The Press. SATURDAY, JULY 6, 1889.

Press, Volume XLVI, Issue 7355, 6 July 1889, Page 4

The Press. SATURDAY, JULY 6, 1889.

It has been stated that under certain circumstances it might be possible that the House this session would reverse the decision arrived at in 1887, fixing the number of members at seventy European and four Maori representatives, and that it is, therefore, inexpedient to do anything which would give an opportunity for such combinations as would bring about this result. We are accustomed, it is true, to some strange and unaccountable proceedings on the part of the Houae of Representatives. It is by no liieans safe, we admit, to count upon members voting and speaking on all occasions in the way they might be expected to do, having in viow their election pledgee. It is difficult, nevertheless, to believe that the House of Representatives would so completely turn its back upon its election pledges as to repeal the clause in the Representation Act of 1887, which reduced the House to seventy-four members, including the Maoris. A reduction in the eke of the House was oue of the prominent questions before the public at the last general election. From one end of the country to the other this reform was demanded in the most unmistakeable language. It formed the subject of innumerable articles in the Press of the colony, and was fully and exhaustively debated oh a hundred platforms. There w not the shadow of a doubt that at least threerfourths of the electors at the last general elections were heartily in favor of a reduction of the House, and as far as we have been able to ascertain, there ia no evidence whatever that the people of the colony have changed their minds regarding the matter. What better evidence can we have of the verdict of the constituencies than the vote which took place on the clause reducing the House when the Representation Bill was under consideration. Notwithstanding the fact that the change proposed undoubtedly gave the Government a considerable hold over members for the remainder of the Parliament, the clause was carried jtby fifty-four votea to twenty, giving a majority in favor of the proposal of thirty-four. Seldom ia the history of our "Parliament has such a ggeat political change been brought abotftiby such overwhelming numbers, proving, be', •ad a doubt, that members, whatever their private views might be, Tβcogniaed that the country had demanded the change, and was determined to have it.

At that time members were fresh from

their conafcitujmoiea.. They had their election pledges fresh in their memories, and they did not venture to at once cast their promises to the winds and repudiate their solemn pledges. If it be ttue that there is tfteelightest danger of the decision of Parliament beiug reversed, it is perfectly evident that a large number of members haVe made up their minds to break the promises they, made and to risk the consequences. The temptation to do so is no doubt considerable. Men who are not troubled with scruples, may think that the risk they run of offending the electors can be set against another consideration, which is even more terrible in their eyes. There are twenty-one members of the House of Representatives who must, under the existing law, disappear from publio life altogether. When the next election takes place, unless the law is altered, only seventy out of the present ninety-one members can, under any circumstances, possibly secure a seat. On the other hand, if the numbers remain the same, they at least have a chance, and they may hope that in some way or other they will be able to explain away their broken pledges. But they have the electors to reckon with, who are thoroughly sick and tired of the nonsense that is talked in the House on the subject. It has been asserted that the change will rob the people of a considerable part of the privileges they now enjoy. That is to say, they will be deprived of the privilege of electing ninety-one European representatives and be called upon to return only seventy. Seeing, however, that it has been the people themselves thac have demanded the change, we fail to see in what respect they are being deprived of auy privilege. It appears to us that no sooner is a general election over than the people's representatives begin to think and act as if they were in some way apart from the people who had chosen them; that they have their own special interests and privileges, which must be jealously guarded against all attack. Even the Triennial Parliaments Act is scarcely sufficient, it would appear, to keep members in touch with the electors whose business they have been appointed to transact. If it was right in December, 1887, that the size of the House should be reduced, what has happened in the interval to do away with that necessity? Nothing whatever, it appears to us, but the comiug into existence of selfish aims on the part of those who were returned pledged to give effect to the expressed wish of the people of New Zealand.

Wβ have said there is no evidence that the electors of the colony generally have in the slightest degree altered their views on the subject under review. We go further, and assert that there is every appearance of the current of popular opinion flowing even stronger than it did at the general election in the same direction. There were certain parts of the colony in which the late Government at that time succeeded in obtaining a i strong footing. In some parts of Canterbury, for example, that Government; secured a majority, and the influence "of that Minietry was given against the reduotion. Even here, however, a remarkable change has come over public opinion. That change was clearly indicated in the Christchurch North election, when a gentlemau new to political life, but expressing opinions on the subject of economy and kindred subjects generally opposed to the policy of the present Opposition, won the seat against a popular candidate representing the other side. And were the House of Representatives to carry a vote in favour of returning to the old state of things, and were an appeal made to the country on the question, we have every confidence that the vote Would be all but universally condemned. Those- who voted for the I reactionary etep woujii, we venture to prediqt, have an. exceedingly unplea sant experience when they uamu before the electors. : :