The Dominion. FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 4, 1908. THE SECOND BALLOT.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 293, 4 September 1908, Page 6

The Dominion. FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 4, 1908. THE SECOND BALLOT.

The figures of the division upon the motion for the second" reading of the Second Ballot Bill bear little relation to the debate that preceded the division. They merely show that the supporters of the Government will voto for anything that tho Piume Minister cares 'to propose in election year. Not even a plausible case was made out for the, Bill. Not one of tho members who spoko in its favour—not even the Prime gave the slightest evidence of having any knowledge of the working of tho system in" other countries. The only speeches that bore traces of such a knowledge were hostile to the Bill. Yet the second reading was carried by 43 votes to . 15. Amongst the majority there were, no doubt, a few sincere friends of the Bill. But eVen these should have remembered that the measure was not one to be suddenly sprung on the country on the very eve of the election. The Government's success 'was furnished by the members who, knowing nothing and caring less about the root principles of representation, pictured themselves in the happy position of being " tho Government candidate " at. the second ballot. Some of them may be disappointed. The Premier quoted some statistics to show that the majority of the " minority " representatives now sitting are Government supporters, and ho asked the House to believe, therefore, that the Government was not pressing on with the Bill in order to secure a party advantage. It need hardly be pointed out that tho Bill is the outcome of the enormous number of would-be legislators standing as supporters of the Government: it is introduced to prevent a party loss, and to give the Government an election position easier of . handling in the time-honoured " Liberal " way. Tho Prime Minister could quote no single example from abroad to support his Bill, and he therefore* declared, in effect, that it did not matter what had happened in other countries that had tried the system. Even after this it was a little surprising to find him expressing the hopo that " no proposal would be made to defer this Bill so as to put it before the people." And this from the Government which has for its motto " Trust the people " ! Sir Joseph Ward endeavoured to obscure tho issue by declaring that there was no precedent for a prior reference to the electorates of " a proposal to confer greater rights and privileges upon tho people," but, even if this strango doctrine were sound—it reads like a principle made up as he went along—this Bill is not such a proposal at all.

The debate had its humorous aspect. Mn. Massey, in the course of his speech, quoted from past speeches by Messes. Fowlds, M'Nab, and Millar to show that the two former were, stern opponents of the second ballot, while Mr,. Millar—liko most sensible men of all schools of opinion —was as firmly convinced of the right of a minority to representation as the remarkable member for AVairarapa is opposed to it. Mu. Millar rashly essayed a defence of his support of the Bill. He claimed that tha Bill would give representation to minorities as well as majorities. And the Prime Minister had extolled it because it was " based pn the very important principle that' tho majority should rule in everything" ! It is a pity that Mr. Millar did mot follow the example of Mr. Fowlds, who did not speak, or of Mr. M'Nab, who cautiously contrived to escape casting their votes. A Minister's life is a hard one! Of the other speeches, that of Dr.

Chapple, who took the trouble to discover tho experience of other countries, with the inevitable result, is worthy of notice. The bulk of the " Ayes," however, liavo probably no greater acquaintance with the subject than Mr. Major, who opposes to all experience his unaided opinion that " there would be more votes polled at the second ballot than at the first ballot." It is unnecessary to repeat the arguments against the Bill. It is quite sufficient to remember that, as Mn. Tanner pointed out, " the electors at the last election had been given no indication that this question was to be introduced during the Parliament." That, to our mind, is the fact governing the whole position, and it is to be hoped that the Legislative Council, which holds- its powers of revision as the trustee for the public, and which most properly exercises them when it vetoes a drastic innovation that has not been considered by the public, will take a similar view. The Council yesterday rejected, the Bill to widen the municipal franchise, and this encourages tho hope that Upper Chamber has not forgotten its powers. It has now an exceptional opportunity of administering a salutary rebuke to the bad doctrine contained in Sir Joseph Ward's hope that " no proposal would be made to defer the Bill so as to put it before the people."