MUNICIPAL FRANCHISE REFORM.

Evening Post, Volume LVI, Issue 5, 6 July 1898, Page 4

MUNICIPAL FRANCHISE REFORM.

The speech of the Premier last evening in moving the third reading of the Municipal Franchise Reform Bill was generally temperate and reasonable ; temperate because it did not pander to the desire of those without property or responsibility who might desire to have the power of spending other people's money, and reasonable in that it made dear the poor achievements of the representatives of the present limited franchise of this city as a reason for reform. A very exclusive and limited property vote has for the period of nearly a lifetime had exclusive sway over the municipal government of Wellington, with the result that to-day ie is the most unkempt, ill-paved, and unadorned metropolis iv the Southern Hemisphere. Its public services have been allowed to pass from its hands to become profitable investments to the class that rules it. The " rights of property " have been so caref Lilly nurtured that " slums" are already springing into existence in a community that was founded within the memory of living citizens, aud schemes of reform such as the municipalisation of th,e tramways are met with a passive resistance that seems uusurmountable. Though there were 19,000 voters on the Parliamentary roll prior to the last electiou, the municipal franchise of this city only numbers about 4000 persons. This cannot be said to be representative government, aud coupled with the poor results achieved under the existing civic constitution, it makes the need of reform plain and palpable. What is proposed under the Bill is that while municipal representatives shall be

returned by those electors who have beon for twelve months on the Parliamentary roll, loans shall be controlled by the householders, so that the owners of property need have no concern that they will be required to provide extraordinary expenditure by the power of a vote not directly concerned in its legitimate application. II will, of course, be argued by pome timid conservatives that the exercise o* the ' Parliamentary franchise will lead tb tho elevation to municipal authority of^ demagogues and socialists, to the exclusion of more capable and responsible men. If that should happen it will only be by reason of the supineness and indifforeuce of the many prominent citizens who have hitherto lacked the public spirit to seek a voice in the municipal rule of the cit3 r . Hitherto such men have befcm content to allow civic government to drilfc into the hands of non-effective but respectable mediocrities, vyho, if incapable of adequate work, could not.it has been argued, do much harm. But with a popular vote this indifference must pass away, and the best men will come to realise that they must accept their share of municipal responsibility, or let tho control of the city pass beneath the sway of the unworthy. That the electorate which returns by triumphant majorities such men ' as Sir Robert Stout, Mr. John Duthie, and Mr. H. D. Bell would choose less worthy men for the municipality if the opportunity were given, we do not believe. The reformed constituency would not return the present Council, but that is reason for the reform. Yet we quite believe that the present Mayor would be at the head of the poll — aud we would gladly see him there, though he has somewhat unfairly implied that this journal has tried to " hustle " the Council into compliance with our view on the tramways question. Altogether we think that while the provisions of the Premier's Bill are a fair concession to the people, they may be accepted without any fear of infringement of the rights of property.