THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 1893.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXX, Issue 9367, 25 November 1893, Page 4

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 1893.

We are inclined to think that to the women of the colony, who are about to exercise the franchise for the first time, the present election is likely to afford a striking object-lesson in the characteristics of party Government. The first question that naturally presents itself to the mind of an elector is whether he is to support the " ins " or the " outs," the Government or the Opposition, Seddon or llolleston. This question, if it could be considered in its pure and simple form, would probably not cause much embarrassment to anyone whose views upon general politics are at all pronounced. To the orthodox Seddonite, the matter is naturally simplicity itself. To him there can be no cross-issues capable of disturbing in any degree the process which he would probably dignify by the phrase "making up his mind." He does not look for any settled principles of policy in the leader of his choice, but only for a leader who shall dictate to a subservient Parliament whatever may be dictated to him by the noisiest set of agitators who may be able to convince him that their votes are necessary to his political supremacy. Whether Mr. Seddon pronounces against public borrowing, or "collars" the sinking fund ; whether he repudiates State Socialism in general, or adopts in detail measures which can be defended on no other principles ; whether he snubs a "Liberal Association" in public, or quietly avails himself of its' aid, and countenances the candidates who adopt its ticket;—it is all one to the singlehearted Seddonite; it is all full of "sweet reasonableness," it is all an expression of that "light and leading" which is the desire of all eyes. And to the eleotor who has no love of StateSocialism, and no taste for incessant experiments with the social machinery, it is an almost equally simple matter to endeavour to place the guidance of the ship of State in the hands of Mr. llolleston. From him may be expected at least a period of comparative political rest, and of steady and orderly progress. Nor is there any fear of his

showing any haste to undo measures of which he may have disapproved, until the sense of the country shall have clearly discerned the mischief of onesided taxation, and of subjecting special classes of property to heavy penalties. The female franchise, which Mr. Rolieston honestly opposed, we may be quite sure he now loyally accepts, and recognises as permanent and irrevocable. This question, indeed, has never been one between Government and Opposition, as such. No one in New Zealand believes that the women of the colony would have had the franchise today, if it had depended solely on Mr. Seddon's zeal in the cause, or if it had not been for the unceasing watchfulness of Sir John Hall ; and a tiraely"letter by a lady which appeared in our columns on Thursday points out that Mr. Buckland, one of the most uncompromising members of the Opposition, has been a consistent supporter of the women's cause.

But the simple issue as between Mr. Seddon and Mr. Rolleston is confused and obscured by the presence in the arena of Sir Robert Stout. Sir Robert is of course unmistakably what it is nowadays the fashion to call a Liberal, and it is on this account that he is a source of so much trouble and perplexity to all good Seddonites, who feel that his political existence is a standing menace to the supremacy of their leader. In mental and physical robustness, in natural shrewdness, and in geniality of disposition, Sir Robert is quite equal to Mr. Seddon, and in wide reading and culture, and in the tactical skill of a trained legal mind, he is of course much his superior. And Sir Robert must be looked upon as distinctly the leader of a party, as much so as Mr. Seddon or Mr. Rolleston. No one can yet say what precise form his party will take, the only certainty being that the Prohibitionists will rally round him to a man. And this|is one of the complications that in an unusual degree beset the present election. Every elector who adopts the Prohibitionist ticket does his best to place Sir Robert Stout at the head of affairs. But an aversion to beer does not necessarily involve an approval of all the political and social schemes which the busy brain of Sir Robert Stout may be devising. And our Prohibitionist elector may be a staunch Conservative in politics, or a denominationalist in education, and ha may fairly feel a little hesitation as to the effect of his vote. Let us take, for another illustration, the case of a Roman Catholic elector who accepts—as we are glad to think all do not—the Catholic ticket as promulgated by Bishops Moran and Luck. Our Catholic elector may be, as many are, an extreme anti-liquor man. How then is he to obey his conscience, or vote reasonably? Suppose that he has found a candidate who has given him some small spark of hope in respect of the Catholic claims—let us say, purely by way of argument and illustration, Mr Napier. The episcopal mandate requires him to vote straight for Mr. Napier, but in so doing he is voting for Mr. Seddon, who has captured the liquor interest, and this consideration would, it might be thought, cause much disquiet to that moiety of our friend's conscience which is Prohibitionist.

It would be easy to multiply instances of this kind of confusion of issues by which electors are the more likely to be embarrassed the more conscientious and scrupulous they are. But is it not reasonable to expect that women, who usually have a faculty of seeing when any unnecessary obstacle stands in their way, may begin to ask why things should be thus ? It may seem to them not to be involved in the very nature of things, that the approval of one political measure should necessitate the acceptance of another which has nothing whatever to do with it. They may not be able to see why denominationalism should involve the liquor interest, or prohibition all the advanced views of an agnostic political theorist, or why any other similarly arbitrary relations should obtain. In short it may easily occur to an intelligence not obscured by long acquiescence in an absurdity, that the very essence of Parliamentary representation is that all questions should be discussed upon their merits, and not with reference to their effects upon party interests. It is the tendency of party Government to destroy this necessary function of Parliament, and to establish in its place a slavish subservience to a leader, a thing alike noxious and hateful, whether the leader be a Gladstone in England, or a Seddon in New Zealand ; and we cannot help thinking that the women of the colony will be quick to discern this fault in our political practice, and prompt to assist in devising a remedy.