2110-2-1-5

3, TEMPLE GARDENS, TEMPLE.

Jan: 27: 06

Dear Miss Markham

Many thanks for your letter. I return Mrs Emmett's letter, which, as far as it goes, is satisfactory enough.

I am ill informed about the basis of electoral division in the other colonies, but I look into the matter on Monday, and send you any precedents I can find. Obviously

in any ordinary country - where the proportion of married men is fairly even throughout - the simplest basis is population. Electoral districts are divided according to the census, before the registration of votes takes place. This is the principle of our own Franchise Act e.g. the one of 1885. But my point is that the Liberals have always declaimed against the principle, and sought the reform of one vote, one value, so they are "estopped", as we say in law,

from using such precedents against us. Obviously it is more reasonable to have members representing only those who elect them, rather than women, children and disfranchised men, who ex hypothesi are given no share in the country's government. I am inclined to believe that there is a useful precedent in N. Zealand, but will look it up.

Our strong arguments, however, are not from precedents. They are

(1) The abstract merits of the principle

(2) It is the only scheme which admits of automatic redistribution which in a growing colony is an essential

(3) Any change will involve a 2 years'

interregnum & leave the labour question unsolved

(4) The change proposed means in fact not merely a preferential treatment of country against town but of Dutch against British.

Yours ever

J.B.