester N. S. Rutland 84,079 72,285 19,385 M«;,282 118,315 65=403 59,267 102,236 111,307 92,078 77,278 21,861 193,757 146,602 88,886 71,443 159,044 137,192 109,250 89,417 21,434 122,472 99,689 121,332 143,001 73,302 139,910 97,582 146,013 3,658 4,125 1,296 9,134 7,956 2,889 3,170 5,541 4,370 4,745 6,081 1,842 12,296 9,217 4,006 3,480 5,072 8,021 6,796 9,127 1,763 11,061 9,287 11,250 7,364 5,040 6,271 7,246 8,902 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Lincoln N. „ M. .... S. 2 2 Nottingham .... N. .... S. Derby N. ,.. N. „ E. „ S. 2 2 2 2 „ S. 2 787,559 988,141 1,163,402 42,139 54,760 84,107 18 22 BGEOrGHS A. Eetford 40,880 47,330 50,031 2,312 2,537 8,183 2 LOROUGHS B. Leicester 40,639 7,062 12,798 7,427 11,217 6,589 50,220 9,557 23,627 68,056 8,047 17,893 11,121 20,999 15,060 74,693 11,515 43,091 122,351 8,995 18,867 17,345 37,312 45,373 111,631 14,019 77,636 3,063 851 869 698 1,043 6^6 5,220 1,575 1,384 4,561 525 1,056 735 1,659 1,254 6,306 751 2,525 18,977 1,321 3,043 2,383 6,182 6,956 17,555 2,194 13,167 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 Grantham Jjincolu Grimsby Nottingham Newark Derby 169,136 270,475 453,529 15,359 19,372 71,778 17 16 Worhing of our Bepreserdative System, 1832 to 1881. 27 Table A Conid. — Population, Registered Electors, and Number of Members, ir31-81. yill. England. — The North-Western Dicisio^K Population. Electors. K umber of Members. 1831. 1861. 1881. 1832-33. 1862-63. 1881. 1832. 1881. CouNTiEg. Chester E. „ N. Mid. s. „ w. Lancaster N. N.E. S.E. S. S.W. 123,584 119,432 259,444 363.405 182,347 160,481 374,489 627,656 104.953 135,365 161,104 273417 238,544 534.963 482,148 5,105 5.130 6,593 10,639 6,174 6,804 12,765 23,140 7,177 9.433 12,270 17,621 12,964 26,841 27,181 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 865,865 1,344,973 1.930,494 27467 48,883 113,487 8 14 BOEOUGH A. Clitheroe 9,890 10,864 14.463 306 491 1,958 1 Boroughs B. Stockport . 41,000 30,406 21,344 (4,195) 201,751 20,774 18,184 42,245 19,140 50,810 187,022 14=035 50,513 19,041 27,091 33,871 14,066 54,681 36,101 31,110 51,649 443,938 37,658 26,947 70,395 37,563 102,449 357,979 33,917 94,344 38,184 63,126 82,985 16,005 59.544 37,620 40,342 8^3,324 552,425 48,196 45,257 105,973 49,746 176,233 393,676 43,389 152,511 68,865 63,502 100,618 93,707 39,671 T,Ol2 718 2,028 11,283 423 456 i,o;o 53 5 1,497 6,726 433 1,131 687 626 6,352 1,109 1,529 1,012 2,705 3,464 16,476 845 778 2,220 1,326 5,137 21,880 1,170 2,386 1,448 1,809 2,818 1,359 8,158 5,447 5,804 9,107 63,221 5.937 6,222 14,25c 6,859 23,928 58,712 5.893 21,383 10,788 7414 13,160 11,748 5,685 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 Macclesfield Chester Birkenhead [ Liverpool Wigan 3 Warrington Bolton Bury Salford Manchester Ashton-under-Lyne. . Oldham 3 I 2 Rochdale I Burnley I Blackburn Preston , Stalybridge Lancaster 795.490 1,579,031 2,154,599 36,036 68,362 283,716 27 31 28 Maktin — On Electoral Statistics : a Bevieiv of the Table A Contd. — Population, Registered Electors, and Number of 3Iemhers, 1831-81. IX. England. — The Yorkshire Division. Population. Electors. Number of Members. 1831. 1861. 1881. 1832-33. 1862-63. 1881. 1832, 1881. Yc OotJKTIES. rk, E. Eiding , N. ,, .. w. „ 107,292 160,555 638,741 127,053 201,004 880,994 141,451 221,937 303,713 301,048 497,568 5,559 9,539 18,056 7,127 15,167 40,341 11,126 20,212 22,194 22,315 26,750 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 906,588 1,209,051 1,465,717 33,154 62,635 102,597 6 10 Tl Hi Ml Be Nc Boroughs A. 4,672 4.722 6,802 8,263 4,839 5,350 5,134 8,072 10,686 4,755 6,306 5.542' 8,750; 5,445' 254 ^73 667 1,01 1 232 411 315 595 1,224 396 976 708 1,396 918 1 2 2 2 1 clmiond 1 dton I verley ►rtlialL'rton I 29,298 33,097 26,043 2.437 2,971 3,998 8 4 Ki Kr Hi Ilf El Lc De \Y Po Sh Yc Hi Sc W Mi BOEOIJGHS B. pon 5,700 5,936 19,035 21,552 43,527 123.393 15,932 9.999 9 ',692 28,244 51,911 8,760 10,399 6,172 5,402 34,877 37,014 106,218 207,165 23,150 11,736 185,172 45,385 97,661 18,377 12,051 7,390; 5,000 87,146 73,653 180,459 309,126 69,531 30,573 15,329 284,410 59'596 161,519 30,484 14-554 54,965 341 : 278 ; 608 531 1,139 4,171 722 3.308 2,893 3,863 431 422 342 265 1,876 1,570 4,292 7,616 1,062 674 8,389 4,581 5,789 1,233 667 1,132 758 13,268 12,055 27,437 49,414 10,060 4,087 2,360 42.402 11,108 26,581 4,301 2,145 10,750 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 laresborougli iddersfield 1 I ilifax adford eds 3 wsbury akefield ntefract eflield rk ill irborougli liitby ddlesborougli 436,080 790,380 1,383,715 19,663 38,356 217,858 23 24 > Worhmg of our Representative Systeon, 1832 to 1881. Table A Contd. — Population, Registered Electors, mid Number of Member X. England. — The Northern Division. 29 ?, 1831-81. Population. Electors, N 11 ruber of Members. 1831. 78,151 75,862 60,356 79,889 72,544 56,115 43.464 1861. 1881. 1832-33. 1862-63. 1881. 1832. 1881. CorNTIES. Durham N. S. Northumberland N. S. Cumberland .... E. Westmoreland 169,543 170,412 65,892 106,855 75,972 73,988 48,788 298,111 181,304 67,960 129,576 72,690 115,168 50,488 4.269 4.336 2,322 5,192 4.035 3,848 4.392 5,333 6,989 3,088 5,410 5,374 4,716 4,192 13,233 11,603 4,469 8,957 7,928 7,640 5.652 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 z 466,381 711,540 915.297 28,394 35,102 59,482 14 14 BOEOUGrt A. Cockermouth 6,022 7,057 7,189 305 415 1,100 2 BOEOtJGHS B. 10,135 40,735 18,756 15,617 53,613 23,206 6,766 13,129 18,865 15,716 11.577 14,088 85,797 35,239 33,587 109,108 34,021 13,794 13,265 29,417 18,842 12,029 33,426 55.446 46,998 I 15.372 124,960 56,922 65,873 145,228 43,863 33,402 13,995 35,866 19.717 13,696 806 . 1,378 478 454 3,905 760 321 705 977 458 327 1,153 2,837 1,199 992 6,838 1,117 440 799 1,418 638 406 5.214 8,062 7,017 2,390 15,297 10,1 12 11.685 24,261 5.731 5.749 1,989 5.504 2,582 1.957 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 Stockton The Hartlepools Durham Sunderland South Shields Crateshead Newcastle-on-Tyne... Tynemouth Berwick Carlisle Whitehaven Kendal 1 228,115 399,187 704,764 10,566 17,837 107,550 16 19 30 Martin — On Electoral Statistics : a Beview of the Table A Contd. —Population^ Registered Electors, and Number of Members, 1831-81. XL The Welsh Division. Population. Electors. Number of Members. 1831. 1861. 1881. 1832-33. 1862-63. 1881. 1832. 1881. Counties. Monmovith . . . 84,541 65,457 85,381 61,193 56,519 40,967 18,371 49,572 44,118 67,049 35,315 50,530 37,638 144,056 143,305 89,439 63,847 62,354 53,531 18,305 48,883 50,892 82,890 38,963 41,334 166,441 234,115 93,389 55,019 58,956 48,800 16,888 45,756 55,153 86,Too 54,793 90,500 36,722 3,738 3,680 3,887 3,700 1,184 1,668 1,046 2,523 1,271 3,401 ■ 580 1,688 1,187 4,911 6,501 4,241 4,162 3,228 2,503 1,599 3,375 3,084 5,203 1,475 2,167 2,425 8,617 12,889 8,656 5»2i9 5>024 4,184 2,398 5,270 4,789 7,415 3,836 6,976 3,241 2 2 2 2 2 Carmarthen Pembroke 2 I I I , I 2 1 I Brecon Montgomery Flint Merioneth CarnarTon Anglesea 696,651 910,586 1,042,632 29,553 44,874 78,514 17 17 BOBOUGHS A. Merthyr Tydvil Flint 27,281 16,126 6,400 83,875 18,845 7,106 91,347 24,234 6,700 502 1,359 529 1,322 723 350 14,200 3,798 947 I I 4 Eadnor 49,807 109,826 122,281 : 2,390 2,395 18,945 3 BoEOFGns B. Monmouth 13,585 8,240 27,134 14,340 11,150 8,359 10,003 5,296 17,272 16,288 10,687 30,577 35,541 57,488 21,439 21,773 9,821 11,646 5,639 18,036 17,888 22,907 13,275 44,933 82,573 105,949 30,529 25,309 9,176 14,517 6,623 20,042 22,831 28,695 14,24- 899 687 1,307 684 1,208 723 1,030 242 723 1,131 855 329 1,666 1,911 1,923 853 1,545 671 658 815 933 863 992 525 5,116 , 8,831 14,321 5,752 3,361 1,555 2,074 879 3,089 3,084 4,093 2,559 Cardiif Swansea Carmarthen Pembroke Eaverford West Cardigan Brecknock Montgomery Denbigh Carnarvon Beaumaris 157,970 266,030 405,419 9,818 12,855 54,714 12 '^ WorJdng of onr Bepresentative System, 1832 to 1881. 31 Table A Cooitd. — Population, Registered Electors, and Number of Members, 1831-81. Scotland. COTTNTIES. Aberdeen ....\ -^' V Argyll -K {1} Banff Berwick Bute Caithness .- Clackmannan and 1 Kinross J Dumbarton Dumfries Edinburgh Elgin and Nairn Fife Forfar Haddington Inverness Kincardine Kirkcudbright Lanark 1 q f Linlitbgow Orkney and 1 Shetland J Peebles and Selkirk Perth Renfrew Eoss and Cromarty .. Roxburgh Stirling Sutherland Wigtown Fopulation. 1831. 93>5o7 114,156 44,076 32,973 14,151 24,679 23,801 29,588 52,759 45,454 32,402 78,425 53,944 23,703 80,473 30,294 36,772 85,873 19,420 55,183 10,578 6,833 121,390 66,367 65,604 40,046 51,315 25,014 28,177 1,500,087 1861. 149,539 83,859 115,109 56,020 36,488 16,331 25,205 20,122 8,731 54,179 52,908 60,555 r 17,447 L 8,347 114,768 66,788 24,481 64,522 84,854 42,495 245,580 39,045 r 32,395 L 31,670 11,300 10,410 107,948 79,242 82,427 53,722 15,831 24,157 31,710 1,818,188 1881. 148,119 63,479 162,851 51,819 34,415 17,489 30,763 ' 32,342 61,394 53,113 86,748 ■ 38,629 101,333 67,479 29,084 72,787 ^3,350 39,095 372,172 ■ 20,862 99,647 127,223 72,486 33,858 83,106 22,806 28,735 2,080,243 Electors. 1832. 2,271 4,170 995 1,962 3,150 4,689 498 1,007 1,053 1,227 279 500 879 927 1,123 1,298 536 106 2,185 1,241 617 669 763 1,059 2,705 600 272 307 281 3,180 1,347 1,321 1,787 84 845 33,115 1862. 511 ■ 747 457 1,634 2,071 1,569 701 162, 2,720 2,099 688 909 1,019 1,345 5,202 764 433 232 466 514 3,754 2,316 887 43 1,618 1,924 191 1,113 49,644 1881. J 4,721 14,139 3,426 13,711 1 3,920 2,646 1,869 1,364 1,147 I 2,105 3,041 3,409 3,870 } 1,958 4,789 3,634 1,067 1,894 1,866 2,223 10,475 3,707 1,266 ■1,727 ■1,217 6,005 6,185 1,739 2,026 3,399 325 1,700 96,570 Number of Menihers. 1832. 30 32 Martin — On Electoral Statistics : a Review of the Table A Contd. — Population, Registered Electors, and Number of Members, 1831-81. Scotland — Contd. Boroughs Aberdeen Ayr Dumfries Dundee Edinburgh. Elgin Falkirk Glasgow Greenock Haddington ... Hawick Inverness Xilmai'nock ... Kirkcaldy Leitk Montrose Paisley Perth St. Andrew Stirling Wick Wio;town , Univebsities. Edinburgh and 1 St. Andrew's .... J Glasgow and Aber- \ deen j Population. 1831. 58,019 20,272 23,701 45,355 136,294 15,529 39,709 202,426 27,571 17,134 22,813 34482 11,780 37,597 41,444 31,460 20,0l6 18,377 30,992 20,827 9,209 865,007 1861. 73.805 34,578 22,996 90,417 168,121 26,771 41,530 394,864 42,098 13,142 20,380 49,376 23,476 45,117 49,545 47,406 25,250 16,777 30,777 16,995 10.385 1,244,106 1881. 105,003 41,731 25,583 140,054 228,190 32,845 49,346 487,948 63,899 13,755 34,708 26,427 65,650 31,831 72,851 59,676 55,642 28,948 19,406 36,793 17,456 10,139 1,647,881 Electors. 1832. 2,024 631 967 1,622 6,048 776 969 6,989 985 545 715 1,155 507 1,624 1,494 1,242 780 621 956 366 316 31,332 1862. 3,442 1,203 971 2,441 8,347 978 1,540 18,711 1,524 652 887 1,449 778 2,139 1,627 1,370 966 739 1,224 657 506 52,151 1881. 14,152 4,267 2,999 15,825 28,644 3,829 5,353 57,882 7,373 1,880 4,909 3,118 8,240 4,518 io,377 8,278 4.979 4,059 2,693 4,904 1,830 1,420 201,529 6,039 6,080 12,1 19 K umber of Members. 1832. 23 I Worlcing of our Representative System, 1832 to 1881. 33 Table A Contd. — Population, Registered Electors, and Number of Members, 1831-81. Ireland. Ulster. Counties. Antrim Armagh CaAan Donegal Down Fermanagh Londonderry .... Monaghan Tyrone BOEOIJGHS. Belfast Lisburn Carrickfergus .... Armagh Downpatrick .... Newry iLnniskillen Londonderry .... Coleraine Diiiigannon Leinster. Counties. Carlow Dublin Kildare Kilkenny Xmg's Louth Longford Meath Qvieen's Westmeath Wexford AVk-klow BOKOUGHS Carlo-w Dublin Kilkenny Drogbeda Dundalk Portarlinffton ... Population. 1831. 263,467 210,664 227>933 289;i49 334'i63 143.647 206,130 i95>536 300,953 2,171,64: 48,224 5,218 8,706 9>47o 4.784 13,065 6,1 16 10,130 5.752 1 14,980 n-. 176^ 108, 169, 144. 97, I 12. 176. 142: 125; l67: 121 874 012 424 945 225 403 ';';8 826 760 466 ,029 .557 1,615,079 9.IH 204,155 23.741 17.365 10,078 3,091 1861. 283,063 176,176 153,906 237,395 285.646 99,948 157,098 126,482 234,506 1,754,220 78,344 8,585 9,417 9,320 4,317 13,108 5,820 20,875 6,236 3,994 160,0] 6 49,716 146,501 90,946 106,570 89,072 63,727 71,694 109,495 87,195 87,606 125,381 86,479 1,114,382 8,973 263,751 17,713 17,436 10,428 2,874 1881. 218,12^, 148,078 129,008 205,443 233,422 78,791 129,083 102,590 193.152 ,437^690 ^07,671 10,834 10,009 8,797 3.902 15,085 5,842 28,947 6,684 4,081 301,852 40,640 145,088 76,102 83,810 71,867 60,790 86,301 51,272 69,80c; 68,303 105,196 73.679 •932,853 7,036 ^73.064 14.964 14,662 12,294 2,426 Electors. 1832. 3,487 3.342 2,248 1,448 3.130 1,429 2,172 2,139 1,151 20,546 1,659 91 1,024 444 517 1,017 212 611 207 154 5.936 1,246 2,025 1,122 1,246 i,;io 863 1,294 1.520 1,471 1.395 2,907 1,566 17,955 278 7,008 562 560 318 137 1862. 9,910 5,893 6,319 4,643 11,470 4,469 5,654 5,370 8,357 62,085 3,570 610 1,158 428 229 572. 279 875 271 200 8,192 2,520 6,126 3,092 5,295 3,449 2,461 2,861 4,327 3,604 3,653 6,629 3,498 47,515 274 10,847 578 587 293 108 1881. II, £(70 6,855 5,898 4,542 12,718 4.544 5,696 5.297 8,674 65.794 21,989 798 1,500 652 319 1,216 414 2,078 443 279 29,688 2,127 4,991 2,746 4.741 3.-2 1 1 2,070 2,595 3,838 3,066 3,462 5.823 3.279 41.949 295 12,490 663 721 546 142 34 Martin — On Electoral Statistics: a Review of the Table A Contd. — Population, Registered Electors, and Number of Members, 1831-81. Teeland — Contd. Population. Electors. Nniiiber of Menil)ev3. 1831, 1861. 1881. 1832. 1862. 1881. 1832. 1881, BOBOrGHS — Contd. Athlone .. ..... 11,406 10,673 5,01 1 6,227 11,673 7,132 6,901 12,05c; 6,626 243 269 130 222 326 191 337 488 261 1 1 1 I Wexford New Ross 1 1 294,634 346,207 350,028 9,505 13,426 15,943 10 10 Uniteesity. Dublin — — — 2,073 1,780 3,742 2 2 ConnaugJit. Counties. GTalway 381,564 141,524 366,328 249,613 156,613 246,317 104,744 254,796 154,318 112,280 222,756 89,795 243,030 128,064 110,955 3,061 1,318 1,350 1,776 695 5,572 2,417 4,033 3,932 3,139 4,807 2,294 3,087 3,602 3,192 2 2 2 2 2 2 L/eitrim 2 2 Eioseommon 2 Sliffo 2 1,295.642 872,455 794,600 8,200 19,093 16,982 10 lO Boroughs, Gralway 33,120 15,152 25,161 12,565 18,906 2,062 418 1,161 375 1,146 2 1 48.272 37,726 18,906 2,480 1,536 1,146 3 2 Munster. Counties, Clare . . 251,211 669,394 248,801 380,476 141,706 156,804 419,668 191,445 162,801 232,507 96,817 134,908 373,202 190 784 128,957 188,537 76,854 2,518 2,835 1,161 2,565 2,369 1,448 5,633 16,407 5,182 6,274 9,388 3,611 .^.413 14.945 5,202 5.797 9,067 3,068 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cork 2 Keri'y -, Tipperary , Waterford 2 1,945.146 1,260,012 1,093,242 13,896 46,495 43.492 12 12 BOKOUGHS. Cork 107,016 9,917 7,823 9,608 6,974 7,111 9,568 66,554 i£;,n6 28,821 6,527 6,971 102,526 6,419 4,850 6,514 4,841 7,175 10,355 56,802 11,143 28,790 8,645 5,458 97,526 6,045 5.560 6,040 4.437 6,302 9,664 48,246 10,519 28,952 7,377 4,322 266 206 297 458 237 180 2,868 521 1,241 677 277 3,169 243 130 136 169 184 256 1,888 341 1,138 267 149 4.813 434 190 266 288 254 380 1,906 416 1,469 304 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 " Youfhal Mallow Ennis Tralee Limerick Waterford Dungarvan Cashel — 282,006 253,518 230,668 11,550 8,070 10,720 15 H Working of our Bejoresentative System, 1832 to 1881. 35 Table A Contd. — Population, Registered Electors, and Number of Members, 1831-81. Summary I. — England and Wales. Population Electors. Number of Meml)er3. 1831. 1861. 1881. 1832-33. 1862-63. 1881. 1832. 1881. Counties. II. South-Eastern 982,326 1,360,773 1,945,103 37,884 54,964 134,159 20 24 III, South- Midland 961,782 1,289,759 1,344,752 42,047 55,789 92,754 22 22 IV. Eastern 831,884 953,194 1,154,791 28,679 38,144 62,671 12 16 V. South- Western 1,172,177 1,298,251 1,286,176 49,192 62,436 89,810 19 23 VI. West- Midland 1,006,793 1,361,387 1,4^0,129 51,870 76,498 115,279 23 25 VII. North-Midland 787,559 988,141 1,163,402 42,139 54,760 84,107 18 22 VIII. North-Western 865,865 1,344,973 1,930,494 27,467 48,883 113,487 8 14 IX. Yorkshire 906,^88 1,209,051 1,465,717 33,154 62,635 102,597 6 10 X. Northern 466,381 711,540 915,297 28,394 35,102 59,482 14 14 XI. Welsh 696,651 910,586 1,042,632 29,553 44,874 78,514 17 17 Total 8,678,006 11,427,655 13,698,493 370,379 534,085 932,860 159 187 BOEOUGHS A. II. South-Eastern 74,644 97,377 122,290 4.396 5,350 15,848 13 10 III. South-Midland 44,142 49,039 49,564 2,728 2,313 7,555 7 5 IV. Eastern 10,477 11,246 6,293 399 554 1,020 3 V. South- Western 127 022 151,072 157, ';oi 6,489 7,818 . 22,8:?6 23 18 VI. West-Midland 90,20^ 94,826 106,607 4,629 4,641 16,868 12 10 VII. North-Midland 40,880 47,330 5o,°3i 2,312 2,537 8,18^ 2 2 VIII. North-Western 9,890 10,864 14,463 306 491 1,9^^8 1 I IX. Yorkshire 29,298 33,997 26,043 2,437 2,971 3,998 8 4 X. Northern 6,022 7,057 7,189 305 415 1,100 2 XI. Welsh 49,807 109,826 122,281 2,390 2,395 18,945 3 4 Total 482,385 612,634 662,262 26,391 29,485 98,311 74 S6 BOEOUGHS B. I. Metropolis .... 1,517,686 2,465,973 3,452,350 71,533 151,046 337,692 18 22 II. South-Eastern 290,543 501,097 714,323 17,409 32,923 86,809 36 31 III. South-Midland 100,141 143,494 221,422 10,964 11,147 31,535 19 14 IV. Eastern 161,517 212,279 216,624 11,134 13,206 34,165 18 12 V. South-Western 284,807 367,942 371,504 16, 84^; 20,357 41,680 39 25 VI. West-Midland 594,921 1,029,865 1,521,272 35,710 54,662 225,643 38 35 VII. North-Midland 169,136 270,475 453,529 15,359 19,372 71,778 17 16 VIII. North-Western 795,490 1,579,031 2,154,599 i^Pi(> 68,362 283,716 27 31 IX. Yorkshire 436,080 790,380 1,383,715 19,603 38,356 217, 8s8 23 24 X. Northern 228,115 399,187 704,764 io,«;66 17,837 io7,5';o 16 ij XI. Welsh 157,970 266,030 405,419 9,818 12,855 54,714 12 12 Total . 4,736,406 8,025,753 1 1,599,521 255,037 440,123 1,493,140 262 241 Universities — — — 4,815 8,839 13,499 4 Grand total] England and \ '3,896,797 20,066,042 25,960,276 6c;6,622 1,003,693 2,';37,8io 500 489 Wales J 36 Martin — Oii Electoral Statistics: a Bcvieiv of the Table A Contd. — Population, Registered Electors, and Number of Memhers, 1831-Sl. SuMMATiY II. — ScoiJand. Registration Districts. Population. Electors. Nnniher of Me-tihers. 1831. 1861. 1881. 1832-33. 1862-63. 1881. 1831. 1881. 1,500,087 865,007 1,818,188 1,244,106 2,080,243 1,647,881 33,115 31.332 49,644 52,151 96,570 201,529 12,1 19 30 23 32 26 2 Universities Total 2,365,094 3,062,294 3,728,124 64,447 101,795 310,218 53 60 SuMMAEY III. — Ireland. Registration Districts. Population. Electors. Number of Members. 1831. 1861. 1881. 1832-33. 1862-63. 1881. 1832. 1881. Count tes — Ulster 2,171,642 1,615,079 1,295,642 1,945,146 1,754,220 1,114,382 872,455 1,260,042 1,437,69c 932,853 794,600 1,093,242 20,546 17 955 8,200 13,896 62,085 47.515 19,093 46,495 65,794 41.949 16,982 43,492 18 24 10 12 18 Leinster 24 Total 7,027,509 5,001,099 4,258,385 60,597 175,188 168,217 64 64 SorowjJis — • Ulstei' 114,980 294,634 48,272 282,006 160,016 346,207 37,726 253,518 301,852 350,028 18,906 230,668 5.936 9,505 2,480 1 1,550 8,192 13,426 1,536 8,070 29,688 15.943 1,146 10,720 11 10 3 15 1 1 T^einster 10 Coiinau^'ht z 14 Total 739,892 797,467 901,454 29,471 31,224 57,497 39 -> -1 University — Dublin — — — 2,073 1,780 3.742 2 Grand total 7,767,401 5,798,566 5,159.839 92,141 208,192 229,456 105 103 Table Al. — Blioioing the Population in Counties and Boroughs respectively of the United Kingdom, 1831 and 1881. Eno;lanfl and"! Wales J Scotland Ireland Counties. 1831. 188] 8,678,006 1,500,087 7,027,509 17,205,602 13,698,493 2,080,243 4.285,38.' 20,037,121 Boron u;hs. 1831. 5,218,791 865,007 739,892 6,823,690 1881. 12,261,783 1,647,881 901,454 Universities. 1831. 14,81 1,118 1881. Total. 1831. 13,890,797 2,365,094 7,767,401 24,029,292 1881. 15,960,276 3,728,124 5.159,839 34,848,239 Table A2.— Worldng Showing of our Bepresentative System, 1832 to 1881. 37 the Distribution of the Population of the United Kingdom in 1831 'and 1881. England and Wales Scotland Ireland Counties. IBorouglis. Universities. Total. 1831. 1881. 1831. 1881. 1831. 1881. 1831. 1881. 3612 6-24 2924 39-31 5*97 12*22 21-72 3-60 3-08 35*^8 4"73 2*59 — — 57-84 9-84 32-32 74-49 10*70 14-81 71-60 57*50 28-40 42-50 — — 100-00 lOO'OO Table K'^.— Showing the Number of Electors in the United Kingdom, 1832 and 1881. England and "1 Wales / (Scotland Counties. Borouglis. Universities. Total. .1832-33. 1881. 1832-33. 1881. 1832-33. 1881. 1832-33. 1881. 370,379 33,115 60,597 932,860 96,570 168,217 281,428 31,332 29,471 1,59^451 201,529 57,497 4,815 2,073 i3>499 12,119 3,742 656,522 64,447 92,141 2,537,810 ^ 10,218 Ireland 229,45^ 464,091 1,197,647 342,231 1,850,477 6,888 29,360 813,110 3,077,484 Table A 4. — Showing the Distrihutioyi of Electors in the United Kingdom in 1832 and 1881. England and Wales •Scotland Ireland Counties. Boroughs. Universities. Total. 1832. 1881. ( 1832. 1881. 1832. 1881. 1832. 1881. 45-56 4-07 7-45 30-32 3'i4 5*46 34-60 3-87 3-61 f;i'7o 1-87 0-58 0-26 0-44 0-39 0-I2 80-74 7-94 11-32 82-46 10-09 7-45 57-08 38-92 42-08 60-13 0-84 0-95 100-00 lOO'OO Table A5. — Showing the Distribution of Seats in the United Kingdom in 1832 and 1881. England and Wales Scotland Counties. Boroughs. Universities. Total. 1832. 1881. 1832. 1881. 1832. 1881. 1832. 1881. 159 30 61 187 32 ^4 337 23 39 297 26 37 4 2 5 2 2 500 53 105 489 60 1 Ireland 10^ 253 283 399 360 6 9 658 65; 38 Maetin — On Electoral Statistics : a Eevieiv of the f<^ o O .'i- r^ p VO VO K ^ _2 b ■^ vr. b Vi- Vi b VO t^ ^ o r4 rf. Tl- vo v^ o i-i 00 r-i „ n ro r«^ m 3 U w b f r« r<^ M >-> w rv^ — 00 — c ^ CN r^ v« M b C\ I-i Vt- o c •^ ^ vr, VO «^ *^ t^ o\ ^ 5 ^ " — i-< li "~ -^ s oo *o r^. r, CS M vrj rt- rl ~ SC v« oc •ic "__ *fO ^ r^i 1^, 5 i-> l^ 1 ^ X 00 r« M ^ o o ^ ^ CO CO C5 Oi CO I— 1 Q !>. X X C5 X X 1-1 i-l _; 00 x^ *>• N CO X eo '^^ «^ j: r-t -^ C X Ci o Ci o o 1 i-T I-T IH (N (M" 00 OS X eo X « CO 05 l-l „ n (M CO xa 05 o t^ ^. s ^ '^ CO c^ CO CO CO -* q_ CL ~ w T* X l> o 1 § CO CO ^c? § ^ la ■^ CO ^. s "^ i-j" .-T •—I ~ a 3 ■ 05 o CO Q k/5 l-H CO •* o H V 1^ 1^ C^J C5 X (N a CO '■Zi « irt »o X o "'_ o (M X a o" CO o" C5 TjT c. t^ l-l Q CO ^ 05 o CO O CO '^ \a lO \o o t^ X o> • • * : CO X 1^ n CO CO ci C^ (N CO CO t 1 ^ CO !>• X .£ Ol t>- ^ ■M 'M »o X f— ( I— 1 >^ co O P o p i>. X X " -^ -• o o -+• _-i- oc 5 b OS '•+ 'o Co ^ o ■<*- VO oo ►« c U • fe be »o »o r« >o n o. V^ Vt) V*- VD 00 s ^ rO Vi NO *^ oo X P3 1 «)- •^ VO _»o M 00 >o s o M In Vl Co oo VO t^ OO 00 o\ o Ci 5^1 iO to s o T5 ^ X C^ o 1> Ci D c £-. Ti i>r o' c X o ■m" = .£ ^ ? X X t^ Ci X 2 ■ ~ !>. X (N W5 05 x" o" 1-H co" u * t-i 1—1 1-J ;« lO CO t^ X X r-l ^ ^^oiUr^^b^t^^^^Zi^^^^'^^ 1 S- 1 1 1- 1 1 1 ■1 o • ! > '. 1 ' 1 1 i 1 5 1 \ I 5 s -" 1 1 \ ! i 1 1 ' 1 1 ; i i ! y'S, 5 1 ; 1 1 i 1 1 ' 1 1 1 1 -J 1 1 1 ^ C6 <^ CQ ^ O ^ Q 1 :ft <^ ^ 5 s ^ s " m ^ § r*, r-' ^ "0 ^ r*, 3 «5 r*, o ^ :;* c^ ^ ^ ^ ^ e r- ^ S ^ H ^ 5 ^ ^ .^ m : i j 1 1 . 1 GO 1 '■ \ * ' 1 ' 1 ■ 1 1 r 1 m |- 1 .1 — 1 a- > — \ X /| - — 1 / N 1 / S 1 * 1 l\ Z o 1 '.' ; ! \ » 1 ' 1 1 1 1 ■ ' • 1 ': I 1 \. j j • ^ ! 1 J I i! z o l". 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 ! \\ ■ ' H ; 1 -' i X , 1 m 1 '1 TB \ ! .'l! m • I ; ; g 2 j'l 1 .' 1 i i o m z H 1 \< ! ! J 1 j 1 i 1 3! i \l t 1 ; !.' i w > : Ki.^i 1 1 ; ! ' 1 r">/ 1 ! S: 1 ' ^'11 i ^ H 1 ■n 1 ! f ; : i ^ O ^ i i ^ :' • ? \ 1 ' -A i 1 1 1 ! 1 i , ; \ IS 4 -i CD j _ :r_! 1 ; _ ' CjJ ^ ; 1 ' 1 ^ I ; • 1 • 1 ; 1 : : « 1 0< ! 1 j : 1 i H O > 1 I ! 1 i I ! 1 1 _4. ' ; i > i • CX) ^ i J 1 1 ! j 1 I 1 1 ; (D § i \:i ;_ _ 1 . 1 1 • 1 1 O a^^c;s^^b;^a;^^555So?s 5^J L •n \ ~T" — — — r ~ ~ ~ ^ r~ L-L- i 1 \ , ' Jz \ - -! \ :^:ii_Li_ \ \ \ V -i 1 • \ \ \ 1 1 J - - - \ ' \ x k h- \ \ ' t \ \ r 1 k, ^ \ 1 \ ! 1 1 V \ \ > 1 1 \ \ \ J • \ \ 1 1 5 \ \ i \ T \ «i. ^•A ~\ •* T*«. •■-^'^ : 1 *H •*« •^ •■\ • j ^6 it j 1 ', i 1 r 1 i 1 \ i { ! i i ^ L r • 1 . 1- ' '. I- ,! li ; - - - - - - "^ ii '1 r ii '. 1 r it 1 1 \ .1 1 • ' I 1 J ! 1 1 1 ! 1 1 ! i 1 1 int. iuif\L r'u HULfKi 1 un . COUNTY POPULATION. BOROUGH POPULATION ... TOTAL ELECTORS. COUNTY ELECTORS . _„_ BOROUGH ELECTORS . 1 1 1 1 1 1 L li 1 1 \ 1 1 • 1 I \ 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 ! 1 1 • 1 \ 1 1 s V~ -1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I \ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 \ 1 1 h^ » YY » 1 j\Y 1 t 1 1 I - \1 X 1 1 1 vl 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - ' — ■ "" " " 1 ' 1 1 -l- , 1 — 1 — 1 ^§ t s §^ S5 ^ ^^ S ' ^ ^§ ^; a J 15 W ?? ^S 11 I. ^? l^§^$ ^S5§S §s S5 ?5 ?s SSS ac. Worl;ing of our Representative System, 1832 to 1881. 39 Table A7 .— Show i7iff the Proportion per Cent, of County and Borough Population, and County and Borough Electors, 1831-81. Year. Population. Year. Total Electors on Register. Counties. Borouglis. Total. Counties. Boroughs. Total. 1831 '51* .... '61 '71 '81 6^-5 58-5 56-9 53*1 5^-8 37-5 41-5 431 46-9 47-2 100 100 100 100 100 1832-33.... '37-38* '46-47* '52-53* '62-63.... '65-66.... '68-69.... '71-72.... '81-82.... 56-8 59"6 57-9 55-8 53'2 54*2 40-4 39"i 36:9 43-2 40-4 421 44-2 46-8 45-8 59-6 60-9 631 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Fi'om Mr, N'ewmarch's tables. APPENDIX B. Memorandum of Authorities whence the Figures in the foregoing Tables are derived. England and Wales. 1831-32 1 '61-62 r '81 Populatioyi, number of electors, and num- ber of Memhei's. Return to House of Commons, 283 of 1864 /CIO p 1^ (bee also feummary or * Electoral Eeturns (Blue Book), 1866.) "Pari. Reformer's Manual," John Noble. Published by the London and Counties Liberal Union, London, 1883. Scotland. 1831-32.... '61 '62 Counties and boroughs 5) ?> )5 Counties Population, number of electors, and num- ber of Members. Report of Select Com. on Election Expenses, 1834, p. 196. Population. Census Returns of 1861. Number of electors. Pari, paper, 252 of 1863. Number of electors. Dod's Pari. Com- panion, 1863. (No official return.) Population, tiumber of electors, and num- ber of Members. "Pari. Reformer's Manual" (see above). '62 Boroughs '81 Counties and borouglis 40 Martin — On Electoral Statistics : a Revieio of the Memorandum of A uihorities — Contd. Ireland. 1831-32.... Counties and boroughs Population, nv.mher of electors, and num- ber of Members. Eeport of Select Committee on Elec- tion Expenses, 1834, pp. 197 and 198. '61 Popidation. Pari, paper, 236 of 1868. '&2 jj >j }> Number of electors. Pari, paper, 350 of 1864. '81 }) j> »> Population, number of electors, and num- ber of Members. "Pari. Eeformer's Manual" (see aboYc). APPENDIX C. Papers, <&€., on Electoral Statistics. &c., in the " Journal of the Statistical Society." 1. Electors registered in the United Kingdom ; number and percentage to population, 1834-36 2. Newmarch, William. On the Electoral Statistics of the Counties and Boroughs of England and Wales diiring the twenty-five years from the Keform Act of 1832 to the present time 3. Kewmarch, William. Electoral Statistics of England and Wales, 1856-58. Part 2. Re- sults of further evidence 4. Hare, Thomas. On the Application of a new^ Statistical Method to the ascertainment of the Votes of Majorities in a more exhaustive manner 5. Parliamentary Elections in England and Wales, {Note) 6. Parliamentary Constituencies in 1832-68. {Note) 7. Elections. Proportion of the Elective Classes in England. Greneral Election, 1868 [from " Standard" and "Daily News"] 8. Martin, John B. The Elections of 1868 and 1874 9. Droop, Henry E. On Methods of Electing Representatives 10. Ellis, Arthur. The Parliamentary Represen- tation of the Metropolitan, Agricultural, and Manufacturing Divisions of the United Kingdom, with suggestions for its re- distribution Year. Vol. 1838 i '57 XX '59 xxii '60 xxiii '6Q xxix '68 xxxi '69 xxxii '74 xxxvii '81 xliv '83 xlvi Page. 122 169 and 315 101 337 160 346 102 193 141 59 Working of ow Bepresentative System, 1832 to 1881. 41 APPENDIX D. Table showing the Redistribution of Seats betioeen 1832-81. England and Wales. Sudburj St. Albans Birkenhead Yorkshire, W. Riding (2), S. Lanoashire (1) Totnes (2), Reigate (1), G-reat ' Yarmouth (2), Lancaster (2) Manchester (1), Liverpool (1)^ Birmingham (1), Leeds (1) , Andover, Bodmin, Bridport, Bridgnorth, Bucking- ham, Chichester, Christchurch, Chippenham, Chipping Wycombe, Cirencester, Cockermouth, Devizes, Dorchester, Evesham, Guildford, Great Marlow, Harwich, Hertford, Eoniton, Hunting- don, Knaresborough, Leominster, Lewes, Lich- field, Ludlow^ Lymington,iMalton, Marlborough; Newport, I. W. ; Poole, Richmond, Ripon, Stam- ford, Tavistock, Tewkesbury, Thetford, Wells, Windsor (1 each) Darlington (1), Burnley (1), Dewsbury (1), Hartlepool (1), Staleybridge (1), Merthyr Tydfil (1), Stockton (1), Wednesbury (1), Salford (1), Grravesend (1), Middlesborough (1) Hackney (2), Clielsea (2) E. Cheshire (2), E. Derbyshire (2), E. Devon- shire (2), W. Essex (2), W. Kent (2),(]S". Lan- cashire (2), S.E. Lancashire (1), Lincoln (2), Norfolk (2), Somersetshire (2), Staffordshire (2), E. Siirrey (2); Yorkshire^ W. Riding (2) London University Beverley (2), Bridgwater (2) Arundel, Ashburton, Dartmoutli, Honiton, Lyme Regis, Thetford, Wells (1 each)- Total England and Wales Scotland. Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities (1), Edin- burgh and St. Andrew's Universities (1) Glasgow (1), Dundee (1), Hawick (1) Aberdeen (1), Ayr (1), Lanark (1) Selkirk and Peebles (consolidated) Ireland. Cashel (1), Sligo (1) Grand total. Counties. Gained. Lost 31 Boroiit'lis. Gained Lost. 23 d2 38 4 7 60 Universities. Gained. Lost. 42 Discussion on Mr. J. B. Martin's Paper. Mr. Dayid Chadwick, after congratulating Mr. Martin on his very able paper, said, as a statistical inquiry, he held that the redistri- bution of seats was worthy of their most attentive consideration. It was a very old subject with him, for twenty-four years ago he published a pamphlet, entitled " Suggestions for tlie Equitable Distribution of Parliamentary Seats." He did not quite agree with the last portion of Mr. Martin's paper, where he said, " Nor would any apparent symmetry of arrangement be free from drawbacks," if this was intended to disparage an equitable adjustment of repre- sentation. As members of the Statistical Society, they w^ere perfectly aware that in the consideration of the relative claims of counties or boroughs, all parties based their suggestions upon statistical facts. They could not move a step without them. In his pamphlet he made an analysis of the alterations effected by the Reform Bill of 1832, and showed that the whole of those alterations were based upon statistical facts. The principle that he laid down was that the franchise, or right to vote, should be the same in boroughs and counties, and when that is done it will be possible to adjust on something like an equitable basis the various claims to send representatives to parliament. These claims rested mainly on population and property. Since writing that pamphlet he had had the advantage of being twelve years in parliament, and he had never heard any sound argument against it. He had recently revised and adapted his- suggestions to the present increase in popu- lation and value of property. N"<) standard could be applied to small and large boroughs alike, but they could apply a standard, and say that such a population and such a value of property shall jointly be the minimum right to one representative for all small boroughs alike, and they could agree that all counties and large towns and districts shall be entitled to equal representation on the same scale as compared with each other, and should be adjusted every ten or twenty years. He suggested the minimum claim to one member should be a population. of 15,000, and property of the gross annual value of 50,000/. He worked that out in this way : he took the value of 10,000/. property as one parliamentary unit, and 1,000 pojjulation as one unit, so that 15,000 population gave fifteen units, and 50,000/. property, five units, and together, they got a parliamentary claim of twenty units, which was his standard for the return of one member. In the same way a population of 30,000 and an annual value of 100,000/. would give a claim of forty units, or two members. Then he took 100,000 population and 500,000/. annual value, or 150 units, as the claim for three members; 200,000 and 1,000,000/., or 300 units, the claim to four members ; 400,000 and 1,500,000/., showing 550 units, to have five members ; and 600,000 and 2,000,000/., showing 800 units, to have six members. The result would be that where a district had a Discussion on Mr. J. JB. Martinis Paper. 43 population of 18,000, with an annual value of only 20,000?., it would still give his parliamentary standard of twenty units to be entitled to one member ; and on the other hand, in the case of a small borough, with a population of only 12,000, but property of the value of 8o,oooZ., they would still have twenty parliamentary units, and be entitled to one member. The actual result w^ould be this : twenty-five small boroughs could be brought up to the parlia- mentary standard for one member by grouping adjoining town districts or parts of counties ; twenty-five members could be appro- priated for new boroughs of one member each, and to increasing the number of members in large towns, while thirty-one members could be added to the county representation. In Ireland there would be twenty adjustments required by the disqualification of twenty-two members for small boroughs, and he proposed that the whole of those should be added to the Irish counties. That would give an alteration or adjustment of 103 members, and would cause very little disturbance. He held that population and property combined formed the best and the only practicable standard for equitably adjusting parliamentary representation. Mr. E-. B. Martin, M.P., said the real interest of the paper lay in its bringing to their notice a question which was rapidly coming into very serious political importance, viz., whether the basis of votes of the different constituencies shall be local, i.e., by cities and boroughs or counties, or whether they shall be based on equal electoral districts. Though he had some misgivings at even hinting at equal electoral districts, because it woulci be a totally new departure in English history, yet the difficulties that sur- rounded anything with a proportional representation except on a purely numerical basis, seemed to increase every moment. When he referred to a proportional representation, he meant not any of those elaborate schemes- which had been put forward with a great deal of cleverness and ability, but simply that party politics rendered the weight of that floating population who had no certain politics, so much out of proportion to their real value, that the question had been forced upon the minds of a great many thoughtful men of both parties whether the time had not come either for the reduction of every constituency to portions, each returning one member, or by giving only one vote to each elector, or by some other scheme, it might not be possible to arrange for the adequate representation of the minority. He knew there were gentlemen like Mr. Bright who considered that this was a subject almost to be looked upon with scorn ; but when they considered the operation of the present system in counties like Kent, where, out of 18 members, 16 were returned one way and two the other, an altogether anomalous result, considering the actual numbers of electors recording their votes, he thought that the time had come when figures like those which Mr. Martin had placed before them would be found of great value in enabling them to forui an accurate idea of the line that the future Reform Bill ought to take. If, as Mr. Chadwick had said, property was at all to be represented, it seemed necessary that the various franchises, such as the 405. d3 44 Discussion freehold, sliould be retained; but if, on tbe contrary, it was to be absolutely excluded, they at once came upon a different basis, and could lay their foundation upon figures such as those placed before them. He hoped the results would be pointed out that would accrue from all these ways of looking at it, whether they were to consider property to be entirely excluded, whether they were to consider it to have a certain weight, or whether it was to have every weight. The latter alternative was practically excluded, and it remained to be seen whether it was to have any weight, and if any weight, what proportionate weight ? Mr. William Fowler, M.P., said about a year ago he gave a lecture to his own constituents on this question, and then there arose the delicate question of how it would affect them, and they were very sensitive on that point. 'No members would be very anxious to vote for a Bill which was to extinguish their own boroughs, but at the same time they must be willing to adopt some scheme which should be fair all round, and, if necessary, to deprive themselves of some of the power which they now possessed. There were several very great questions involved. He thought that prac- tically the question of property would have to be eliminated. He did not believe that parliament would consider property as a basis of rejDresentation ; they would take the citizens, w^ho had certain qualifications laid down by parliament, and which were in themselves no evidences of property of any consequence. The habitation of a. house was not the evidence of property in their sense of the word ; it was an evidence of sufficient means and sufficient position to judge whether any naan was fit to represent the occupier in the House of Commons, and that was the conclusion parliament had come to. It laid down a certain qualification in order to get rid of unsuitable persons, but having got the suitable person, it did not ask any questions as to the aggregate amount of property. Then they came to the question of the franchise, whether it was to be residential or a property franchise as well. He was perfectly satisfied himself that parliament would insist on a resi- dential franchise, and would get rid of faggot votes altogether. The main point was what was to be done with the little boroughs ? A great many of them would have to go or to be absorbed. No doubt absorption was impracticable in a great many cases, for if they were to try and get electors out of some of the counties to furnish forth all the little boroughs in those counties, they would not find enough for the purpose, and in several cases when they had furnished forth all the boroughs, the poor county would be left with hardly any electors at all. Therefore the scheme, although in some cases it would work very w^ell, in a good many others would be absolutely unworkable. Parliament would not be disposed to have a very symmetrical' plan ; a number of small boroughs would be absorbed, a number would be given to the counties, and new boroughs would be created from districts that were really towns, though they were not called so. For instance. West Ham, with its 128,000 people, was a town to all intents and purposes, but was now treated as part of a county. Croydon was another case in on Mr. J. B. Martiii's Taper. 45 point, and St. Helens, in Lancashire. There were 178 urban places, with about 3,700,000 people, which had no separate repre- sentation. Several of those he thought would be made into boroughs, and then the great anomalies now existing would be got rid of, and they would have a good working system which would last for a good many years to come. He did not think they would have a grand cut and dried new plan which was to last for ever ; he did not believe in it, and was not anxious for it. His own personal feeling was that it was a good thing to have a great variety of constituencies,, because there was no other reasonable way in which they could get a variety of interests represented. The object of representation should be that all sorts and conditions of men should be properly represented in- parliament, and he knew no other way of doing it but by having a real variety of con- stituencies. They had been a good deal exercised of late b}^ what was called proportional representation and minority representation. There might he some scheme which he had not seen, but as at present advised he did not like any of the plans proposed. He did not like the three-cornered constituencies for this reason, that he considered that the minority in Cambridge was just as important as far as it went as the minority in. Leeds. If the minority principle was correct, it should apply in every borough, so far as he could understand. He was told that the three-cornered boroughs had done great things for them since 1867. He was anxious to be convinced if it was so, but as at present advised he did not like them. Then there was the -cumulative vote. He had seen something of that in school board elections, and*liked it still less than the other. It was a very nice piece of machinery for giving small cliques of people immense power, but it would not answer in parliamentary representation. If they were to seek for a more uniform system they must have something like a division, so that there should not be more than two members for any place, and they should not have the possibility of having seven members sent for a great borough all' of one complexion. They had tried this kind of division in the metropolis, and it worked fairly well. A scheme of that kind would be more practical in its working than anything else that he had seen. He wished it, however, to be understood fully that his mind was in a state of hesitation at the present moment, and he was desirous of every kind of light that he could find on this great and diJQ&calt question. Mr. H. D. PoCHiN said he should have been very glad if Mr. Martin had given them the principles on which he thought representations ought to be founded. Mr. Fowler had dwelt very much upon what parliament could and would do, but that was hardly within the province of the Statistical Society ; they had to tell parliament, what on the basis of correct principles, it ought to do, and then parliament should find out how far it could carry out those principles. The question of population and the distri- bution of population were not alone to be considered, property was a very important element, and one which he hoped would be taken into account by the House of Commons. There were also 46 Discussion some statistics lately given to the country by Professor Leone Levi which ought to be taken into account, for if they were to get a representation that would give them the best men in the House of Commons, and the best government by those best men, he was satisfied that they must take into account not only population and property, but also education and morality. The last three elements contributed far more to the higli standing and prosperity of the nation than the mere numbers of the population. He was sorry to find that Mr. Martin thought that mere numbers should settle the question of the future distribution of the suffrage, for that was not by any means the only element to be taken into account in a country such as theirs, if they were to have a government of the best character, and one best suited to the conditions and circumstances of the people. Mr. Geoege Howell thought the very element in the paper to which Mr. Pochin objected was the very best that it contained, viz., where Mr. Martin had indicated that population should be the basis of any redistribution of seats. Going back a little anterior to the Reform Bill, they found a time when property had rather more than its full share of representative power, there being an instance in which eleven electors sent twelve members to the House of Commons ; they did not want to see that time occur again, and they would agree that under that regime they had not any very brilliant legislation. Another thing that seemed to be alto- gether forgotten by those who advocated some system of property representation was that practically population and wealth went together, and if they adjusted the representation of the conntry upon the lines of the population, they practically adjusted it upon the lines of wealth also. He thought therefore that they would be perfectly safe in having a distribution of seats based upon population. He objected to the plan of cutting up large towns such as Manchester, Liverpool, or Leeds, into wards, each sending one member, and would prefer to see each of those great centres having its proportion of representatives, allowing every elector to vote for one of those members, but not for the entire six or seven as the case might be. He was also in favour of getting rid of different qualifications of electors ; if they had one uniform quali- fication it would not be very difficult to redistribute the seats, so that each vote would have approximately its proportionate value throughout the entire country. Mr. H. C. BuRDETT said any one who came to consider or to draw comparisons from the electorate as it at present stood, must bear in mind that it did not represent actually what it purported to do in figures, and that was on account of the enormous number of duplicates. Another point to be borne in mind was the difference between the day and night populations in large towns, and so important was this factor becoming, that it was really a question as to what would be the result politically of the next election in Birmingham owing to the fact that its population was retreating to the suburbs. It would therefore be found that in makino- a on Mr. J. B. Martin's Paper. 4^7 change and redistribution tliej were dealing largely witli unknown quantities, and nobody would be able to tell exactly wbat result was likely to occur. He believed that the question of the representation of minorities would be at once solved if they were to decide that every elector should be entitled to one vote and one vote only. Mr. H. T. W. Elliott said Mr. Martin had carefully refrained from giving any precise estimate of the number of voters who would be added to the constituencies in the event of the assimilation of the county and borough franchise. He mentioned that possibly the county electorate would be raised i,8oo,oco, but proceeded to explain that this number might require to be considerably qualified. It was very easy to see that any scheme for the redistribution of seats would involve the transfer of a very considerable number of members from the present borough constituencies to the counties. Assuming that 1,000,000 voters were added to the county con- stituencies, it would appear that whilst 5,140 electors in the present borough constituencies return one member, it would, under the new regime, require 7,765 electors to return a county member; so that the voters in boroughs would possess one and a-half times the weight in the reformed parliament of the new county voters. If they added 2,000,000 to the county constituencies the value of a county vote would be about ha,lf the value of a vote in a borough in the event of the addition of 2,000,000 voters to the present county electorate. The result would be that instead of there being 360 members representing boroughs and 283 members representing counties, the counties ought to return 407 members and the boroughs 236 ; and if they only added 1,000,000 the county members would be 349 and the borough 294. These figures seemed to show that it was possible that great changes migbt come over the character of their representation, and pointed to the absolute necessity of considering the effect that any assimila- tion of borough and county suffrages would have upon the redis- tribution of seats. Mr. S. Bourne said he differed from the statement that population and wealth generally speaking go together; that was not a very accurate statement of, the case. He also differed from the idea that it was the business of the Statistical Society to tell parliament what it ought to do in this matter, because this was a question which must be regulated by considerations entirely out- side those which entered into the scope of their usual discussions. He rather thought that property and education might be said to go together to a very great extent, meaning, not such an education as a board school might give, but that education which leisure for thought and study afforded to qualify a man for exercising his judgment maturely upon the subject of choosing a representative. Property ought not to be left out of consideration, because they must remember that one of the functions of the legislature was to raise a revenue, and it was not fair that those who had to pay a very small proportion comparatively towards the revenue should 48 Discussion have an equal voice with those who were its largest contribntors. He agreed that the extension of the franchise and redistribution must be considered together. He thought thej might distribute the seats ranging over a considerably large area in proportion to the income of the district, because it was out of the income that the revenue was raised. They might then very safely within those areas give an equality of voting simply according to the population. In that way they would get both property and numbers represented in something like a fair proportion, and some such system as that might possibly solve the difficulty. He was glad to hear Mr. Fowler state his approval of a variety of qualifications, because he (Mr. Bourne) believed that a variety of qualifications was a very desirable element. He really conld not see why, because the system of giving votes according to the existence of property had been abused in the creation of faggot votes, they should altogether abolish such voting because the owner did not happen to reside within the electoral district in which his property was situated. He joined in thanking Mr. Martin for the good service he had done in bringing these figures together. They would be none the less valuable if some time elapsed before legislation took place. This measure was one which the exigencies of party politics had brought to the front, but it might well be retarded until other more important and pressing business had been transacted. Mr. F. Hendriks asked whether the gentlemen who talked of property qualification had considered the effects of restricting it wholly to real property ? He thought that was a very fallacious test of the ways and means of a country like England. There were a host of interests, shipping, manufacturing, mining, and so on that were not so immediately represented in Schedule A of the income tax or in the poor law ratings; and consequently he saw a very great difficulty in any schemes of qualification for the franchise that were based upon one kind of property, to the exclusion of other kinds of earnings from personal property, whether permanent or temporary. Mr. S. Bourne said he referred to the distribution of the district according to the income of the voters, because it was the income out of which the revenue was raised. The President in proposing a vote of thanks to Mr. Martin for his very able and interesting paper, said a subject like this was very suitable for discussion in their Society, not from the point of view of political parties, but from the point of view of information to both sides. By looking at the figures and' looking at the effects of what had been done in the past, they mightr furnish a great deal of information upon which public men might act. Looking at the matter from this point of view, there was^ one thing which appeared to be brought out By the paper, and'which all parties must admit, whatever might be their theories as to what the basis of representation ought to be, viz., that what had made the difficulty as regards representation in this country and many others for the on Mr. J. B. Martin's Pajper. 49 last fifty years was this, tliat whatever might be the representation fixed upon at a particular time to give certain members to certain constituencies at a given date, they found after a comparatively short lapse of time that the arrangement no longer secured a representation of the country as it formerly did. This was conspicuously the case at the time of the Reform Bill of 1832. By the year 1866 they also found that the constituencies estab- lished in 1832 no longer represented the country as they had done at that time ; the fact was that in a growing country like England, growing in population and wealth, they must from time to time, if they were to have representation at all, adjust that repre- sentation to the places where the population and the wealth happened to exist. That was the real interest of the paper, the proof as siiown by Mr. Martin that at certain periods the population and wealth of the country had been transferred to districts which were not represented, as they would have been with the same propor- tion of population and wealth at the time when the previous Reform Bill was settled. If they understood this they would quite see that both Conservatives and Liberals might agree that there ought to be Reform Bills from time to time, because whatever they fixed at a particular date, they found ten or twenty years after that circum- stances had changed, and they must adapt the constitution to the new circumstances. That was a principle upon which all parties might be agreed, and in stating the facts and applying them a Society like theirs would be of great service, without their inter- meddling in any way in the strife of parties. Speak'ing from the statistical point of view, one peculiarity which they ought to bring to the notice of their public men was this, that in fixing the repre- sentation at a particular date, they ought to have regard to the drift of the facts ; they should not merely adjust the representation to the facts as they stood at the time of the last census, which might have been two or three years beiore the time of the Reform Bill, but they should endeavour to adjust the representation in some respects to the proportions of population and wealth as they were likely to be in a few years after that. If they found that a place like London was growing rapidly in population and wealth, and they made population and wealth the basis of representation, they ought to take into account the fact that in the next ten years such a place was going to have a much larger amount of popu- lation and wealth than it had. That was a point which had been altogether overlooked in the last Reform Bill ; things were then adjusted to the state of facts at a certain time, and then they found perhaps in ten years that the representation no longei adjusted itself to the country as it had been intended. What they ought to take into account therefore was the probable amount and proportion in the immediate future, not in the past, of those things with reference to which they meant to adjust the representation, and if they were to do this, the adjustment would be something very different from what it would be if they were to make it relate to a past state of circumstances alone. He had very much pleasure in moving the vote of thanks to Mr. Martin for his very able paper. 50 Discussion on Mr. J. B. Martinis Paper. Mr. John B. Martin, in responding, thanked the Society very sincerely for the kind way in which they had received his paper. He could honestly say he had taken a great deal of trouble with it, and he could say with equal honesty that in no paper which he had prepared for that or any other Society, had the results been to his own mind so inadequate to the labour which he had bestowed on it. He had laboured under two difficulties : first, the difficulty of bringing everything up to the latest possible date ; and secondly, the knowledge that the Government were at the earliest possible moment of the present session about to introduce a Reform Bill, the exact provisions of which were as yet unknown. But for the events in the Soudan and elsewhere, he should possibly have had the wind taken out of his sails by the introduction of the Government measure previous to the reading of his paper, and it would have been excessively disappointing if he had laid down any principle as to what parliament ought to do if the Government had a fortnight beforehand stated what they were going to do. That was the reply he would make to Mr. Pochin when he regretted that he (Mr. Martin) had not laid down the principle on which he should advocate the redistribution of electoral power. Mr. Chadwick had asked why he made no allusion to property. He perhaps ought to have stated in the paper that he thought that subject had been sufficiently ventilated elsewhere. It was most fully elaborated before that Society by Mr. Arthur Ellis in the early part of last session, when he strongly insisted on the anomalous manner in which representation was at present distributed if they took the proportionate distributions of wealth, and showed that the apparent wealth of a district was by no means its real wealth. They all knew the apparently gigantic wealth shown in large centres such as London, owing to the payment of income tax or foreign loans, and so forth, so that the real wealth of London was not of that over- whelming nature in proportion to the whole as it appeared to be by the income tax returns. Mr. Elliott had stated that his figures showed an apparent increase of two million county electors. That was a slight misapprehension of his calculations. He calculated that on a bare rule of three the county electors would be raised from 932,000 to 1,836,000, so that they would be apparently doubled, less various modifications that he suggested, but there would not be the increase that was suggested by Mr. Elliott. He had now only to thank the meeting for the kind way in which they had received his paper. DAKRISON AMD SONS, PBIMBKS IN OKDINAEI TO U£B MAJESIX, ST. MARTII.'S LAKE. m' K9( r^ ^^fe' 4:% 'ii-^: ^•^; .'• ':ii< r* ^*?! ^t f/^: