THE Thames Advertiser. TUESDAY, DECEMBER 3, 1878.

Thames Advertiser, Volume XI, Issue 3184, 3 December 1878, Page 2

THE Thames Advertiser. TUESDAY, DECEMBER 3, 1878.

Tiie circumstances attending the withdrawal of the Electoral Bill of last session have not yet been fully ventilated. It is known that the bill was drafted and introduced by the Hon. Mr Stout, and supported by all those who gave themselves up to the Ministry during the session. It is also known that in consequence of certain objections raised by the Upper House the Premier thought proper to withdraw the bill during the closing hours of the session. It should also be known that the only cause for such withdrawal was the refusal of the Legislative Council to- pass the bill ' amended, 'not as introduced. Tho fact is the bill as introduced was acceptable to the Upper House, but not to certain members of the Ministry, including the hon. tho Pre mier. The increased franchise for Maoris was not sought after by the latter, but forced upon them. They were satisfied with their special representation, and only asked for an additional member or two whenever a re-adjustment should take place. Of course, the action taken by the Premier has received the most favourable construction, but there is no reason why the facts should not be stated plainly, in order that the public may be fully informed on all matters affecting the government of the country. The Electoral Reform Bill was one of the prominent measures promised by the Grey administration, and the circumstances leading to its withdrawal after tho stand taken ought to be thoroughly discussed. We have already shown what the Legislative Council did with the bill in connection with the Maori dual voting power. The bill as introduced provided for a Maori ratepayers' qualification by enrolment, and the alteration made, at the instance of the Premier and Native Minister in Committee, was such as to enable a person to claim a vote if seized at law or in equity of lands or tenements for his life, or the life of another, or for any other estate of the value of <£25. In effect, this was universal suffrage for the Maori, and meant the swamping of European voters in many districts. This was the alteration objected to, and the Upper House insisted that Ministers should be satisfied with their own bill, as introduced. Really, we aro not inclined to cavil with tho Lords under the circumstances, but rather to maintain that the aristocratic body are of some use after all. If it is necessary to thank God for a Lower House, it does not seem to us to be out of place to express equal gratitude for the possession of the Upper House on this occasion. We fail to sec in their conduct anything analogous to an unwillingness to grant any extension of political power to the industrial classes, with which they have been charged. If the " destruction of the bill," with which the Lords were accused, merely meant the refusal to grant extended franchise to Maoris, then were they guilty of the charge; but surely the great object of such a measure was never intended to be confined within sucli a narrow limit. The fact that the Lords were quite willing to pass the bill as originally introduced is proof to the contrary, and Ministera have themselves to blame for the destruction of their hopes of electoral reform by the withdrawal of the measure, because their new ideas were not acceptable. In the face of these facts, it is difficult to understand any organ of the Government putting forth such a statement as the following on the subject under discussion" We do not for a moment suppose that if the Electoral Bill passed in the shape agreeable to the Council it would receive the Royal assent. The Crown would certainly prove the guardian of the rights of the natives to the continued enjoyment of privileges conferred upon them by the Imperial Legislature. The passing, by the Colonial Parliament, of such a measure would, however, be a foul blot upon our history, and the Government are right, therefore, even though by so doing they are really giving the Council what it most desires, in abandoning the bill altogether." All this is mere sound and fury signifying nothing, because the bill brought in by the Hon. Mr Stout was precisely the same in regard to the Maori qualification as the one remitted from the Legislative Council and withdrawn by the Government. 4