THE Temuka Leader. THURSDAY, JANUARY 14, 1892. PLURAL VOTING.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2305, 14 January 1892, Page 2

THE Temuka Leader. THURSDAY, JANUARY 14, 1892. PLURAL VOTING.

Notwithstanding all efforts put forward to conceal it, the cloven hoof protrudes itself in all the actions of the Conservatives. Like the pragmatic jackdaw they have fitted on borrowed feathers—the feathers of Liberalism —but the moment they open their mouths their utterances betray them. In Marton, a town in the Province of'Wellington, the other day they held a great meeting, and formed

the nucleus of a great Association, and they wish us to believe that the colony can only be saved by giving

Legislative effect to the wonderful programme which they drew up. In that programme were two items on which we desire to comment: First, that there should be no further borrowing, and second, that owners of

property should have two votes —one, we presume, for the man, and the other for the property. A good story is told illustrative of the latter item. An election was going on somewhere, but no one who did not own property of some kind was eligible to vote. It

would appear, however, that the amount of property which qualified an elector was not large, for a gentleman rode up to the polling booth on an ass and put in a claim to be allowed to vote. On being asked had he any property he replied that he had the

ass on which he ivas riding, in reply to which the officer in charge said: “Very well, then, let the ass vote.” We are quoting the anecdote from memory; it may not be absolutely correct, but it will serve the purpose to illustrate what the league formed at Marton is aiming at. It is plain that they want to give votes to sheep, cattle, horses, and asses, in addition to the votes already possessed by their

owner. This is Liberal, indeed. We

have heard a great deal about extending the franchise to women, and so on, but this is the first time it has been suggested that sheep and cattle, and even snow-clad mountains, should be given a voice in the making of our laws. It is not to be wondered at that they lay claim to being the real Liberals when they desire to introduce such a radical change in the Constitution as this, but, after all, we doubt very much whether the proposal will become popular. It, however,

points out what the aims and objects of our friends are; it is plain that they want by some means to neutralise the effect of the one-man-one-vote system, and if ever they get into power they will carry it into law. Now, could anything be more absurd than this? A man who can neither

read nor write has a quarter-acre section on which he pays a few pence a year in rates; he would have two votes, while a Professor of Political Economy in one of our colleges would, if he possessed no property, have only one vote. The proposal is so stupid that it is not worth discussing, but at the same time the people should take

care not to allow this party to return to power until, at any rate, they accumulate sufficient common sense to realise that to go back to plural voting is not practicable. As regards the doctrine of no more borrowing, it is certainly a new article in the creed of the Tory. If the j

Atkinsonians had remained in power j we should have had another loan by this time. Sir Harry jktkinson had foreshadowed another loan in his last financial statement, and had he remained in power he would undoubtedly have raided it. Even Mr jßryce himself said he was not against

further borrowing for certain pur- J poses, and several other Conservative \ leaders have said the same thing. This proves that there is no reality in that cry; and that if the Conservatives got into power they would immediately resort to the old policy of “ Borrow and spend.” Fortunately for the colony, however, they are not likely to return to power for a long time, and consequently we need not trouble ourselves a great deal about what they say. Still, it behoves us all to be very careful in our dealings with them, for if they got into power at the present time it is not at all improbable that they would be mad enough to attempt to carry into effect their plural voting proposals. In doing this they would only repeat what the dominant party have done in the past. In the olden times the Kings of England had a happy knack of destroying the power of Parliament. They used to dissolve Parliament, create rotten boroughs, and thus secure a majority. Some of these boroughs had very few voters, and some none at all. For instance, the borough of Old Sarum, in Wiltshire, two miles from Salisbury, had not a single house in it, and yet some of England’s greatest statesmen took their seats in Parliament as its representatives. At the same time cities like Birmingham and Manchester were not represented at all, and yet the change was not made until the nation nearly rebelled, and a large number of people were massacred at what is known as the battle of Peterloo, in Manchester. Our forefathers fought and suffered to gain the liberties we possess now, and it is to be hoped we shall not give them up now for a mess of pottage.