The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1899-07-10


at the outset, inequalities would soon arise
owing TO the varying rates Of growth.
1t is, accordingly, proposed by the Spec
tdior that, after rcapportlonment Of seats
shall have been made, some equitable prln-
ciple OF adjustment shall bc applied by n
nOn-partisan commission. Thus, II $4,000
souls were to constitute the normal cor
stitucncy, IL might be enacted that, when
| ever the population had risen above 80, 900,
IT should bo divided into two constituencies,
while, II ever u constituency fell below 20,-
| 600, it should be thrown into an adjacent
constituency. II, thereby, the neighboring
constituency was raised above tho $4,000
level, then, Of course, new division would
be required. 1t Is well known that in tho
United States the unit OF population pro-
scribcd for n member of the House OF Rep
rcscntativcs has risen from 80, 900 to 49,
9Ol, but our Federal Constitution provides
that every State in the Union, no matter
how small its population, shall have Mt
least ono scat in the popular branch OF
Congress.
From the figures above cited, the politi-
cal effect OF an apportionmcnt OF seats in
the House Of Commons according to popu-
lation will be clear. Scotland and Wales
would be substantially unaffected, while,
on tho otfMr hand, England would
be scnsbly strengthened, and Ireland
materially weakened. More than ever
thcnccforward would It be seen and felt
that England is, what Lord RosEBERY
called her. the predominant partner in tho
Union, for she would then have 491 seats
as against the 176 possessed by Ireland,
Scotland and Wales put together. Such
change in the composition OF tho House OF
Commons would drive the Irish Home
Rulers almost to despair, and it Is not sur
prising, therefore, that they oppose with
the utmost carncstncss the lone vote one
value" movement.
Their opposition is based on both const-
tutional and equitable grounds. They con-
tend that the Act OF Union between Great
Britain and Ireland, like the previous Act
of Union between England and Scotland,
pnrtook of the nature of n treaty between
two independent nations; to this extent, at
all events, that the weaker party cannot be
deprived Of the advantages guaranteed to
it by the act without its own consent
They point out that this view of the
A'lS W illlDu is tOllllEIltu ny lHb ulltNl-
ating practice of the British Parliament In
the case of Scotland. For upward OF a
hundred years after 1903 the population
Of Scotland remained almost stagnant
whereas that OF England notably increased;
nevertheless, no attempt was made to les
sen the representation Of Scotland at West
minister, although there was strong po-
litical motive for doing so, because under
the first two GEORGES ardent Jacobite SEN
timcnts prevailed to an alarming extent in
North Britain.
Turning to considerations OF equity,
they argue that, as, at the date Of the Union
and for some fifty years thereafter the
representation conceded to Ireland was far
below that which her population called for,
it is unfair to cut down her representation
now when numerical conditions happen to
have changed. 1t is certain that, in 1901,
England had less than 5000, 900 inhabi-
tants. There was no census taken in Ireland
in that year, but, in 1905. her population
was computed at 1895, 900, and the COM
putation is believed to have been below tho
truth. There Is, at all events. no doubt that,
had representation been apportioned to
population by the Act of Union Ireland
would have had Mt least half as many men,
bcrs OF the House of Commons as had Eng
land. In 1871, had tho principle of "ono
vote one value" now advocated, been
adopted, Ireland would have had moro
than half rs many members, for her popu-
latlon, according to the census OF that
year, was s, 1906 o97, as against Is, OO2, 443
in England. Evidently England acted,
So long as it suited her interest, upon
the theory that the representation OF
Ireland at Westminster was mmutably
fixed by the Act of Union. With what show,
then, OF consistency or equity can she
now adopt a different theory of the Act OF
tnions when, as we have shown, Ireland
will be the only part Of the United Kingdom
to suffer materially by the change?
thus we see that the application to tho
United Kingdom Of the zone vote one
value" principle to which we have been ac-
customcd in the United States for upward
of century, may not be so simple and
easy, nor even as equitable, as it looks,