The Temuka Leader THURSDAY, AUGUST 12, 1886. REPRESENTATION.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1544, 12 August 1886, Page 2

The Temuka Leader THURSDAY, AUGUST 12, 1886. REPRESENTATION.

The dullest session that has ever been held in New Zealand is drawing to a close, and in its dying moments it has undertaken to legislate upon a rery important question—namely, the representation of the people in the General Assembly. The present Representation Act will expire next year, and consequently the necessity for replacing it by something else has arisen, and, with this object in view, a Bill dealing with the subject has been introduced by Sir Robert Stout. This Bill proposes to create a permanent commission, which shall be entrusted with the readjustment of the representation of the people in the House of Representatives. This commission will consist of the Controller-General and the SurveyorGeneral, and three other members, who will be nominated by the Governor, bm no member of Parliament will be eligible. These five commissioners will,, after having been, duly appointed, divide) the population of the colony ' by' .the number of members, and the quotient shall be the proportion of representation. For instance, let us suppose that the population is 500,000 and the number of members 80, a division such as wo have indicated would leave a quotient of 6260, and that would be the population each electoral district would have. The commission would next divide the colony into 80 districts, each having population of 6250 persons, exclusive of Maoris. There is one important matter still left blank in the Bill—but doubtless'it will ha decided in Committee—that is, the number of members that shall constitute the House Representatives. At present the Hortse consists of 91 European and four Maori members, but there is a growing feeling in favor of reducing them. The Bill, however, leaves the space where .the number of representatives should appear blank, and it will depend on the whims and • fancies of the House to fill it. Some appear to think the number ought to be increased, while others are in favor of reducing it. As regards this point,, .it appears that there is a great deal to be said on both sides, but tha,t the weight of argument is against reduction. To lessen the number of members would be preferable to reducing the honorarium, if economy is the object in view, but the paltry sum that would be saved in this way is hot worth talking about. ;Jt would be like a drop of water in' the* ocean - , we should never feel the effect* of it one way or the other. To reduce or do away with the honorarium would mean that no poor man cpnld ever get into Parliament, because ho not afford it t and the moulding of our laws would tben;bp in the bands of the monopolists, landsharks, and If, therefore, we desire to see reforms carried on in this colony we most continue to pay our members; and it it#, too, a moot question as to whether there would be any advantage gained in reducing their number. At present there can be no doubt but that the majority of members incline to the side of monopolists and money-rings, and, if we reduced the number of members, we would lessen our chances of carrying because then the monopolists would be in such a majority that they would rule perpetually. There is a greater chance of getting fair play from • Urge than a small number of men, and, if the number of members were at all decreased, we are inclined to believe that the.very men who are so earnest in effecting reforms would stand little chance of getting elected, Besides, let it not be forgotten that to reduce the number of members is a backward step, and to that we "strongly object. We do not like to see the House of Representatives coming down from the dignity of a Parliament to the level of a Parish Vestry, while the Legislative Council remains untouched, Very little would be gained by it i* a pecuniary sense, and it would run the country into the risk of being governed by monopolists.

There is • clause in the Bill which provides for one-member constituencies, as at present, and to that we object very strongly. We are of opinion that it is to this we owe the greater part of the unfortunate condition to which the colony has been reduced; This system has resulted in returning to Parliament local men, whose sole ambition'is To I 'get something done for their district. They have not hesitated to sell their votes, regardless of consequences,.: so long as they got money to build a railway, a bridge, a culvert, or a sludge channel in their own districts. It was not their own fault so much as the fault of their constituents. Heretofore the custom has been to fsk “ What has he got for this district ?” instead of f How has our member voted on the great questions affecting the colony at large ?” The members knew this ; they knew that if they were to be re-elected they must get something for their district, and, so as to secure it, they have often voted against fheir own better judgment and conscience. Large electorates would do away with this. They would make members more independent, and tinpot” politics would give way to a sound colonial policy. The neyr Representation Bill, however, makes no provision for altering the existing state of things, and In that respect it is at fault. For our own part, what we wonld like to see is South Canterbury one constituency, returning the same number of members that it does at present; Middle Canterbury another constituency, North Canterbury another, and 10 on with the <

rest of the colony. If ibis system were Adopted, we should have sound politics, hot while wo hava only one-member constituencies corruption must leaven the actions of our representatives in Parliament.