The Temuka Leader TUESDAY, JULY 2, 1889. THE QUOTA.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1911, 2 July 1889, Page 2

The Temuka Leader TUESDAY, JULY 2, 1889. THE QUOTA.

The great question which is agitating the minds of our representatives in Parliament at present is what they call the quota. At present country constituencies receive an advantage of 18 per cent, over town constituencies —that is, 100 country electors get as much representation in Parliament as 118 electors in the towns. Even that does not satisfy the country members ; they want to increase this advantage to 33| per cent., so that one ©lector in the country shall get as much representation as one elector and onethird of an elector in the town. If this proposal become law, six country electors will be equal to nine town electors, and the result will be, of course, that the country districts will get one-third more members in proportion to population than town constituencies. On what grounds country members base such a monstrous claim as this it is difficult to say. Already they have a majority in the House, and surely that is enough for them. The only explanation of this outrageous proposal which presents itself to us is that Parliament has reduced the number of members by nearly one-third, and that the country members, feeling now that they have made a tremendous mistake, want to throw all the disadvantage on the towns. It is only a part of the many tricks which are being resorted to now in order to crush the democracy of this colony effectually under foot. Eirst there was the reduction of the honorarium from £2lO to £l5O, so as to render it impossible for poor men to go into Parliament, The £l5O will be sufficient pocket-money for wealthy men while looking after their own interests in Parliament, hut no one who has to work for his living can afford to give his time and attention to the work for £l5O, and few worth their salt will care to try it. Even when the honorarium was £2lO a merchant of any standing was seldom, or never, known to seek election or get into Parliament. As ■

Sir Robert Stout once said, they have bettor sense. The result is that many very inferior men get in, who when a financial discussion is going on, sit there like dumb animals, and know just as much as their own oxen would. If we paid our members £3OO a year, as Victoria and South Australia do, we should get better men to represent us, and it would pay in the long run. Next, the number of members has been reduced from 96 to 74, and this again is destructive of the prospects of Liberalism. Owing to this reduction the constituencies will henceforth be so large that wealthy men alone will be able to contest an election. This is bad enough, but if one-third of the town electors are now to be practically disfranchised matters will be rendered as bad as they could be. Town constituencies can invariably be depended on to return Liberals, but now, when they are to be placed at such a disadvantage as the quota question involves, where are the Liberals to come from? Erom nowhere, and the result will be that we shall be placed under the iron heel of the most oppressive Conservatism this Colony has ever experienced. The whole drift of legislation since the election of the present Parliament has tended in one direction. The ruling idea is that in giving votes to working men a mistake was made, and that now the error must be counterbalanced by legislation which will have a nullifying effect. A further instance of this will be found in the fact that it is now proposed to make everyone pay one shilling henceforth for the privilege of being allowed to vote. The proper course for Liberals to take is to resist all these measures, whether they represent town or country, and if they resort to “stonewalling ” they will be fully justified in doing so. Bad as the proposed Hare system is, it would be preferable to enlarged constituencies with a quota of 33i per cent. The Hare system would result in political organisations being formed, town and country would be mixed up together, and the towns would thus obtain a controlling influence in the rural districts. Anything would be better than a quota of 33i with enlarged cbnstituancies. The quota is a most astonishing proposal. It has no sound principle for its basis. If we are to submit to the rule of the majority, it is absolutely antagonistic to every democratic idea. V7hy should not a majority in towns have as good a right to government as a majority in the country. Can any legitimate reason bo given for the change ? Certainly not, and the conclusion we have arrived at is that the large landowners having driven the poor into the towns they want now to disfranchise them.