THE GOVERNMENT'S DECLARATION AS TO TRISH OVER-REPRESENTATION.
JUST eight weeks ago, and on the publication of the Census Returns, which showed how great was the Parliamentary under-representation of England, we made a strong appeal to the Government to deal with the matter. We . asked them not to allow this electoral injustice to continuo, and to pledge themselve&to take the matter.up and carry it through before the next Dissolution of Parliament. It is, therefore, with the greatest possible satisfaction that we record the fact that the leaders of the Unionist party, Mr. Balfour and Mr.. Chamberlain, speaking at Blenheim on- Saturday last, practically pledged themselves and the party to the policy of reducing the over-representation of Ireland, and so doing justice to England. Possibly the leaders in question may somewhat demur to the word "pledge," for it is a word of which politicians are usually rather shy, and we do not of Course desire to insist upon it. The word matters little. The fact remains that at a most important meeting of the party, where delegates were assembled from all the Unionist organisations throughout the country, Liberal Unionist and Conserva- tive, the two chief leaders of the party deliberately com- mitted themselves to the view that Ireland was over- represented, and that this injustice ought to be put an end to. Further, this announcement was not.only warmly welcomed and approved by the delegates, but was taken up and endorsed by almost the whole Unionist Press. After such a step as that there could not possibly be any going back,—even if the leaders desired to do so. But there is no reason to suppose that they- do so desire. On the contrary, it was quite evident from the tone adopted ' by the leaders at Blenheim that they were not announcing a policy into which they had been reluctantly and un- willingly pushed by external pressure, but rather that they were giving expression to their own convictions and. desires. We may take it, then, that the reduction of the over-representation of Ireland and the rendering of justice to England has. become part of the recognised and official ' party creed, and that this is now one of the fundamental- principles of Unionism.
Our only criticism in regard to this most satisfactory and auspicious announcement of policy is the ground on which the reduction of Irish over-representation was advocated by the speakers at Blenheim. They made the obstructionof the Irish • Members and their general misbehaviour at Westminster the reason for reducing their excessive numbers. It seems to us that though this is an excellent side-argument, it should never be made the chief reason. The true, the im- perative ground for reducing the over-representation of Ireland. is the injustice to England involved in the present system. Mr. Kimber has, it seems to us, always put the matter in its true light when he has insisted that it is. grossly unfair that an Englishman's vote should have so much less weight and capacity in the nation's Parliament than that of an Irishman. Justice to England is the true ground for the reduction of the over-representation of Ireland. The Parliamentary excesses of the Nationalists may be a reason for taking up the question at once, but they cannot constitute the essential reason for action.
It having been determined that the over-representation of Ireland is to be reduced, it remains to be considered in what way the reform shall be accomplished. In our view; the best way would be • to take the opportunity of the Census, not merely to do electoral justice to England as a whole, but to those portions of England like London and the Home Counties and districts of Lancashire and York- shire which . are under-represented. As the Pall Mall Gazette very pithily expressed it, "In the next redistribu- tion scheme we must be arithmetical rather . than senti- mental." That, in our view, is the final word on the - matter. Personally what we should like would be to see a set of principles enacted which could, be automatically applied to the representation of the United Kingdom after every Census, and, we should like to see these principles applied, in the first place, on the occasion of the Census of 1901. In dealing with the matter in our issue of June 22nd last we suggested by way of illustration that the following principles might beapplied.. It might, we suggested, be enacted that as far as possible there . should be a Member for every sixty thousand inhabitants. "Next it would be laid down that if any constituency were found after a Census to have fallen.below fifty thousand inhabitants, that constituency should be thrown into the neighbouring constituency; and if the neighbouring constituency were thereby brought up to one hundred and twenty thousand inhabitants, it should be redivided into two constituencies. If it did not eome up. to that, it should remain a single constituenoy. In the case of a division of a borough, the neighbouring con. stituency 'would always be the division of the borough with the longest conterminous boundary. In the case, of a single-membered borough, the neighbouring constituency would be the county constituency in which its freeholders voted. In the case of a city which was a county in itself and bordering on two or more constituencies, the neighbouring constituency would be the county division which had the greatest length of conterminous boundary. In the case of a county division, the neighbouring con- stituency would be the division of its own cz,unty which had the greatest conterminous boundary. In the case of a constituency which had increased beyond one hundred and twenty thousand, the constituency would be split as nearly as possible into two equal puts." If rules of this kind were automatically applied to England at this moment, we believe that what would be in practice a very equitable redistribution would be obtained- without any party gerrymandering. But we do not, of course, desire for a moment to insist that our proposed rules are the best that can be laid down. We - merely want to point out that it would be very desirable to devise some automatic system, and so get rid of the gerrymandering, or at any rate the accusations of gerrymandering that are sure to be made if the redistri- bution which will be necessary both in the case of Ireland Said. England is made haphazard and not in obedience to a fixed- and, arithmetical system. That being so, it seems to us that the best plan would. be for the Government to appoint next Session a Committee to inquire into the whole system of automatic redistribution as practised on the Continent, in America, and in Australia and our other - Colonies, and then to report as to what would be the best scheme to apply to England in view of the recent Census Report, in order as far as possible to equalise the electoral value of the individual votes, while retaining the boundaries of all counties and of all boroughs with not less than fifty thousand inhabitants.
No doubt we shall be told that to do this would be to give much toomuch sanction to the principle of equal electoral dis- tricts. We confess, however, that we are not at all alarmed. by the words "equal electoral districts." Of course, you cannot obtain in any system absolute equality, but admitting that, we cannot see why one part of the country should be specially favoured over other parts. Mr. Gladstone promulgated a theory, and no doubt believed in it, that the more distant a place was from the capital the more elec- toral power it ought to have, because he assumed that the interests of the distant places would be overlooked, while those close to the seat of Government would be sure to be considered. We believe this theory to be entirely unten- able in spite of its very specious appearance. What is a Member of Parliament sent to Westminster to do ? To choose the executive Government, to vote taxes, to control expenditure, to pass laws, and to influence the policy of the Empire. These are his prime duties. To take care of the local interests of his constituency is the very least of his duties. But why should a man who lives in Galway or Caithness have a larger share in choosing our executive Government, in moulding the policy of the Empire, in saying whether sugar or coal should be taxed, and in passing, say, a reform of the laws affecting bills of exert ge, than an inhabitant of the borough of West Ham, or of the Romford division of Essex ? To argue that the inhabitant of West Ham can indirectly influence the legislation and the policy of Parliament in a Way which is not open, say, to a man in the Highlands, or in Wiltshire or Cumberland, seems to us ridiculous. Members of Parliament in general are far more likely to know something of the remote parts of the country than they are of West Ham. Mr. Blwok, who sits for a Midland borough, very likely has a country house in One of the remote districts, and, therefore, knows something about their needs ; while he has never set foot, and almost certainly never will set foot, in West Ham. In truth, the theory is a figment. The only safe plan is to give each man as fair a share as possible of voting power, and. not to differentiate between different sections of the country, or to say that a man living at Devonport has a reasonable claim to have seven or eight times the electoral capacity that he would have if he lived in Wandsworth. Even Judging merely by re- sults, can it be said that the remote portions of the county send a better stamp of man to Parliament than London and the divisions of the Home Counties within twenty miles of London ?
In a word, what we want to do is,—(1) to reduce the over. representation of Ireland ; (2) to put an end to the under. representation of England; and (3) to make the redistribu- tion involved produce as nearly as possible an equalisation of voting power, but without wantonly or unnecessarily destroying historic landmarks We believe that this can be done, and we hold that the best way of finding out how to do it most effectively would be to appoint a, Select Com- mittee next year. The year after it will be for the Govern- ment to act on its Report with a well-considered measure Of redistribution, framed so as to avoid any possible accusation of gerrymandering or party partiality.
Previous page
