Page images
PDF
EPUB

The Swiss in combination with a wide suffrage have also what is called a Referendum; that is to say, Bills which have passed the Assembly are referred directly to the whole electorate. Now the Bills so referred are often rejected by large majorities. For instance, in one year alone in 1882-a Bill on the reorganization of the Departments of Justice and Police, which had passed the Chamber, was rejected by 214,000 to 150,000; a Revised Penal Code by 202,050 to 159,000; a Bill on Patents by 190,000 to 174,000; and an Education Bill by 317,000 to 170,000.

Thus we see proved to demonstration in practice, that which in theory was perfectly obvious-that the majority of a majority may be, and often is, a minority. The evidence afforded by a country like Switzerland, where there is in actual operation an appeal to a general vote, makes it hardly possible for any one to shut his eyes to the clear evidence afforded.

The systems of representation which have been adopted in one country or another are numerous, and differ greatly from one another. I shall not attempt to give any history or description of them all, but will confine my remarks to three which are either most prevalent or most important, namely the system of "Singlemembered Seats," of " Scrutin de Liste," and of "Proportional Representation." Under the first, each constituency returns a single member, and each elector has a single vote. Under Scrutin de Liste each constituency returns several members, and each elector has a number

of votes equal to the number of representatives, but cannot give more than one vote to any one candidate. Lastly, under Proportional Representation the constituency returns several members, but provisions are adopted which secure a fair representation of the various sections of the constituency. This object may be effected in several ways, of which the principal are (1) the Limited Vote, in which each elector has a number of votes somewhat less than the number of representatives; (2) the Free List, in which the elector votes for a list; (3) the Cumulative Vote, in which each elector has a number of votes equal to the number of representatives, but can distribute them as he chooses; and (4) the Single Transferable Vote, in which the elector has only one operative vote, but is permitted to indicate to which candidate he would wish it to be transferred if it be not required by the one to whom he first devotes it.

We will now consider in order these different systems of representation.

CHAPTER II.

SINGLE MEMBERED CONSTITUENCIES.

UNDER this system, which is that adopted in the new Redistribution Act, the country is divided into approximately equal constituencies, each returning one member, and of course each elector has one vote.

The first objection to the system of single member seats is that it involves the arbitrary division of natural communities. The result is to weaken local life and undermine the strength of local self-government. One great evil in our system of local government has always been the multiplicity of areas. We have municipal areas, areas for poor-law, for education, for water rates, and many other purposes, and the system of single membered seats multiplies them of course still further.

In support of the system of single seats, the high character of the representatives from Scotland and Wales has often been referred to. But Scotland and Wales are not cases in point.

The constituencies in those countries are either natural communities or several communities in association, while if the system of single seats is to be adopted generally,

and the constituencies are to be equalized, then it follows as a necessary consequence that large communities must be broken up into arbitrary and unnatural sections; and, as Mr. Morrison observed in the debate of 1872, a district liable to entire change at the end of every ten years is a mere fortuitous concourse of atoms." I

[ocr errors]

Mr. Rathbone, who so ably represented Liverpool for many years, has justly said that "we were a country of historic greatness; we could not break from those old historical recollections without a feeling of pain, and, he was afraid, to a certain extent, a weakening of the dignity and power that those associations excited. He spoke from experience when he said that in the House of Commons votes and voices were not only counted but weighed, and for a man speaking as the representative of the greatest seaport in the worldspeaking on great commercial and other questions that had found their solution in a great town like Liverpoolhe felt that he was listened to in a way that was not due to any personal merits of his own, but due to the weight given to him by the great constituency he represented. He did not think when a man came forward as the representative of Castle Street, or Rodney Street, or Toxteth, or of Everton, that he would speak with the same authority as he would do if representing Liverpool; nor would he deserve so to speak."

Moreover, if the constituencies are to be maintained of equal size, the boundaries will require continual reHouse of Commons, July 10, 1872.

arrangement. This not only involves an immense amount of unnecessary labour, but would in many cases also give rise to the suspicion of the unfair manipulation of political boundaries for party purposes.

The difference in the character of politics between England and America has long been a subject of comment. It may be difficult to say how far that contrast is due to the system of ward representation which exists in America, and which has now been introduced here; but that that system is one cause can hardly be doubted.

In 1869 the Senate of the United States appointed a committee to report on representative reform, and the committee adopted unanimously a very able report drawn up by Senator Buckalew, in which they emphatically condemned the system of single seats. For this they gave several reasons. They pointed out that political areas were often unfairly arranged with the view to party advantage, in the manner which has given the name of Governor Gerry an unenviable immortality.1

The term "Gerrymander" dates from the year 1811, when Mr. Elbridge Gerry was governor of Massachusetts, and the Democratic, or, as it was then termed, the Republican party, obtained a temporary ascendency in the State. In order to secure themselves in the possession of the government, the party in power passed the famous law of Feb. 11, 1812, providing for a new division of the State into districts, so contrived that in as many districts as possible the Federalists should be outnumbered by their opponents. To effect this all natural and customary lines were disregarded, especially in some parts of the State, and particularly in the counties of Worcester and Essex. Maps were published showing the new boundaries, and a certain Mr. Gilbert Stuart, seeing in the office of the Columbian Sentinel an outline of Essex County, in

« PreviousContinue »