4 MARCH 1854, Page 18

MAYORITLES AND MINORITIES—THE STATE AND THE ELECTORAL DISTRICTS.

THE columns of a weekly journal are not infinitely elastic ; they do not permit either a frequent repetition of arguments on single points or an unlimited insertion of correspondence. The letter of "W. S.," which we publish this week, was excluded last week merely for want of space. We ha've received a second letter from the same correspondent, expressing some disappointment at the omission, and attributing to his arguments what he calls an elabo- rate reply in the paper headed "Majorities and Minorities." That paper was in fact written before we saw the letter of W. S., and was a reply to various communications on the subject, as well as to an article in the Examiner, and to arguments frequently made use of by public writers and speakers. It enforced views which for years past we have maintained, and which, if we have not esta- blished to the satisfaction of W. S. and of those who think with him, we have little reason for hoping to establish now. We will, however, briefly restate, in the most skeleton shape, the reasons which have led us to support the principle of the representation of minorities, and to accept with satisfaction the instalment of that principle in the new Reform Bill. W. S. in his second letter attempts to convict us of inconsistency by citing passages from an article in the Spectator of 1847, strongly ratting forward the rights of the majority to decide ultimately the action of the nation. We hold as strongly that opinion at the present moment. The question now discussed has nothing to do With it. "The principle of Parliamentary government is that the majority shall govern," says W. S. Rut what majority ? Surely the majority of Parliament. It has been hitherto the practice that the majority of electors in any electoral district should be able to return all the Members for that district. This is a totally different thing. The practice is found to create local soreness. "I admit," says W. S., "that it appears scarcely fair or right." But he would not admit any absence of fairness in the fact that a ma- jority of the Parliament, however small, should absolutely exclude the opinion of the minority in the ultimate decision on a legislative measure. Therefore he does admit the distinction we insist on between the right of the majority in Parliament to enforce their decision, and the right of a local majority to exclude the choice of the minority in the election of Members of Parliament. By giving local minorities a representation in proportion to their numbers, we secure that the House of Commons represents more certainly than under the present system the real opinions of the nation ; we secure a hearing for all opinions shared by large masses of the population in the ultimate discussion ; we remove a source of jut irritation and discontent; we improve the working and the result of that machinery of popular government which the writer in the Examiner thinks so rough and rude as to be incapable of any- thing better than a mean between very good and very bad govern- ment.

Into the question of local unfairnesses being compensated in the general result of our representation we entered fully last week, and have nothing to add to our argument, except that it still ap- pears to us desirable to remove all such blots, where they can be removed without prejudice to the general result. To exchange local unfairness for general unfairness, would certainly be to gain a loss. Bat the representation of minorities increases the fairness of the general result as much as of local results, causes Parliament more exactly to be a mirror of the varied opinions of the country, and supplies Government with a more unerring test of public opinion. The farther the principle is carried, the better this ef- fect is produced. But, for a first experiment, we are content with the Ministerial measure, except that the Metropolitan boroughs ought to be brought within the operation of the provision, unless satisfactory reasons can be alleged for their exclusion. So much for the general question. With reference to the pre- sent position of parties, and the composition of the present Go- vernment, it appears to us the most ludicrous arrogance on the part of the Radicals to expect a measure of Parliamentary Reform conceived in their exclusive interest. To argue against such a elaim is unnecessary. Let them convert themselves into a ma- jority, according to their own advice to minorities, seize the go- vernment, and then prepare a bill that will please themselves. They cannot expect Lord Aberdeen to do it for them. We admit that the representation of minorities, where the franchise is widely extended, is a Conservative principle. The practical question for the Radicals is, whether they will support a bill which extends the franchise, and at the same time guards against the tyranny of majorities by providing that minorities shall have a hearing in Parliament, and not be silenced as well as outnumbered ; or whe- ther they will wait till they have brought the nation to intrust them with the absolute power of dictation to all other parties and opinions in the country. At present the spectacle they exhibit is that of a minority attempting to dictate to a majority.