PLURAL VOTING.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 527, 7 June 1909, Page 5

PLURAL VOTING.

PROPOSED LEGISLATION FOR LONDON.

UNIONIST OBJECTIONS. ,

REDISTRIBUTION, NOT PIECEMEAL REFORM. (ni Tjsttamra—pubss aasoounoM—OorTßianT.) (Roc. Jmie 6, 4 p.ffl.) London, June 6. In tho House of Commons a dobato occurred on the .second reading of a Bill introduced by Mr. Harcqurt, First Commissioner of Works, to constitute London a single Par* liamentary borough and to abolish plural voting. <.

Sir Henry Kimber.(the Unionist member for the huge London constituency of Wandsworth, containing over 36,000 members), Mr. Alfred Lyttolton (Unionist member for St. George's, Hanover Square, London), and other members opposed the Bill, on the ground that it was not accompanied by a scheme providing for a general redistribution of seats and that it sought to establish one-man-one-vote exclusively for London, which represented one-eighth of the electorate of the wholo country. ... Mr. Harcourt replied that the Bill removed anomalies and that Londoners' grievances were, capable of being remedied 1 without their having to await the large measure of oleotofal reform which the Government hoped to pass beforo the dissolution of the present Parliament. ~ Tho second reading was carried, the voting being:

For tho Bill . „,' ~, .. .... 140 Against ... ... : »„'..'.,,...;.46... ... Majority for ... »„ ... 94 ONE-MAN-ONE-VOTE. WHY NOT ONE-VOTE-ONE-VALUE f The Unionist objection is that the Liberals are proceeding piecemeal, by -..attempting \ to provide one-man-one-vote for London alone, instead of considering the companion question of one-vote-onc-valuo as for the whole of the United Kingdom. The Unionists olaim that under a redistribution of seats, making their voting- strengths more nearly equal, they (the Unionists) would have many more, members in the House of Commons. Taking tho 560 borough and county feats of Great Britain, they argue that Liberal and Labour candidates polled rf total of 3,061,000 votes, and Unionists a total of 2,365,000 votes; that the electorate is divided between Ministerialists arid Unionists in the proportions of 56.4 per cent, and 43.6 per cent, respectively; : and that if the Partial mentary strength of parties were in correspondence with this ratio, the position in the House of Commons would be-not 428 Ministerialist* and 182 . Opposition, bttf 316 Ministerialists and 244 Opposition. Oa the proportional basis, the Ministerial majority would therefore be"72, instead of 296. In Wales, thoro being 167,000 Ministerialist voters, as against 80,000. Unionists, the Correct representation on a proportional basis would be 19 Ministerialists instead of 80, and 11 Unionists' instead of none!

Wandsworth and Other Caset. The Unionist argument further sets out the inequality in the voting power of various constituencies, as follows:— The 680 members of the British Parliament by no means represent an equal.number.of e ectors. Kilkenny, for instance, is able to elect an M.P. with. 1541 electors: while all the 35,763 electors of . are .also only, represented by oho M.P. A vote in Wandsworth has/only a twentieth part of the value of a vote in. Kilkenny 1 .'• "; _ There' aro twenty-six- boroughs in Great Britain which hnve.lcss than 5000 electors each.On the other hand, Bath, with only'Bo24 elec'-' tors, elects twoXM.P.'s! The lnrgest constituency is'the Romford Division of Essex, which has 49,065 electors. There a vole is only worth one-thirtieth. of the valuo of a vote in Kilkenny with its 1511 electors. . ' . - The largest borough constituency is Newcastle, which has.tvo M.P.'s and 37,389 electors. The cablegram to-day indicates.that SiivHv. lumber, Unionist member for over-grown London electorate ■ of Wandsworth,, objects to a London Bill without a general scheme of redistribution. Ho has represented Wandsworth since 1892, and has had hn ea6y return every time, _ except in 1906, when his four-figure majority was rcduoed by the Liberal candidate to 546. . ■ ■

According to some recent figures, the elec tors in London constituencies total 658,000; the SGO borough and county seats of Great Britain have 6,433,000 electors. Tho Liberal Side. - , t < Tho Liberal Government has promised to deal with electoral reform ."before this Parliament conies to an end." In making this promiso,. Mr. Asquith, Prime Minister, stated ™& .ty?. Present state of the law. with'its artificialities, its unreasonable delays in obtain- !?? the franohieo, its indefensible classification of the categories of voters, and above all, the power of double voting which was at present conferred upon the class that needed it least-all this urgently demanded reform." The present Government Bill deals with Lononly. It is not the first time that tho present Liberal Government has' brought in a bill to. prevent he use by one man of more than one vote. The Plural Voting Bill, 1906 provided that no man shall vote in more than one constituency-in tho same year, but left him .the.choice as to which qualification le *°»W ■««-...The Common's pLed the ?hird reading by 333 votes to 104; but the Lords rejected it on December 10, ,1906, by 143 to