The sun., 1904-08-31
Further Parliamentary Reform In
England.

Euxlduu.
1t is reported on what seems good
authority, that Mr.. BALFoUR, when he
meets Parliament next February, will
announce bill providing for the redis-
tribution of seats in the House Of Com
mons whereby some existing anomalies
in the system of representation may be
removed The Unionist leaders have
long threatened to cut down the number
of Ireland's spokesmen at Westminster
by making it proportionate to her popu-
lation. 1t is doubtful. however, whether
the threat would have been carried out
at this time had not the Premier desired
to assure the maintenance of his party
in Office until near the expiration Of the
statutory term. This he hopes to effect
by diverting the public mind from Mr..
CHAMBERLAIN proposal to a question
as to which the Unionists are more likely
to agree.
1t is we'll known that, in spite OF the
passing Of three Reform bills, there are
still some glaring Inconsistencies in the
distribution of seats, even in England
itself. 1t ia impossible, for instance,
to explain on other than historical and
| sentimental grounds the allotment OF
| two members to such constituencies as
the City Of London proper, the City of
York and the City OF Norwich, when
| only one member is conceded to much
more populols electoral divisions. Re-
! luctant as Unionists may be to eradicate
| Inequalities which are rooted in tradition,
| they can hardly avoid doing so if they
mean to insist that Irelands representa-
| ton shall be proportioned to her popu-
lation. Not that the absolute equalization
| of voting districts is practicable. 1t is
not attainable even in the United States,
owing to the provision of the Constitu-
ton that every State must have at least
one Representative. The result of that
provision is that the Representative of
Nevada has behind him less than one
fourth as many constituents as has the
Representative of Congress district In
| New York city.
| In the United Kingdom the difference
| in the weight of votes cast in different
districts is even more remarkable.
The Irish borough of Newry has but ,s4s
electors, yet it has in the House Of Com
mons equal voting power with the Essex
division of Romford, inhabited by 80, $50
electors. The average numberof electors
for each of the go Members of Parlia-
ment is 10,IS3. If we assume that the
number Of members will be maintained
we cannot deny that, if representation is
to be adjusted to population, England
which now sends to Westminster 465
members, is entitled to 400; Scotland
which since the Reform measures of
1ss4-5 has had 72 seats, should have but
80, while Ireland. which now has 1903,
should have, apparently, but 72. Wales,
as it happens, with her 80 members, has
exactly the number she ought to have.
Nobody in the United States denies
that representation should correspond
to population as nearly as the Constitu-
| ton will permit, though it is recognized
that in the decennial interval between
censuses marked inequalities may arise
The friends Of Ireland, however. main
tain that her case stands on footing
analogous to that occupied by Nevada.
| UUBJ - INcNduk SoAAopiSuliOhuiiy CdIhiOJ
be deprived Of her single representative,
30 ID bland, say the Nationalists, cannot
lawfully be- deprived Of the one hundred
meflbers Of the House Of Commons
awarded TO her by the Act Of Union.
Fol. MAT ACT Of Union, they say, being
the butcome Of an agreement between
two Independent Legislatures, the British
Parliament and the Dublin Parliament,
cannot be rescinded or modified without
the consent Of the two contracting par
ties. If it be said that Ireland's delega-
ton to Westminster should be regarded
as the legal successor Of the Dublin Par
lament, the Nationalist reply that upon
that theory the consent Of a major
ity of Ireland's delegation should DO re-
quired for the passing Of an act reducing