THE PASSING OF THE PRPRESENTATION BILL.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XVI, Issue 217, 12 September 1881, Page 4

THE PASSING OF THE PRPRESENTATION BILL.

The following is the Premier's Bpeeeh in reply upon the question that, the Representation BilS "do now peg*"* — Mr Hall g«ud 5 I have not, in the conrpe of roy political career, had to dieehorgA a du'y <*hich I have more reloefnDtlv bnjrnn and continued, than tbaf of diminishing considerably the represent-uion in this Houio eujoyed by the District of Nelson. The members ?ent here from that district have been worthy representative?, not atone of the district, but of the colony. They hnv?, as a rule, been staunch and generous supporters of the present Government ; and it required no slight determination to do thai; which I cannot edmif. is ucjust, though it does ondonhtefily pr<*ss hard upon the Nelson District For doing this duly, we cave been threatened — not so much by those who have been our loyal and valued supporters, ea by others — with the consequences to ourselves as a Ministry. Let me be pardoned if, for a moment, I compare very small things with very great ones. I remember that, about the time when I first took an interest, in politic?, Mr Disraeli, addressing Sir Robert Peel in circumstances somewhat Eimilar to those in which the present Government are now placed, used a similar threat. Believing that the time bad come when the food of the mass of his countrymen should be freed from the t&xes then pressing on it, Sir Robt. Peel, knowing well that in his tfforfs to achieve that freedom he could not carry with him more than a small fraction of his party, nevertheless felt it to be his dnty to disregard party tiea and to work in the ictereet9 of his countrymen. With the assistance of the Opposition in the House of Commons Sir Robert Peel carried the repeal of the Corn laws. Ami Mr Disraeli after tauotirjg him wi h having accepted Ihs heip of his political opponents in order to carry a great measure of reform, told him that with the passing of the Bill he and his majority would paes away, and the Ministerial benches would know him no more. Bat was Sir Robert Peel daunted or deterred ? No ; he knew that what did happen mi? ht happen. He was driven from office. Posterity has now passed ao mincing verdict on theee proceedings j and on whom does that verdict reflect cred't or discredit ? U it not now admitted that amongst the greatest achievements cf a great career stamis prominent the aei of Sir Robert Peel in nctaxsne lb.R food of the people of Great Britain ? The desertion of the Tory pa ty because of that action le to Sir Robert Peel's fall, but his fall was followed by their exile from political power for more than a quarter of a century. It may appear to some to be ridiculous to draw any comparison between those great historic event! and those that lave been recently psssing here; but tbe case of Sir Robert Peel and the Core-laws is apposite, and it does completely answer those wbo •have argued that we, as a Government, have acted unconstitutionally. Ifc has been asserted fust this Bill aa law wili metn tbe establishment of CanterburyOta^o rule in New Zealand, end that pub ic »oiks expenditure has settled in tho-e two diarricte the iar?e population now there. But how are the people in those districts employed ? NoJ by means of public works expenditur*Tbe great natural resources of thbae portions^ of the colony afford tha means of livelihood (o those settled there. In the Nelson Provincial District, however, the conditions are auch that even & considerably increased public works expenditure would cot have made it tbe permanent botre of a much larger population than it now has. The hon I member for tbe Thames (Sir George \ Grey) contends that the principle of eingle electorates will give an enormous advantage to property. I b.Bve not treated this principle as an e6Bsntial of the Bill; and when moving tbe Becond reading, I endeavoured to etate fairly the possible arguments for and against it. I admitted that it might, to aom? extent, increase plural voting; but I thick I showed that it would not increase (he power of wealth. I confend thßt, by dividing the large cities into tbeee or four constituencies, those can didetes who are not id any sense men of wcalib or leisure will be advantaged; becouse !o contest such constituencies will cot rfqaire such an expenditure of time end money as must otherwise be .needed, and which only men possessing We&'tb and having leisure can give to' tlrertSßk.' The Brea of selection for the electors will thus be increased, ami merobei? Bird electors will in tvery way be brought rSoser together. Thiß will Help to perpetuate what I regard ias having been one of <he most satisfactory features in New Zealand poiiiice — members have been chosen, not so much on account of any political cry jhey may bave adopted, bs because of their own personal qualifications and .characters. There ia another advantage which may not commend itself to the senior member for the Thames. With the large city constituencies divided into eingle electorates, it will be difficult for a clever, fJneut, unscrupulous demagogue to drag in at bis tail other candidates of bis choice, whoee only recommendation 13 that they will blindly obey his behests. I believe that when the people come to discuss this portion of the representation question they will ackcowledge that in dividing some of tbe existing large electorates, the Government have done an essentially popular and (in trie best sense) democratic thing. It has several timeß been alleged that the passing of this Bill will mean Separation, and will iead to the removal cf the eeat of Government from Wellington. I assert deliberately that, in my belief, it will not do, or lesd to, either of those things. But if the freqaent demand for justice by those parts of the colony which have so long gene without a fair share of representation bad been again refused, I think that the people there would cot have been contest to remain under a system of Government which could so refuse them tbe justice for which they have -patiently waited. Therefore, I believe that tfiis Bill will avert rather than in- , Yit9 r : Separation, or the removal of the m% of Gorersffientt A clause whiob

has been added to the Bill by tbe bon member for Auckland City Weßt (Mr Hurst) will compel a review of the wbole question in 188? at tbe latest. There is, I am certain, a great future before the North Island ; and if, in : 1887, this Island bss become entitled to a much larger proportionate share of representation, find I nm then in the House, my best endeavors shell be given to secure for the North all that itis entitled Jo. Meanwhile, may I suggest (0 the electors in some parts of this Island that any reduction in their representation which this Bill will effect will never bo felt if only they will prevail on the best men amongst them to become candidates, and will vote always for ima of ktown character, ability, and public services, rather than for thosa who seek fayor by undertaking to blindly follow any fluent, unscrupulous leader who may delude the people with false promises.