In the House of Commons on Monday, on the third
reading of the Plural Voting Bill, Sir Henry Kimber moved an amendment that the Bill should not be proceeded with, as the subject with which it dealt ought not to be considered apart from the general question of the electoral franchise and before steps were taken to abolish the gross anomalies in the existing distribution of electoral power. That is, of course, a perfectly sound proposition, and we are glad to note that Sir Henry Kimber, whose name has been so honourably connected with the attempt to do electoral justice to England, should have pressed it on Parliament. We are bound to say, however, that he was very poorly supported in the course of the debate. The question is one which should have called forth the whole fighting strength of the Unionist Party, for here is a democratic principle at stake which their opponents, though professing to be democrats, are afraid to adopt. Yet, instead, there was a meagre attendance and an extremely half-hearted representation of the case for coupling "One vote one value" 'with "One man one vote."
Previous page
