that each member would stand or fall on his own merits. Where two members sit for the same place, it frequently happens that one is popular and the other has failed to earn his constituents, confidence. The consequence is, that a member is often exposed to a contest through no fault of his own. The inquiry that naturally suggests itself is, what general changes would be required in our present constituencies to give effect to a scheme of equal electoral districts, separating the urban from the rural population? The census returns of 1881 show that rather over 12 millions of the population resided in parliamentary boroughs, returning 295 members; and over 13 millions in the divisions of the counties, returning 187 members. These figures must not, however, be accepted as correctly representing the locale of the people. Since the parliamentary boroughs were constituted, vast changes have occurred in the industrial progress of the country and the location of its people. No official data exist showing the urban and rural population separately: the best guide is to examine the Local Government Board tables of sanitary districts. These furnish particulars not only of the population but the acreage of each district. A careful comparison, as regards England and Wales, of the area of these districts with the inhabitants, will afford a fair index as to the urban or rural character of each locality. If thus investigated it will be found that urban communities now embrace over 15 millions of our population, whilst the rural districts number less than 11 millions. Applying the principle of equal electoral districts to the population of the United Kingdom, it will be found that, after deducting the nine University members from the nominal roll of the House of Commons, each member should represent 54,000 inhabitants. Therefore, England and Wales would have 480 members instead of 482 Scotland 70 95 103 Ireland The members for England and Wales would be allotted as follows:-280, or thereabouts, to urban constituencies, instead of 295 as at present; and the counties would obtain about 200 in lieu of 187, which is the share of representation they at present possess. Those of your readers with Conservative instincts who may peruse these pages, need not feel alarm at the apparently revolutionary changes involved by such a distribution of seats. They look to the counties for the Conservative force of the kingdom. Under the propositions here set out, not only would the number of members for rural districts be increased, but these constituencies would be homogeneous and cease to be dominated, as under existing arrangements, they in too many instances are, by the electors in large manufacturing centres. On the other hand, there is every pro bability that the Conservative element in the House of Commons would be increased by representatives from districts of large towns. It must also be noted that if the Franchise Bill is enacted without Redistribution, that the urban residents to be added to the county registers would equal about one-half the number of voters at present on the rolls. A plan of distribution of seats on the lines I have indicated would place at the disposal of each voter his fair and just influence in the affairs of the country. We must trust, and with confidence may believe, that English common sense will continue to actuate the people in the direction of our Imperial destinies. Paltry pocket boroughs, with their corruptive and parochial minds will disappear, to be merged in the purer atmosphere of large constituencies, numbers forming the best antidote to corruption and local jealousies. TABLE ARTHUR B. FORWOOD. Showing the approximate number of Borough and County Members of Pa liament each County would obtain under a system of Electoral Districts, compared to the number they have under existing arrangements. CONTEMPORARY LIFE AND THOUGHT IN THE UNITED STATES: THE PRESIDENTIAL CANVASS. ¦ Both HE people of the United States are now engaged in the preliminary measures to what a few years ago was magniloquently described as "the sublimest spectacle on earth, a free people peaceably deciding by the ballot what citizen shall stand at the head of the But to a discriminating observer in 1884 the spectacle is not likely to appear very sublime. The political beliefs of the two great parties are not very clearly defined. It may well be doubted whether a foreigner could make out, with much confidence, the difference between the statements of principles, or, to use the American term, the "party platforms" adopted at the two Chicago Conventions. are designedly so vague as to give all needed latitude for interpretation. This, perhaps, was a matter of positive necessity; for it would not be easy to make a single statement, either of principle or of policy, that would be adopted with any approach to unanimity by the one party or the other. The Republicans are generally supposed to be in favour of a protective tariff, and the Democrats in favour of free trade; but several of the most conspicuous and uncompromising advocates of free trade are Republicans, and one of the prominent candidates for the democratic nomination was an ardent Protectionist. The Democrats, with a large majority in the House of Representatives, attempted during the last session to modify the tariff laws; but the party was divided on the subject, and the movement was defeated by Democratic votes. On the question of reform of the civil service, there is the same absence of unanimity. Those whom it is customary to call the "politicians" in both parties have generally opposed reform. This class has never favoured any change of method until change has been imperatively demanded by popular opinion. In this matter both parties have simply furnished a new justification of De Tocqueville's lament that "the world over Governments are as bad as the people will allow them to be." The leader of the reformatory movement in Congress was a prominent Democrat. By his wise and persistent advocacy the measure received a support without which, for a time at least, it would not have succeeded. But his party, so far from approving of his course, has refused to re-nominate him to the Senate, and consequently he has been almost contemptuously thrown back into private life. In his place, and by the same constituents, was chosen a man in every way his inferior, except that in all probability he more truly represented his party on the particular question of civil service reform. The truth probably is, that the mass of Democrats do not desire reform to go so far as to prevent them from sweeping the Republicans out of office in case the Democrats should come into power. As human nature goes this lack of zeal is not surprising, even if it is blameworthy. But even if it is not commendable, it is at least matched by the views of a vast number of Republicans. It was a Republican who, in the Convention four years ago, called out, "What are we here for, if not for the offices?" This was probably a fair statement with audacious plainness of a very widely prevalent notion. The more one studies the situation, the more certainly is one forced to the conviction that neither party, as such, is to be relied upon to bring about reform of any kind. The one may be more inclined to favour it than the other; but the moment there is unmistakable evidence that public sentiment demands a given policy, that policy will be adopted, and the party which opposes it will be swept out or kept out of power. It is the general recognition of this potency of public opinion that makes the Conventions so indefinite in their statements of principles. In view of so much difference of opinion in both of the parties, flexibility of language is natural, perhaps inevitable. In view of the constant flux of public opinion, indefiniteness is both prudent and expedient. This confusion is made worse confounded by the fact that there are many ardent reformers of one kind and another who despair of reform within either of the great parties, and who therefore are determined to seek reform by some other agency. Some hope for improvement by going over to the other party, and some by establishing a new party of their own. It is the old story. In Germany there are several parties organized for the furtherance of more or less divergent interests. In England there was a time when a vast number of good people were dissatisfied with the course pursued by either of the great representative bodies of the Christian faith. The result of this discontent was the formation of a considerable number of religious sects. The amusing list furnished by Max O'Rell shows that with John Bull and his Island the sects have multiplied, whether or not they have replenished the earth. Perhaps in the United States the age of political sects has begun. At any rate, several sects have sprung into existence, and have placed candidates for the presidency in nomination. None of them, of course, hopes to elect its man, but all of the candidates in the field will secure a considerable number of votes, and consequently all are of more or less importance in the canvass. Whatever votes they receive will be drawn either from Mr. Blaine or from Mr. Cleveland. In estimating the chances of the candidates, therefore, two of the political sects at least must not be overlooked. The first of the sects to put a candidate in the field was the "Prohibition Party." This organization is made up of excellent people, whose principal strength lies in the energy of their moral nature, and who have for a considerable time been contemplating in sadness the enormous evils that afflict mankind from intemperance. Indeed, they have held those evils so near to the eye, that their vision has perhaps been a little obscured in regard to the other evils with which society is oppressed. They believe that a very prominent business of Government should be to reform the evils that prevail. They see that a vast number, perhaps a majority, of all the crimes committed, are committed by people in a state of partial intoxication. They reckon up the cost of all the intoxicating liquors used, and they place great stress on the inference, that if the use of such liquors could be prevented the world would be by so much the richer. Every consideration therefore urges that the use of intoxicants as a beverage should be universally abandoned. Poor human nature, however, is weak, and will drink whenever drink can be procured. It must therefore be made impossible to procure drink. Drink must not be manufactured, it must not be sold. The Government must prohibit its manufacture and its sale. But the political parties, as now organized, cannot be relied upon to bring about this desirable result. Indeed, some of the political favourites. sometimes drink themselves. If intemperance is to be eradicated, therefore, it must be by means of a new party. It is not certain that a new party can elect its candidates; but it can at least make its doctrines and its demands felt. In the end it can compel at least one of the great political parties to recognize the importance of temperance, and even perhaps adopt prohibition as a part of its policy. The Prohibition Party is not absolutely new, and yet it is now for the first time taking part in national politics. Heretofore it has limited the sphere of its activities to the politics of individual States. In some of the States with a large rural population, prohibitory laws have been enacted, and in some measure have been enforced. Within the last ten years, more narrowly within the last five years, there has everywhere been great activity in the agitation of the temperance question. In almost every city and village societies have been organized for the purpose of agitating the subject, and promoting what is called the temperance movement. The consequence has been that in one form or another the temperance question has come to be a very im. portant element in the politics of very many of the States. In Ohio the number of Germans is very great, and the Germans have never favoured prohibition either in theory or in practice. The agitation of the subject, even the raising of the question of "local option," has made the vote of the Germans quite uncertain. In Michigan the policy of exacting a heavy tax or license for dealing in intoxicating drinks, has been adopted. But while very many temperate people think the effect of the law is beneficial, there are also many who think it is harmful. In the opinions of not a few, the granting of license is a compromising with sin. Others object to it from policy. Then there is a third class, made up of persons who believe that wherever you see an evil, your business is to knock it on the head. A combination of these classes, in the State of Michigan for example, forms an element that no manager of political affairs can afford to despise. In some of the other States the prohibition element is still stronger. In Iowa, for example, the prohibitionists at the last session of the Legislature were able to pass a stringent prohibitory law. It is too soon to |