The Lyttelton Times. THURSDAY, MARCH 23, 1893.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LXXIX, Issue 9993, 23 March 1893, Page 4

The Lyttelton Times. THURSDAY, MARCH 23, 1893.

In reading the announcement that Mr Gladstone’s Government has made up ita mind to give the principle of simultaneous elections a place in the Electoral Bill, we realise how far behind Great Britain is in the matter of electoral reform. The other leading feature in the Bill is as important, but in a different way altogether. It provides for the registration of electors at any time, and is a thing about which all politicians may well agree. Obviously freedom of registration may be of equal benefit to Liberals and Conservatives. Juat as men on both sidea accept womanhood suffrage because they think it will strengthen their party, so both sides agree that freedom of registration is the indispensable thing. We abolished restriction in New Zealand more than a decade ago, just about the time wo decided to limit the polling in every general election to a single day. The latter was received with the gravest apprehension by many worthy people Who regarded it as the thin end of the wedge which was to destroy the property vote. That is exactly how the proposal is viewed at Home. In New Zealand the enactment of the “ oneday ” principle was followed in due time by the sweeping away of the plural vote. Not only have we survived that terrible decision, but properly finds itself in no way endangered. Justice is still open to it in every way, though much of its power for injustice has been taken away. New Zealand has lighted the path for the Mother Country. The principle of simultaneous election has of course been in use in the civilised world for many years. France, the United States and Germany have all adopted the principle. But the conditions of those countries are not so favourable to the force of their example as are the conditions of a Colony which left the mother shores to set up a “ slice of Old England ” in the New World. The signs of the time are in favour of the proposed change at Home. It has come to be realised by all men of all shades of political opinion, except a few of the narrower Conservatives of the very ancient pattern, who are quietly crystallising into the fossils of a long passed era, that the plural vote has nothing to justify its existence. In 1885 even the majority of the Conservative Party was of opinion that the extension of the franchise in the direction of manhood had deprived property of its claim to be paramount aa a franchise qualification. The other side of course declined—we refer to the extremists —to draw the line at anything less, as a deduction, than the absolute resignation by property of any claim to be a franchise qualification at all. This latter is the stage which we have reached in practice in New Zealand, though so long as the property qualifications remain on the Statute Book, we can not be said to have reached it in theory. At Home the Conservatives regard the simultaneous election day as a.good compromise. At the last general election instances were recorded of men having voted thirtynine times, to the horror of the nation, which knew there was absolutely nothing to prevent men from voting three hundred and ninety times if they chose to take the trouble to acquire the necessary qualifications. The [Radicals, on the other hand, are ready to accept the simultaneous election day as a stepping stone to “ one-man-one-vote,” which is the never-fading object of every Liberal aspiration. The only friends r tho-officiala.

■who profit by the opportunities it gives them of earning pay. Its Conservative enemies have discovered that the system disorganises political opinions by the process of delay. A majority of the electors, they assert, are inclined to give their votes to the winning side. When the nation gets to the halfway house, the experience of New Zealand will bo very valuable. Prom tho half-way house there is the view of the possibility in the shape of “ one-man-one-vote.” Upon that possibility this country has thrown a flood of light, and is adding to the brightness year by year. To begin with, the timid people who have declared for the simultaneous system hasten to suggest a public holiday for the polling day, with a simultaneous closing of all public-houses. New Zealand is showing them that the general election day with factories and public - houses all open is the calmest, dullest day in the three hundred and sixty-five which compose the year ; that voters can vote without interference from their employers, and without sacrifice of their earnings; that an educated, self-governing people in the enjoyment of democracy can remain sober at the polls in the midst of the excitement of a stubborn party contest. Further, New Zealand has furnished a reply to tho croaking travellers who have returned home to give their countrymen their misunderstandings as the solid facts of their observation. Now Zealand is, these people say, given over to tho downward course, because it is the only Colony given up to the monarchy of the working man—the “one-man-one-vote.” But what is the answer the Colony makes ? The answer is embodied in the leading articles of financial newspapers, in the speeches of statesmen, in tho reports of Boards of Directors, in the words of bankers, stockbrokers, pubHeists, and 'dl competent and interested observers. The answer is that New Zealand is the only Colony in which there is sound finance, efficient administration, a liberal settlement of the land, prudence, economy, thrift, prosperity, and justice in every direction. That is the light New Zealand throws upon the “ one-man-one-vote.” The educational effect on the public opinion of the Mother Country will be most beneficial. *