ELECTORAL REFORM

Hokitika Guardian, 2 May 1931, Page 6

ELECTORAL REFORM

BRITISH GOVERNMENT DEFEAT. REPRESENTATION OF UNIVERSITIES. LONDON, April 20. By 246 votes to 242 the House of Commons refused to accept clause 4 of the Electoral Reform Bill, abolishing University representation. An impressive speech against the proposal was made bv Lord Hugh Cecil, and this was followed late in the debat by an unexpected intervention by Mi Baldwin.

Lord Hugh Cecil examined the nature of Parliamentary representation. The theory on which the Electoral Be. form Bill proposed to abolish "University representation was that the virtu, of democracy was divided into as ma l1 } parts a s the voters had nnseffi am that for one voter to have more than one vote was therefore to destroy the principle of equalitarian democracy. He proceeded to disprove that then was, or could lie, this equality in representation.

Dealing with the question ol how a person desirous of becoming a candidate would set about it, Lord Hugh asked if he would present himsell to the democracy. If he did he would almost be thought a lunatic; it would be so extraordinary. In modern times be might try to get the support ot wealthy and poweriul newspaper proprietors. (Laughter). But jn normal circumstances he would try to get the support of a political Baity, and he would very soon find a body called the Association. That would be a tolerably numerous body, and when lie came to close quarters he would find that the function of the Association was not really more discriminating than the function of the electorate a-t large. Tie would find that the real authority lay in a small executive (mmm'ftt&jo, am) then that two 1)1 three persons of great energy ol charter really controlled tlie whole lot. That was oligarchy and not demo-

cracy. Was it denied that the University electorate were, in ..many respects, leaders in thought, and in capacity for political leadership (Cheers and ironical Ministerial laughter). Were they not the class from .which political leaders in a very large measure eame'r So it was with revolutionaries. No revolution, lie thought, had ever been successful which had not been led by the professional classes. (( heel's and renewed laughter), |1 they had n o University representation, would they not shut out a really influential voice which went to make up that mysterious thing—public opinion? He was sure the House of (’ominous, representing the professional classes, was much more truly -the mirror of U,e Commons of the realm than il there were no such representation.

SOCIALIST’S APPEAL. Major Church. Socialist member for • Wandsworth, second Lord Hugh Cecil’s negative answer' to the motion. He said this was a time when they needed in authority men of the ripest judgment, prepared to look at world problems ■ as a whole. Those who had the advantage of a University training ought to have soaie qualitative representation iu f tlie House. The literature of the Labour Party had been permeated all through with the idea that it was absolutely neoei-'tary that there should he a broad, high road to tlie University. In none of the l »i----versities would one find a big yiajority of graduates and students who came from the upper classes. 'I heir list of dons and professors showed a goodly proportion of men ol the most humble origin. The signatures ot the manifesto which had been sent to members showed how much the signatories had done for tlu* material comfort of the masses, as well a* for cultural advancement—to which - the average member <>l the House ill Commons had made singularly little contribution.

A TIT VISION. The Home Secretary Air .1. R. Clynes, replying to the debate, said that at one time University representations might have been justified, hut it was a privilege which could no longer In' endured. II particular -terests were to he represented apart from localities, there wan no ease tor singling out Universities. It would he equally fair to give representations to the great professional interests as the law, medicine, or better still to give representation oil the Guild basis, to groups, and to the trade unions. Mr -Greenwood, Minister for Health for the Government, claimed that there was no puss ion to-day* in the University world of younger students for the vote. (Ministerial cheers and Conservative cries of “Nonsense.”) Tlu* real reason why the Conservative Party was so anxious to retain every shred of privilege it could was because it did not trust the people. Tlie House divided, and there voted: — For the clause 242 Against -46

Majority agonist ... 4 Mr Baldwin said; 1 would like to ask the Prime Minister if hr "'ill consider, in conjunction uith his al lie s (the Liberal Party), what course he proposes to take on this Bill alter the decision which has just been taken and the narrow majority in the |»v\imis division. I think the tactics which have been pursued throughout the nroeoedings on this Bill in conjunction with the Party below tie-

gangway are so unpopular-- that-. it. it would he much better to end it. (Conservative. elieC'is). The Prime Minister, who was received with loud Socialist cheers and Conservative cries of “Resign,” said; The right lion, gentleman is periectly right. After the division which ha* just been taken, and particularly rs the time has lapsed for considering the Bill, the matter will he considered. (Laughter). 1 do not say anything more than, that. Mloi c laughter).