THE REPRESENTATION BILL.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1924, 3 August 1889, Page 3

THE REPRESENTATION BILL.

'The city party have issued a manifesto' in answer to the country members, The provisions of the proposed Representation Bill are inequitable and at variance with the modern principles of the government of‘young and democratic countries for the folio wing reasons, (1) During a period of over 50 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 qualifications, but the Colonial Legislature has long since declared this neither, desirable nor necessary. One leading principle of the Constitution Act was , perfect* equality amongst all electors, i irrespective of their place of residence, W whether in town or country. This prince the Representation Bill violates and sets at defiance. The Legislature baa long recognised population, and not merely electors as in the Constitution Act, 03 the true basis d£ representation.

| (3) The Bill is inequitable and illogical, inasmuch as it arbitrarily selects and partially disfranchises the four centres of population, whilst it gives to other centres of populition—such as Napier, Nelson, Invercargill, and other towns—as full i electoral.rights as those granted to purely country 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 districts. I (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) The subject of representation having been dealt with so recently as 1887 ought not to be agitated or disturbed. ■ (6) That the Act of 1387, whilst it gave a nominal abolition of- 18 per cent, to special districts, such as road districts and f.lso boroughs not having more than 2000 nhabitants, placed all other portions of the colony on a footing of absolute equality. i (7) That although the question of the representation of the people hus been dealt with by legislation in this colony in 1858,. 1860-62-65-67, 1870-75, and 1881, there has been no legislative recognition of the principle of inequality between city and country electors. (8) That the interests of the inhabitants pf town and country districts are substantially similar. I (0) That under the existing system of representation, the conntry districts have ;a large a preponderating influence in (the House. Under the law as it at present stands with only a fixed quantity (of 18 per cent in their favor, they are now numsrically so strong as to be in a position to dictate not only to the Government, but to the House itself on the question cow under discussion. ! (10) That the representatives of the Icountry districts are atpresentso numerous las to enable them to act opreseively ‘towards the''representatives frond tbe town. ’■ (11) The country parly 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 a motion of which he has given notice, having for one of its ’objects a return to the existing number of members, i (’2) The town parly is not reponsiblo for such motion, and in no way commits itself in reference thereto. (13) The town party are in no way responsible for ihe Bill introduced by Sir George 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 1$ per cent instead of 25 per ’cent, and that the demand of the country party is now equal to an advantage of 33 per cant on the same basis. The following clauses are to be added : ■ That the Act of 1881 did not expressly recognise any difference between the rights of town and country, and the members allotted to tbe electoral districts in the schedule were not arrived at in accordance* wbh any then existing law. tf it is the case, as the country party allege, that plural vote acts prejudicially to ihe country districts, the obvious remedy would be that they should 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 and true. The democratic principle which iParliantient should aim at giving effect to is that ! all electors, whether town or ’country, should have an equal right, irrespective of the place where it is given.