REPRESENTATION OF MINORITIES.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 5355, 27 May 1878, Page 3

REPRESENTATION OF MINORITIES .

(From The Times, March 9.) If Parliament should complain towards the end of the session that it has not been able to get through its work for want of time, the records of “ private members’ nights” which are now being accumulated will furnish the materials for a damaging retort. Last night, once again, the House of Commons was counted out before 8 o’clock. \Ve cannot affect to feel surprised at tins, however, much we may deplore,thb loss of time. If members choose to turn the House into a debating club for the discussion of abstract questions which have no practical relations to the politics or the social interests of the day, they must be prepared to deliver their philosophic lectures to empty benches. But in the House of Commons lecturing to empty benches involves a danger, which is not to bo dreaded elsewhere. Long-suffering listeners have the privilege of calling the Speaker’s attention to the fact that forty members are not present, and when this fatal inquiry has been begun the doom of the philosophical politician is sealed. Why, indeed, should any human being take pains to prolong such a debate ns that raised last night upon Mr. Blennerhassett’s motion in favor of the representation of minorities ? Why should auy member sacrifice his personal comfort and his valuable time in order to keep the barren discussion alive or to provide the speakers with the phantasm of an audience ? It is not easy to picture anything more pedantically- academical or less in harmony with the practical sense of the House of Commons than the disquisitions which had to be endured by the few who waited ami listened. We do not deny the importance of the representation of minorities, and if the question were brought forward at a proper moment and upon a prdetical basis we feel certain that it would receive, as it would deserve, all the attention of the House of Commons. But to raise an issue of this character without any reference to the practical measures which would be needed to give effect to the decision of the House," if it had come to one, is a proceeding altogether alien from the habitsjaud tastes of Parliament. If a Keform Bilk were being discussed, Mr. Blennerbasset’s motion might bo considered pertinent to the discussion of the redistribution clauses. It is

little better than a dialectical exercise when it is presented to the House as a mere abstract affirmation of certain principles affecting the suffrage. We feel all the more free to express our disapproval of the waste of Parliamentary time for which 'Mr. Blennerhassett and his supporters are responsible because we accept the main propositions which the motion embraces. We find no difficulty in agreeing with Mr. Blennerhassett that” it is desirable that the whole electoral body should bo enabled to enjoy that direct representation which is at present confined to majorities ” or in affirming that “no effectual security exists for the due representation of minorities.” We may even be ready to assert, as Mr. Blennerhassett ashed the House of Commons to assert, that “ as far as possible all opinions should have an opportunity of being represented in direct proportion to the number of electors by whom they are held." But when these expressions of opinion are placed on record are we any nearer to a practical result ? We are bound to take note of the important and very elastic exception “ as far as possible.and the rest of the statements to which .Mr. Blennerhassett wished to pledge the House have no political value, unless they can be made a starting point for Wide and sweeping reforms in our representative system. It is quite evident that Mr. Blennerhassett does not hope for any result of this kind. He does'not imagine that, even if Parliament were to vote in favor of the propositions he has strung together, there would be any attempt to embody the decision in a statute. He does not figure to himself a

great popular movement in favor of proportional representation. Yet he must be perfectly well aware that, without pressure from the outside, the House of Commons will never introduce measures unsettling, breaking up, and reconstructing the whole representative system - of this country. It follows that the motion is brought forward with.a view to debate, and not to any practical fruit, and there is much reason, therefore, to complain that the public time has been wasted in a discussion which was not intended to lead to legislation. .

When we say that we agree with Mr. Blennerhassett in deploring the injustice which is often done to minorities under our present system, we are far from admitting that proportional representation would be a desirable, or even a possible remedy. What is known as Mr.-Hare’s scheme is the object of Mr, Blennerbassett's admiration, and as a clever tour deforce in the jhanipulatian of political counters the system deserves some attention. But it is absolutely certain that no complicated scheme of this kind will ever obtain so much as a serious hearing in the House of Commons. It could only be worked out by the destroying the historical associations of constituencies and making the members of the House representatives, uot of places, hut of groups of persons. If a local connection were maintained, it must be by establishing for large sections of the country a “ticket,’’such as is in use in the American Presidential elections, and under the escrutin dt lUt in Prance. . Thus, by grouping together 40 or 50 members,-and applying Mr. Hare’s ingenious method, all but the very smallest minorities would, no doubt, be represented. But at what a cost would tills change he accomplished ! The existing House of Commons, iu spite of successive Reform Acts, is still lineally affiliated to the Parliaments of George 111 and Anne, of Charles 1., and Elizabeth. The application of Mr. Hare’s method wonld turn it into a brand-new Legislative Assembly, and if we are not greatly mistaken, the character of the members chosen would be not less completely changed. The practical English politician, whether he be the country gentleman or the successful trader, will find himself distanced by the fanatic, the professional agitator, the mountebank, and the priest. These are changes which the House of Commons is as little. likely to sanction as it is to give effect to proposals for abolishing ft be Monarchy or repudiating the National Debt.

But, while it would be sheer waste of time even to debate the sweeping scheme advocated by Mr. Blennerhassett, it may be acknowledged that the representation of minorities is desirable, and that when, a practical occasion arises of extending it the chance ought not to be missed. The extension of the franchise and the growth of the population have enormously increased the size of our constituencies, and the grievance of an unrepresented minority ha* thus become more apparent, if not more unjust. In any of the great Metropolitan boroughs, for instance, it is quite possible that 20,000 or 30,000 electors of the same political beliefs, who, being over-mastered by an opposing majority, have no more chance of obtaining direct representation in Parliament than if they lived under the rule of the Shah of Persia. If the whole of London, with its four millions . of people, were grouped together in a single constituency, returning, let us say, 30 members, and if upon a question sharply dividing public opinion the majority were to be a little more than two millions and the minority a little less, we should seethe whole 30 votes appropriated by the majority, and the minority left without ahy representation whatever. We should think this a scandalously unjust result, because we are unaccustomed to such developments of the representative system; but in the United States they are common enough. At the presidential election, for instance, the whole vote of the State of Now York, which nominates 35 electors, is determined by the bare majority. In this country, when wo cut up London into a number of constituencies with two members each, we do not practically alter the result. The minorities sometimes very large minorities—remain, substantially, unrepresented, But in a few constituencies—the City of London,, Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham, Glasgow, and several counties—the allotment of three members to each—or four in the case of the city—has permitted every minority that is sufficiently powerful to obtain a fair share of representation. Sometimes the; minority is too weak, as is the case with the Conservatives of Birmingham, and it may fairly be said that if it be less than onethird of the ’ constituency it must wait until it grows stronger before it can claim to bs represented. The triangular constituencies can employ the old-fashioned straightforward mode of voting, and are troubled by none ef the complexities of the cumulative vote. It is greatly to be regretted that when the last Reform Bill was under consideration means were not adopted for multiplying these constituencies, We hope that when a redistribution of seats again becomes a practical measure this object will not bo left out of sight. In many counties the withdrawal of the franchise from some small decaying boroughs would enable the House to create triangular constituencies without altering'tho general balance of representation. In other coses it would be easy to fuse divisions with two members. each into, larger divisions with j three members each. Tho existing roprosonta-

tion, for of Kent and 'Surrey, where! it is notorious there are large Liberal minor!-; ties, is flagrantly unjust, because in 1867 those ! counties were out up each into three divisions, with two members apiece. If they had been divided each into two divisions, with three members apiece; the representation of the two counties would now, probably, consist of eight Conservatives and foxxr Liberals.’ At present the Conservatives, having the majority in each division, rnonepolize the whole representation.' : ';■■■ " : ' . ; / : :