THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS FRIDAY, MARCH 20, 1931. EDUCATION AND POLITICS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20827, 20 March 1931, Page 10

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS FRIDAY, MARCH 20, 1931. EDUCATION AND POLITICS.

After Easter, according to Mr. Mac Donald's latest statement, the British Government will proceed with the Representation of the People Bill, on a clause of which it suffered defeat early in the week. He has intimated also that at the report stage ho will seek to restore that clause, by which university representation in the Commons was to be abolished. A significant feature of the reverse was the number of Labour members who absented when the vote was taken, and theife is reason to believe that an effort to restore the clause may not find the Government in any stronger position. The provision, of course, accords with the desire of the Government to do away with all forms of plural voting. As the Home Secretary has put tho position, 120,000 university electors send twelve members to the House of Commons in addition to voting in their own residential areas. This is an aspect of the question bound to be emphasised by those swayed by purely theoretical considerations and inclined to praise the measure, in terms used by the Manchester Guardian, as taking a "general direction from Eatanswill to pure democracy." But there are other considerations, of a very practical nature, as this pronouncedly Liberal organ is fain to acknowledge, and they lead to the conclusion that democracy of any degree of purity is not likely to be served by abolishing university representation. It is evident that the Government cannot count on tho whole-hearted support of its own party for the change. Among the Liberals are some, including Sir John Simon, implacably opposed to it. The reasons advanced for refusal of support are strengthened by the fact that the university representatives in the present House include two outside the Conservative ranks, and these reasons indicate that, whatever may at one time have, been the case, such representatives cannot be expected to come from any one, privileged class.

It is quite fallacious to suppose that Parliamentary representation of universities is to-day what it was when in 1603 the right of each returning two burgesses was granted to Oxford and Cambridge. By the Reform Act of 1867 one member was given to London University, one to Glasgow and Aberdeen, and one to Edinburgh and St. Andrews. When the whole question of the franchise was reviewed in 1918, such representation was extended to the "combined English universities," to the University of Wales, and to Queen's at Belfast, while the Scottish university groups were each granted an additional member. At the same time a franchise reform was made that very largely increased the number of voters. What has resulted is seven university, constituencies returning, in all, twelve members; this result followed very searching inquiry, and nothing has happened since to make the reasoned finding of that inquiry less convincing. Experience proves that a very useful tvpo of member has been brought into the councils of the nation, that these representatives have by no means been confined to one party, and that their constituents have always welcomed in them a manifestation of independence of opinion. For these constituents, the graduates on the rolls of the universities, it is to be said that they would be unable to focus their opinions under the electoral system as it ordinarily works; in their pursuit of learned professions they are scattered throughout the country, whereas many thousands; who follow other occupations are massed in particular localities and consequently able to dominatei elections. To abolish the university constituencies would be to deprive the State of the wholesome impact of educated opinions on public problems making an increasing demand for the application of enlightened and expert thought. The' higher education gained at these centres of learning is not now the exclusive enjoyment of the propertied class. More than 45 per. cent of Oxford undergraduates are in receipt of financial assistance without which they could not bo there. It is estimated that. two-thirds of the students in the modern English universities combined in one electoral group havo been through public elementary schools, and the proportion is probably much larger in London University, the University of Wales and the Scottish univer-' sities. This democratisation of centres of learning is characteristic of the age, and it suggests that the electoral rolls of these constituencies, while comprising a strong body of intelligent voters, will growingly include men and women experienced in the lessons taught by life's hard school.

From Birmingham, whore one of the modern universities is located, came lately a strong protest agaiprt the Government's proposal. It declared that, since a university education is no longer the prerogative of any class or creed or sex, there was nothing inconsistent with democratic institutions in the provision of a special means for reflecting in Parliament the opinions and point of view of those who have successfully passed through jj. course of higher education. That well gives the answer to the claim that the alleged reform is in the direction of "pure democracy." To the British press has been sent a very impressive statement of protest signed by

eminent graduates, men and women ; amid the multitude of signatories are Rutherford of Nelson, Sir Oliver Lodge, Sir Joseph Thomson, Sir James Barrie, Sir John Simon, Mr. Augustino Birrell, Mr. J. M. Keynes, and Mr. Albert Mansbridge, president of the World Association for Adult Education —a selection indicative of the high standing and manifold interests of those seeing nothing but evil in the Government's proposal. From the Manchester Guardian, despite its antipathy to political Conservatism; has come the acknowledgment that "the most ardent lover of democracy must admit that in the rough-and-tumble of an average election intelligence plays little, part; and it is not inconceivable that a little group of university representatives in Parliament, elected quietly, with a capacity, as it were, for adding dull but useful footnotes to the gay rhetoric of their more obviously gifted colleagues, would have its place." It would seem safer, even more progressive, indeed, to give university representation a larger place than to wipe it out altogether.-