The New Zealand Times (PUBLISHED DAILY.) WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 15, 1879.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIV, Issue 5553, 15 January 1879, Page 2

The New Zealand Times (PUBLISHED DAILY.) WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 15, 1879.

Dukino the past session more than oneBill which passed the Lower was disallowed hy the Upper House. Notably was this the case with the Deceased Wife’s Sister Bill, which was carried in the House of Representatives by a large majority, but, as usual, was promptly smothered by the Lords. But judging by the light of the post-sessional speeches of the Grey party, only upon one occasion was the veto exercised by the “ Lords ” much cavilled at. The Electoral Bill is the instance singled out for censure. The refusal of the Legislative Council to allow the Maoris a dual voting power has brought down upon that body floods of eloquent vituperation. It is at present convenient to forget what one member of the Ministry said upon the subject, that gentleman being, by his position as Native Minister, entitled to speak with authority. On August 20th Mr. Sheehan spoke as follows: — “The Maori “ members of this House have held “ a meeting, and they will lay before the “ House what to my mind is a fair solu- “ tion of the whole question. These are “ their propositions : Abolish the Maori “ dual vote. That is, abolish their vote “ for European members except on one “ special ground. I believe the House “will see that it is wise to retain the “ qualification based on rating; and « why 1 Because it * is an educational “ establishment. You are teaching them “ that by paying rates they may acquire “ the franchise." We assert without fear of contradiction that if the advice of Mr. Sheehan on this matter had been followed, no difficulty whatever would have arisen about the Electoral Bill. His proposition came before the House when on September 20 Mr. Stout moved that in clause 18, as introduced by himself, certain words giving each Maori whose name was enrolled upon a ratepayers’ roll a vote, should be struck out. And ' the

same, question cropped up -when Sir Robert Douglas moved that any Maori claiming a vote as 'an owner of land or tenements should bo liable to be sued for rates in respect of such property. The division on this amendment went against the mover by the casting vote of the chairman, 30 having voted upon each side. The-reason given by. ; the chairman being “that it did not “ appear to him to be a right thing to “mix up tho right to sue for rates on “ Maori property with a Bill conferring “ the right to vote.” This part of tho history, of the Electoral Bill is carefully ignored, and the fact that the dual and tribal Maori vote which. tho Legislative Council objected to was only retained by tho casting vote of the Chairman of Committees is always kept in the background. On August 20 Mr. Shebhan spoke against tho dual representation ; on September 20 he voted in favor of it. The balance of parties was most remarkably even, and tho occasion was marked by the secession of Mr. Bryce. Ho complained that the Government called upon their supporters to vote against the Ministerial Bills, and said that though he would gladly have supported the party he found himself compelled either to vote against the amendment introduced by Mr, Stout or to sacrifice his own selfrespect. In the Lower House the history of the introduction of the dual representation and tribal vote into the Electoral Bill shows that the amendment was barely carried by a majority of one. Even at the time Mr. O’Rorkb’s action was severely criticised. In giving his casting vote so as to confirm an innovation rather than to maintain the Bill in its original form as introduced by Mr, Stout, ho acted contrary to the usual practice of giving a casting vote in favor of maintaining things in statu quo. The history of the clause in the Lower House shows accurately how strongly many of the members must have felt on the subject. It proved to be so repugnant to several staunch supporters of tho Government as to break up the strong party organisation which at that time existed. In tho Council, where party spirit was comparatively absent from the debate, the issue of the contest was never in doubt.

In the face of the, many garbled versions of the action of the Legislative Council in respect to the Electoral Bill, ■wo have thought it desirable to recapitulate the history of the one clause which wrecked the measure. The Ministry may persistently abuse the Legislative Council, but the narrow escape of defeat which the disputed clause had in the Lower House is a sufficient answer to their criticisms. In point of fact, if the Bill were really of the vital importance which Sir Georoe Grey claims for it, it was the plain duty of the Ministry to have appealed to the country and to the people to support their view, but, in the Colonial vernacular, “they were “ not game,” and were twitted by Mr. Ormond with want of courage. As for the action of the Legislative Council in the matter, it has been abundantly justified by the result. Even after a long course of political agitation, not a single public meeting has been held to express indignation at their action. No regret has been expressed by the 70,000 imaginary “bone and sinew” of the land who are supposed by Sir George Grey to sigh for the exercise of the franchise which is denied them. Even at particular meetings in the very stronghold of the Grey party not a single resolution condemnatory of the Legislative Council has been recorded.