Untitled

New Zealand Mail, Issue 754, 13 August 1886, Page 22

Tuesday's proceedings in the House of Representatives went to strengthen the suspicion which had been aroused that no means would be left unused to kill the Representation Bill. In the first place its position on the Order Paper was such as to afford the utmost scope to these amiable efforts. It was made the sixth of the Orders of the Hay, coming after the second readings of the Settled Land and Property Asessment Bills, and the committal of the Special Powers and Contracts Bill—in themselves an ample programme for one sitting. That was significant to begin with. - Next there was a manifest determination to prevent the Bill being reached. Something very like stonewalling was resorted to in order to keep the Special Powers and Contracts Bill going until half-past twelve, after which, by the rules of the House, no fresh business can be entered upon. Indeed many members scarcely take the trouble to conceal their intention to obstruct the Bill to the utmost. Some candidly admit that if it passed this year the localities they represent must inevitably lose one or two members, but that if they can prevent its passing until next year there may be such an influx of population through the Midland Railway works as to restore the balance and preserve their representation. There may be, but it,

is in the highest degree improbable that in any case the balance would be appreciably affected, and if any increment of population in particular districts had to be taken into account the same ought to be done everywhere. It would, in fact, mean another census. That may be dismissed as a mere flimsy excuse for urging delay. Others again repudiate all responsibility for the understanding come to in 1881, that the South Island members would honourably assist the North in obtaining such readjustment of repretation as might be rendered equitable by the larger increase in the Northern population. They say they were not in Parliament then, and cannot be held accountable for promises made by their predecessors. But this is surely a most paltry and unworthy position to take up. The honourable understanding of 1881 was not a personal one at all, nor did it involve any concession on either side. It was an agreement between the various localities through their representatives and was based on the broad principle of honour and fairness, therefore it cannot be ignored without gross dishonesty, such as we cannot believe the present House will be guilty of when the whole case has been deliberately considered. We hail with satisfaction the poor success which has attended the discreditable “round robin” to which we have alluded elsewhere. But the vital question is—What does the Premier mean to do ? To this we should imagine only one answer can be returned. The Premier is absolutely pledged to go on with the Bill. He can carry it if he chooses. He is bound in honour, by his own explicit and voluntary assurances, to do so. It is nothing to anybody whether one or more of his colleagues desire him to play false. In the excellent speech with which he moved the second reading of the Bill, Sir Robert Stout distinctly “nailed his colours to the mast,’’ and he cannot now haul them down without dishonour. He has it in his power to pass the Bill. Let there be no mistake at all about that. His colleagues must give way to him if he asserts himself. If he were to give way, and allow the Bill to be killed when it is in his power to carry it, one of two only possible constructions would have to be placed on his conduct. He would stand selfconvicted either of a deliberate and scandalous act of bad faith, or of the most contemptible weakness and subservience to the representatives of particular local interests. It is wholly incredible that Sir Robert Stout, to whom the whole Colony looks with reason as the greatest of its rising statesmen, should fall so low. We declare our firm and unshaken conviction that he is most cruelly misjudged by all who deem him capable of such conduct. We are thoroughly satisfied as to his sincerity, and it only remains with himself to prove it to the House. The Representation Bill cannot be sacrificed without his concurrence, and he must be well aware that this would involve another and a still more serious sacrifice so far as he himself is concerned. His honour and the fate of the Representation Bill are inextricably bound up one with the other. They must stand or fall together.