Untitled

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXVI, Issue 9435, 5 August 1889, Page 4

Now that the Parliamentary contest about the Representation Bill is over it maybe worth while to recall a few particulars. Ten days ago the stouewallers were in face of a Representation Bill of which the genesis was extraordinary. It had been prepared by the Government at the dictation of a large majority of the House, consisting of country members, goldfields members, and the members for the smaller boroughs and town districts throughout the colony. The avowed object was to cut down the representation of the four central cities —Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch, and Dunedin. They were going to be loaded with a differential allowance of per cent., but were to be at the disposal of Commissioners invested with a discretionary power of adding 750 to each constituency at their pleasure. The use of this discretionary power made the nominal difference of 18 per

cent, at the last' election amount to 35 and 50 per cent, in favour "of many of the country districts. With a difference of 33J percent, the disparity must have been very much greater. So far the case was bad enough. But a worse feature was the conspiracy by which the cities were to dealt with 'as the country members and their allies might think best. That was the gravamen of the whole affair. Without even the pretence of consulting them or letting them know what was to be done, this pre concerted legislation was sprung upon them in the House. The Government thinking themselves secure in the support of the 55 members who nad signed the round robin undertaking to see them through the Bill, took high ground. The remonstrances of the town members were useless. They were themselves laughed at, and told by their fellowmembers that they should be thankful they were not reduced to half as many and Wellington disfranchised altogether. All attempts at debate were met by a solid phalanx whose only cry was "Vote ! vote !!" while the Government declaimed loudly against delaying the business of the country. The town members quickly determined on their course. Their union was perfect and their objects clear. Firstly, they were bent on giving the country time to understand the Bill; secondly, they were bent on proving to the country members and their friends that they were not to-be trampled on with impunity ; thirdly, they had to protest against preconcerted legislation of this character, and to light so far as quota was concerned for terms which they believed fair and reasonable and for the good of the whole country. They have certainly succeeded in all these objects. The country party has been taught to respect the towns, and is not likely to try on a similar policy with them again. As the contest went on several of the members representing other boroughs felt the impropriety of their position and joined the town members in their struggle. The 18 per cent, differential allowance in favour of the country districts is to be increased to 28, but the mode of computation is to be that fixed by the Act of 1887. The invidious isolation of the four cities is not to be maintained. The Act of 1887, which prescribed a general rule for all boroughs exceeding 2000 inhabitants, is to remain the law. Finally the margin allowed to the Commissioners is not to be used to the disadvantage of the towns in favour of the country districts. The Government have been taught a lesson, and we trust the humiliating position in which they have been placed will not be without its effects on them or their successors. They had no right to lend themselves to the schemes of a section of the House against the rest, and have had their reward in a loss of respect from which it will take some time to recover.