Econlib

The Library

Other Sites

Front Page arrow Titles (by Subject) arrow 97.: Representation of the People (Scotland) [1] 28 MAY, 1868 - The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume XXVIII The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume XXVIII - Public and Parliamentary Speeches Part I November 1850 - November 1868

Return to Title Page for The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume XXVIII The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume XXVIII - Public and Parliamentary Speeches Part I November 1850 - November 1868

Search this Title:

Also in the Library:

Subject Area: Political Theory
Collection: The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill

97.: Representation of the People (Scotland) [1] 28 MAY, 1868 - John Stuart Mill, The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume XXVIII The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume XXVIII - Public and Parliamentary Speeches Part I November 1850 - November 1868 [1850]

Edition used:

The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume XXVIII - Public and Parliamentary Speeches Part I November 1850 - November 1868, ed. John M. Robson and Bruce L. Kinzer (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1988).

Part of: Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, in 33 vols.

About Liberty Fund:

Liberty Fund, Inc. is a private, educational foundation established to encourage the study of the ideal of a society of free and responsible individuals.


97.

Representation of the People (Scotland) [1]

28 MAY, 1868

PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 192, cols. 965–6, 979. Reported in The Times, 29 May, p. 7, from which the responses are taken. The House was in Committee on “A Bill for the Amendment of the Representation of the People in Scotland,” 31 Victoria (17 Feb., 1868), PP, 1867–68, IV, 583–616. During consideration of Clause 9 (as earlier amended), “the City of Glasgow, until otherwise directed by Parliament, shall comprise the Places mentioned in Schedule (A.) hereto annexed” (i.e., the city of Glasgow and the towns of Govan and Partick), giving three members to the combined constituency, William Graham (1817–85), M.P. for Glasgow, moved to insert after Glasgow, “shall be divided into three districts, each of which shall return one Member of Parliament”

(col. 959).

mr. j. stuart mill said, the honourable Member for Nottingham (Mr. Osborne) had called on Gentlemen on that side to support the Motion of the honourable Member for Glasgow (Mr. Graham), holding out to them the inducement of getting rid of the principle of the representation of minorities.1 That was the strongest possible reason why those who were in favour of the representation of minorities—not as being a Conservative measure, but as a measure of justice (hear)—should vote against the present Motion. Nothing could be more unfair than to speak of the representation of those persons who happen to be in a minority, whatever might be their political opinions, in any constituency, as being in any exclusive sense a Conservative principle. On the contrary, it was not only the most democratic of all principles, but it was the only true democratic principle of representation, and they could not have a complete system of representation without it. (Hear, hear, and a laugh.) Man for man, those who happened to be in a minority had just as much claim to be represented as the majority.

[The amendment was lost, Mill voting with the majority. After some further discussion, a motion was made to replace from after “comprise the” to the end of the clause with “existing Parliamentary boundaries.” Mill spoke on this amendment.]

Mr. J. Stuart Mill said, Glasgow having grown to so great an extent, it was not unreasonable that its boundaries should be revised and extended, provided its representation were extended also. He apprehended that its fair proportion of Members, in reference to its population and wealth, would be not less than six. (Oh!) The arguments of the Government would be extremely good then; but as the vast population of Glasgow was represented by an inadequate number of Members, he could not admit that in order to admit an additional number of persons to share in that inadequate representation, a large proportion of them should be deprived of their county vote, which was really valuable to them.

[Finally the Chairman, breaking a tie, voted to leave the Clause unamended, so allowing further discussion on another occasion (col. 981).]

[1 ]Ralph Bernal Osborne (1811–82), col. 964.