MINORITY REPRESENTATIVES.

LTO IHE EDITOR OF THE " SPECTLTOR."I

Snt,—In your issue of the 10th inst. both you and Mi. Humphreys appear to assume as a matter of course that the return of a minority representative is of necessity an injustice to the electorate, and a misfortune to be avoided. May I give you reasons controverting this assumption, especially so far as it is founded upon the incident of the Spen Valley by-election, where a Labour reoresentative was returned ?

In the General Election of 1918 Labour was considerably under-represented. As it is the result of a three-cornered contest that is here at issue, I will confine myself to the figures of such three-cornered contests. In 1918 there were, I believe, as many as 105 three-cornered contests, and of these contests as many as 00 came under a uniform classification. The aggre- gate result of these 90 contests was as follows:—

Votes Cast. Votes Members per Member Returned. Returned.

Non-Coalition : Liberal ... 350,021 ... 4 ... 87,505 Labour ... 484,747 ... 9 ... 53,861

834.768 13

Coalition : Conservative ... 946,373

... 77 ...

12,210

1,781,141 . 90

It is in the light of this position that the result of Spen Valley has to be regarded. The above tabulated statement shows that Labour cast half as many votes as the Coalition candidates, and yet they obtained only 9 Members as against the Coalitionist? 77 Members. The result of the Spen Valley by-election is to displace a Coalitionist—albeit a Liberal Coali- tionist—and replace lnm by a Labour Member. Under these circumstances to suggest, as Mr. Humphreys does, "that the cumulative effect of a large number of seats won by a minority of the voters " has put the present House of Commons out of correspondence with public opinion shows the want of a due sense of proportion. That the present House of Commons is out of correspondence with public opinion I believe to be entirely true; but the cause is not that here assigned by Mr. Humphreys.

I may add that of the 9 Labour Members shown in the above tabulation no less than 8 were minority representatives. Any system which secured the return of majority representatives only would have meant the rejection of most of those 8 Members. The achievement of such a result would not, in my opinion, be any improvement. It would constitute only an aggravation of an existing injustice.

The adoption of Proportional Representation is the only effective remedy for the existing electoral chaos and injustice. I much admire the zeal with which Mr. Humphreys has foe years devoted himself to this fine cause; and it is with the greater regret that I see him making a public statement which is not only incapable of support, but has the mischievous effect of diverting the minds of men to the consideration of specious reforms which would be of no real and lasting benefit.

—I am, Sir, &c., WM. COATES. 12 Alexandra Park Road, N. 10.