REPRESENTATION BILL.

Te Aroha News, Volume VII, Issue 387, 24 July 1889, Page 5

REPRESENTATION BILL.

This measure comes in for condemnation little short oi denunciation from the " Post." That paper says that Ministers are floundering terribly with their representation proposals. Since they abaudoned the proportionate system they seem to havo no settled policy, and bo be guided by no fixed or certain principle. The Bill they have substituted for their oiiginal measure is a wretched abortion, it is a crudo, ill-conceived attempt to sntisfy the country members by sacrificing the city constituencies. So ill-consideied is the proposal, so little consideration have Ministers given to the subject, that the Colonial Secretary in proposing the second reading showed himselt entirely ignorant of the extent of the conccs&ion to the country districts which is embodied in the Bill. Alter going over the previsions ot the measure it goes on :—": — " Such towns as Napier, Nelson, Wanganui, Invercargill and Timaru are to have proportionately one-third more representation than Wellington, Auckland, Christchurch, or Dunedin. We are utterly at a loss to understand on what grounds such a proposal can possibly be defended. It is a most unjust one, and utterly inconsistent with the true principles of representation. In fact, the whole Bill is an exceedingly bad one, and even the proposed amalgamation of the city electorates in the mannei suggested cannot be regarded as a redeeming feature." This amalgamation ot city electorates the " fost" advocates in strong terms, and seems to think will be generally acceptable. It concludes by saying—"lf members could voto by ballot and wero to give honest expression to their opinions, we are quite sine as to the way in which the whole difliculby would be settled. The Act of last session reducing the number of members would be repealed without more ado, and the Ifouse would be lett as it is, with the single exception of the city electorates. This would be the most satisfactory solution of the whole question, but members are afraid of their constituents. We think this fear is quite unreasonable, for we are convinced that the mind of the intelligent public is generally opposed to the reduction of the number of members. Thosemembers whoduringthe recesshave openly avowed theirchangeof view upon the question have not in any way iorfeitcd the^onfidence of thoirconstituents, and we do not think that any member need fear evil consequences to himself from following the good example set by Dr. Fitchelt, i\Jr Loughrey and others."