The Standard AND PEOPLE'S ADVOCATE. (PUBLISHED EVERY WEDNESDAY AND SATURDAY.) SATURDAY, OCTOBER 9, 1875.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume III, Issue 314, 9 October 1875, Page 2

The Standard AND PEOPLE'S ADVOCATE. (PUBLISHED EVERY WEDNESDAY AND SATURDAY.)

SATURDAY, OCTOBER 9, 1875.

“ We shall sell to no man justice or right: \Ve shall deny to no man justice or right: We shall defer to no man justice or right.”

The new Representation Bill is one cf the most objectionable measures ever introduced into our Legislature ; and is, as it ought to be, universally condemned. Taking into consideration the urgency of an equitable redistribution of seats, it was fully expected that the Government would have consulted the interest of the electors in the matter, but the ver/' reverse of this seems to have been done ; and the Cabinet have consequently unpopularised themselves in h great measure, and do not now enjoy the confidence of the country to a satisfactory extent. The Bill has been evidently framed with a view to increase the voting power of the South Island, to the manifest injury of the North Island, which latter stands ir. greater need of additional representation then the former does. It is proposed to give six members to the South, and only two to the North—a disparity which is at once outrageously unfair. The Government will, no doubt, urge that the South Island has a right to increased representation, because of increased population ; but if population is to be the basis—and there is no other that is practicablewhy is it not fairly applied to the whole colony, and to every district without exception ? Were equal redistribution to be made the North Island would be entitled to four instead of two additional members ; but this principle having been shamefully ignored, the North must put up with the consequence, and look to the next Parliament for a rectification of the grievance. The Bill is neither based upon population nor property, and appears to have been abridged or enlarged at the caprice of ministers, desiring to strengthen districts in which their policy is supported, and, of course to weaken those on which they cannot rely. The Constitution Act —by which all measures appertaining toredistribution of seats should be regulated —distinctly sets forth that representation should be strictly in accordance, with the population, but this part of the Act has been totally disregarded—hence the anomalous Bill in question, which Sir George Grey, and other influential politicians in the House have characterised as an abortion. The Ministry took good care —as they invariably do when they are about to initiate an unpopular measure—that the country should know as little as possible of the contents of the Bill before it would be discussed in Parliament, so that the public might not be in a position to offer any formidable resistance by petitioning against it; and this is another potent argument in favor of Mr. Swanson’s proposition, last Session, that all important measures emanating from the Government, or from private members, should be given publicity to throughout the colony, a reasonable time before they were actually introduced. The Bill has been all but finally disposed of, and the adverse opinion of the country upon it cannot possibly.be of any avai 1 now. It is not difficult to infer from the policy of the Government, as 'well as from the speeches of members who uphold that policy, that there is a tendency to exalt the House above the people, and if this abuse of power is not effectually checked, it may lead to most baneful results. The great change which the abolition' of the Provincial system will effect, renders it necessary that representation in the House of Assembly should be made as equitable and perfect as possible, because of the additional responsibilities that must thus be assumed by the General Government,

whose duty it should have been to exercise such foresight in the matter as to have left no room for dissatisfaction. The,ex-Premier particularly adverted to this subject last Session, and assured the House that the Cabinet were disposed to act in the fairest and most-liberal manner possible in regard to increased representation. This has not, however, been done, although it is quite certain that Sir Julius Vogel has had a hand in the preparation of the New Representation Bill. Such inc&nSreleijey”ih : a matter of vital importance to the colony is unpardonable in a Minister of the Crown, who claims to himself the merit of raising New Zealand to its present status. It is one thing to profess to have the interest of the country at heart, and another thing to give proof of the sincerity of that profession. Sir Julius made theprofession alluded to most ostentatiously, but he has not given any practical exhibition of it. No one knew better than he the representative requirements of the country, so that the injustice he and his colleagues have inflicted upon us could not have arisen from ignorance. In the case of the representation of oiir own district, the Government have acted most arbitrarily, and diametrically contrary to what we expected. They promised us separate representation, but this, with many other promises, made by them, they never intended to fulfil. As we have repeatedly asserted, there is no community of interest between Poverty Bay and the Bay of Plenty, and as there is not, each of these districts should be constituted an electorate of its own; and until this consummation takes place, we shall be inadequately represented in Parliament, and our interests must necessarily suffer accordingly. The district of Poverty Bay, from the East Cape, to its junction with Hawke’s Bay, is large and populous enough for that purpose, and so is the Bay of Plenty; and to be deprived of this undeniable right is a flagrant violation of the Constitution Act. By recent private telegrams from Wellington, we learn that the Government have made an overture to incorporate Poverty Bay with Napier, but this proposal has been scornfully rejected ‘by the electors, as, indeed, it ought to be. To be cajoled into such a ridiculous amalgamation would be the height of absurdity ; but quite in keeping with theother sinisterproceedings of the Cabinet’ in regard to the Redistribution of seats. It is probable that one or two interested parties in Napier have been instrumental in inducing the Government to make this proposal, with the view of inveigling us into an electoral compact which would place us in the degrading position of constituents of a pocket borough. Nothing short of a representation of our own will suffice us, and although this has been denied us by the present ministry, justice is sb far upon our side as to lead us to hope that so reasonable a concession will be made to us by the New Parliament. We have already asserted our importance in this direction to such an extent as must eventually secure us the desired boon. Later telegrams state that if Poverty Bay does not consent to be incorporated with Napier, it shall remain as it is—a part of the East Coast electorate.