The New Zealand Times (PUBLISHED DAILY.) MONDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 1878.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 5505, 18 November 1878, Page 2

The New Zealand Times (PUBLISHED DAILY.) MONDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 1878.

We noted in our issue of Friday last the existence of a certain amount of curiosity throughout the country as to the true motives for the action of Sir George Grey in withdrawing the Electoral Bill, when it might have been passed ‘ ‘ at last” exactly, as regarded its principles, in the form in which it was first introduced, as representing the views of theGovernmeut, by the Attorney-General. We showed that it could not be said to represent the views of the Premier upon the fundamental point of “ manhood suffrage with one vote, and one vote only, for each individual elector,” which he had been preaching as the views of his colleagues and himself upon every stump in the Colony, and had pledged himself to give effect to. We showed that, nevertheless, he was able to declare in his place in Parliament .that ho had not only given no such pledge, but that it was 'a question he had carefully avoided ; we showed that although there was a wellfounded belief at the time that nothing but his weak condition of health prevented him from breaking with his colleagues about this very Bill, kicking over the traces, and, as wo said, upsetting the Ministerial coach—he was yet able to make a gushing speech in the House, in which he described the measure as a portion of the ‘ 1 great Charter of Rights” which was to be conferred upon the people, and which would entitle himself and his friends to be enrolled upon that noble list of men who have done good service, which, as he said, “ will last for all “ages in the country we are endeavoring “ to found.”

Now seeing that afc the last moment the Legislative Council showed its willingness to abandon all the amendments made in the Council, excepting those relative to the extension o£ the Maori franchise beyond the limit first proposed by the Government themselves, it must be held that there was no other ground for abandoning tho Bill than that Sir George Grey could not get all that ho wanted to get in that particular direction. In his speech on introducing the Bill the Attorney-General said, with respect to the Maori, franchise, “ Honorable “ Members will see that it is proposed “ in this Bill that only those Maoris who ‘ 1 are on the ratepayers’ roll will bo al- “ lowed to vote. I hope that the King “ country will soon bo open to Euro- “ peans; but in the present state of “ affairs I believe it will be well to allow “ these things to remain as they are ; “and, in fact, I think it will be better “ to increase tho number of Maori mem“in the House.” That was the Ministerial mind at tho time, as officially expressed by the ablest man on the Treasury benches. Sir George Grey in his speech, delivered four days later—on tho 13th August, said no word about tho Maori representation. On the Ibth of September, more thanamonth having elapsed,there was a discussion on motion for going into committee on tho Bill. In reply to some observations of Mr. Suiton, it is reported in “ Hansard ” that Mr. Sheehan said:—

He thought the honorable gentleman said somethingabout the Maori franchise. His colleague who was in charge of this Hill would ask tho House to nostpone tho portion dealing with that subject, and ho (Mr Sheehan) would deal with it authoritatively in his Statement .on .Native Affairs, when lie would inform tho House what the Government intended to .do in the matter. ~ ’ Jlr Richardson said there was one remark made by the Native Minister which appeared to him very extraordinary. He thought-this Hill was now in the hands of a committee of tho whole Home, and that thov only would have power to deal authoritatively with IF lie understood the Native Minister to say that ho-intended to deal authoritatively with a portion of the hill to-morrow night. He could scarcely think thatitlto honorable gentleman meant such a SheohAUJiald tho honorable gentleman misunderstood him. .'He simply said ho would express tho view of tho Government on tho question of Maori representation. Tho views of the Government either wore not represented by Mr. Stout on the 9th of August or they had changed in' the interval. On tho X7th of September Mr. Subbuan, indue Statement on Native

Affairs, dealt with the subject “authoritatively ” thus : Now, sir, I shall refer to the question of special Maori representation. This is a question in which we are all deeply interested, and one which will agitato this country for years to come. Some people say that it is not necessary to have special representation; while others agree to it, but at ‘the same tlmo stipulate that the Maoris shall have no voice in the election of European members of this House while they have special representation. I believe that we are now on the eve of settling all the differences between the Europeans and the natives, and for the present I should not be inclined to make any change in the number of Maori members. I should, however, abolish tht household and the leasehold qualifications, and give them only the freehold and ratepayers' qualifications. I believe that in another branch of the Legislature you will have one, if not two, of the principal Maori chiefs of the Waikatos as members, and it la quite possible that wo mav have equally great chiefs of the same tribes in this House, f will tell honorable members here that in dealing with this difficult question they must have confidence in the Government. A few days later Sir George Grey complained that certain honourable members wanted the “ House to deprive the Na- “ tives not only of two distinct franchises, “ —the household suffrage and the lease- “ hold suffrage,—but also of the freehold “suffrage. They wanted to take those “privileges from the Maoris and give “ them nothing in exchange ; to impose “ upon them a bond which was not im- “ posed upon their European fellowcitizens also.*’ With much of the usual “excited bosh,” the Premier continued to charge, as a crime, againt honorable gentlemen their desire to support the proposals which the Government themselves had originally made ; his pious apostrophe to Mr. George McLean —“ the Lord deliver them from such support”—electrified the House and the gallery, and showed the ardor of a new desire to accomplish the great object of getting the dual voting power for the Maori people. The operation at the Bay of Islands, by which it was demonstrated how the European votes in an electoral district could be swamped by Maoris, and a nominee of the Government be seat to Parliament to misrepresent the people,—was a very seductive example of what might be effected in other places by a Government —without principle and in want of support in the House—if legally armed with a general power such as that so dexterously exercised in the case' in question. If it could be managed that the communal or tribal title *of the Maoris in their land should bo made, as an electoral qualification, equal to an English freehold, Mr. John London’s little army of 400 Maori electors would bo saved; their assumed qualification would be recognized, and, the principle being 'thus admitted, # the disgrace of the trick played there would be in some sorb effaced. Bub more than all, and above all, the power of influencing, if not of controlling, by the Maori vote the election of members of the House of Representatives in almost every electorate in the North Island, and in some in the South Island, would have been placed absolutely in the hands of Sir George Grey and Mr. Sheehan. This was a stake worth playing for certainly; but when the Legislative Council, having discovered the game, took measures to prevent the winning of the trick, the Premier threw up his cards. That is, we thirfk, the true solution of the riddle. Sir G eouOE Grey we may assume could not line the Electoral Bill; it was nob extravagant enough for him, or sufficiently revolutionary to get up a fight about ; yet the power of the Maori vote would have glided the pill. The 70,000 adult males of Sir George Grev’s imagination, “ the very pith and “ mairow of New Zealand,” must now wait, for another session at least, to be qualified as members of the General Assembly and as free*and independent electors. Their ‘ * great charter of rights” is put in the waste paper basket by their self-constitoled champion, but we are warned to look oftfe for something very radical and sensational in the next session, and for a grand “fight” with the troublesome “Lords” who, in this mafcier of the franchise, have defended the true liberties of the people against the insidious assault of the most unprincipled and tricky Government that has ever ruled in New Zealand under its free Constitution.