TOPICS OF THE DAY •

REDISTRIBUTION.

SIR CHARLES DILKE'S and Mr. Lefevre's speeches this week open up the question of Redistribution, as one that is urgent for immediate consideration. Mr. Lefevre's speech, in- deed, suggests that unless the country expresses a very strong wish in time, the measure of the Government, so far as it affects the redistribution of electoral power, will be so mild and so provisional as to afford an opportunity to those who, like Mr. Chamberlain, wish to go far beyond household suffrage, for opening up agitation again very speedily, on the score of the in- adequacy of the measure passed. We wish to bring seriously before the country, therefore, the importance of expressing its wish speedily, if it has got an earnest wish to express, on the scope of the Redistribution Bill. It is quite clear that those are right who say, with Mr. Lefevre, that the present condition of the public mind hardly justifies a very large measure of redistribution ; nay, that in the present condition of the public mind, a large redistribution measure would not be passed through the House of Commons, but would be speedily extinguished in that House. But it is a serious question with us, nevertheless, whether the country really wishes for a mere stop-gap, which would revive agitation again within a year or two on very much the old lines. Is there not amongst those silent constituencies, whose real wishes the Members know so little until they are either gratified or disappointed, an earnest wish for something,—we do not say of finality,—but at least of permanence, in the measure to be produced,— something that will save us from further agitation of the kind for thirty years at least ? We must remember that large constituencies like those of our present boroughs seldom take the initiative. They wait till they see what the Government proposes, and then show what they think about it. If the measure proved large and satisfactory, they might be stirred to real enthusiasm, even though beforehand they had displayed none. And there are, it must be remembered, two distinct classes of people who will desire a large measure of Redistribution,—one, the Radicals, as such, who want to see the people really in command of their own destinies ; the other, the conservative Radicals, as we may call them,—amongst whom we may reckon our- selves,—who want to see a large measure, almost as much be- cause only a large measure will give real stability, and will put an end, for a time at least, to this eternal tinkering at our Representative Institutions, as because it will really place power in the hands of the true people. It is not only those who wish for democracy, but those who wish for democracy as the only condition of strength and fixity of purpose, who would like to see the measure of redistribution such a measure as would not immediately suggest complaint and a cry for re- vision. Mr. Lefevre thinks, and perhaps justly thinks, that the present condition of the public mind will justify only this,—a transfer of something like sixty seats from constituencies essen- tially rural and insignificant, to constituencies essentially urban or suburban and weighty ; and beyond that no change of any real importance.

We quite agree that if the present passiveness of the Con- stituencies is a true criterion, that is at least as much as the Government can safely do. But is it a true criterion ? Can- not the country papers so sound the real mind of the con- stituencies as to let us know during the year, before the ques- tion of Redistribution can be practically dealt with, whether such a measure as Mr. Lefevre has sketched out will satisfy the constituencies ? We ourselves are disposed to believe that long before this time next year there might arise a cry for a really permanent redistribution of electoral power in propor- tion to population,—nay, more, for a measure of redistri- bution that would automatically correct itself, say at every census, or in other words, every ten years, and so render it un- necessary for Parliament to be always interfering in order to proportion representative power to the ebb and flow of populatiot We at least earnestly desire to see, what we quite admit that at present we have not got, a popular movement which would justify the Government in lay- ing down a new principle of electoral power, and adapt- ing the representative institutions of the country to that new principle. We confess to so much sympathy with Lord Salisbury, that we heartily deprecate a constant tinkering at the foundation of electoral institutions. Yet such a constant tinkering will undoubtedly go on, till we have laid down a definite principle on the subject, and have made our electoral law upon it conform to that principle. For our owir

parts, we are quite content with household suffrage, and do not at all wish to go beyond it to universal. suffrage. But we are not content with a mere anomalous accident, however historical its origin may be, as the- basis of our representative institutions. Without a strong popular feeling on the subject, we shall get nothing more- effectual than Mr. Lefevre has sketched out. But cannot ts, strong popular feeling be raised on the subject? Cannot we arrive at some clear understanding with the people of England. as to what the House of Commons ought to be, and therefore as to what it shall be ?

To show roughly how far Mr. Lefevre's proposed measure- would rectify the anomalies of our present system, and how far it would fail to do so, we take the following figures from Mr.. Arthur Arnold's useful return. In 1881, there were :—

So that with household franchise in both counties and boroughs,. we ought to have nearly six million voters, of whom, as counties and boroughs are at present distributed, the counties would contain more than half as many again as the boroughs, The English counties, however, have at present only 187 Members, and the English boroughs 297. The Scotch counties. have at present 32 Members, and the Scotch boroughs 26. The Irish counties have at present 64 Members, and the Irish boroughs 37. Of course, this information taken alone, is not very informing, for many of the counties, lie the metropolitan. counties, Lancashire, and the West Riding of Yorkshire, have a, population in character urban' a great part of which would be absorbed into the boroughs under any conceivable Re- distribution Bill, while many of the existing boroughs would undoubtedly be given back to the counties in any possible Redistribution Bill. Still, when we are proposing to double, or something like double, the total number of electors- -England, Ireland, and Scotland have not, at present, three million electors in all, rejecting the double qualifications —it does seem very desirable, indeed, that these electors should- have

something like equal power. They obtain the vote by the same sort of qualification and we ought not to leave any class of electors with the right to say that they have nothing like the same influence in choosing the House of Commons as- another class of electors can boast. We believe that we shall soon hear of this grievance, if we limit our measure of Redistribu- tion to the proposals of Mr. Lefevre's suggested measure. If in England and Wales we only transfer sixty seats from the small to large populations, it will certainly be impossible to deal more logically with either Ireland or Scotland. We shall have to leave in Ireland many very thin populations over-represented and very many populous regions under-represented, and we shall not postpone agitation for a new electoral measure even for three years. The counties under such a Bill will certainly have a grievance, and will declare with much justice that they are not treated equally with the boroughs in any department of the kingdom, and the Tories will make the most of this grievance, though we doubt greatly whether its removal would tend in a Tory direction.

What we want, then, to ask, is whether a scheme of Redistribution so small as that now sketched out for us by one of the ablest of our younger statesmen ought to content and will content the United Kingdom ; whether it will not rather whet future agitation than appease present agitation ; whether it will not give the counties real reason to complain that they are under-represented, and that the boroughs are over-represented ; whether, in short, it would not be far more statesmanlike to introduce a scheme with a principle than a scheme without one ; and whether the people will not give enthusiastic support to such a scheme if it is in- troduced. We quite recognise the merit of Mr. Lefevre's suggestion, if the new measure is to be nothing but a measure to diminish the most glaring anomalies of the existing system. We quite admit, too, that nothing more than this can be justi- fied by any recent indications of the public mind. But we are by no means satisfied that something much more than this, if it were introduced by a statesman of authority, would not be grasped at eagerly in England, not only by those who care for the extension of popular rights, but by those who care still more for something like permanence in our electoral institu- tions, and who believe that the constant reopening of these

,-Inhabited Houses.--Th

In the Counties. In the Boroughs. Total.

In England and Wales

2,733,043 2,098,476

4,831,519,

In Scotland 409,677

329,328

739,005 In Ireland 784,271 129,837 914,108

3,926,991 ... 2,557,641 6,484,632 delicate and dangerous issues is a great mischief to the State, and tends to sap the authority of our legislative measures. At present, Mr. Lefevre's scheme seems quite as good as we have any right to hope for. But may we not get the right to hope for something much better ?