Econlib

The Library

Other Sites

 Front Page arrow Titles (by Subject) arrow 98.: Representation of the People (Scotland) [2] 8 JUNE, 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

98.: Representation of the People (Scotland) [2] 8 JUNE, 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.


98.

Representation of the People (Scotland) [2]

8 JUNE, 1868

PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 192, cols. 1241, 1242, 1243, 1252. Reported in The Times, 9 June, p. 7, from which the variant is taken. In Committee on the Reform Bill for Scotland (see No. 97), consideration turned to Clause O (Clause S in the Bill as amended), into which Mill moved the addition of the italicized words: “All the Provisions of an Act passed in the 24th and 25th Years of the Reign of Her present Majesty, intituled ‘An Act to provide that Votes at Elections for the Universities may be recorded by means of Voting Papers,’ except so much of the said Act as requires that the voting paper shall be personally delivered by a Member of Council who shall make attestation of his personal acquaintance with the voter, and his knowledge of the signature, shall apply to every Election of a Member for the Universities of Edinburgh and Saint Andrews, and for the Universities of Glasgow and Aberdeen. . . .” His remarks followed immediately after his motion.

if the terms of the English Act upon this point were adopted in the Scotch Reform Bill, half, if not more than half, of those who formed the University constituency would be disfranchised. There was always a large number of residents at the English Universities who could authenticate the signatures to the voting papers; but in the Scotch Universities undergraduates did not form such intimate acquaintance with each other as in this country, and in most instances towards the end of the year they were scattered all over the British Empire. The voters would be virtually confined to a small number of residents, unless some such alteration as he proposed were made.

[The Lord Advocate, Edward Strathearn Gordon (1814–79), then M.P. for Thetford, in replying, said that while he was willing to give up the requirement of personal acquaintance, he thought voting papers should be personally delivered and attested by a Member of Council (col. 1241).]

Mr. J. Stuart Mill asked, whether the delivery of the voting paper by a Member of Council would not involve a considerable additional expense?

[Several Members pointed to the dangers of fraud if there were no means of attestation.]

Mr. J. Stuart Mill said, that many operations took place on the same security—namely, that if persons committed frauds they would be prosecuted.

[Mill then withdrew his amendment, and the following words, as suggested by the Lord Advocate, were inserted in the same place: “except so much of the saidAct as requires that the person delivering the voting paper shall make attestation of his personal acquaintance with the voter” (col. 1242), and the Clause was accepted. After other discussion, attention moved to Schedule A, concerning the boundaries of the city of Glasgow, and James Fergusson (1832–1907), M.P. for Ayrshire, asserted that the working people of Partick and Govan were eager to be annexed to Glasgow (col. 1252); other speakers denied this assertion.]

Mr. J. Stuart Mill said, that if this argument was correct the suburbs of Glasgow ought to have a representative to themselves. But because they did not choose to give to the population of these considerable places a representative in this House, to which they were justly entitled, were they to deprive those who were county electors of a vote which they valued aand be merged in a large constituencya in order to give to others a vote which would scarcely be of any value?

[Eventually Schedule A was defeated, so that the constituency of Glasgow was not enlarged to include Partick and Govan.]

[a-a]+TT