On the subject of Redistribution, Mr. Gladstone declined to declare
the opinion of the Government. Redistribution has always been the dangerous part of Reform Bills, and there was much less cause now for insisting on knowing the proposals of the Government than in former years. In former years, Re- distribution meant, to a large extent, disfranchisement. In the present case it could hardly mean disfranchisement, in any case, for the qualifications for county and borough were so similar that any voter transferred from a county to a borough would have his vote in the borough, and any voter transferred from a borough to a county would have his vote in the county. Redistribution could not be properly dealt with in the same Bill as the franchise. It ought to be a large measure, and to tack it on to the Franchise Bill necessarily tended to make it a small measure. Nevertheless, Mr. Gladstone did not object to give a general sketch of his own ideas on Redistribution. And though he declined to commit his colleagues, he would not express any views which, so far as he knew, were disapproved by them. He should wish Redistribution to be a large measure, approaching more nearly the measure of 1832 in magnitude than the measure of 1867,—in order that the settlement might not be reopened too soon. At the same time, he would not wish it to go on entirely new lines. He objected to equal electoral districts, not so much from any dislike to the effect of such a rule, as because there was no need for so much unsettlement as it would cause, and no desire in the country for it. At the same time, he would not give very dense populations like the metropolis their full numerical share of representation. He thought distant and scattered populations, like those of rural Scotland and Ireland, even with the same number of representatives, had a less " available " political influence than populations closely con- centrated, and near to the seat of power. He would not diminish the present representation of Ireland. " Within reasonable limits," he would not break up historical con- stituencies; but we do not understand Mr. Gladstone to have committed himself to promising huge places like Liverpool, and Glasgow, and Birmingham that they should not be subdivided. Above all, he would keep the county representation distinct from the town representation, as he held that a different class of interests would always be identified respectively with town and country life. Finally, as we understand him, he was per- sonally opposed to any increase of the House of Commons, though he thought it a subject which must be discussed. Mr. Gladstone concluded with a very powerful appeal to Liberals to waive all their private preferences, for a great common effort to add this new electoral strength to the Throne and Constitution.
