HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

Press, Volume XXX, Issue 4078, 22 August 1878, Page 2

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

Tuesday, August 20. TUB BLEC-OBAi Bill,. The debate on the Electoral Bill was continued after ten last night. Mr Fox could not support the portion of the Bill which had _ reference to the native franchise. No one wished to deprive the natives of the franchise. He regarded the endowment of the franchise on Maoris aa a statesmanlike act which had been the salvation of the country. He objected to double representation, and the flooding of European constituencies by native votes. That was really the outcome of the present system. For instance, in Manawatu 200 names had been placed on the roll, and these 200 votes could be manipulated by one man. The Maoris did not ask for it—indeed, some natives north of Auckland petitioned against the »y_ tern. He objected to double votesof European . If there was to be manhood suffrage, it otiould j be fixed npon some inte ligible principle. There should not be a dual vote, giving property holders an undue advantage, more particularly in the South Island, where there were greater facilities for transporting voters from place to place. As to manhood suffrage, he had Btudied it in America, Switzerland, and other countries, and admitted the suffrage must come to that. His only desire was to see it surrounded with sufficient safeguards. He knew the American constitution ai.d representative system, and regretted the social and political immorality in that great free country. But he did not attribute those evils altogeiher to manhood iiiffrage. They were in a largo measure the result of the great socialistic wave which was sweeping over all the oldest countries in the world, as well as the newest, whether democratic or monarchial. In America it was very powerful. Thousands of loafers were preaching and producing socialism, all of whom had the franchise. It was a terrible power. The outlook was not cheerful, but ho had great confidence as to the future, and believed manhood suffrage would be a safety valve which would enable America to steer through her trouble. It could not be said that he was opposed to manhood suffrage, but he was de sirous of seeing it surrounded by safeguards. Addressing himself to the question of women's suffrage, he contended that if taxation || was the basis of representation, representation could not be denied to women who paid taxes, more especially as the principle was admitted in municipal affairs. The Bdl did not go so far as that, but still be should support the Bill as far as it went. Generally he should support the Bill, but objecttd to some details. He also favored tlie Bill of the hon. member for Waikato with some ixtptions. He had great doubU aa to Hart's *ystcip,

not. so n.u<-h on the abjtractrniTr~ * with respect to details. H 9tlon i bu. M.Mandrks supposted the Bill a obj-cting to s.me detuild. ' tht «_h ilr Fbldwick poi,.ted out several .i., in the machinery whioh would ro.mi. , eel » tion. ri l u,r ealUr a . ; Mr Basting, strongly support.,. -. , suffrage, a„d to tliat"tenffi „«°? D >i agree with the Bill. Women .muld v property vote, but nothing further 6 * Mr Ba.ff regarded the Biil as „_. . perfect, but would vote for its ,econd Major Atkinson congratulated tl lo a_Z ß ' ment on the unanimity of its f o ll n tE * respect to the first gr*e_t mea-uw bE" ? forward for tbe purpose of fre.inc. Hi S " of Neir Zealand. Nearly ev.rv o ._ *£* taken objection to its principle "and d.... 4 and had given fatherly advice a. to Ii '• ought to be done. The Premier L V Government promised manhood suffrage r. and simple, and it. was with surpriss he 1., seen the Attorney-Geneml rise to introe - tlie Bill, because it was the peculiar p- O Vi of the Premier to have introduced it It not the Bill which the Premier p.omi.!? much to tho relief of both sides oft?' House. It w.s a relief to the supporter. 1 the Government that they would not have' vote for a policy of " Bunkum"— to use _,° expression of the hon. member f Rosiyn—and a relief to tho Opp_,i tio °' who were a'raid of what the Govertmi, . were going to propess. It w..s not the Biil promised in the recess and afforded an.._ proof of tho correctness of the slat.mento' Mr R?uder Wood in the Auckland Provincial Council, that "' no one and nothing Wl |j bind the Premier." There was no hberalisa in the Bill. The property holder wan-Zj ? three advantages ; one in respect of frce_o_di. ? next in respect of leaseholds, and next thi • clerks of R >_td Boards were to take care th_ property hokh.s were on the rolls, whi_ a t r ' ' • 70,000, the pith and marrow of the couotr. were left to tako care of themselves, ft,".' class least used to writing and attendia» to these matters was left entire!? out in the cold. How did this peco]}-? ciso of property favoritism (:) tally with the Premier's speeches ? It was another evidence of the talk of the Premier and bis uZ failure to act in accordance with hi. ts!'_ There were many absurd provisions in ft, Bill, proving that Ministers who ran abort the country during the whole of the ree»j« could not present well digested proposals to •"*' tho House. For instance, a man personate was to be disfranchised, though he had don. no wrong. Then if a memoer was doubly returned, and did not elect his seat in twenty, eight diva according to the intention of th« Bill, there was no penalty for his non-fulSl. ment of the condition. There was no pro. vision for ascertaining who wore resident!. No provision for identifying names on the roll in respect of property; no means of keeping rolls pure. Mr Ballance thought it a pity tho hon, member for Egmont had not dealt with principles instead of with details, and contended that the Bill was more liberal snd :. simple than thnt of the hon. member for Wai- \ kato. No more complicated system than Hare. \ could be imagined, nor could any system fc. . devised which was better calculated to destroy . the rights of the peopln than Han's system. If the hon. gentlemen on the opposite lidj •'.. were sincere about liberalism, let them drop ' Hare's system, and go in for the remainder of the Bill brought forward by tho inomber for Waikato. Mr Wbitaker—l accept that at once, Mr Eallanck— Would the boa. £__*!«. man's friends accept it ? No! A_ to VietojVia s tho provision of the Government Bill *&, all fours with the Victorian practise, Hfo was not going to contend that tho extension . of the suffrage would have such a greht effect . upon the liberties of tho people ; but it was necessary for the good of the country to di.. tribute political power over all the peoplc,and to give manhood suffrage with reasonable restrictio-s. Tho prinoiplo of the Government was, that they extended political privileges by the residential qu;-lifica<ibn, and no more liberal franchise than that provided by 1 Bill oould be given. As to tho Maori ques- W* tion, why the Government had not given the k Maoris any new power, but had restricted it 1 in certain directions. Tho grievance was, . that the Natives did not pay rates and assist in paying for making roads, and the principle of this Bill was to induce tho Maori* to pay rates and obtain political privilogei thereby. That was a policy whioh the country at large would accept. As to tha educational test, a high educational test was not justified by experience For instance the University of Oxford at Home had opposed, every liberal measure now on the •t-tute book, and rejeoted Mr Gladstone for his liberal ideas. The principle of thereprs. sentation of minorities was a fallacy. It was un-English; and further, every reform ia England had been carried by a simpi. majority. The genius of the English const.' tution was the simple majority, but minority representation was not excluded thereby, for almost every shade of opinion was appro. «-s. ciably represented in the House of Common, |JF " under the present system. The fact was th.t Hare's system was a machinery for divergent minorities a majority and not jfe. the fair representation of the opinfio of the country. . Dr. Wallis had chargW certain members of the Government with ultra-coneervafiun, and hinted t. divisions in the Cabinet Why, naturally, there must be divers individual opinions, and every great measure could only bo the oatcome of the united miud of the Cabinet, snd this measure really did represent tho mind of \ the Premier in that it extended the suffrage A S greatly. No doubt there were minor Meets, 1 f but were there not such in every gmlptv y posal brought before that or any other Mom* i Was the principle of the Bill / believed the answer of a large majwitty in the x. House would be in the affirmatiTß. 1 On the motion of Mr Seatoa t_a foteto | was adjourned. The House adjourned at 12 30.