Untitled

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume III, Issue 328, 23 July 1889, Page 2

The interest attached to the Representation Bill continues to be very keen. The Post, an Opposition paper, has a savers article on the situation, The following is the gist of it :— Ministers are floundering terribly with their Representation proposals. Since they abandoned the proportional system they seem to have no settled policy, and to be guided by no fixed or certain principle. The Bill they substituted for their original measure is a wretched abortion. It is a crude, ill-conceived attempt to satisfy the country members, sacrificing the city constituencies. So ill-considered is the proposal, so little consideration have Ministers given to the subject, that the Colonial Secretary in proposing the second reading showed himself entirely ignorant of the extent of the concessions to the country districts which is embodied in the Bill. It proposes to deduct 25 per cent from the actual population in each of the four cities in calculating the representation they are entitled to. Innocent Mr Hislop artlessly argued that this was equivalent to a concession of 25 per cent only to the country diatric’s, and ho was virtuously indignant when Mr W. P. Reeves, with a better knowledge of arithmetic, pointed out that it was really 331 per cent io favour of the country electorates. Subsequently, after elaborate calculations, which taxed the brain power of the entire Cabinet, Mr Hislop discovered that Mr Beeves was right, aufl understood the meaning of the Ministerial measure more correctly than Ministers themselves did They intended to give the country an advantage of one.fourth whereas they have really given it one-third, The admission of such an error at once shows the character of the Bill, If members could vote by ballot, and were to give honest expression to their opinions, we are quite sure as to the way in which the whole difficulty would be settled. The Act of last session, reducing the number of members, would be repealed wiihout more ado, and the House would be left as it is, with the sing'e exception pf city electorates. This would be the most satisfactory solution of the whole qurs'icn, but members are afraid of their constituents. We think th|, fear is quite unreasonable, for we arc convinced that the mind of the intelligent public is generally opposed to the reduction of the number cf members. Those members who, during the recess, have openly avowed their change of views upon the question, have not in any way forfeited the ccfafldence of their constituents, and we do not think that any member need fear evil consequences to himself from following the good example set by Dr Fitchett, Mr Loughrey and others.”