THE REPRESENTATION BILL.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 907, 19 July 1889, Page 27

THE REPRESENTATION BILL.

As we stated would

probably be the case, the fate of the Representation Bill was vir-

tualiy determined at the Cabinet meeting held on Friday morning, when the withdrawal of the Bill was decided upon. This decision, we understand, was not come to without considerable hesitation. • A careful scrutiny of the “ cards ” prieked by the whips showed that 42 votes could be almost certainly relied upon for the second reading of the Bill. Deducting thisnumberfrom the total 95, and allowing for the Speaker’s inability to vote, and for the absence of Mr Beetbam and Mr Peacock, 50 votes remained that might have been recorded against the second reading. Supposing those all to be so given, the adverse majority would have been eight. But there were good reasons to deem it possible that several of these might go with the “ ayes ” in a division, so that the chances tor and against the carrying of the second reading were about equal. Unfortunately, however, the difficulties of the position would not have terminated w.th the second reading. Indeed, it might almost be said that the main trouble would begin at that stage. It appears that on Friday morning earnest oveitures were made to the Government on behalf of the town members for a postponement of the further discussion of the Bill for a few days, in order that time might be given for negotiations in the direction of an arrangement between that section of the House and the Government, which it was thought would ensure the passing of the Bill. The proposed arrangement was that the town mem bers should assist the Government to pass the Representation Bill, with the object of counteracting the country party’s efforts to secure the per cent advantage in regard to the “ quota.” This assistance was to be conditionals upon Ministers undertaking to “ see the Bill through ’’ and pass it into law at once, instead of dropping it for the session after the second reading. There appears to be no doubt that such a combination would have been strong enough to carry the motion for second reading, provided the support of all the members favourable to the Bill on its own merits could have been confidently counted upon under these new conditions. Unfortunately that was just the rock upon which the whole affair split. Unqualified support could not be relied upon in such altered circumstances. Several supporters of the Bill explicitly made their adherence conditional upon certain amendments being introduced in committee, while others stiDulated that the Bill should not proceed further this year after being read a second time. To have accepted the town party’s aid on the terms specified would consequently have involved the alienation of both of these sections, and so the numerical gain on the one hand would have beenneutralised by the loss on the other, and the situat ion would not have been improved. The second reading could only Jhave been carried, if at all, upon terms which must have involved subsequent complications of a very awkward nature, tending to imperil the ultimate fate of the Bill. After careful consideration therefore, the Government, we understand, came to the conclusion that the most prudent course was to withdraw the Bill for this session and to introduco in its stead a short Bill merely providing such amendments in details of the existing law as were imperatively required, leaving over the whole question of principle until next year, as there is still another session to come before the present Parliament expires by effluxion of time. Probably this course iB the best that

could be adopted as Hiattefrt stamd. The time and eloquence expended on the Ministerial proposals has not been wasted. A distinct step in advance hs»s ise&ti g*aij><jd. The House and the public bav4„ a large degree familiarised with a p’rOpoffed reform which hitherto has been commonly regarded as the impracticable whim of a few crazy faddists, but which now has definitely taken its place in practical politics. The Circtllation during the recess of Mr Satifiderg’ ad tit if able speech could hardly fail to have a good eifeStf and if Would familiarise thefHseiv®B and their constituents with tile actual nature of the proposed Clidfigd—-as contrasted with the mistaken noti6h3 which so many people entertain about it—there seems every reason to expect that another year would see it 6'arfted. We shall still cherish the hope that thS freit Parliament of New Zealand may be elected on the Hare system. _