THE METROPOLITAN DISTRICTS.

A RETROSPECTIVE REVIEW OF THE CLAIMS OF THE METROPOLIS TO FURTHER REPRESENTATION.

[WE are indebted for the following interesting paper to a typogra- phical error of the Morning Chronicle. In the letter addressed to the Editor, last week, by Mr. JOSEPH PARKES, on the subject of a question raised by Mr. CORBETT, as to intended alterations of the Reform Bill, Mr. PARKES had said-" I support the mea- sure as a whole, although I always did and do consider it too aris- tocratic, in the preponderating influence given to the Landowners, in the division of Counties, and in the Franchise." The Chronicle converted "Landowners" into Londoners. We were at a loss for the meaning of the passage, and said so in the few lines of com- ment that we gave upon it. Tile misprint, however, has been most -useful,-it has sent Mr. PARKES to his old books and pamphlets, of which he has great store: and he has made out, in consequence, an historical argument for the Metropolitan Districts, as strong as the argument derived from their present wealth and numbers, and the necessity of their enfranchisement to the general consistency of the Bill.] THE gross and unjust inequality of the share of the People of the Me- tropolis in the Commons' Representation, has been the subject of his- torical and constitutional comment for centuries, and in every discus- sion of Parliamentary Reform. Property and Population formed the ancient principle which invariably regulated and directed the applica- tion of the King's Writ ; and until it became expedient, for party pur- poses, and other sinister interests, to manage the House of Commons, and to deprive the People of control over their purse-strings, this principle was the sole and only known standard of the distribution of the elective power of the Nation. The history of the franchise of the Metropolis illustrates these asser- tions. The number of Representatives returned by the City of Lon- don in ancient times varied, but in the last four centuries it exceeded that of any other borough or city of the kingdom-one, two, three, and four members being returned ; and for the last three centuries generally four. PRvNNE (Parliamentary Writs, Part IV. p. 1,041, and Brevia I'arliamentaria Rediviva, p. 377) records, that the first Writ enabling and requiring London-proper to elect and - return four citizens to Par- liament, bears date 29th Edward III. The citizens, however, in many preceding Parliaments, voluntarily returned three and four Represen- tatives, to writs requiring them to send only two. It puzzles the learned antiquary to explain the strict legality of this " excessive return ;" but after distinguishing between a de facto and a de jure right in the four citizens to sit and vote in the House of Commons, he more wisely lustifies the delegation of a double number, as " no injustice to other esser or inferior cities or boroughs, because not half so great, rich, honourable as London, nor paying half so many. great Tenths, Subsi- dies, Customs, Aydes as London." Enumerating (in the Writs) the reasons of the additional claims of the Metropolis; PRYNNE further as- signs "the greatnesse' opulency, populosity, honour, and. splendour of the City of London, the Metropolis, head, chief mart,. strength; and magazine of the kingdom." Southwark and Westminster, as their suburban population and wealth Increased, were enfranchised with the right of two members each. In the civil contests of the People with the STUARTS,-a dynasty, to its cost, not partial to Parliament5,-the Metropolis was especially dis- tinguished for its public-spirit and its bold claims to a more frequent, settled, and extended representation. In the celebrated Protectorate Form of Government, A.D. 1653 (Scoart".T.I.'s Acts and Ordinances, p. 263), the county of Middlesex was awarded four Representatives, London six, Westminster two, the County 6.f Surry six, and South- wark two. CLARENDON", for this purpose an unexceptionable testimony, admits that CROMWELL'S plan for reforming the constitution of the House of Commons "was generally looked upon as It.rt alteration fit to be more warrantably made, and in better times." The freely-chosen Parliaments of the eve and first years of the Protectorate, ill suited the personal and despotic aims of CROMWELL. They opposed his designs against the public liberties, and his crafty usurpation of the sovereign power of the State. Notwithstanding all his arts to pack the House of Commons (detailed in CLARENDON'S History of the Rebellion, Books XI V. and XV.), by bribing sheriffs, excluding some candi- dates, corruptly obtaining the return of others, and excluding many patriotic members returned by imposing a subscription before they took their seats "that they would act nothing prejudicial to the Government as it was established under a Protector," CROMWELL never could adapt a Parliament to his purpose, and was obliged to adopt the arbitrary course of his Royal predecessors, and endeavour to govern without in- stead of by a House of Commons. A large majority of the Metro- politan Middlesex and Surry members refused to subscribe the Decla- ration in 16.53, and seceded from the Parliament notwithstanding the influence of the Protector and his Court in the seat of Government; and on the disgraceful occasion when the Crown and title of King were offered to CROMWELT. by the refuse of the House of Commons-his creatures and placement corruptly returned to that assembly-the names of only one representative of Westminster, one of Middlesex, two of London, and one member of Southwark, are to be found among the " Kinglings" who basely wished to substitute the usurper for CHARLES the First ! Two-thirds therefore Lf the Metropolitan representatives at that eventful period were faithful to their country and constituents ! These facts are a sufficient refutation of the absurd abuses of history put forth by the Anti-Reformers on the subject of Commonwealth. Parliaments. The freely-chosen Representatives of the People acted honestly and wisely ; the corrupt members, as they-have ever done subsequently, for their own sinister interests.

The Metropolis, at the Restoration, retained its ancient share of representative power. But the justice once awarded to London was never forgotten. Accordingly, in every subsequent discussion and scheme of a Reformed Representation, the claim to an increased num- ber of members for the growing wealth and population of the Metro- polis, comparatively extending so much beyond that of the country, was preferred and debated. DE Fox is the reputed author of a valuable printed paper, entitled " The Representative of London and West- minster, in Parliament, Examined and Considered : wherein appears the antiquity of most of the Boroughs in England; with the Propor- tions, whereby every County is over or under represented, according to a scale from the Royal Aid Assessments ; by which it appears, that Middlesex is found to be represented but one tenth part of its due pro- portion ; unto which a remedy is proposed, and several reasons offered to prove the same of universal benefit to the kingdom. By a Gentle- mail. London, 1702. 4to." Many statistical details are given, of the comparative representation of England, and to prove that an increase of Parliamentary Boroughs was never deemed " a breach of the Con- stitution, but, contrariwise, the continual progression of number seems to have been a considerable access of strength to it." The author then assumes, as a foundation for his argument, a " Rule in Property, rather than any scheme of Numbers," taken from the Capitation or Poll-taxes. He selects the Royal Aid of 1700, a fiscal act, which by an assessment of two shillings in the pound raised the aggregate sum of 989,965/.19s. 6icl. from the whole kingdom. This sum, subdivided by 513 (the then number of Representatives), produced 1,9301. as the standard; and by this rule the writer assays the under or over representation of the differ- ent English Counties, and the degree of variation. The result is as follows- Dorsetshire Suffolk o rr), Surry Wale s Entire- O,N TIY.S. X s. d. Send Members. Bedfordshire 14,277 7 5} 4 Berkshire 20,597 0 4 9 Buckinghamshire 93,830 8 9 14 Cambridgeshire 16,413 1 6 6 14,299 19 111 Cheshire 4 Cornwall 15,957 13 0 44 Cumberland 1,856 19 If 6 Derbyshire 12,016 19 101 4 Devonshire 41,291 11 8 26 Durham 10,558 3 91 20 Essex 45,503 10 10 8 Gloucestershire 23,761 6 5 8 Ilerefordshire 10,204 13 4 s 1 ler!: fordshire 21,456 12 8 Illintingdonshire 7,745 12 6 4 Kent 41,721 14 2 18 Lancashire 10,494 17 31 14 Leicestershire 4 Lincolnshire 17,435 19 6} Middlesex "6,113 5 2 153,577 1 54 8 Monmouth 4,906 3 21 3 Norfolk 42,330 6 2 12 Northamptonshire 24.053 13 44 9 Northumberland 8 33 Nottinghamshire 8 Oxfordshire 7..623784 5 S 44 4 Rutlandshire 2,762 11 11 # . 2 Shropshire 14.530 9 6} 12 Somersetshite 36.236 11 9 IS Southampton:hire 27,514 3 Of 26 13,560-11 7- Staffordshire 10 36,909 12 7 • 16 Sussex 33,507 6 9} 14 Warwickshire 6 30,410 0 64 19,932 5 4 . viWeilsttintrelhioreaud 4 1,522 11 104 95,1348 9 31 16 Worcestershire , 9 Yorkshire 45,816 5 8 30 5,295 17 21 4 6 12 19.591 13 If 9 28 6 3 114 34 21,968 16 8 94 ,,-- 989,965 19 64 b19

Its Proportion.

74

10f 12f

84

7,1

81 1 64 214 84 24 23 12 5f 11 4 214 54

9 19 794

24 22 124

34

7 10

24

74

19

1,1}

16 174 16

104 Of

134 84

T

513

He then demonstrates that there is nr, parallel in the kingdom to the case of Middlesex; which the followmg proportions in the recited appro- priations on the several Counties nicontestably prove—

.

The fallacy which assumes, that because Middlesex never was repre- sented by more than 8 representatives, therefore it never ought to be, is an argument which, applied to other counties and towns, would reduce them all to their original state of non-representation. Middlesex, by the parallel of these tables, possessed, in 1700, only a tenth of its due proportion of legislative power. The standard of DE FOE would have awarded to Middlesex 79 members ; and he claims for the Metropo- litan County, including its then populous and newly-arisen districts, only a fourth part of the standard of the just proportion,—viz. London 12; Westminster 6and 4 for the County,—in all 20 Representatives. By the standard of Inhabitant Householders, calculated on another scale, be estimated that Middlesex was entitled to 51. Thus, Middlesex, one hundred and thirty years since, paid 2 parts in 13 of all subsidies levied in the kingdom, and claimed only 2 in 51 parts of the representa- tion. After various arguments, drawn from the maritime, commercial, and political superiority of London, Di: FOE refutes the objection of the "near vicinage" of the Metropolitan districts sought to be enfranchised. He exposes the sores of the Constitution—the " shameful parts"—and shows that " vicinity" and crowded representation in close and rotten boroughs is not thought amiss. " If the near vicinity of London and Westminster be pleaded for a favour, that is no more than is frequent elsewhere ; as in the case of New and Old Sarum (though the old be the newer borough), Brembre and Steyniny s (formerly returning but as one), Eastlowe and Westlowe, La:owe-foam and Newport, St. Ice and .Callington, Truro and St. Michael, Weymouth and Melcouth Regis, Rye and TVinchilsea, with some others if Speed's maps of those counties may be relied on." The character of the Constituency of the new Me- tropolitan districts, compared with that of the decayed and rotten bo- roughs, DE FOE does not condescend to argue ; and no reasoning would convert those who doubt, much less those who contend for the absolute superiority of small and corrupted bodies of electors over nu- merous and enlightened householders of the capital. DE Foe concludes with the hope that "some good genius will at length find out a method to content." That genius is Lord GREY; and Lord GREY, with the sanction of the King, has proposed a measure, as a whole, of which the approbation of the nation has been now incontestably andnearly unani- mously declared. The Counties mold OVER • Mint CSktITIII.

Cumberland Westmorelaud Cornwall Wiltshire Dorset Lancaster Those of Wales Northumberland Sussex Send. 6 4 44 20 14 24 8 28

'For. 1 et 8+ 13+ Sif 3+ 11+ 4 154

The Counties. most UNDER - RISPRESENTED.

Middlesex Essex 1 eicester Cheshire Bedford 1Corfolk rordshire Wantiuk Lincoln Send. 8 8 4 4 12 6 6 12 `{Or.

79+ . 23 7+ 7+ . 22 . 11. . 10 . 19

From time to time, subsequently, the Metropolis has claimed a more full participation in electoral rights. The celebrated Petition of the Friends of the Society of the People, in 1793, demonstrated the -gross inequality of the national representation. The Declaration of the principles and plan of Parliamentary Reform, drawn up by Sir PHILIP FRANCIS, in 1797, provided for an equitable representation of numbers. The Report of the Sub-Committee of Westminster, 12th April 1780, attributed to Dr. JEBB, approved by Mr. Fox and Lord GREY, and by other leading Reformers and popular members of Par- liament, allotted to Middlesex, London, and Westminster, forty-five members in the gross number of 513. The excellent Bill intended to have been moved by Mr. LAMBTON (Lord Dunham) on the 17th April 1821, "for effecting a Reform in the Representation of the People in Parliament," as detailed in the speech of that nobleman— whose services in the cause of Reform are not sufficiently known—was based entirely on the standard of District Population somewhat mode- rated by property.

Such are the claims and various propositions for Metropolitan Re- presentation, such the fair quota of political power. If London and its adjacent districts, centuries since, demanded and enjoyed such a relative portion of representatives, what are its present rights, in times

when the intelligence and habits of the People have advanced? The Ministerial measure, considering its extent and new distribution of the elective franchise, provides more sparingly for the Metropolis than for any other parts of the United Kingdom, Ireland excepted. London- proper, Westminster, and Southwark, gain nothing by the English Bill, except that the Inhabitant Householders of the City, limited to 101 minimum rent duly rated, receive the same electoral rights as Liverymen; the Scot and Lot franchise of Westminster and South-

wark, moreover, which is now unlimited, being ultimately restricted to 101. rentals ! The only new districts of the Metropolis enfranchised, are as follows—the Tower Hamlets; Finsbury; Marylebone (in Mid-

dlesex) • Lambeth ( Surry); and Greenwich ( Kent); with two mem- bers each. For this town-enfranchisement, the most popular portion

of the Freeholders of the respective counties is abolished—no person

-under the provisions of the Bill being allowed to vote for a County in respect of any property occupied by himself which would confer upon him a vote for a city or borough. This is the measure which, as re- spects the Metropolitan districts especially, is falsely stigmatized as democratical I The nature of a Democracy cannct be known to the .Anti-Reformers; or what would they esteem sufficiently Aristocratic?

The limited number and character of the proposed Metropolitan Constituency—the Population, Houses, Rated Houses, Assessed Taxes, and value of Property of the Metropolis and districts intended to be enfranchised—their comparative proportions to the kingdom at large—have been ably shown in several articles in the Times, and re- quire no further detail.

Such is the part and franchise of the English Bill which the Moderate party of the Anti-Reformers single out for particular objection—which they deem especially unjust and injurious—and which, if conceded to them in whole or in part, would reconcile them to the measure ! Of all the pro- visions of the Reform Bills, this insignificant enfranchisement of the Me-

tropolis—of the fraction of a MILLION-AND-A-HALF of people—is the most tenable and unobjectionable. Tern new Metropolitan members, per £4 cannot materially influence the votes of the Commons of the United Empire, not constituting a sixtieth part of the aggregate representation. In a general Beforin of the Representatii'e System, London has peculiar claims to its just proportion. The extent and importance of its ex- clusive interests, the number of men of superior knowledge and expe- rience, their interest in the peace and prosperity of the nation, entitle the Metropolis especially to extended representation. The only real objection would rather be, that the great Aristocratic and Corporate interests of the Metropolis would acquire an undue ascendancy and in- fluence. To what then can we attribute this extraordinary prejudice of the opponents of the Bill'?—Specious objections only conceal the real opposition.- They do not fear any local intimidation of Parliament. They do not dread the entrance of Metropolitan " demagogues" into Parliament. They fear the talent and disinterested character of the probable representatives ; and, by the subdivision of an overgrown. metropolis into districts, they, fear the formation of public-spirit and political independence. In the Metropolis, in its present undivided chaos of men, the demonstration of public opinion (how.. ever intensely it may exist) cannot be compared with the expres- sion and force of public opinion in the Country. There is no arena. for personal excellence or individual influence on public questions of the highest moment—save only those immediately and imminently re- lating to money. The real apprehension, therefore, is of the political effect of municipal subdivision. The truth may be here deemed an im- politic discussion ; but it is well that the Reformers should see the real objections arid the real value of this part of the Bill. And what would the Anti-Reformers gain by mutilating the English Bill, by abridging the number of Metropolitan representatives, or raising the amount of qualification ? They would thereby adopt the most effective and cer- tain means of preventing the measure being " final." A Refbrmed Parliament would in any event restore to the Metropolis its mutilated portion, if not award to it a larger share in the representation. Ad- mitting, for the sake of argument, that the ten-pound franchise in Lon- don is a lower standard than in the Country, would the people of the capital rest contented under a partial qualification ? The moderate and sincere Anti-Reformers should reflect on inevitable consequences—that their triumph would be short, and the representation of London ulti- mately more extended ; that if they discount the Bill in this essential, they will assuredly beget a greater evil than they now speculate to prevent. Lord GREY also must discern the unreasonableness of the opposition to the Metropolitan Clauses, and the importance of preserv- ing their integrity.

JOSEPH PARItES.

Birmingham,lst May 1831