THE REPRESENTATION BILL ANOTHER MANIFESTO. THE CITY PARTY IN REPLY. (BY TELEGRAPH—SPECIAL REPORTER.)

Te Aroha News, Volume VII, Issue 391, 7 August 1889, Page 4

THE REPRESENTATION BILL ANOTHER MANIFESTO. THE CITY PARTY IN REPLY. (BY TELEGRAPH — SPECIAL REPORTER. )

Wellington, July 31, The following manifesto has been issued by the city party in answer to the statement of the country members, issued last night : — The provisions of the proposed Representation Bill are inequitable, and at variance with the modern principles of government of young and democratic countries, for the following reasons :— 1. During a period of over forty years there has been a gradual extension of the franchise tending towards an equality of rights in this colony. The Legislature in 1879 granted manhood suffrage, and thus recognised for the first time in the colony the principle of equality in electoral rights and privileges amongst all men of the age of 21 years and upwards. 2. The Constitution Act was passed by the Imperial Parliament at a time when the franchise was limited to those possessing special qualification. The Act itself required proper qualification, but the Colonial Legislature lias long since declared this neither desirable nor necessary. One leading principle of the Constitution Act was perfect equality amongst all electors, irrespective of their places of residence, whether in town or countiy. This principle the Representation Bill violates and sets at defiance. The Legislature has long recognised population, and not merely electors as in the Constitution Act, as the true basis of representation. 5. The Bill is inequitable and illogical, inasmuch as it arbitrarily selects and partially disfranchises four centres of population, whilst it gives other centres of population, such as Napier, Nelson, Invercargill, and other towns as full electoral rights as are granted to purely rural electoral districts. The effect of giving such large towns equal electoral rights with the country districts will neutralise the supposed benefits to be granted to the latter. Is it just to deduct 25 per cent, from these four centres, this being equal to an addition of 33^, whilst all other parts of the colony, whether town or country, are granted full and equal electoral privileges ? 4. The Bill is not only at variance with the principles of the Constitution Act, but also with all past legislation in this colony on the subject. 5. Tue subject of representation having been dealt with so recently as 1887, ought not to be agitated or disturbed. The concession of 18 per cent,, nominal, given by this Act was arrived at after lengthened debate and full discussion. 6. That the Act of ISB7, whilst it gave a nominal addition of 18 per cent, to special districts, such as road districts, and also boroughs not having more than 200 inhabitants, placed all other portions of the colony on a footing of absolute equality. 7. That although the question of the representation of people has been dealt with bv legislation in this colony in 1858, 1860, 1862, 1865, 1867, 1870, 1875, and 1881, there has been no legislative recognition of the principle of inequality between and country electors. 8. That the interests of the inhabitants of the town and country districts are substantially similar, and the provisions of the Bill will create unnecessary inequality, friction, and irritation. 9. That under the existing system of representation country districts have a large preponderating influence in the House. Under the law as it stands at present, with only a fixed quota of 18 per cent, in their favour, they are now numerically ho strong as to be in a position to dictate not only to the Government, but to the House itself, on the question. 10. That the representatives of the country districts are at present so numerous as to enable them to act oppressively towards the representatives of the towns, and the threats and conduct of the country members in reference to the present Bill show clearly how they would exercise any furthre power which they might get. 11. The country party has resorted to the device of indicating Sir George Grey as the leader of the town party, with the obvious purpose of casting on the latter the responsibility of the motion of which he has given notice, having for one of its objects a return to the existing number of members. 12. The town party is not responsible for such motion, and in no way commits itself in reference thereto. It is well known, however, that whilst the dominating: opinion among the country members is to adhere to the greater number of members, the contrary is the case in regard to the town members. 13. The town party is in no way responsible for the Bill introduced by Sir G. Grey in 1879, but it must be apparent that the Bill was practically on the lines of the Act of 1887, with the exception that the latter Act fixed the quota at 18 per cent, instead of 25, and that the demand of the country party is now equal to an advantage of 33 per cent, on the same basis. 14. That the Act of 1881 did not expressly recognise any difference between the rights of the town and country. The members allotted to the electoral districts in the schedule were not arrived at in accordance with any existing law. 15. If it is the case, as the country party allege, that plural voting acts prejudicially to the country districts, the obvious remedy would be that they should propose to do away with it. In this they would have the assistance of the town members, as they well know, but they refuse to accept a remedy so obvious and so certain. 16. The true democratic principle which Parliament should aim at giving effect to is that all electors, whether town or country, should have equal rights, and thnt> an elector's vote should have an equal right, irrespective of the place where it is given.