NORTH AND SOUTH.

A GOOD many statistics have naturally been published having reference to the great struggle through which the country has been passing. The gains of both political parties have been carefully analyzed ; the results of the recent Reform Act have been attentively noted ; the conduct of the new constituencies has been keenly watched ; and the cause of the advance of Liberalism in Borne places, and of the Conservative reaction in others, has been eagerly inquired into. But there is one set of statistics, to which but little attention has been paid, and which, nevertheless, are deserving of interest,—the historical statistics of Reform. A good many people imagine that Reform as an accomplished fact dates from 1832; and that it is unnecessary to turn to an earlier page

in the history of the country to ascertain the various changes which have been made in the constitution of the House of Commons. But, so far as the distribution of political power is concerned, this view of the subject is entirely mistaken, as there has been hardly a reign from the days of Simon de Montfort to the days of Anne in which no redistribution of power has been made.

These changes afford a good many subjects for considera- tion. The places selected to send representatives to Parlia- ment were, at the time of their selection, at any rate, of importance. Their history, therefore, is, in one sense, con- nected with the history of the country ; their decay or their com- parative unimportance now is generally a sign of the decay of some industry, or the excessive growth of others. In the present article we propose to refer to these changes, to show how power, originally settled in the South of England, has gradually left the South and established itself in the North. The increase of power in the North is, of course, due to physical reasons.

Nature has given the North an advantage in its mineral wealth which it has denied to the South of England, and man, by availing himself of these advantages, has concentrated a vast population in the North, to which political power has in a great measure, as a just and natural consequence, been transferred.

To make this very clear to our readers, we propose to take the seven Northern counties, Northumberland, Durham, Cumberland, Westmoreland, Lancashire, York, and Cheshire, with a present•

population of upwards of 6,000,000, awl the 10 Southern counties, Kent, Surrey, Berkshire, Sussex, Hampshire, Wilt- shire, Dorsetshire, Somersetshire, Devonshire, and Cornwall, with a population now of a little less than 4,500,000, and to show the comparative amount of power which these two portions of England have enjoyed at different periods.

Originally, each of the counties of England, with the exception of Monmouth, which was not then an English county, and the palatinates of Chester and Durham, sent 2 knights to Parliament. The County representation may, consequently, be considered to have been equally divided ; and it will therefore be more con- venient, in the early part of this article, to consider the case of the Borough representation alone.

Eighty-one of the boroughs, which returned members to Parlia- ment in the beginning of this century, enjoyed the same privilege in the reign of Edward I. Of these 81 boroughs, which each

returned two members, 48, or considerably more than one-half, were situated in the Southern, and only 6 in the Northern

counties. The additions which Edward II. and Edward III. made to the House added largely to the preponderance of the South. They respectively enfranchised 5 and 12 new boroughs ; but all the 5 enfranchised by Edward II. and 10 of the 12 enfranchised by Edward III. were in the South of England. The additions which Henry VI. made to the representation, added largely to the preponderance of the South ; 7 of the 8 boroughs which he created being in the Southern counties ; and this preponderance was but slightly redressed by Edward IV., who only created 4 new boroughs, none of which were in the Southern counties.

The reign of Henry VIII. is chiefly remarkable from a represen- tative point of view, for the facts that Cheshire and Monmouth- shire were for the first time invited to send representatives to Par- liament, and that the counties and some of the boroughs of Wales were also for the first time represented. But, from our more immediate point of view, it is also remarkable for the fact that, for the first time since the reign of Edward I., additional repre- sentation was accorded to the North, two additional boroughs

being added in the Northern counties. The growth of the North became, though slow, perceptible. Out of the 24 boroughs which were given representatives in the reign of Edward VI., 7 were in the Northern counties and 10 in the Southern. Mary invited 4 boroughs in the Northern and 2 in the Southern counties to send members to Parliament ; and Elizabeth,—who, perhaps from her affection for Raleigh, perhaps from the gallantry of her West- Country subjects, and perhaps from the necessity which her rela- tions with Spain imposed on her of showing favour to the brave Cornish sailors, seems to have had a peculiar affection for Corn- wall, and who consequently invited 19 boroughs in the South of England, most of which were in Cornwall, to send members to Parliament,—so far recognized the claims of the North as to send writs down to 4 boroughs, which had been previously unrepre- sented, in the Northern counties.

The changes in the House made during the reigns of the Stuart Kings are for many reasons worth remembering. The idea of

giving representation to the Universities originated in the reign of James I., the pedagogue king. The only unrepresented county, Durham, was given its fair pror.ortion of members in the

reign of Charles II. Writs were sent to 43 new boroughs during the reigns of the four Stuarts ; and of these boroughs 7 were in the Southern and 5 in the Northern counties. These successive alterations had so far modified the constitution of the House, that there were at the end of the seventeenth century no less than 405 borough members ; and of these, 213, or more than one-half, represented boroughs in the Southern, and 56 were returned by boroughs in the Northern, counties.

The English constituencies remained unaltered for considerably more than a century. The only alteration which took place before the Reform Bill was the disfranchisement of the small borough of Grampotmd, in Cornwall. The Reform Bill of 1832 disfranchised 56 boroughs, with 111 members. Thirteen of these boroughs were in Cornwall alone, and 42, or more than three- fourths of the whole, were in the 10 Southern counties ; but these 42 boroughs, which had returned 84 members, do not represent the whole measure of disfranchisement which was meted out to the South. Weymouth and Melcombe Regis, which had been pre- viously represented independently of each other, were united ; and out of the 30 boroughs which were deprived of 1 member each, no leas than 22 were situated in the Southern counties. Therefore of the 211 borough members which, after the disfranchisement of Grampound, were elected by constituencies in the Southern counties, no less than 108 found themselves, in consequence of that measure, deprived of their seats.

It is true that against these losses must be set some gains. Four boroughs in the Southern counties—Lambeth, Greenwich, Devon- port, and Brighton—were each given 2 members ; and 2 boroughs, Chatham and Frome, 1 membereach. Eight of the Southern counties were divided, in other words, each of these counties was given 4 instead of 2 members, and the remaining 2 counties were given a third member each. But this addition to the county representation of 18 members and to the borough representation of 10 was a poor compensation for the 108 members of which the Southern counties had been deprived. The last Reform Bill, meagre as in its redis- tribution clauses it has frequently been considered, was equally disastrous to the South. Out of 11 English boroughs which were wholly disfranchised by that measure, no less than 8, with 11 members, are in the Southern counties. And out of 35 English boroughs which were deprived of 1 member each, 15 are in the Southern counties. The Reform Bill of 1866 consequently deprived the South of 26 borough members, while it only created one new Southern borough, Gravesend. It is true that it created 4 new county constituencies, Mid-Kent, Mid- Surrey, Mid-Somerset, and Mid-Devon, each returning 2 mem- bers, and that it therefore added 8 new county and 2 new borough members in lieu of those which it had taken away, but it still inflicted a net loss of 16 members on the South of England. The 10 Southern counties had, in short, up to 1832 returned 20 county and 211 borough members, or considerably more than one- third of the whole House of Commons ; after 1832 they had been obliged to content themselves with 38 county and 113 borough members, or considerably less than one-fourth of the House ; and they now only return 46 county and 87 borough members, or as nearly as possible one-fifth of the whole House of Commons.

Let us now turn to the case of the 7 Northern counties, which from a bare representation by 12 borough members we have seen gradually obtaining a larger though still inadequate representation by 56 borough members. There were rotten boroughs in the North as well as in the South. Five Northern boroughs were totally disfranchised in 1832; and these Northern boroughs were each deprived of one member. But there was a splendid set-off against this comparatively trifling loss of 13 members. Eleven places, which it is certainly hard to think of even as unrepresented, —Manchester, Leeds, Sheffield, Sunderland, Bolton, Bradford, Blackburn, Halifax, Macclesfield, Oldham, and Stockport,—were each given 2 members ; and 13 places of great though leas import- ance,—Ashton, Bury, Gateshead, Huddersfield, Kendal, Rochdale, South Shields, Tynemouth, Salford, Wakefield, Warrington,Whitby, and Whitehaven,—were each given 1 member. So that the loss of 13 members, which were taken from the old Northern boroughs, was compensated by the gift of 35 members to new boroughs created in 1832. Five of the 7 Northern counties were at the same time divided, and given 2 members for each division. The county members were consequently increased in number from 14 to 24; and, as the borough members had been increased from 56 to 78, the total representation of the North was raised from 70 to 102 members.

Still the busy North with its 102 members could clearly be out- voted by the agricultural South with its 151 members. The little Redistribution Bill of 1861, which gave to the North the four seats which had been taken from the corrupt boroughs of St.

Alban's and Sudbury, went a little way towards redressing this state of things ; but the Reform Bill of 1866, which, as we have seen, reduced the members returned by Southern constituencies from 151 to 133, went much further. One Northern borough, it is true, a victim to its own misconduct, was disfranchised, and 5 Northern boroughs were each deprived of A. member ; but the slight loss of 7 members which the North thus sustained, was compensated by the gift of members to 7 hitherto unrepresented towns, and of an additional member to 4 great towns,—Man- chester, Leeds, Salford, and Liverpool. Cheshire and Yorkshire were each given two, and Lancashire three additional county mem- bers; and the representatives of the North were consequently increased from 70 members before 1832, or less than one-ninth of the House of Commons, to 102 members in 1832, and 106 members in 1852, or not one-sixth of the House of Commons, to 117 members, or a little more than one-sixth of the House of Commons, in 1866.

On the present occasion, we do not propose to make any comment on these suggestive figures. Their bare mention seems to us to tell their own tale—a tale which is closely connected with England's wealth, with England's glory, and England's future.