TOWN EDITION. Evening Post TUESDAY, AUGUST 16, 1881.

Evening Post, Volume XXII, Issue 40, 16 August 1881, Page 2

TOWN EDITION. Evening Post TUESDAY, AUGUST 16, 1881.

THE EEPEESENTATION QUESTION. ♦ Very dreary indeed was the debate last night on the Kepresentation Bill. Nay, it was more than dreary, it was absolutely doleful. Nor is this surprising. The burden of many of the speeches was a piteous wail over the threatened loss of electoral privileges hitherto enjoyed. Nelson and Westland at the present time to a large extent hold in their hands the balance of power in tho Legislature. It would bo almost impossible to devise a division of parties which should not necessarily leave the ultimate decision practically in the hands of the Nelson and Westland members. They have learned to appreciate and value this power, which has enabled them to obtain a good deal of public expenditure, which certainly they would Dot have enjoyed on the merits of tho case. Not unnaturally they view with horror and dismay the approaching loss of so large a proportion of their influence in Parliament. For it is not only that they aro to lose four of their twelve representatives, but these are to be handed over to other places, and seven new members given aa well. That is to say, eleven new seats are to be distributed among Otago, Canterbury, Wellington, and Auckland, while Nelson and Westland are to lose four seats. It is obviously a very different and inferior thing to have only eight members in a House of 95, from having twelve in a House of 88 members. We freely admit that the proposed change is gravely disadvantageous to the localities about to be sj seriously docked of their electoral honours, and yet it is not easy to see what else can be done if population is to bo the oasis of representation — which is the foundation of all Liberal principles. For it means in other words that the people ara to govern themselves, the majority ruling. It is only possible to reject the population basis by deliberately ignoring that principle, and, indeed, going in flat opposition to Liberalism generally. It may be that, like almost all other political principles, this one is only partially sound and that, under the guise of libeity, there may be established a very oppressive tyranny. The case aa it affects .Nelson and Westland is forcibly, if somewhat speciously, put by the Nelson Mail. Our contemporary says: — ''By neglecting our interests and turning a deaf ear to our appeals to be included in the great public works scheme which was to unite the chief centroa of population in the island, and to open up country that is at present unavailable owing to the difficulty of access to most parts of it, the colony as a whole has treated thia particular portion of it with eingnlar unfairness. We are called upon to pay onr full share towards the interest on the loan by which not only have we not benefitted, but have positively been injured, owing to other portions of the colony being, by the expenditure of public funds, rendored far more attractive, thns causing our population to remain stationary, while that in other districts has been pushed ahead with our money. And now, having been placed in this unfortunate positioD, we aro to be punished for that which we could not avoid, but which was forced upon us by superior numbers, by having our influence still further decreased, reduced in fact to such a degrea that we shall be utterly powerless in Parliament." Tho fallacy of this argument lies in the inaccuracy of its premises, which assume that the inferior position held by Nelson is due to tho withholding of her share of the public expenditure, — a palpably insupportable assumption. But w; iving the premises there is something in the argument, and it touches Wellington and Auckland as well. It is true that each of these Provinces iB to have an extra member. But Otago and Canterbury are to have ten additional representatives, which will give them 45 votes in the new Parliament. Those Provinces, therefore, with the assistance of Marlborough, which would be a tolerably safe ally, would hold an absolute majority in Parliament, and so would be supreme in power. Can that overwhelming power be safely trusted to them in the interests of the colony as a whole? That it does involve some danger to tho interests of the North Island is unquestionable, and we observe with regret that this has already been made the text for raising anew the old pernicious cry of "Separation." This cannot be too strenuously ideprecated. Still it is idle to deny that the immense political preponderance which the South now claims by virtue of ite iiumerical superiority in population would, if conceded, be fraught with material risk to the welfare of the North. The forcible remarks of the Nelson Mail just quoted scarcely apply to NelEon, but they do apply very pointedly indeed to the case of Wellington. Canterbury and Otago already have their 800 miles of working railways, and a compiete trunk lino and hosts of branches. Wellington haa but osf miles of main line and a 3-mile branch, but is to have no more. If the people want their trunk lines made, they are to do it themselves. Such has been the position hitherto. What will it be when Canterbury and Otago possess absolute power P And yet how, consistent y with Liberal principle, can they be denied this power when they demand it on the score of their numerical superiority in regard to the sole basis of power recognised by Liberalism—the people ? Verily, the problem is a complex one, and there is no promise of its solution in the present debate so far as it has gone.