THE PASSING OF THE REPRESENTATION BILL.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume IX, Issue 980, 21 September 1881, Page 1 (Supplement)

THE PASSING OF THE REPRESENTATION BILL.

The Premier s speech in reply upon the question that the Representation Bill “do now pass,” has hitherto been unreported, because it was delivered not long before daylight on Tuesday morning. But we A. Z. Times believe that a condensed report of some of the principal parts of that speech will still be acceptable to our headers.

Mr. Hall said : I have not, in the course of my political career, had to discharge a duty which I have more reluctantly begun and continued, than that of diminishing considerably the representation in this House enjoyed by the District of Nelson. The members sent here from that district have been worthy representatives, not alone of the district, but of the Colony. They have, as a rule, been staunch and generous supporters of the present Government ; and it required no slight determination to do that which I cannot admit is unjust, though it does undoubtedly press’hard upon the Nelson District.' Fordoing this duty we have been threatened—not so much by those who have been our loyal and valued supporters, as 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 politics, Mr. Disraeli, addressing Sir Robert Peel in circumstances somewhat similar to those in which the present Government are now placed, used a similar threat. Believing that the time had come when the food of the mass of his countrymen should be freed from the taxes then pressing on it, Sir Robert Peel, knowing well that in his efforts to achieve that freedom he could not carry with him more than a small fraction of his party, nevertheless felt it to be his duty to disregard party ties and to work in the interests of his countrymen. With the assistance of the Opposition in the House of Commons, Sir Robert Peel carried the repeal of the Cornlaws. And Mr. Disraeli, after taunting him with having accepted the help 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 pass away, and the Ministerial benches would know him no more. But was Sir Robert Peel daunted or deterred ? No ; he knew that what did happen might happen. He was driven from office. Posterity has now passed no mincing verdict on these proceedings ; and on whom does that verdict reflect credit or discredit ? Is it not now admitted that amongst the greatest achievements of a great career stands prominent the act of Sir Robert Peel in untaxing the food of the people of Great Britain ? The desertion of the Tory party because of that action led 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 events and those that have been recently passing here ; but the case of Sir Robert Peel and the Corn-laws is apposite, and it does completely answer those who have argued thatw r e as a Government, have acted unconstitutionally. It has been asserted that this Bill as law will mean the establishment of Canterbury-Otago rule in New Zealand, and that public ■works expenditure has settled in those two districts the large population now there. But how are Jthe people in those districts employed ? Not by means of public works expenditure. The great natural resources of those portions of the Colony afford the means of livelihood to those settled there. In the Nelson Provincial Dis-

trict, however, the conditions are such that even a considerably increased v public works expenditure would not have made it the permanent home of a much larger population than it now has. The hon. member for the Thames (Sir George Grey) contends that the principle of single electorates will give an enormous advantage to property. I have not treated this principle as an essential of the Bill ; and when moving the second reading, I endeavored to state fairly the possible arguments for and against it. I admitted that it might, to some extent, increase plural voting ; but I think I showed that it would not increase the power of wealth. I contend that, by dividing the Large cities into three or four moderate sized constituencies, those candidates who are not in any sense men of

wealth or leisure will be advantaged ; because to contest such constituencies will not require such an expenditure of time and money as must otherwise be needed, and which only men possessing wealth and having leisure can give to the task. The. area of selection for the electors will thus be increased, and members and electors will in every way be brought closer together... This will help to perpetuate what I regard as having been one of the most satisfactory feature in New Zealand politics—that members have been chosen, not so much on account of any political cry they may adopted, as because of their own personal qualifications and characters. There is another advantage which may not commend itself to the senior member for the Thames. With the large city constituencies divided into single, electorates, it will be difficult for a clever; fluent, unscru-

pulous deifiagogue td drag in at his tail other candidates of his choice, whose only recommendation is that they will blindly 'obey his behests. I believe that when the people come to dismiss this portion the representation question they will acknowledge that iu dividing some of the existing large electorates the Government have done an essentially popular and (in the best sense) democratic thing. It has several times been alleged that the passing of this Bill will mean Separation, and will lead >to the removal of the seat of Governirterit from Wellington. I assert deliberately that, in my belief, it will not do, or lead to, either of those things. But if the frequent ■demand for justice by those parts of the Colony which have so long gone without a fair share of ■ representation had been again refused, I think that the people there would not have-been content to remain under a system of Government which could so refuse them the justice for which they patiently waited. Therefore, I believe that this Bill will avert rather than invite Separation, or the removal of the seat of Government. A clause which has been added to the Bill by the hon. member for Auckland City West (Mr. Hurst) will compel a review of the whole question in 1887 at the latest. There is, I am certain, a great future before the North Island; and if, in 1887, this Island has become entitled to a much larger proportionate share of representation, and 1 am then in the House, my best endeavors shall be given to secure for the North all that it is entitled to. Meanwhile, may I suggest to the electors in some parts of this Island that any reduction in their representation which this Bill will effect will never be felt if only they will prevail on the best men amongst them to become candidates, and will vote always for men of known character, ability, and public services, rather than for those who seek favor by undertaking to blindly . follow any fluent, unscrupulous leader *who may delude the people with false promises.