The Dominion. FRIDAY, JUNE 10, 1910. REPRESENTATION IN PARLIAMENT.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 839, 10 June 1910, Page 4

The Dominion. FRIDAY, JUNE 10, 1910. REPRESENTATION IN PARLIAMENT.

$. No doubt the Government will shortly bo making some new appointments to the Legislative Council, and it will be interesting to see whether the geographical argument will weigh with Cabinet when tho business of selection is taken in hand. To a great many people it must have been puzzling to hear the recent demands of different localities for representation, or for continued representation, in the Second Chamber. The simple belief of the Greyinouth public that a local man must be appointed to take the place of the late Mil. Holmes must not, however, bo too hastily condemned by more up-to-date observers of politics, for that belief is only one phase of a common, almost a universal, attitude on the part of New Zeaknders. Many of those who can see that Greymouth's idea is rather ludicrousaar t without knowing it,

firm upholders of the doctrine that Parliament should consist of local delegates and not of national deputies. So far as the- House of .Representatives is concerned, the original theory that a Member is sent to Parliament to deal with the affairs of tho nation and only incidentally and secondarily to place his constituency's needs before his fellows disappeared long ago, and disappeared so completely that one who advances the true theory of Parliament runs the risk ol being regarded as a faddy innovator. During the last ten or fifteen years Parliament has changed into a kind of tourney ground in which provinces, counties, towns, classes, and professions are all scrambling together, wo will not say, to rob each other., but certainly to carry off as much as possible of each other's money. In this situation, those members who hate and detest this unseemly and anti-national perversion of the functions of the Parliament have no option but to ..fight with the rest in order to preyerit the perpetration of too great injustices The true functions of Parliament have been largely lost sight of. In tho Legislative Council we have had something of the same kind of thing though in a very much less degree. There the appointments of the past few years have boon made—or at any rate it has been claimed that they have been made—with the object of giving representation to districts, to classes, or to professions. In tho present condition of affairs there is something to be said for this principle in nomination; the fact that it is a violation oi the true Parliamentary doctrine is a condemnation of the system of nomination for a term. But it is on the whole a bad thing that' the idea should prevail that it is not merely expedient, but proper in principle, that the Parliament should bo made primarily a collection of delegates representing the interests of different classes, professions, and districts. The practical arguments against this idea were suggested by two great men in a curious and amusing little debate in the House of Lords on April 25 last. The Earl of Wemyss, who is 92 years of age, and who is generally, considered to be the only Tory'left in the House with the exception of Lord Halsbury, introduced a motion affirming that it would be for tho public good that "important trading and other representative societies" should each name three of the existing Peers to speak and act on behalf of such societies on all questions in which they arc interested. Ho read a list of societies approving his curious idea, amongst which were tho Royal Institute of Architects, the Royal Academy, the Society of Authors, the Building Trades Federation, the Merchant Service Guild, the London Chamber of Commerce, and a great variety of other bodies of equal importance. Tho only speakers in the debate, apart from the venerable author of the resolution, were Lord Lansdovne and Lord Morley. Lord Lansdowne was either, inconsistent in his argument or else a little obscure. Ho agreed in the principle that "special" interests might have special representation, but from a later portion of his speech it would appear that he referred to such "special" interests as the Arm}; and Navy, and that in any case His'/approval was, not for a deliberate and artificial representation, but for that expert representation that can be got by the normal working of. existing machinery. The great weakness of "the new idea, and it is tho vital weakness of that doctrine of "special representation" which clashes with tho true theory of Parliament, was pointed out in a very amusing passage. Tho number of societies that might claim representation was'very great: there were nine pages in Whilaker's Almanack filled with their names. "Some," Lord Lansdowne pointed out, "are of extreme importance, possessing most dignified titles and positions; others are humbler. There are among them an association in favour of cremation, a Dante Society, a society which interests itself in lost dogs, and so on. So that there is every variety of body to be considered, and I really do not know how it • would be possible to decide which associations are worthy of recognition and which are not."

That, of course, raises a very grave question. Who is to say what interests do and what interests do not deserve or require special representation? In New Zealand, for example; men are appointed to the Legislative Council because they represent Labour; why should not men be appointed to represent the No-License party, and, as a natural complement, to represent the brewing interest? It was Loed Morley, however, who supplied the argument against Lord Wemyss- that arises out of the true doctrine of Parliamentary government: -' '

Supposing (he said) three members of your lordships' House were nominated by tho College of Physicians, the Eoyal Society, or whatever body you like, how can you be sure their influence in your lordships' House would be strengthened hv the knowledge that they were nominated to represent what I must call in somo cases trade unions? One of the great arguments that has been constantly used against tho representatives of suchbodies is that they are delegates, that they are not independent, that they do not' speak their own minds. With the knowledge which I have of trade unions I do not admit these allegations, but these allegations will be made as to the members of your lordships' Ilouse who are told off by these rather miscellaneous bodies. Should not we listen to any one of your lordships who got up to talk with the more deference, nnd weigh his arguments with the more care, if we knew he was speaking, as we are all supposed to do, with an independent mind? I think wo should.

Lord Mohley's argument may bo expanded into tho wider contention, which we do not think anyone will dispute, that, if members of Parliament were not special delegates of localities, professions, or classes, but representatives of only one interest, tho nation's interest, not only would tho public listen to them with more respect, but the nation would bo better served. We lately saw, in connection with the compact between the representatives of the NewZealand Alliance and the liquor trade, that there are occasions when the principle of special representation is clearly seen by the nation to bo contrary to tho nation's interests. By all means let every special interest, geographical, professional or sectional, do its best to educate the public. But it is quite another tiling to turn Parliament into an arena in which every sort of interest shall fight for its own hand, and in which every interest shall bo represented save one, the supremo and paramount interest, the interest of the nation as a whole. Statesmanship lias no worthier task before it in this country than tho removal of the conditions that result in a Parliament in which every district is represented, but in which tho nation is in dangnr of disfranchise, menu