The Auckland Star: WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATED The Evening News, Morning News and The Echo. TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 1905. REDISTRIBUTION IN ENGLAND.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXVI, Issue 38, 14 February 1905, Page 4

The Auckland Star: WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATED The Evening News, Morning News and The Echo.

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 1905. REDISTRIBUTION IN ENGLAND.

Tor the eoiue that l*ck* wutota*—, For the vorong that need* rcMstaiv*, Wmr the future in the dietmmoe, Ama the ceod thmt we can 4*.

A short time since, Mr Balfour referred incidentally to the pressing need for a rearrangement of the electoral and representative system in the United Kingdom: and his suggestion was greeted with lond demonstrations of approval by the Unionist press. From our cables to-day we learn that this thinly-veiled threat has already produced the effect: that Mr Balfour probably anticipated upon a powerful section of the House of Commons. The Nationalist party knows that Ireland alone would lose in political iniluenee through any Redistribution of Seats Bill that Mr. Balfour is likely to propose; and the party leaders now intend to support the Opposition's amend ments to the Address in Reply. This does not necessarily mean that throughout next session and for all purposes Sir Henry Campbell-Ban-nerman can count upon the Nationalist vote j but it certainly implies that, {ho Nationalists cling as strenuously as ever to the hope of Home Rule, and little as they love the Liberal leaders they would throw themselves into the arms of Sir Henry CampbellBannerman and his friends rather than tolerate a government that would en deavour to deprive them of the political predominance that they now enjoy. The demand for a Redistribution Bill had been made loudly and persistently by the. Unionists for some years past, and the case for it is undoubtedly strong. On a population basis. Ireland is heavily over-represented iv the Imperial Parliament. Ireland sends one member to the House of Commons for every 44.124 inhabitants, while Wales send? one for every 57,35 A, Scotland one for 60..55.i. and England one for Gti.DGS. As matters stand at present. the 32.000.000 people in England are represented by 405 members. while the 4.500,000 people of Ireland are represented by 103 members- Taking population as a basis. England ought to have .300 members, or 3.1 more (ban she lias now. while Ireland ought to have 73, or 30 less. On a strict population basis Scotland would gain one member by redistribution, and Wales would lose six; but the case for or against the change lies practically between Kngland and ireland. If Ihc number of English membcry were to be left unaltered iv the new Parliament. Ireland like Scotland, ought to hnve no more than OS members agninst England's 463. As matters now stand, the over-representation of Ireland is a remarkable anomaly which, us Professor Djw*y has well said, "would not be tolerated for a moment in any other civilised eountrv. such as France. Ger-

many, or Switzerland, which enjoys a Parliamentary form of Government.' ,

The general argument for a Redistribution Bill must appeal strongly to all colonials who are familiar with a political constitution based as far as possible upon the "'one man one vote" principle. ""The policy of Redistribution harmonises with the Democratic spirit of the age," ajid hard as it may be for Ireland to surrender what she has come 10 regard as her political rights, it is dilficult to find a logical rejoinder to Kngland's claim. From the political standpoint. >Ir Balfour and the other Unionist leaders stand bound by the most solemn pledges to provide for the fair and sufficient representation of the "predominant partner." The time for the change seems opportune, for the evil is intensifying itself with the passing of time. Between 1891 and 1001 the population of England rose from 25.000.000 to 31,000,000, while during the same period the population nf Ireland sank from 4.700,000 to 4.500,000. A continuance of this anomalous state of things cannot fail to aggravate the difficulties of British Parliamentary government by throwing the balance of political power more and more definitely into the hands of the >Ja.tiouaJists, and whatever opinions we may hold about Home Rule, we regard the present relative positions of the jrreat ]>olitical parties ns fraught with serious danger to the interests of the Kingdom and the Empire- On the other hand, the case against Redistribution is difficult to state in such a way as to carry conviction to any but the National ists. It is absurd to assert that the Act. nf Union guaranteed to Ireland for all time the possession of the precise number of Parliamentary representatives that her population then enabled her to claim. In ISOI ihe population of Ireland constituted about one-third of that of the United Kingdom; now they amount, to on]y one-eighth. Moreover, in every British constituency the Irish vote is an important factor, indicating that everywhere throughout the United Kingdom the legitimate rights of the nation are receiving just and due recognition. Even by those who demand that the. terms of the Union ought to be maintained, it cannot be seriously denied that Parliament has the power at any moment to reconstitute the electorates. When Mr Gladstone was denlirj* with his first Home Rule Bill of 1886, he laid great stress upon "the absolute supremacy of Parliament.' , and to this argument the Unionist leaders caji safely appeal. The case for Redistribution is very largely the same in character as the ease for Reform in 1832. and the dexnooatio principles which lie at the foundation of the Constitution as we

know it can hardly l>e ignored in consid«ring England's" claim for more adequate representation in the Imperial Parliament.