Irttrtu to attar.
CONTRIBUTORY BOROUGHS.
12th October 1851.
Sin—When I find you take up a question in a leading article just at the very moment when I was contemplating it as a subject for a "Letter to the Editor," if I feel a little vexation at my remarks thus losing somewhat of the charm of novelty, it is far more than counterbalanced by satisfaction that we have arrived at the same conclusion on an important subject, by nearly the same line of thought. I will therefore not subject you th the im- precation usually levelled at those " qui ante nos nostra dixerunt."
I allude to the proposal for "grouping together the considerable towns of a district, as in Wales ; such constituencies to return one or two members according to their numbers." This has been a favourite scheme of mine for some time, and one which I have thought over very attentively. It is cer- tainly the best mode of extending the franchise which I have seen proposed, and I ant surprised that it has not been more extensively canvassed. Of course, however, it may have been so, much more than I am aware of. On giving even the most superficial examination to our borough constitu- encies, it•must strike every one that a certain class of towns return an undue proportion of members. The middle-sized boroughs, containing from about five to ten thousand inhabitants, swamp, as far as regards the number of re- presentatives, both the very large cities, and the still smaller towns which are not represented at all, unless accidentally by their inhabitants having the county franchise. I will state the case as it stands in the county in which I am writing, which happens to be one of the best illustrations I can find. In Gloucestershire are five Parliamentary boroughs, each returning two members,—Bristol (constituency 12,157), Gloucester (1658), Stroud (1248), Cirencester (467), Tewkesbury (378) ; and one, Cheltenham (2278), returning a single member. Thus,, the 378 electors and (in 1841) 5862 in- habitants of Tewkesbury have the same numerical weight in the councils of the nation as the 12,157 electors and 122,296 inhabitants of Bristol. On the other hand, the county contains seventeen market-towns with population varying (in 1841) from 1000 to 4702, and which, if Tewkesbury gives a just proportion, would provide constituencies varying from 66 (North Leach) to 313 (Wotton-under-Edge). The population (in 1841) of the whole seven- teen amounted to 33,877; which, according to the Tewkesbury ratio, would give 2257 electors, which is very nearly the same proportion as Cheltenham (population in 1841 31,411). I have excluded from my reckoning two mar- ket-towns whose population is under 1000, and two which are comprised within thelimits of the borough of Stroud. Now I am by no means one of those who would make the whole thing a mere matter of calculation, and assign a member to so many. head of elec- tors; but I do think the disproportion here shown is too great. Surely Tewkesbury and Cirencester have an unfair advantage : unfair both ways— on the one hand, they are unjustly placed on a level with Bristol ; on the other hand, they are unjustly set above a class of towns some of which tread very closely upon their heels. I cannot believe either that one burgess of Tewkesbury is as good as thirty-two citizens of Bristol, or that he is so im- measurably superior to his fellows at Dursley or Newent as that he should enjoy political privileges of which they are wholly deprived. It may be said that the innocent victims would gain all that I wish to se- cure them by Mr. Locke King's motion. This is not exactly the case. My objection is not quite the same as the one mentioned in your article, that it would "swamp .the influence of the landowners " • for which I cannot say (being only an infinitesimal landowner myself) that I very much care. It seems to me that a pioperly-constituted House of Commons should represent the distinct interests of every particular constituency. Hence, I quarrel with electoral districts, and prefer the present system by which counties, cities, universities, elect district representatives of their several interests. Mr. Locke King's proposal would confound together the farmer of the purely rural district and the tradesman of the small town, both of whom ought to be distinctly heard, while it would preserve the unfair advantage of the middle-sized towns. My 2287 unrepresented ten-pound householders in the email towns of Gloucestershire surely have more in common with the ten- pound householders of Tewkesbury and Cirencester, than with the squire, farmer, or labourer in the country. Of course, all classes run into one another, and in these same small towns most especially. Compared with Bristol and Manchester, their inhabitants might all pass for pure rustics. I only say that there is an unfair line drawn between them and places like Cirencester or Tewkesbury. Taking, then, the notion of interests—the agricultural inhabitants of the country are one interest; the great city of Bristol another; the city of Glou- cester another, though smaller one; the clothing district, represented by the borough of Stroud, a fourth. All these ought to be severally represented, as they are; but why this preference of Cirencester and Tewkesbury, which are simply a very little raised above the ordinary class of market-towns ? To me it seems that all these smaller towns form again one collective in- terest, distinct from that of the county at large, and from the several in- terests of the larger towns, and which therefore ought to be heard in its due proportion. Let them neither be lost in the mass of the county nor put on a level with cities twenty times their population. Taking this notion of interests, we are not bound servilely to follow the exact ratio of population. I should give Bristol a larger number of members than Gloucester, but not in the proportion of 121 to 16. The importance of the interest certainly does not increase exactly according to population; and again by assigning members in exact proportion to numbers, an interestt nu- merically large might swamp others smaller in number but possibly equal in importance. A place may have an importance quite irrespective of its popu- lation. For instance, the sole seat of any trade or manufacture (if there be such a case) would have an interest immeasurably more important than a place of the same population whose staple is shared with many others. Or again, local circumstances may convey additional importance. A local capital has an importance beyond its population. A Welsh town, from its greater relative importance to the surrounding district, seems to me to derive a greater positive importance than an English town of the same size. Ila- verfordwest is not much larger than Cirencester, but is surely much better entitled to a distinct voice in the affairs of the nation. Looking again to my Gloucestershire type, I would leave the two divisions of the county, and the boroughs of Gloucester and Stroud, as they are. Of the four members who now represent Cirencester and Tewkesbury, I would assign one to Bristol, giving that city three representatives. For the other three, I would make three groups of boroughs in the East, the North-west, and the South-west divisions of the county respectively ; of which Ciren- cester, Tewkesbury, and Wotton-under-Edge, would form the appropriate heads. Or perhaps it might be better not to arrange them geographically, but to let more distant boroughs contribute to the same members, so as to secure still more perfectly the advantages which you speak of as arising from " the Nattered nature of the constituency." Even my Lord Fitzhardinge himself could hardly contrive to bully or bribe a whole constituency, if some of the electors were to be found at Marshfield and others at Chipping Campden. I have drawn out my Gloucestershire scheme at full length, because that county is, as it were, self-supporting, having at least members enough to supply its own wants. But possibly it might have to lend to some which are not so well off. Leicestershire, for instance, has only two borough members whereas Leicester might almost claim a third, and there is the town of Loughborough, (population in 1841, 10,170,) and several smaller ones, en- tirely unrepresented. It may be observed that I have said nothing of Chel- tenham : on any theory it ought to have two members, but experience has shown that it cannot be trusted to elect one.
As for the system in Wales, whence both you and I seem to have drawn our notion, the actual arrangement stands greatly in need of reform. On the one hand, some miserable villages in Radnorshire and elsewhere, act as con- tributory boroughs, without any manner of claim. On the other hand, large towns like Merthyr, Swansea, and Newport, are not sufficiently repre- sented; it is perfectly absurd for a place like the latter only to share one member with Monmouth and Usk. And even the smaller towns of Cardiff and Carmarthen might claim each its two members to itself, with more justice than the mass of English boroughs represented to that amount— with far more, certainly, than my old enemies Cirencester and Tewkesbury. I have a few more remarks to make (or rather questions to ask) respecting the franchise in general ; but I will not trouble you with a longer letter at present. I am, Sir, your obedient servant, E. A. F.
Previous page
