DISTRIBUTION OF SEATS.
(TO THE EDITOR OF THE 'SPECTATOR.)
S1R,—It is not surprising that you should accept in your columns any suggestions that may lead to the consideration of the true and secure basis on which our representative system might be made to rest ; but one proposal of your correspondent " Jr.," in your paper of April 2.4th, certainly astounded me. He suggests that" all towns under 7,000 be disfranchised !" lie surely cannot be ignorant of the fact that such a rule, applied to the United Kingdom, would disfranchise more than two-thirds of all the boroughs in Scotland. 13Aween forty and fiftir of these bad, at the last census, less than 7,000 inhabitants ? But your correspondent will say, "I am not dealing with Scot land ; there the boroughs are grouped together." True; but why are dif- ferent and irreconcilable rules to be applied to England and Scotland ? Why should not England have that benefit of the diffused electoral action which has done so much to inspire and create in Scotland an enlightened public spirit ? In a paper read at the Social Science Congress at Man- chester last year, and which is now being printed for pub- lication, I have named between four and five hundred towns in England which ought to have power to return their repre- sentatives to the House of Commons, and might readily do so, under a reasonable system for gathering the results of the judgment and opinion of all who are truly concerned in the public welfare. The only departure from the present method of grouping which I suggest is that instead of being arbitrarily fixed by the electoral law, the boroughs should be allowed to group themselves. This would be an arrangement requiring no amendment, owing to future changes of the seats of population, but would be applicable for all time. Such an alteration of the groups would, I think, be hailed by our northern fellow-country- men as a valuable improvement.—! am, Sir, &c., THOMAS IIAJIE.
Previous page
