I request that you print the accompanying letter dated April 3, 2001 which I faxed to Mr. John White before appearing at Government House on that day. When I did appear Mr. White had left Bermuda and I spoke to the Governor and the two Foreign & Commonwealth Office representatives Mr. Ian Hendry and Ms.

Caroline Rowett.

The paramount concern I expressed was that if the UK Government enacted the PLP proposal to abolish for electorial purposes the approximately geographically equal nine parishes and empowered the Constituency Boundaries Commission to fix the number of constituencies and their whereabouts then that body would become the tool of the Government and make it impossible for any opposition party to organise and democracy would be at an end in Bermuda.

WILLIAM M. COX Devonshire April 3, 2001 Dear Sir, Re: Bermuda Constitutional Amendments: Following on my letter dated March 29, 2001 I submit for your consideration the following: (1) The 9 ancient Parishes remain intact and continue as the basis of our electoral arrangements; (2) The number of elected members be reduced from 40 to 36; (3) If first past the post is to remain, then 36 single-member constituencies be created by the Constituency Boundaries Commission (Sect 53) as follows and elect the number of members indicated.

St. George's -- 3,211 voters -- 3 Hamilton Parish -- 3,100 voters -- 3 Smith's -- 3,145 voters -- 3 Devonshire -- 4,298 -- 4 Pembroke -- 6,868 -- 7 Paget -- 2,528 -- 3 Warwick -- 5,054 voters -- 5 Southampton -- 3,406 -- 3 Sandys -- 4,529 voters -- 5 (4) Proportional representation would better safeguard the rights of the white minority and could be introduced by creating five multi-member constituencies as follows: St. George's & Hamilton -- 6,311 voters -- 6 Smith's & Devonshire -- 7,443 voters -- 7 Pembroke -- 6,868 voters -- 7 Paget & Warwick -- 7,582 voters -- 8 Southampton & Sandys -- 7,935 voters -- 8 (5) An ombudsman is not desirable in a small place like Bermuda but if the Government is determined to create such an office it should be done by the Legislature and not in the Constitution.

An appointment has been arranged for me to discuss the reasons for these proposals at 1130 hours today.

WILLIAM M. COX No support for lawyer April 6, 2001 Dear Sir, I was disappointed to be misquoted by Warren Cabral in yesterday's Royal Gazette as supporting the notion that there was a constitutional convention that a constitutional conference be held before Bermuda's Constitution is amended.

Firstly, because my stated opinion is completely the opposite based on grounds that are not subject to easy challenge (see 'Opinion', RG November 10, 2000 Page 4).

Secondly, because Mr. Cabral, by implication, suggests that I support his utterly fallacious notion that legal action could be taken to enforce breach of such a constitutional convention. As a current LL.B student called me today to confirm, the essence of constitutional conventions is that they are rules of practice which cannot be enforced by the courts.

Thirdly, I should point out that Mr. Cabral's suggestion that the administrative law doctrine of legitimate expectation could be relied upon in the present constitutional context is a very novel proposition which is, at least, evidence of his creativity if not his familiarity with established legal principles in this area of the law.

IAN KAWALEY City of Hamilton Where was Santucci? April 5, 2001 Dear Sir, I watched the television re-run of the meeting held at Government House on April 3, 2001 last night, April 4, and was amazed that they faithfully recorded each speaker -- however they eliminated (and I use the word advisedly) the best speaker of the evening (with apologies to the other speakers) a Mr. Santucci.

He had the courage to come forward and told it like it is for the man in the street, who looked and voted for PLP to help him improve his lot; but as he so succinctly said, "The only lot that got improved was the hierarchy of the PLP''. Disenchanted for sure, but dismissed from the rerun last night was a mystery that should be investigated, a mistaken omission? I doubt it! These are the omissions we fear and fear is the reason why we ask for a referendum, so that we have full knowledge and an opportunity to discuss and debate the changes in our Constitution before it is too late and becomes law.

DIANA E. WILLIAMS Pembroke Editor's Note: ZBM has replied that last Tuesday's public meeting lasted an hour and 45 minutes, but the special the next night could only be broadcast for one hour; therefore several speakers, including Mr. Santucci, were edited out. ZBM said every effort was made to reflect the range of speakers. In addition, Tuesday night's meeting was aired in full on the radio.