The Globe. MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 1878.

Globe, Volume XX, Issue 1436, 23 September 1878, Page 2

The Globe. MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 1878.

The public-houses are not to bo closed on electoral days. Such was the decision of the House of Representatives, when, after spending some hours in discussing and amending clause 126 of the Electoral Bill, members finally came to the conclusion that the principle which it was sought to establish was inherently bad, and the amended clause was struck out by a majority of nine. This decision is, wo think, to bo regarded as a triumph of common sense over the species of monomaniacal foolishness, which alone could have suggested the introduction of the clause into the Bill. Even the drafter of the clause could hardly have expected that, if passed, it would have had any great practical effect in stopping the sale of liquor. It needs but to look at the utter ineffectuality of the existing prohibitions against the traffic at certain times to teach anyone this. And wo have no hesitation in saying that as long as public opinion remains as it is, that is to say, does not regard it as any offence to evade the law or countenance its evasion, people will bo able to obtain liquor when they like, notwithstanding the most stringent legislative provision to the contrary. When general public opinion comes to look upon the evasion of such laws as in any souse a sin, the time when the experiment will be practicable may be said to bo approaching. But certainly that time is not yet at hand, and even a sanguine calculation as to the date of its arrival must put it at one, or, perhaps more accurately, at two generations hence. Meanwhile wo say that it is a rotten system of legislation which in a democratic country constitutes offences at law of acts regarded as perfectly innocent by the people at largo. Such a system is powerless to control any vice whatever; it increases hypocrisy in regard to that against which its prohibitions are directed; and, further, by presenting the spectacle of laws notoriously sot at defiance it tends to lesson the respect for all laws in the public mind. Amongst provisions of this nature must bo classed that to which wo are referring. Its moral said the Ixion of politicians, the Attorney-General, would be good because people would look upon voting as a most sacred act.” Did ever any Minister of the Crown before offer such bosh for argument? As rationally might he argue that a fish breakfast on Sunday would promote religiosity, and that devilled kidneys tended to particular perdition on that day.

The most singular circumstance in connection with this clause is that Mr. Stout was deserted by all his colleagues, and was the only Minister who voted for it. On the division list against its retention appear the names of Messrs. Macandrew and Sheehan, and Ihere is credit due to them for letting thoir names so appear. But the other three, Sir G. Grey, Messrs. Ballauco and Fisher, turned tail. They had not the common pluck to avow their opinions, whatever they were. The inference, of course, must bo that they were either opposed to the clause, or regarded it as unimportant. The question now is—are the Ministry to be hold responsible for the insult offered to the people at largo by the proposal of such a provision ■< Bill in which it appears must bo assumed to have been agreed to in the Cabinet. Being the most important of the Ministerial measures, it i'uay he uilzon .for granted that it was discussed clause by clauss, and that the insertion of this particular clause—which forms a .feature in the Bill-—was not per-

mittod without the sanction of a majority in the Cabinet. How lovingly did the Attorney-General linger over this provision, as embodying the wise precaution of himself and colleagues against muddled heads at election times ! And yet, when it came on for discussion last week, ho was absolutely the only Minister who had a word to say in its favour. All the rest either forsook or turned against him. We have no desire to cast blame upon those who had the courage of their opinions, and voted against the clause. The proceeding is simply curious as one feat of political gymnastics among many with which the colony has boon lately edified. But it must bo urged that the practice of Ministers voting against important clauses in their own measures is utterly unconstitutional, and one the in • troductiou of which should bo watched with the utmost jealousy by the House.

The minds of many honourable members who desire to vindicate their title to bo considered enlightened liberals are, as might have been expected, much exercised on the subject of woman’s rights. It was unkind of the Government to distress their obedient following by stirring up this great but certainly not pressing question. It was, moreover, brought up in a manner so entirely illogical, that even the Government’s own organ was compelled to rate its proprietors very hotly for their silliness. But the House has agreed that the ratepaying process acts with such benign effect upon the female creation as to render those who, before being subjected to that process, were by nature and physical constitution unfit to exorcise electoral rights, immediately eligible for the privilege. It has further declared that it is solely by the mystic rite of paying a rate that femininity can sufficiently put off the old woman, and put on the now man to become adapted for au elector. Those who are not so well acquainted with the abstruse things of political philosophy as the AttorneyGeneral and his fellow-dreamers, will find it hard to attain the requisite faith in the transforming power that New Zealand’s representatives have found in the simple act of paying a rate. It is matter for observation, and in future there will, doubtless bo much anxious watching of the few ladies whose names appear on the ratepayers’ rolls. Is the metamorphosis in the nature of a development from a larval condition ? Is it a kind of desiccation, and does it precede or follow the visit of the rate collector ? Lastly, is it to bo regarded as au upward or a downward progress ? It is evident that many curious questions in natural history are raised by the recent determination of the Legislature—questions which it must bo supposed that each legislator who voted for the female ratepayer, while, denying the claims upon him of all her sisters, had been able to solve privately and satisfactorily for himself, otherwise ho would not have supported what to the world appears au outrageous illogicality. It is then much to bo deplored, that none of these statesmen described in scientific language the precise nature of the mental or physical change which ho had been able to observe as a universal accompaniment of ratepaying by the opposite sex. Ho would thus have given a sufficient reason for the faith that was in him, and ho would further have done a delicate and chivalrous deed in so far as ho would have spared the ratopayesses of the colony the embarrassment of that close scrutiny to which they are now certain to be subjected by all who love the pursuit of science. But there is much more to bo said on this subject. The House has decided that, although ratepayiug may so improve the female organisation as to qualify a woman to be an elector, it is not sufficiently potent in its regenerating influence to qualify her to bo elected. In all other cases persons qualified to vote are also qualified to become members of the Legislature. But with the female ratepayer this is not to be so. We confess that we are quite unable to discern the ground of the distinction; but it is a fact that thirteen of Now Zealand’s statesmen, who had ascertained and voted for the female ratepayers’ electoral qualification, opposed her claim to become a member of the House. The only conjecture we have found as at all accounting for this apparent irrationality, is that members were absolutely afraid to follow their reasoning to its legitimate conclusion. They were appalled at the possibility of a woman being introduced into the Legislature, and spoiling by her commanding presence some of the little games in which members delight to indulge. They were afraid lest the secret doings of Bellamy’s should bo denounced, and they should be obliged to conduct themselves as decent gentlemen. As we have said, this is a more conjecture, thrown out in the absence of any other explanation. But possibly some of our readers may think that the seeming discrepancy between the two votes is to bo accounted for by the existence of some further occult physiological law, known only to these thirteen members, which, while it improves the ratepaying female to the level of voting fitness, fails to refine her gross nature sufficiently to fit her for the company of legislators such as rule this happy colony. As those who incline to this view will, no doubt, like to make some enquiry for themselves on the subject, we give the names of the thirteen who voted for female ratepayers being allowed electoral privileges, but vetoed the proposal to remove their incapacity for being elected. They were —Messrs. Carrington, Fisher, Fitzroy, McMiun, Montgomery, Oliver, Richardson, Saunders, Seymour, Swanson, Tole, Turnbull, and Wood. It will 1)0 observed that no less than six of those gentlemen, who are so profoundly learned in matters of sox as connected with legislative function, belong to Canterbury.