REPRESENTATIVES AND PROPERTY.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 3222, 27 October 1881, Page 2

REPRESENTATIVES AND PROPERTY.

[To tbe Editor of the Daily Telegraph.] Sib,—ln continuation of my previous letter upon tbis subject, the first objection that I take to the Herald's article of Tuesdaj last is its second sentence: — " They' (Parliamentary candidates) seem to think, or would have their hearers think, that it is a bad thing to have a country represented by capitalists, especially those who have invested their capital in land." I shall take no notice of the slip-shoi grammar, but I shall accept the sentence for what it is intended to, and not not what it does, convey. If candidates for Parliamentary honors have really told the electors that it would he a bad thinar for them to be represented by capitalist, they have told them that which is perfectly true. I am afraid, however, that nothing half so sensible has been said as yet by candidates.; but I think the statement has been made by the Herald for the purpose of making it the text of an article singularly illogical and wide of the truth. A very little consideration will show anyone that, as I pointed out before, a country being inhabited by people of all classes, in the social scale, and professedly in tbe enjoyment of representative institutions, ought, in its government, to have all its interests represented. 1 beg to deny that capital represents all interests ; and I still more object to the idea that land, as representing capital, is the best representative of all other interests. It would be as bad for a country to be represented in iti Parliament by all capitalists, as it would be by all lawyers, or all merchants, or all of any other one special interest. Representative institutions are in theory, and should be made so in practice, wide enough for the representation of al! interests, and with- | out this those institutions are mis-named. Tbe electors should place themselves on their guard against artful deceivers who would feign have the unthinking believe that the non-propertied classes can be very much better represented by a man of very large nroperty than by one from their own ranks. I would remind my fellow electors that, in England, until the suffrage was lowered, until the great mass of the obtained direct representation in Parliament, it bad been fonnd impossible to pass any liberal measure tor tbe establishment of a national system of education. As long as none but propertied men could hold a seat in Parliament there was no legislation for the social amelioration of tbe people. From whence have come the benefactors of special classes but from out of those classes themselves? The patent safety lamp was invented by Davy, a common coal miner, for the benefit of coal miners. Joseph Arch was a farm laborer, and by the agitation that he raised by his voice he compelled farmers to regard their laborers in some other light but that of beasts of the field. But I need not occupy your 9pace, Sir, in multiplying instances in modern history of the value to class of diss representation. The next sentence in the Herald's article calling for notice is the following : " The propertied man feels taxation most directly, he most appreciates the result of judicious expenditure on public works, and he is most likely to look after retrenchment in expenditure where possible, and to encourage expenditure where it is likely to be remunerative." It was Captain Russell, I think, who stated at the last general elections that all taxation eventually fell upon the working men. If land be taxed wages were lowered, or the property owner upon whom the burden of taxation had to be primarily borne reduced the number of his employes, reduced tbe expenses of his establishment, and by some way or other the weieht of the imposition was bound to fall in the end upon tbe nonpropertied classes. The argument can be easily thought out, and will be found perfectly true. "The propertied man is most likely to encourage public works expenditure where it is likely to be remunerative." But remunerative to whom ? To the country the Herald would have us believe, but Sir Julius Vogel told the colony that it was owing to the log-rolling of the landed proprietors that a million and a half of the public works loan bad bad to be thrown away on useless works as bribes to enable him to spend the balance judiciously. And Sir Julius Vogel was not a propertied man when he entered the House of Representatives. Tbe next sentences to which I object in the Herald's article are the following :— The man of no property, on the other hand, has no " stake in tbe country." His belongings can be packed in a portmanteau, or, at most, a trunk, and after he has assisted to ruin a country by unwise legislation he can devote the last of his honorarium to transporting him across seas to a country yet possessing some prosperity. The object of these adventurers is merely to feather their own nests comfortably, and, that done, they care not how tbe country they profess to serve may advance or retrograde. The obvious reply to tbe above is the question, who are they in this colony who have thus served their country ? Can any one call to mind a single"individual who has ever been elected to the Parliament of New Zealand to whom the above remarks can be made to apply ? A great many men having "no stake in the country" have from time to time been sent to" Parliament, but I cannot think of one who, having .esisted to ruin the country by unwise legislation, has bolted with his honorarium, or feathered his own nest. But Ido know of many poor men who have been, or who are, in Parliament,|who conscientiously performed their legislative duties, were most useful members of committees, who never tried to ruin tbe colony, and who never gained for themselves a single sixpence by the legislation they assisted to pass. Can as much be said of your big property owner in Parliament ? I trow not. Why, Sir, the Statute Book literally bristles with legislative enactments for the beneßt of the wealthy, for the protection of property, and for the advancement of the rich ; but where is the Charitable Aid Bill, the Hospital Maintenance Bill? Nowhere. Parliament will sit for months to pass a bill that will make it a crime for a poor man to do what a rich one may enjoy, to put a poor devil in gaol, or to take a tax off the wealty; but when it comes to charitable aid measures tbe wealthy sheepfarmers in the House are weary, of work, and fly, back to their -hearing sheds. My advice to the electors 4s, take care that all classes are represented in Parliament.--I am, &c, A. Z. Napier, October 26,1831.