four candidates stood, the two successful ones polled 12,020 and 11,720 respectively, out of a constituency of 41,000. The recent election for Hackney points the same moral still more emphatically; which is further enforced by the far larger proportionate number who poll, as a rule, in the smaller boroughs, where each voter feels his own vote may be of some practical importance to the cause which he, however temperately, espouses.
To the candidates, the relief, social, physical, and pecuniary, is enormous. By the subdivision of the great county areas, with their vast prospective electorates, into manageable constituencies, it will still be possible for representatives of that most valuable class, the untitled English and Scotch gentlemen, of whom the late Mr Henley was so admirable a specimen, to find their way to St Stephen's, and to retain their seats there without imposing too severe a strain on their health or their resources. And similarly, in the greater boroughs their representation will be brought within the reach of many a man, well qualified to represent his fellow-citizens, who at present cannot face the alarming expense, or still more alarming demands on his time and strength, which have to be met by members for places like Lambeth or Liverpool, Glasgow or Marylebone.
This last consideration brings us to notice the chief objection which has been urged against the division of boroughs – its supposed tendency to "degrade" or "vestrify" the House of Commons. Here, for once, we find ourselves in full agreement with Sir Charles Dilke, whose argument at Aylesbury on this head we are happy to reproduce: –
"The opponents of the single-member system assume as beyond argument what they call 'the degradation of the House.' Now I do not admit that the single-member system will return 'vestrymen,' in the bad sense of the word. Where the local man is returned, he will generally be the best local man; while local jealousies will often exclude the local man, and cause all to agree in the selection of a seatless statesman from afar. Under the single-member system the House will, I am convinced, contain a far more varied, complete, and truthful representation of the country than it has ever held before."[1]
We are likewise in accord with him when, arguing against those who would, while applying the single-member system to counties, exempt the towns from its operation, he exclaimed, "It must be everywhere or nowhere. Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander!" Quite so; but it is precisely in this respect of thoroughness that the bill, as drawn, fails, and is open in our opinion to serious criticism and objection. Why are boroughs with a population between 50,000 and 165,000 exempt from the operation of this salutary rule? The only reason suggested rather than urged by Mr Gladstone in introducing the bill – viz., the existence in many towns of a unity of municipal life – would apply with at least equal force to all the towns except the metropolitan boroughs, which are above the line; and in justice alike to the counties and to the larger boroughs, we claim with Sir Charles Dilke the impartial application of the principle to all constituencies which are susceptible of it. To illustrate the absurdity of the proposed maimed
- ↑ Sir Charles Dilke at Aylesbury – 'Times,' December 11, 1884.
