PARLIAMENTARY REFORMREPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (SCOTLAND) BILL.

LEAVE. FIRST READING.

ber that it will be preferable to have a provision introduced with reference to the enfranchisement of lodgers-which, however, I think is amply secured under the Act of 1832-there will be no reluctance THE LORD ADVOCATE, in rising to on the part of the Government to remove move for leave to bring in a Bill for the any doubt upon the matter by framing a amendment of the Representation of the clause to that effect. So much with rePeople in Scotland, said, Mr. Speaker: ference to the borough franchise. I have As a new Member I crave the indulgence next to address myself to the question of of the House when addressing it for the the county franchise. We propose to refirst time on a subject of such importance duce the ownership qualification in counas the amendment of the Representation of ties to £5 of clear yearly_value-the the People of Scotland. The Motion I same as was done in the English Act. have to make is for leave to bring in a The clause will be framed in terms Bill to amend that representation. I feel grounded on the Act of last Session. that the duty which I have to discharge We further propose to fix the occupation is considerably lightened by two conside- franchise at the same rate as it has been rations. The first is, that the Chancellor fixed in England—namely, at the rated of the Exchequer last Session introduced value of £12. I have here to explain to a similar Bill to the one I now ask leave the House that the valuation-roll, from to bring under the notice of the House, which the register of voters is made up, and explained its provisions at the time of does not contain any materials for ascer doing so; and the present Bill is in many taining the rating of tenants. There is a respects identical with that measure. The deduction necessary to be made under the second is, that during last Session there 37th section of our Poor Law Act, 8 & 9 were so many discussions with reference Vict., c. 83, in order to make that out. to the franchise that it would be quite out There are a few parishes in which mistakes of place for me to make any additional have been made in carrying out the proremarks upon that branch of the subject. visions of the 37th section. These are, I shall therefore proceed at once to explain however, mere mistakes, and are not supto the House the provisions of the Bill, ported by the provisions of the Act. There which I now ask leave to introduce. The are also a few parishes which have not English Act was founded to a great extent yet adopted the legal system of rating for upon the provisions of the Scotch Bill; the support of the poor. They are small and we accordingly propose to carry out parishes, and landward parishes, with po all the views of the House as expressed in pulations of trifling amount, where the the discussions upon the English Bill, and poor are supported by voluntary contribu to give effect to the franchises established tions. Now, in order to secure uniformity by that Bill. The Scotch borough fran- in this matter, the Bill will contain a chise will therefore be similar to the fran- provision by which the valuator or aschise in England that is to say, all sessor, who is an officer appointed either registered householders who have been by the Crown or by the county autho rated, and have paid their rates, will be rities, shall enter on the valuation-roll entitled to the borough franchise. There the rated value of all premises between are provisions in the Bill for the purpose £50 and £12. In that way it is hoped of guarding against the omission of any to secure uniformity of rating throughout person whose name does not appear upon the counties and prevent the possibility of the rate-book; and I think you will find the suspicion-a suspicion which I do not that the Act is framed in such terms as apprehend would be well founded-of any will secure a vote to every person who intention on the part of parochial boards is entitled to that qualification. I may to interfere with the view of affecting the mention that the Bill does not contain rateable value of the subjects upon which any provisions with reference to lodgers. the qualification is founded. These proThis arises, not from any indisposition to visions, I venture to think, will secure recognize the rights of that class of voters; the occupation franchise upon a firm and but from the simple reason that in Scot- fair foundation. There is a provision in land we have always recognized the right the English Act that the occupation of of lodgers to be considered as tenants. If, premises which have been successively ochowever, it should occur to any hon. Mem-cupied by a person, shall entitle him to

be put upon the register. That is to say, | Committee other three Members were it will not be necessary that the person added; so that it was ultimately fixed should have been in possession of the same that there should be eight additional Mempremises for a year continuously. The bers given to Scotland, all of which were only alteration upon the existing Scotch allotted to the boroughs. The claims of franchise will be found in this clause; and Scotland on that occasion were maintained it is one which, I think the House will by Gentlemen who represented, or who recognize as a right and proper alteration. might be held to represent, Conservative The provision as to successive occupation views. Sir George Murray, Member for will be found in the clause relating to the Perthshire, and Sir George Clerk, whose borough franchise in the Act of 1832. But recent death we have had occasion to deby an omission there is no provision for plore, and many others who held similar taking into account the successive occu- opinions, were strong vindicators of the pancy of premises by tenants in the county; rights of Scotland to additional Members. and that is proposed to be corrected in the Well, in 1852, a new Reform Bill was present Bill. We propose to put the county brought forward by Lord Aberdeen; and tenants upon the same footing as the bo- in connection with that Bill a Scotch Bill rough tenants, and also on the same foot- also was introduced by my hon. and learned ing as those who received the franchise Friend the Member for Edinburgh, which for the first time by the Act of 1867. I made no provision for additional representathink that is all which it is necessary to tion for Scotland. In 1854 and 1859 English bring under the notice of the House with Reform Bills were brought forward, neither reference to the franchise. The question of of which made provision for additional distribution is the next point to be dealt Members for Scotland. No Scotch Bills with, and it is perhaps one that is attended were brought forward in those years. In with more special interest. I may at once 1860, a Scotch Bill was brought forward say that it is not proposed to take away by Lord Palmerston's Government, and it the right of representation from any ex- was then proposed to add two additional isting constituency. There are no consti- representatives to Scotland. I rather think tuencies, I think, in Scotland, in a position that these Members were to be supplied requiring such a course of procedure. In from Members that had been taken away fact there is no superfluity of representa- from boroughs in consequence of corrupt tion in Scotland. We have only two cities practices. In 1866, another Reform Bill which possess the right of returning two was brought forward by Earl Russell's Members-namely, Edinburgh and Glas- Government, and after a very careful congow; and it would be in vain to propose to sideration of the Scotch claims the right take away any representation from either hon. Gentleman the Member for South of these. In this state of matters we have Lancashire stated, that whilst he quite to consider what is to be done in the way acknowledged the rights of Scotland to of procuring additional Members for Scot- additional representation, still it required land. The House is aware that, under to be borne in mind that we were not the provisions of the Act of Union, Scot- engaged in complete re-construction of our land had right to forty-five Members, whole Parliamentary system; but he was thirty being given to the counties, and prepared to concede to Scotland, as a fifteen to the boroughs. In 1831, when moderate recognition of its rights, seven the Reform Act was first introduced, there additional Members. Now, speaking as was a division of the House of Commons a Scotchman, I would desire to have upon the question as to whether there a larger number added; but at the same should be any diminution of the number time I wish my Scotch friends to recollect of the English Members. That division that there are great difficulties to be resulted in a small majority adverse to the encountered in disturbing existing arproposition, and a dissolution of Parliament rangements, and we ought to make altook place. The consequence was that lowances for those difficulties. I have, the Government of Earl Grey had a very therefore, to state that the Government large majority in 1832, when the Scotch concur in the opinion which the right Reform Bill came forward again for consi- hon. Gentleman expressed in 1866, and deration. The proposition which was that the number of additional Members to made by that Government was that there be given to Scotland should be seven. should be an addition of five Scotch repre- That being so, the next question to be sentatives; but when the Bill was in decided is, from what source are those

I think there is nothing in the way of principle which will prevent the House from entertaining this question. It is one of policy and convenience; and I venture to think that the just claims of Scotland ought to be recognized in the manner proposed by the Government. The next question, then, which we have to bring under the consideration of the House is, in what manner are these seven Members to be distributed? As was explained by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he introduced the Scotch Bill last year, the Scotch Universities, in 1858, obtained a constitution which put them in the position of having an excellent constituency for the purpose of electing Members of Parlia ment. He, accordingly, last year proposed, and it is intended to carry out the proposition in the present Bill, to give two Members to the Universities of Scotland. That proposal, I think, met with very general approval, and I expect that a similar reception will attend the same pro posal which I again make. Two Members being given to the Universities, five Members remain to be disposed of. What is now proposed, as was done in the Bill of last year, is that three of these should be given to very large and populous counties. The population of Lanarkshire, exclusive of boroughs, is 199,983; the population of Ayrshire, 150,719; and the population of Aberdeenshire, 137,135. I may, per

seven Members to be supplied? We have no seats vacant at present, and there are none to be taken from the existing constituencies of Scotland. Last Session, before the Scotch Bill was brought into the House, questions were put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer asking from what source these additional Members were to be obtained; and the answers, I think, indicated in sufficiently intelligible terms that they were to be procured by the creation of additional seats under the Bill. All doubts regarding the matter were, however, set at rest by the question being formally put by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, upon the Motion for leave to bring in a Bill on the 13th of May last. The question was put directly, whether it was intended to add to the numbers of the House with a view to the supplying of these seven seats to Scotland; and the answer in substance was that such was the manner in which the seats were to be supplied. This proceeding took place before the Committee of the House had taken into consideration the question of the distribution of the English seats; but no indication was then, or thereafter, at any stage of the English Bill given that it was not the proper or right way of obtaining additional seats for Scotland; or that there must be set apart for Scotland, out of those seats which were abolished under the provisions of the Eng-haps, here mention the relative amount lish Bill, a sufficient number to provide for of the county and borough population of the claims of Scotland. Ample time and the whole of Scotland. By the Census opportunity were given for the adoption of of 1861 the population of the boroughs either of these courses; but neither of them was 1,244,106; that of the counties, exwas taken. The result was that the House clusive of Parliamentary boroughs, was appropriated these vacant seats in England 1,818,188; the excess of county popula towards supplying the claims of such Eng- tion thus being 574,082. The annual lish cities and towns which either were to value of real property in the counties get a representation for the first time, or is £8,700,000; the annual value of to which additional representatives were to real property in the boroughs is only be given. The Government adhere to the £4,700,000; the excess in the county opinions which they expressed last year; valuation being thus £4,000,000, Lookand as we have no other way of satisfying to this state of matters, it has occurred ing the claims of Scotland, they will ask to us that it is right to recognize the the House to add to its own numbers. This must be done if we are to satisfy the just-the clearly just, and I think very moderate-claims of Scotland. It must be kept in view that, while the proposition was made in 1860, and again in 1866, to add to the number of Scotch Members, by diminishing the number of English Members, neither of these Bills reached the stage when the opinion of the House could be taken upon that matter.

claims of these large counties, which are very populous and also of very great extent. This leaves only for consideration what is to be done with the two remaining Members. As regards one of those Members, there can be no doubt that it ought to be given to Glasgow, which is very wealthy and populous, is the third city in the Empire, and is quite entitled to have another Member. Paying respect to the decision of the House arrived at

last year, we propose to give a third | fact being as low as 2,000. It is not proMember to Glasgow on the same footing posed to go so far down by the Bill which as the third Member was given to each of Liverpool, Birmingham, and Manchester. There still, however, remains one seat to be disposed of, and I shall explain how we propose to dispose of this. There are certain unrepresented towns or populous places, whose claims require to be considered; but, before proceeding to consider them, I would ask the House to look at what was done in 1832. In that year thirteen new towns were made Parliamentary boroughs, four of which were large towns, including Paisley and Greenock, to each of which a Member was given. There were others, too-namely, Leith and Kilmarnock, of sufficient size to justify their being placed in a new group, or included in some existing group. I crave the House to attend to the population of the other nine boroughs which were then created Parliamentary boroughs, and to compare what was done in 1832 with what we now propose by the present Bill. I may state that there is a difficulty in arriving at an exact computation of the population of places in 1831, because the Census of that year did not always disinguish the landward part of a parish from the village portion. According, how ever, to the best means at my disposal, the following was the population of the nine boroughs to which I have referred :-In 1831, Airdrie had a population of 6,954; but it is now 12,922. Of Falkirk I was unable to ascertain the population in 1831, but it is now 9,000. Hamilton, I believe, would have a population of some 6,000 in 1831, which has increased to 10,688, exclusive of the landward portion of the parish. Musselburgh and Fisherrow, I presume, had a population of about 6,000 also in 1831; but it is now 7,423. Peterhead had a population of 5,112 in 1831, which has now risen to 7,541. Port Glasgow has during the same period increased from 5,192 to 7,214. Portobello has increased from 2,781 to 4,366. I have not the population of Oban in 1831; but it is now 1,940. Cromarty had a population of 2,215 in 1831, but I rather think it has diminished since then. The House will observe that nine of the seats given under the Reform Bill of 1832, dealt with Parliamentary boroughs which had no right previously to return Members to Parliament. Of these nine, there were undoubtedly four or five which had a population of less than 6,000, two of them in

I now ask leave to bring in; but it is proposed that manufacturing and other trading towns having a population of about 6,000 should become boroughs, which should contribute to send Members to Parliament. Let it not be supposed that this is what is called eliminating all the small villages and towns in Scotland. There are a great number of these in Scotland. From the Census of 1861 I find that there are seventy-eight non-Parliamentary towns above 2,000 inhabitants. We only propose to deal with a few of these. There are what are called in the Returns of 1861, villages and towns of between 2,000 and 300 to the number of 529, and these, of course, are not proposed to be touched. Therefore villages and small towns are affected to a very small extent by the provisions of this Bill. The towns to which I have to refer, as proposed to be made Parliamentary boroughs, are the following Ardrossan, having a population of 7,674, and having magistrates appointed under the General Police Act of 1862, and under local Acts; Coatbridge, which, according to the Census of 1861, had a population of 10,501, and I am informed that, when it was proposed to put it under the Police Act of 1862, the sheriff defined the boundaries of the borough, and these were approved of by the then Secretary of State, including a population of about 22,000; Wishaw, which in 1861 had a population of 6,112, but is now increased to about 12,000; Barrhead, with a population of 6,018; Johnstone, with a population of 6,404; Helensburgh, with a population of about 6,000; Kirkintilloch, with a population of 6,090; and Pollockshaws, with a population of 7,600 in 1861, but now about 9,000. These places contained a popula tion of about 56,353, according to the Census of 1861; but there has been a great increase since that time, amounting to about 18,000, and the population is brought up to about 74,000. It is proposed that these boroughs, which are all in Lanarkshire, Renfrewshire, and Dumbartonshire-contiguous counties-should constitute a group of boroughs to which one Member should be given ["Oh, oh!"] which is the proposition which I have to submit to the House, and I venture to think that the more it is examined, the more reasonable it will seem, and that after it has received fair discussion, it will meet the approval of the House. There are some

majority, after two divisions, in a very full House. He admitted the force of the argument, that in the great and populous counties of England this probably was a matter of minor consequence; but in the small, sparsely populated counties in Scotland, it was a matter of the utmost importance, because if the qualification was to consist simply of land, it would be in the power of one or two landed proprietors, and in some cases of one, virtually to command the whole representation by the creation of fifty, sixty, or 100 faggot votes;

other boroughs, of a similar character, | proposition that the qualification in counwhich are proposed to be dealt with. ties should consist partly of a house, was First, Hawick, which had a population in only rejected by the narrowest possible 1861 of 8,191, and has now an estimated population of 11,452; Galashiels, which in 1841 had a population of 1,600, but by the last Census had a population of 6,433, and which has since increased to about 8,000. It is the anxious desire of these boroughs that they should be made into a group by themselves; but we have not the means of meeting that wish, and the only thing that can be done is to add them to the Haddington district, which is not an increasing district, and has at present only a population of about 13,000. Then there is Alloa, a shipping port, and under mu-and he hoped the hon. Member for Lanicipal government, which, by the Census of 1861, had a population of 6,425. It is proposed that this borough should be added to the Stirling district. Unless the distinction between the urban and county districts is to be totally ignored, I venture to think that these propositions are founded in reason and good sense; because you must make allowance for the increase of the urban element from time to time; and the way in which that can be done is either by giving additional representation to those places which have increased so much in population, or by adding them to existing groups. There is no doubt that between 1832 and 1868-a period which represents almost a generation, but in point of progress a much larger period-there has been a very large increase of the urban population in these districts. In 1832 the claims of such places to representation as urban constituencies were recognized, as I have shown, to a greater extent than is proposed by the present Bill. When these propositions have been carefully considered I believe they will meet with the approval of the House; and I therefore now move for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the Representation of the People in Scotland.

MR. BAXTER said, that he had listened with great attention to the clear and lucid statement of the learned Lord, who, however, had said little about the borough franchise, and whose example he (Mr. Baxter) should follow, because whatever diversity of sentiment might formerly have existed as to the point to which the electoral franchise in boroughs in Scotland should be lowered, it was obvious that they must follow the example of England, and heartily welcome household suffrage. Last Session, it would be remembered, a

narkshire (Sir Edward Colebrooke) would again turn his attention to this matter, and take the sense of the House upon it. He had not risen, however, for the purpose of referring to the principles or details of this Bill; but he must say a word with regard to the scheme for re-distribution, which was far worse than he could have anticipated. He did not expect that Government would be disposed to take no fewer than eight towns out of the counties of Renfrew, Ayr, Lanark, and Dumbarton, for the purpose of creating a new constituency in the West; and he was astonished that in a scheme like this the Lord Advocate had overlooked the claims of the large and important manufacturing towns, like Dundee. Did the learned Lord know there was no such instance of increase in the United Kingdom as in the case of Dundee ? There were towns in the county of Forfar, large, wealthy, and rapidly increasing in population, and yet they were not to have any additional Members, but were all to be handed over to the counties, although the representation of counties in Scotland at present was in excess of what it ought to be in comparison with the boroughs. But his object in rising was altogether apart from details like these. He considered it his duty, to take the carliest opportunity of entering his protest against any scheme whatever for adding to the number of Members of that House. No one who had looked into the facts and figures of the case would for an instant dispute the claim of Scotland to a large additional representation; but if they compared England and Scotlandtaking, for example, the basis of taxation and population they would find that Scotland was entitled to twenty-five additional representatives, But he had no