New-York tribune., 1900-09-09
REPRESENTATION IN UNITED KINGDOM

The near prospect of dissolution of the Brit
ish Imperial Parliament and a general cleo
ton calls renewed attention to the question of
a redistribution of seats. This question has
been growing ia urgency for some years and
both parties have declared that something ought
to be done about it, though neither has shown
any eagerness to do it. Such work is, Of course
always unpleasant, for the reason that redistrt-
button of representation inevitably means reduc-
ton of representation in some parts of the
country. No city or county or State enjoys
being made Of less political Importance than
before. 1t is difficult for 1t to avoid feeling
certain degree Of resentment at it, despite the
fact that statistics prove beyond doubt the JUS
tice Of it. And political leaders do not wish to
incur such resentment If they can help it,
Wherefore they let the old schedule of seats
drag on year after year, with all it's inequality
and unfairness
OF the total population Of the United King
dom England and Wales now have 70 per cent
Scotland has 106 per cent and Ireland has
1O4 per cent If seats in the House of Com
mons were distributed according to population
| therefore, out Of the total of 67O England and
Wales would have 500 instead of only 495. as
at present; Scotland would have II instead of
r. and Ireland would have only 70 instead of
her present lob. Or, If instead of total popu-
lation we should take the roll of qualified voters
as the basis Of apportionment we should find
that OF the total England and Wales have 7So
per cent, Scotland 1912 per cent and ireland
lo9 per cent Upon that basis therefore Eng
land and Wales should have 500 members in
stead of 400, Scotland 68 instead of 72 and Ire
land 73 instead of 103. Again If we take taxs
| ton as the basis of representation we find that
England and Wales contribute 81 per cent
ocotland lo2 per cent and ireland only % per
cent giving England and Wales 5S3, Scotland 6S
and Ireland only 10 members 1t will be observed
that upon any Of these three bases Scotlands
representation would be very nearly what it
now Is The great inequality, therefore lies
between England and Wales on the one hand
and Ireland the other On the population
basis England and Wales have "a seats too
few and Ireland has 33 too many; on the vot
Ing basis England and Wales have "a too few
and Ireland has 80 too many, and on the taxa
ton basis England and Wales have SO too few
and Ireland has "a too many.
How this has come about is easy to be seen
For years the population OF Ireland has been
stationary while that Of England and Wales
has been increasing In 1886 to go no furtbar
back, ireland had 49342 Inhabitants snd
England and Wales 27447OO0 At that fine
on the population basis Ireland had 10 seats
too many and England and Wales IL too few
but now ireland has about 4,279,0O0 inhabi
tants, and England and Wales have 80 10000
making the formers excess of seats as already
stated, 83, and the latters deficiency "a To
day the population of London is 800 900 larger
than that of all ireland. yet the former has
only 61 representatives In Parliament to the
Iatters 1o3 The situation is, In brief. precisely
IKE that in this country. excepting that the
inequality that exists here between Northern
ana Southern representation In Congress is
oemonstrable not on the basis of population
80 much as upon that of the roll of voters The
principle Is in both cases exactly the same.
Ohder representative popular government
sucn as thst OF the United Kingdom or of the
cnitea states equality of representation Is
essental to Justice. To invest two men In Ire
land with as much political power as three IN
LONDON. or one in Alabama with as much os
nve IN New-York is to violate the fundamental
principle OF the government. Sooner or later