ELECTORAL REFORM.

Press, Volume XLVI, Issue 7259, 15 March 1889, Page 5

ELECTORAL REFORM.

INTENTIONS OF GOVERNMENT. [By Telegraph.] [VROM OTTB COBRBSPONOBNT.J WELLINGTON, March 14. A good many conjectures have been set about lately as to the intention of Government respecting the numerical strength of the House of Representatives, which was reduced by Parliament in 1887 from 95 to 74, including Maoris. It has been freely stated that a reaotion of feeling has set in respecting the policy of the reduction, and that many members who voted for the reduction in accordance with pledges to their constituents would now give their voteß to the other side if they had the opportunity. It has been farther asserted that Government recognised this alleged change in public opinion, and were prepared to facilitate effect being given to it by restoring the number of members to ninety-five. Enquiries have also been made as to the intention of Government respecting electoral reform, whether they intend the revival of the Bill of last session and press it through, or drop the Hare system, or simply leave the matter to the House. I atn in a position now to indicate what course will probably be taken in regard to these matters. On the first point, that of the number of members, there is no doubt or uncertainty whatever. The Government are fixedly determined to maintain at all hazards the position as it was left by Parliament under the Electoral Amendment Act of 1887. They do not believe that there has been any genuine or widespread reaction in public or Parliamentary opinion on the subject. One or two individual members who originally voted for a reduction in members may have changed their views, but it is understood that at least as many who voted against a reduction have now become converted in its favor, bo that at the worst the strength of the reduction party is not weakened, while in many cases a majority on the side of reduction is confidently counted upon, and Ministers will refuse to budge an inch on this question, but will make it a Ministerial issue, and if by any unforeseen chance they should be, defeated on the point, they would moat likely claim an appeal to the country; a vital feature in their retrenchment policy, so decisively approved by the country in the last general election, being at stake. Such a contingency, however, is not apprehended. The House is expected to support Ministers in this issue, at any rate. Oat of this matter is another question of some interest—What will happen if Government were beaten and obtained a dissolution, seeing that the House last session refused to appoint an Electoral Commissioner for the revision of the electoral boundaries as necessarily modified by the diminution in the number of seats to be filled ? An idea prevails in some quarters that if the House still persisted in refusing to fill up the vacancy on the Board of Commissioners, the provision *in the Act of 1887 reducing the number of members oould not be carried out, and*so the new House would have to consist of ninety-four mem bers as heretofore. This is an entire misconception. The Government have full power to appoint a Commissioner (that is, if it is necessary, to advise the Governor to make the appointment if Parliament is in recess). It is only when Parliament i 3 in session that the House is to appoint Commissioners. Hence the ouse s refusal to make the appointment last year places no difficulty whatever in the way of giving effect to a reduction in the number of members, which will go on just the same as if everything had been done last session. It may be accepted as a fixed fact that the new House will consist of only seventy European members. Ministers are in a position to carry out this important feature of their policy, and will certainly do so. As to the question of electoral reform, it is understood that the matter has not bean finally settled in Cabinet, but I have reason to believe that alternative plans will be laid before the House setting forth clearly the procedure and merits of the proportional representation (or Hare's) system on the one hand,- and of tbe existing system (as proposed to be adopted in default of the Hare plan being adopted) on the other. Probably a series of resolutions may then be submitted, and the sense of the House taken on them, so that a vote could be given on the merits of the case for whichever system the House preferred. The question would not be treated as a party one, but the Government while intimating their preference for the proportional plan, would probably leave the House to decide which should be adopted. The whole discussion on tho principle of the measures would be taken on the preliminary resolutions, and much, time would then be saved when the Bill itself came down. It would be easy to have draft Bills prepared, embodying the needful provisions for carrying ont either plan, so that directly the House had expressed its pleasure the Bill which provides for the chosen system oould be introduced and pushed through. I anticipate that some such course as this will be taken. Should the Electoral Bill nevertheless be ultimately thrown out it would not make any difference.in carrying out the reduction in members, but in that ease the existing system of registration and election would have to bo perpetuated for another term.