These words of Edmund Burke, uttered just a century ago, are as true to-day regarding our system of representation in this colony as they were when applied by the great statesman to a condition of things connected with the British Parliament, which has been since reformed as a necessity, though but imperfectly, i.e., the withholding of voting power from the bulk of the people.

The "most boasted part" of our constitution is that, undoubtedly, which bestows the suffrage upon the whole manhood of the country, and by ballot causes the representation of the people to be obtained by the vote of the majority, which majority, it is as a first principle laid down, must rule as the only true exposition attainable of the will of the people.

If an approach to perfection in this supposed acme of democratic government is obtainable under the electoral system in vogue, how comes it that a "roar" of discontent has gone up from such considerable sections of the voters in different parts of the colony against the results of the late general election? Some of the ablest, most honest, and most needed representative men being rejected at the present momentous juncture of public affairs; while some of the least qualified by ability, wisdom, or honesty—men essentially not needed in the councils of the nation—are returned, in many instances unopposed, in others with but little show of opposition? Truly, in the race for seats in Parliament, the victory is more often to the invertebrate politicians—men without political principles—than to the rigid-backed statesmen who, page 4 having devoted themselves to the study of the science of government, and conscientiously developed a public line for their guidance, are unable to truckle to the passing whim, rage, or stupidity of ill-educated semi-corrupt voters profoundly indifferent to the real nobility of the men they flout.

Cause Not Understood.

In contemplation of such deplorable results public opinion is apt, while deploring them, to lay the blame on the stupidity, ill education, or partially corrupt character of the voters, and to rest content with thus accounting for an evil, taking for granted that while the cause is thus rightly assigned there is no avoidance of the thing itself.

A little reflection will, however, soon convince any fair-minded enquirer that, admitting to the fullest truthful degree the incapacity of numbers of average voters to rightly value or use their electoral privileges, sufficient reason has not thus been assigned for the existence of that profound feeling of dissatisfaction which exists in the minds of a large section of electors in every electoral district after each general election; those electors being, as a rule, generally of the better kind in point of ability, character, and patriotism. No ! the cause of the discontent lies much deeper. It is to be found in the fact that a very large proportion of the people, from causes at present utterly beyond their control, are not represented in Parliament at all. If this statement can be established, with any degree of certainty, there will he but little difficulty experienced in understanding why, during the whole history of so-called representative Government in this Colony—not to extend the enquiry further afield—we have been subjected to spasmodic, contra dictory, ruinous legislation: legislation oftimes opposed to the good sense and feeling of the thinking people outside Parliament, supposed to be represented there- page 5 in; and admittedly, by consent of the legislators themselves, partaking largely of the character of expediency, tentative in the fullest degree, as each slight alteration made in the personnel of Parliament constantly reverses all that has gone before.

Nor has administration been less of a shifty non-final character than legislation, and from the same cause. The Minister of to-day—the representative man of a temporary majority, brought to act together from motives of self or local aggrandisement—governed by no fixed political principles, undoes in a day what his predecessor in office for similar reasons had put in substitution for the work of his predecessor, just as the man of to-morrow will ignore the work of all the lot. The object of this paper is to arraign our present system of representation; to show that "it is a gross imposition upon the understanding of mankind, an insult to their feelings," and "a contrivance destructive of the best and most valuable interests of the people," and responsible for most of the evils attributed by thinking taxpayers to the present deplorable state of political corruption and selfishness into which our country has fallen. Having done this the remedy which the writer believes to be required will be noticed, and, as far as seems necessary, explained in detail.

Personal Representation a Right.

It will readily be conceded that if Parliament is to be a mirror of the mind of the nation, it is of the first importance that the whole nation, as far as may be, shall be represented; and that, since every man cannot be present in person, every man shall be able to point to some one man in Parliament as his representative. To contend that this personal representation is not a right inherent in freemen in democratic countries, or to argue that inasmuch as a majority must rule, the minority must go unrepresented, is in reality to contend that Government shall be by a minority. page 6 Parliament, let it be assumed, represents the majority of the voters of the country who have voted, but a majority of the Parliament rules the legislature and assumes the Government. Further: It is well understood that under party government a series of compromises within the governing party is essential to its existence—here, as elsewhere, a majority decides—so that in common practice we have the spectacle of a mere majority of a majority—the majority of a party which is a majority of the House—working under the guise of "the Government of the people by the will of its majority," when in reality the minority of the people, as represented, control.

The Principle Violated.

This state of things, it will surely be admitted, is sufficiently unsatisfactory to call loudly for amendment. An examination of the electoral returns of any general election will go far to prove that the doctrine that this country is worked electorally under a law which provides for its government being moulded by or based upon the will of the majority is absolutely delusive; and will further convince that to believe or promulgate such a statement is to practice an arrant self-deceit or to seek to palm off a huge imposition upon a credulous public mind too ignorant or too indifferent to discover or challenge the fraud.

In a general way the incompleteness of the representation of the people under an elective Parliamentary system of government, and the unsatisfactory character of the results obtained under such a system, have been recognised in almost every country possessing representative institutions; and efforts of various kinds put forth to mitigate or avoid the injustices abounding. These efforts have been diverse, and, as might be expected from politicians who are always extremely careful to innovate as little as possible, in some instances absolutely nugatory.

The Representation of Minorities.

The best known of these attempts include the provisions sought to be made for the "representation of minorities" as it is termed, though, as will be seen hereafter, it is notorious that in some instances the minority obtained the whole of the benefits of representation—while the majority became excluded. These provisions embraced the "three-cornered constituencies," in which, though three members were to be returned, electors could only vote, at most, for two of them—thus, it was supposed, giving a chance to the minority to concentrate all their voting power for the return of the third man. This contrivance seems to utterly ignore the fact, supposed to be taken for granted under. Parliamentary representation, that the votes of all electors are of equal value. Under it an elector voting with the majority is capable of casting a vote which will assuredly assist in the return of two men, while the elector voting with the minority can only assist to elect one member. Surely "To him that hath shall be given." Being in a majority under this rule makes a voter's vote of double power, while he who is in a minority is taught to be thankful that there is not taken away from him "even that which he hath"—a vote for a single member.

Another method aiming at the representation of minorities is the "cumulative vote," now in vogue under our Education Act, for the election of School Committees in this Colony. While this plan of voting does in a limited degree provide the means to secure the election of a few candidates who from various causes would probably not be elected under the ordinary majority system of voting, yet it is open to grave objections which need not be here noticed, because of the fact that the cumulative vote is not applied to Parliamentary elections (which form the scope of this enquiry), and no considerable section of people propose to make it so apply.

Single Seat Electorates.

The third form and last, which shall be now referred to, is what is known as the "equal single seat electorates"—one member to be returned for each district which contains, as near as possible, the same number of inhabitants as all other districts—and he who is highest on the poll, no matter how many candidates, is elected.

This is the system which the first Parliament of New Zealand, elected upon manhood suffrage, adopted as the acme of Liberal reform, the safeguard of the rights of the People against the encroachments of the privileged few; the capstone of the Liberal superstructure which years of democratic agitation had succeeded in raising for the benefit and admiration of our children "for all time." In reality, no more conservative measure, or one better calculated to create, foster, and perpetuate individual selfishness and petty local feeling, utterly destructive to the building up of a great nation, in which the People should govern, and govern with purity, has ever been put upon our statute books. As long as single electorates are continued, and a non-national spirit cultivated, the best men in the community—the thinking workers—must continue to find themselves as voters nearly always beaten on the poll, and numbers of the most capable candidates who are willing to serve their country must continue to be ostracised from Parliament. Large-hearted patriotism in posse will always be hailed as a something in a candidate which is entitled to respect and applause; but patriotism in esse must, with single constituencies, ever continue to give way to parish politics. The man who "sees visions and dreams dreams" for the benefaction of his countrymen at large must continue on the polling day to go down before the sturdy beggar who is willing to proceed on an annual foraging expedition to the seat of government for the aggrandisement of the few who page 9 have chosen him for his venality or his stupidity. In politics "parishes" largely despise men of brains, capacity, or over-much honesty. If any are disposed to doubt the correctness of this indictment, let them reflect upon their own political surroundings and experience before challenging.

"Majority" Results in United Kingdom.

In the United Kingdom—where all the systems alluded to above, except the cumulative vote, have been or are wholly or partially in operation in the election of the Imperial Parliament—some curious and astounding results have come about, showing how far the accepted principle of the will of the majority ruling the country has been violated, to the great detriment of good Home Government and of consistent finality in Imperial foreign policy.

The comparison of returns regarding the votes recorded at the English elections in the years 1874, 1880, and 1886 is most interesting. In 1874 the Tories came into power with a majority of 50 members in the House, and yet that party, by the votes cast for its members, polled 200,000 votes less than their opponents: the numbers being 1,200,000 for the Tories, as against 1,400,000 votes cast for their opponents who remained in opposition. In 1880 Anti-Conservatives elected polled 1,800,000 for 414 seats, as against 1,420,000 received by the Conservatives returned for 236 seats—a majority of 178 seats for 380,000 votes, when in reality the seats, dividing the votes cast for successful candidates on either side of the House by the number of seats, ought to have been, if votes were of equal value, 370 for the Liberals and 270 for their opponents. In 1874, therefore, by this rule, the Liberals had 56 members too few, while in 1880 they had 43 too many. The difference of 99 seats in the two elections was very great, causing the vote of the page 10 majority to be put aside as a matter of little importance; and, by a change in the ministry, caused a complete reversal of the foreign and domestic policy of the Empire. This result was mainly caused by the use of a "majority vote" exercised in single electorates. As an example of the working out of this system of most unequal representation: If a line be drawn across England from Lincolnshire to Devonshire, there were on the southeast side 99 county seats at the election of 1880. In these constituencies the Liberals polled 96,000 votes, as against 116,000 by the Conservatives. This voting, according to the rule of dividing the number of votes by the number of seats, should have given the return of 40 Liberals, as against 59 Conservatives. There were actually returned but 15 Liberals with 84 Tories, and of these 15 Liberal seats 5 were secured by the fact of there being that number of three-cornered constituencies.

Turning to the last election, 1886: Followers of Mr. Gladstone to the number of 196 were elected members, getting 1,347,983 votes. 85 Home-Rulers, obtaining 99,669 votes, were elected. 1,106,651 votes returned 316 Conservatives; 417,456 votes only secured the election of 73 members of the new party of "Liberal Unionists." In all 2,971,759 votes were cast. The Conservatives and Unionists combined only polled about 5 per cent, more than Mr. Gladstone's following, and yet the former have a majority of 20 per cent, of the whole House. Under the rule before applied the proper composition of the present House would be: Gladstonians, who obtained 196 seats, should have had 304—108 more; Tories, who obtained 316 seats, should have had but 249—67 less; Unionists, who got 73, should have 94—21 more; and Home-Rulers, who got 85 seats, would have had to add another grievance to their stock, for they would be reduced to the small band of 22 members.

These facts afford food for reflection as to how far the whole course of Imperial politics would have altered if the representation of the people, in proportion to their numbers, had been the rule in the Old Country, instead of being merely a profession. Twenty-two Home Rulers in the British Parliament could never have appeared to the world the powerful exponents of an almost unanimous Irish public demand for autonomy which the present minority-elected phalanx of 85 determined patriotic men appear. Their numbers thus reduced, it is very doubtful if the veteran Gladstone could have been brought to the recognition of the absorbing importance of the demand for Irish Home Rule being immediately dealt with to the complete blockage of almost all other Imperial concerns. Results equally abnormal have recently occurred in Belgium and Switzerland, resulting, in both cases, in the power of Government passing into the hands of the political party which really comprised the smallest number of voters in the whole country, and in one, at least, of the instances very nearly ending in a revolution.

British Representation Necessarily Partial.

But, it may be said, "Representation in the British Parliament has ever been at best but the representation of a section of the people only, and therefore anomalies like these are of little importance, as, so long as the people are well governed, their right in the matter is maintained as it is not necessarily a part of that right that the people shall themselves govern; and where will you find people who in the past have been so well governed as in England by its 'governing classes'?" That a section of the people has for a long time monopolised the functions of government in England is only too true; but that essentially good government has been the rule under their reign cannot be page 12 maintained with any degree of truth. The whole struggle now witnessed in the United Kingdom is the fearful but natural outcome of centuries of misrule and wrong-doing towards the bulk of the people inflicted by successive members of the hereditary legislating and administrating families there. Education having permeated the middle and upper strata of the great lower classes, discontent, indignation, and a stem resolve to readjust the social balances has taken hold of the public mind, and terrible awakenings are in store for the, in many cases, innocent inheritors of a system of stony-hearted tyranny and proscription, whose control, however entrenched by centuries of usage, must soon be swept away before the onslaught of an intelligent democracy thoroughly recognising its mission and its power.

Personal Representation a Constitutional Right.

But, however much opinions may differ upon the subject of the due representation which men and property may, upon any grounds, claim in the Old Country, there can surely be little divergence in this new one from the principle that human beings, and they only—not sheep, cattle, broad acres, or money—should have representation, and those human beings just in proportion to their numerical strength. It is not deemed necessary to devote any space to the maintenance of this as the basis of New Zealand Parliamentary representation. In our whole political system, from the first Constitution Act, throughout all our legislation on the subject, down to our latest Representation Act (1887), it is provided for and insisted upon. This being so, it might naturally be supposed that our electoral machinery would all be so constructed as to assist towards the due fulfilment of the terms of the principle adopted as a basis. By a strange combination of circumstances, however, it page 13 so happens that the machinery devised has in reality, the more it has been 'improved" from time to time, been the efficient means of destroying, almost entirely, the very principle of personal representation which it was designed to further. In some instances these "improvements" were palmed off upon a sleepy, politically-ignorant people by politicians who, Tories at heart, believed that the only right possessed by the people was "that of being well governed," but "not to take part in the Government;" while, in other cases, the innovations were made by men, honestly democratic in intention, but who thought they were best securing the interests of the people in departing somewhat from a rigid line of theoretic perfection of representation.

Flaws Essential to Guard Against.

In contradistinction to these two classes of politicians there is a third, which believes that no true representation can be obtained where the system which seeks to provide it permits

Any system which does any or all of these things cannot but be vicious in its very nature, and is bound to be productive not only of bad, wasteful, immoral government, but of a depraved national sentiment regarding public matters which must ultimately work the ruin of any community cursed by it.

We in New Zealand are just now deploring the existence among us of very many of the evils referred to, and in our political agony are seeking page 14 (some of us) for a panacea on the right hand and oil the left. "Turn out the Government," cries one, who thinks he sees the fitting remedy. "Stop borrowing," cries another, feeling the burden of the property tax. "Drastic retrenchment, let us have that," exclaims a third, "the Civil Service is ruining the country." "Centralize," says another. "Give us back our Provinces," yet another. "Rogues all," cries a final one; "make us a Crown Colony for twenty years longer, we are not ready for representative institutions."

The Cause of the Evil.

All, or nearly all, of these calls for reform have something to recommend them. All, or nearly all, might probably be sought for with advantage; hut will it never occur to the minds of these reformers that the evils they deplore are more properly classed as results, not causes, nearly all springing from the one cause: That the Country is not, in the True Sense, Represented in Parliament at all?

"Nonsense," says some well-informed political reader; "have we not our ninety-one members, duly elected after months of intelligent canvass of their capacities and merits by an enlightened democracy? Do we not pay these representatives a fair sum by way of fixed salary, so that entrance to the highest court of the land may be open to all deemed qualified by the electors, without restriction upon electors or elected?" True, and, further, a number of other provisions are made which pass current as aids to the representative government of the people in Parliament; but, nevertheless, it is equally true that the people fail to be represented, as theoretically they are supposed to be—by men holding political views in consonance with themselves—and that a large mass of the people (voters), amounting to nearly one-half the whole, have no representatives at all.

An analysis of the voting returns at the late general election will well repay the mental labour entailed, and prove to a demonstration that our system of election is faulty in the highest degree. It necessitates the disfranchisement of a tremendous proportion of the people, narrows the choice to a minimum of those permitted to select members, deals out death to all colonial patriotism, and finally succeeds in making our boasted "representative institutions" the very means by which we are impoverished, degraded and betrayed.

New Zealand Electoral Returns, 1887.

In order that the readers of this pamphlet may with the more ease and clearness follow out, understand, and apply to their own particular surroundings the facts and figures about to be cited, they are given in detail provincially, and afterwards summed up in regard to the Colony as a whole. The Colony is by the Representation Act, 1887, divided into ninety-one single-seat electorates (European). The boundaries of these electorates were supposed to be so drawn that each district should possess, as nearly as might be, the same number of inhabitants; country districts being allowed a slight advantage over town or city districts in the way of a smaller population being taken as the quota necessary to carry a representative. Of these 91 seats 39 were given to the North Island, and 52 to the South Island (including Stewart's).

The North Island Returns.

In the North all the seats except one—Auckland City Central, for which Sir G. Grey was elected unopposed—were contested. For the 38 seats 98 candidates went to the poll, for whom 51,515 votes were recorded. The 38 elected men obtained 27,400 votes, and their opponents 24,115 page 16 —a majority of 3,285. From this it will be seen that 24,115 voters who voted in the North Island have obtained no representatives at all.

The highest vote cast to elect a candidate in the North Island was in the case of Mr. Ormond, at Napier, who obtained 1,008 votes. The lowest was in the case of Mr. Marchant, at New Plymouth, who was elected, though receiving but 383 votes.

There were 32 candidates rejected who received more votes than the lowest elected—one as high as 950 votes, Mr. Ivess, at Napier—the others received votes ranging from this number down to 425. Twelve elected members received a minority of votes polled in their electorates, the names and minorities being:—Goldie 15, Withy 75, Peacock 177, Hamlin 243, Fraser 29, Moat 69, Graham 142, Kelly 76, Marchant 287, Smith 287, Tanner 189, and Beetham 39. This, of course, was a result of there being several candidates for each seat. The average vote received by the elected candidates in the North Island was 721, while the average vote cast in each electoral district in the Island was 1,355, thus showing that in each of the 38 districts there were 634 electors who failed to cast a vote in favour of a winning candidate.

A City and Suburban Example.

As an illustration of what injustice single electorates may work upon communities having an identity of interests, the contested seats in the city and suburbs of Auckland may be cited, though possibly worse injury may have been inflicted in other similar districts in the Colony. Had the system—so much, and properly, advocated—of grouping city and suburban districts into one been in vogue last election, by the votes cast in the natural group of Auckland West, North, Ponsonby, Newton, and Parnell, it appears the candidates elected for these five seats would have been in a minority of the whole by 202 votes; the numbers being: For successful candidates in the five seats, 3,369 votes; unsuccessful, 3,571—so that in this group, and probably other similar ones, the minority of the voters voting have carried all the seats under a system misnomered the "Representation of Majorities." In the Provincial District of Hawke's Bay the same thing occurs, the elected men being in a minority of 16.

From the foregoing the fact is established that in the North Island, out of 51,516 voters who exercised their votes no less than 24,115 failed in any way to obtain representation: nearly half of the whole were disfranchised or put to the trouble of voting for the sake of being beaten—for no representation is allowed them.

South Island Returns.

Coming to the South Island: With 52 seats to fill, of which 4 were uncontested, 48 electorates had 121 candidates, for whom 60,396 votes were cast: the 48 elected members received 32,652 of these, and the unsuccessful 27,744 votes—a majority of 4,908.

Dividing into Provincial Districts, as in the page 18 examples given of the North Island, we have the following:—

	Seats.	Successful Polled Votes.	Defeated.	Majority.	Minority.
Nelson	4	2,598	2,656		58
Westland	2	2,007	1,601	406
Marlborough	2	1,186	1,173	13
Canterbury	17	12,197	8,932	3,265
Otago	17	11,606	9,300	2,306
Southland	6	3,058	4,082		1,024
South Island	48	32,652	27,744	4,908	Actual Majority.

The highest vote cast to elect a candidate in the South Island was at Grey mouth, where Mr. Guinness received 1,177. The lowest was at Invercargill, where Mr. Feldwick was elected, having received but 356 votes out of 1,277 polled.

Thirty-nine rejected men received more votes than Mr. Feldwick, ranging from 991 to 358. In two electoral districts two rejected men in each received a higher number of votes than the member for Invercargill. The average vote cast for the elected men was 680 (41 less than in the North Island), and the average total vote cast in each electoral district was 1,255 (41 less than in North Island). If the North returned members upon the same elective quota as the South, it would be entitled to 41 members in place of 38. In each of the 48 contested districts there was an average minority vote of 578 which failed to be successful in returning any candidates.

Nine South Island men elected received but a minority of the votes cast in their districts. The names and minorities were:—Seymour 413, Dodson 284, Percival 39, O'Callaghan 116, McGregor 104, Ross 214, Hodgkinson 340, Valentine 324 (his majority over the second candidate was one vote), and Feldwick, 565 (elected, as before stated, with but page 19 356 votes). In two Provincial Districts—Nelson and Southland—the whole of the elected men were in a minority respectively of 58 and 1,024 of the votes cast.

Summary for whole Colony.

Taking the returns for the whole Colony, we find that 86 seats were contested by 219 candidates. The 86 elected men received 60,052; the unsuccessful, 51,859 votes—the majority being only 8,193. Nearly half the number of voters who voted are to-day without a single representative in Parliament for whom they voted. The average vote received by the elected men was 690. The average vote recorded in each of the 86 contested districts was 1,301, so that in each electoral district in the Colony, 611 voters who voted are without representation in Parliament. There are 21 members elected who received a minority vote in their respective districts. There were, of course, cases in which there were more than two candidates for the single seat.

If to the 51,859 electors who failed to cast a vote assisting to the return of a solitary member there be added the votes of those 8,193 electors whose votes cast for the successful men were not needed for their election, being the total majority, Ave have, as the real waste of voting power at the last general election, 60,052 votes. From this the safe conclusion is arrived at that at all general elections, under the single seat system, in which the successful men poll a majority, the waste of voting power is always determined by the number of votes cast for the successful candidates, the figures will be identical.

Unsatifactory Nature of these Results.

From all the foregoing it will be seen, by even the most superficial observer of our boasted electoral system, that there is an utter absence of anything like an approach to true representation gained. The districts being small, the slightest circumstances page 20 quite change the character of the "representation" sent from them. A small knot of voters, working together for some object, can hold the balance and turn the scale in places where parties are locally pretty evenly divided, or where more than two candidates contest the seat, as was the case in more than a third (33) of the electorates at this last election. Elections turn upon the smallest considerations: the personal "good-fellowship" of the candidate, his wealth, or his impecuniosity, his connection with some financial institution, trade guild, religious society, or gambling fraternity, his capacity to "bring home plunder on his back" from the generally-supposed place of plundering—the seat of government. All these considerations have, beyond any question, exercised a most successful and pernicious influence upon the election of Members of Parliament for many years past, and must, beyond all staying, continue to do so in the future unless an honest, determined effort is made by the better-disposed people of this country to completely change the whole basis upon which our elections are held.

Question Requiring Immediate Settlement.

Will anyone considering the shameful anomalies just presented in relation to this last election—anomalies which are but a repetition of what has long been going on under the sheltering wing of "Representative Institutions"—dare to say that the government "of the people by the people for the people" can ever be attained under such a vile system as that now in operation; or will anyone, so considering, venture to oppose a movement for reform? It should become the duty of every true lover of good government, every man who has hope for and faith in the future of a land which Nature has done so much to bless and man to curse, to put this question to the test of public opinion without any further delay.