Untitled

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume IX, Issue 968, 10 August 1881, Page 2

What little we have to lay before our readers, re the Representation ZBill, now before the House, is neither hopefill, nor satisfactory. From present idvices we learn that the Bill. is not yet in outer circulation, therefore, we do not know what the exact alterations are. The primary objection, however, which is taken to the Bill, is, possibly, less in regard to the principle of distribution or representation, than to the increase of the total number of The Legislature. Our readers have already been made aware that Mr. Barron, member for Caversham, moved that the present number of members should not be increased. Of course this floored the Government a little bit, but, as it was made initiatively, and not on the second reading—which the Government would have accepted as more hostile —it may be got over. There is, however, this positive assurance of the Premier in reply to an Otago deputation, that the Government

Could not entertain any proposal not to increase the number of members. It had been carefully considered by them, and they had put their foot down on that question. He said the total number of members for the Colony would be 91, of which 24 would be allocated to Otago, which would thus have an increase of 3 members ; Canterbury would have 21 members, or an increase of 7 ; Marlborough would remain as at present ; Nelson would lose 3 members,, and Westland would lose 1. The allocation to the North Island was not referred to. The Premier’s statement that there would be 91, led several members into error, in drawing the conclusion that the North Island would be short one member. The proposal is really 91 European members and 4 Maories, making 95. This gives the North Island an additional member, which will probably go to the East Coast, which is to be divided into two districts —Tauranga, and Gisborne. If the Government adhere to the “ putting down the foot ” question we may yet find that the long-looked-for separation of the two Bays is an accomplished fact.. Mr. McDonald voted against Mr. Barron’s amendment, therefore, by parity of action, he is bound to support the Government measure.

We notice, too, that both Sir George Grey and Mr. DeLautour voted against the increase of the numerical strength of the House. This may not be hastily taken as hostile to the separation we seek. Those gentleippn may be desirous of aiding in a partition of this Electorate, although adverse to an increase of members, but, it will be a difficult task to comply with the demands of both extremities. So, again, it is no complete proof that, while the Government are inclined to increase the representative numbers, they will favor Poverty Bay and the Bay of Plenty having each one member ; but we may fairly look upon it as a hopeful sign.