THE EDUCATIONAL FRANCHISE

Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1297, 24 July 1886, Page 3

THE EDUCATIONAL FRANCHISE

[Prom the .Mo#.] It is somewhat surprising to find that, after five times successively affirming the necessity for the repeal of the cumulative vote at School Committee elections, after for four successive years passing through all its stages a Bill to accomplish this very desirable reform, and again this session on the second reading in a full House affirming the principle by the substantial majority of fourteen, the Educational Franchise Bill should have been lost this year by four in Committee on the motion — “That the Chairman do leave the chair.” It will be remembered that the Bill of this year contained two proposals, viz., to define the word “householder” in such a way that there might be no difficulty in understanding what was meant by the term, and to limit the voting power of each householder to one vote for any particular candidate. Of the absolute necessity of the first-named provision we have had ample evidence in our own district, and from all parts of the colony have been heard numerous complaints of the unsatisfactoiiness of the existing law, which is so doubtful in definition that it is interpreted one thing in one place and another in another ; and as to the desirableness of the abolition of the cumulative vote there is an overwhelming preponderance of public opinion. The feeling of the public is reflected in the House of Representatives, where there is a strong majority in favor of single voting, and it seems at first inexplicable that in view of this fact the Bill should this year have failed to pass the representative Chamber. The explanation, however, appears to be this; It will be recollected that in the debate on the second reading, the Premier, who has always been one of the chief opponents of the

Dill, and the leading champion of the cumulative vote, offered to withdraw his opposition on condition that the supporters of the measure would agree to a compromise, viz., to extend the franchise to all adult residents, and to restrict the maximum of votes to three. Subsequent to the debate Major Steward communicated with the Premier, and ijK&ood that the latter agreed to import the Bill, or that part providing for the repeal of the cumulative vote,

provided the franchise were extended to all adults who may have resided for six months in the school district. This was communicated to the standing Committee of the Dunedin School Committees Conference, and by them j approved of, and the supporters of the Bill felt confident that with these modifications it would be suffered to pass almost without opposition. It came, therefore, quite as a surprise when in Committee on the Bill, Sir R. Stout said that he had been misunderstood, and that he had never meant to consent to the Volition of cumu-

lative voting, but merely that the maximum number of votes exercisable in favor of one candidate should be limited to three. Major Steward having loyally carried out his part of the compromise, as he understood it, by altering clause 3 so as to broaden the franchise to the extent indicated, and it then for the first time appearing that the single vote was not to be conceded, the result was that many of the supporters of the Bill declined to

support the amended clause, which was then struck out, and there was nothing for it but to abandon the Bill But for this unfortunate misunderstanding, there is no reason to doubt that it would have passed through the House for the fifth time, and not improbably would have been accepted by the Legislative Council. As it is, however, the Bills of the existing system must perforce do duty for another year,

possibly until after the election of a new Parliament. But the question ' is one which should be kept in mind by the electors, and before the elections eventuate they would do well to make their wishes i clearly known to the candidates for their suffrages.