The Press. THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, 1875.

Press, Volume XXIV, Issue 3146, 30 September 1875, Page 2

The Press. THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, 1875.

The Government have been unfortunate with the Qualification of Electors Bill. "We should be more correct perhaps in eaying that the Commissioner of Customs has been unfortunate ; for we presume the Bill was rather to be regarded as a crotchet of Mr Reynolds' than as a bona fide Ministerial measure. But however that may be, the Bill proved a failure. Its authorship may be uncertain, but its fate was sure enough. After a not very long and, as far we can judge from the telegrams, a mediocre debate, the second reading was negatived by 2S to 20. s!ke sroallness o£ ike mxmt>e:r-3 indicates -tfea-t tnifc littles iaa/fce—

itn noun iii iiiiiffffi;

The Bill was certainly treated as it deierved. The manner in which it was introduced was alone enough to warrant its rejection. Mir Reynolds, in mo\ ing tne second reading, made no attempt to explain or defend the Bill, thinking it better, he said, to reserve his observations for his speech in reply. His motives for such singular reticence are left to conjecture. He may have had nothing to say. Or he may have thought the Bill so likely to gain favour for itself that he preferred to trust to its unassisted charms, and felt unwilling to run the risk of marring the good impression by perhaps unpalatable arguments. Still this is not how important measures are usually introduced. When a Minister proposes to alter the Constitution Act, and confesses that he has no reasons to assign for the change, the House may naturally request him to withhold his Bill till he has found some. The oddest thing is that our telegrams do not mention the Commissioner of Customs as among the speakers when the debate was resumed, between the dinner adjournment and the division ; so that apparently the Bill was discussed and thrown out without any effort on its behalf by its chief promoter.

But advocacy far more forcible than Mr Reynolds is capable of would have been unavailing. The Bill wae intrinsically worthless. It was one of the moat confused and feeblest measures ever submitted to a Legislature. It be"gan by establishing manhood suffrage. The following qualification, it began, shall entitle persons to vote in the election of members of the House of Representatives, " that is to " say, every male person of the full age " of twenty-one years, not subject to ■ " any legal incapacity, if he shall be a " natural-born or naturalised subject of " Her Majesty * * shall, if duly " registered, be entitled to vote." But then this right was qualified by conditions as to residence, which virtually reduced it to a kind of restricted lodger franchise. Indeed we find that the Bill was warmly supported by one speaker on the ground that it enacted just such an enlargement of the franchise in that direction as had been petitioned for. Next it expressly provided for the continuance of all existing qualifications. So that the result was a muddle, and it was impossible to tell what the Bill was intended to do. If it was not meant to establish manhood suffrage, why affirm the principle that every male of the full age of twenty-one years is entitled to a vote? If such was the object, why in the world retain the present property qualifications? What can be more absurd than to declare that every adult male citizen is entitled to the suffrage in virtue of hia manhood, and in the same breath to say that the right shall be enjoyed in virtue of the possession of freehold or other property ? If we are to have manhood suffrage, let us have it. If the people of New Zealand choose that every man in the colony ehall have the amount of voice in the direction of its affairs which is given by the possession of a vote, well and good. Only let us know what we are about. If we are going to adopt this system, let us at least do so with our eyes open. Manhood suffrage does not mean simply a widening or lowering of the franchise; it is a radical alteration, a shifting of the basis of representation. Such a change must give rise to very important questions. "With the new eystem new principles come into force, the exact practical value of which needs to be ascertained, and our arrangements re-adjusted accordingly. But of all this there is not a trace in Mr Keynolds's Bill. It was a paltry attempt to deal with a subject the extent and importance of which the mover altogether failed to recognise. It was, in short, just one of those crude inconsequential pieces of legislation that never do good, and often do a deal of mischief by committing Parliament and the country to changes for which they are not prepared and the effect of which has not been considered.