The Press FRIDAY, DECEMBER 17,1920

Press, Volume LVI, Issue 17020, 17 December 1920, Page 6

The Press FRIDAY, DECEMBER 17,1920

Proportional Representation. Tiio other day one of the Liberal newspapers, recommending Proportional Representation as a euro for everything, declared that if P.lt. had been in force in Britain Ireland would have secured Home Rule, and that if it had been ifi force in Germany the Kaiser Vvould not have declared war. This contention was, on the face of it, rather absurd, but as it was susceptible of disproof by facts, wo supplied the facts. We now hear, regarding Ireland, that the Liberal paper pierely reiterates its opinion, and regarding Germany, that the case is proved by the fact that P.R. has created an anti-war Reichstag. It seems to us, however, that' tlio lesson was taught by the Allied armies, and that after that lesson thero is no method of •lection within the compass of human invention that would not have created n Reichstag very definitely opposed to war. If the Reichstag had been chosen by tho process of picking names at random out of tho Berlin street directory, it would liavo been just as disinclined for war as it is. - The Auckland "Star", is also criticising our observations upon this system of election, with particular reference to our "Tory "mind," based upon its discovery that if we had been in existence at tho time we should probably have opposed tho Reform Bill of 1832, and no doubt, also, Magna Carta. Our contemporary says that, "The Press" is "stupid" and "impudent." There is nothing to resent in this, but it is nevertheless a pity that tho Liberals cannot differ from one without all this violenco. We mentioned, it will he remembered, that if P.R. had produced last December tho result calculated by Mr John Humphreys in the letter that was tho occasion of our article, a minority Labour P«*ty would :have'dominated" tho situation. Tho Auckland paper, which, it is .interesting to note, docs not share our view that this would havo been deplorable.. imagines that our objection to P.R must bo hostility to the representation of Labour. But wo cited this case as only a local illustration, of the crucial objoction to P.R* —namely, the certainty that if this system of election really gives-that representation \to all parties which it professes to give, minorities would always bo in a position to hold tho balance of power and dictate terms. If Proportional Representation does result in a large nftmber of parties securing direct representation in Parliament, a stable Government can bo secured only by a network of bargains and intrigues, sacrifices of principles, .and betrayals of trust. If, on the other hand, P.R. does not lead to any multiplication of parties—and 3ome of its advocates declare that it w ill not —then it fails to do what' it professes to do, and the plea that it is iioccssary is seen to be based upon a i'also assumption. Everyono who has studied tho writings of the chief advocates of P.R. is awaro of tho curious change of manner in these advocates when they come to deal with this crucial difficulty and its ancillary problems. Their dogmatism ends, and their inconsistencies and evasions are masked by such turnrf of speech as: that "it -• ma y require a little exercise of politi- *'• cal imagination to. realise how tho '' transformed House of Commons would workor that "changes will doubtless take place in the method of " carrying on the King's Government," "but that these "will take place gradu- •< n l!y, and will be evolved out of present conditions;" or that "it is per"haps unwise to map out in any detail " the probable courso of events." What „ this tut to. say, when cru ™' iifflralty comes to bo dodt mth, «... tho experiment is TOth And

wo are of those who hold that it is not. In its indignation with our "impu- " dence'' and "stupidity," tho Auckland "Star" allows itself to give encouragement to the idea that organised labour may legitimately resort to direct action if it does not obtain as many seats in the llouVo as its leaders desire. That, at least, appears to he a fair interpretation of the following pas-1 sage in its article : — | "Supposing tho 'Press' says to La•bour, 'Yon must respect tho will of Parliament,' and Labour replies. 'Yes. that's all very well, but in Parliament y<;ur party lias a representation far screater than ours in proportion to rote? cast' —what is the" answer of the 'Press'?" J Our answer, of course, would bo that j unconstitutional methods must in any ease be avoided. But tho Auckland | paper implies that no answer could bo ; made —that if organised Labour set up a "Council of Action" to-morrow we should all have to submit in silence. This is bad doctrine, and no recommendation of any new voting system.