EVENING SITTING.

Thames Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2969, 21 August 1878, Page 2

EVENING SITTING.

Tuesday.

The House resumed at 7.30. ? ; The Civil Service Act Amendment^ Bill went through Committee. The Sale: of Foci"and Drugs Act Amendment Bill and the Cruelty to Animals Bill passed, when the adjourned debate on the Electoral Bill was taken. ■ This day. i ■ The Electoral Bill. \

The debate on the' Electoral Bill was coutinued by Mr -Fox after ten r o'clock last night. He said he could not support that portion of the Bill in reference to the Native frahchis3. He regarded the endowment of the franchise on Maoris as a statesmanlike act, which had been the salvation of the country. He objected to double representation and flooding of European constituencies by Native votes. That was really the outcome of the present system. For instance, in Manawatu, two hundred names hid been placed on the roll, and these 2CD votea could be manipulated by one man. The Maoris did not ask for it, indeed some Natives uortU of Auckland petitioned against the system. He objected .to the double votes of Europeans. If there was to be , manhood suffrage -it should be fixed upon some intelligible principle, either that he was a taxpayer or on some other principle. There should not be a double vote giving property holders an undue advantage, more particularly in the South Island where there were greater facilities for transporting voters from place to place.' As to' manhood suffrage. Ho had studied it in America, Switzerland, and other countries, and admitted that the suffrage must come to that. His only desire was t6 sec it suirouncied with sufficient safeguards. He knew the American constitution and representative scheme, and regretted the social and political immorality in. that great free country, but he did not attribute those evils altogether to manhood suffrage. They were in a large measure the result of a great socialistic wave, which ' was sweeping over the, oldest countries in the world as well as the newest, whether democratic or monarchial. In America it was very powerful. Thousands of loafers were'preaching, and produced socialism, all of whom had, the franchise ; and it was a terrible power. The outlook was not cheerful, but he had great confidence as to the future,' aud believed manhood suffrage would be the safety valve which would enable. America to steer through her trouble. It could not be said that be was opposed to manhood suffrage, but he was desirous of seeing it surrounded by safeguards. Addressing himself'to the question of woman suffrage, he contended if taxation was the basis of representation, representation could not be denied to women who paid taxes, more especially as the principle was admitted in municipal affairs. The Bill did not go so far as that, but,still he should support the Bill as far as it went. Generally he should" Bupport the Bill, but objected to some details. He also favored the Bill of the hon. member for Waikatb with same exceptions. He had great doubts as to Hare's.system—not so much on the abstract question but in respect to details.

' Mr Manders supported the bill, though he objected to some of thedetails. i Mr JMdwick" pointed put several defects in the machinery," whicli would* require alteration'^ . ; " \■. ..: Mr Bastings strongly suppcx led manhood suffrage, arid iothat extent did not entirely agree with the Bill. Women should have a property vote, but nothing further.

■-. Mr Barff regarded the Eill as very in> i perfect, but would voto for its second rendinjj. Major Atkinson congratulated the Government on the unanimity of i'«s followers in respect . to the first gre:*t measure brought forward for the purpose of freeing the serfs of New Zealand. Nearly every one had takeu objection to its principle and details, and had given fatherly advice as to what ou^ht to be done. The Premier and Government promised mauhood suffrage pure and simple, and it was with surprise he had seen the Attorney-General rise to introduce the bill, because it wa3 the peculiar province of the Premier to have introduced it. It was not the bill the Premier promised, much to the relief of both sides of the House. It was a .relief to the supporters of the Government that they would not have to vote for a policy of "bunkum," to use the expression of the hon. member for lioslyn; and a relief to the Opposition, who were afraid of what the Government were going to propose. It was cot the bill promised in recess, and. afforded another I proof of the correctness of the statement of Mr 'Reader Wood to the Auckland Provincial Council, that no one and nothing could find the Premier. There was no liberalism in the bill Property holders were given three advantages; ono in lvspect of freehold, next in respect of leasehold, and next clerks of road boards were to take care that property holders were on the rolls; while the 15,000, the pith iud marrow of the country, were left to take care of themselves. The class least used to writing aud attending to these matters was left entirely out in the cold. Mow did this peculiar case of property class tally with the Premier's speeches ? It was another thinness (?) of the talk of the Premier, and failures to act in accordance with his talk. There were many absurd provisions . in the Bill, proving that Ministers who ran about the country during the whole of the recess* could not present well digested proposals to the House. For instance, a man personated was to be disfranchised, though he had done no wrong. Then, if a member was returned and did not elect to take his seat, according to the intention of the Bill there was no penalty for his non-fulfilment of the condition. There was no* provision for ascertaining who were residents, no provision for identifying the names on the roll" in respect of property, no means of keeping the rolls pure. Mr Ballance thought it a pity the hon. : member for ifgojont had not dealt with • principles: instead of with details, and : contended that the Bill was more liberal and simple than that of the hon. member for Waikaio. No more complicated sy*tem than Hare's could be imagined, nor could any system be devised which was better calcu'ated to destroy the rights of the .people than Hare's system. If the | hon. gentlemen on the Opposition side were sincere about liberalism, let them ; drop Hare's system and go in for* the remainder of the Bill brought forward by ; the hon. memter for Waikato. Mr Whitfker; I accept that at once.

Mr Ballance : Would the hon. gentleman's friends accept it? No. As to Victoria, the provisions of the Government Eill were on all fours with the* Victorian praciice. He was not going to contend that the extension of the suffrage w>uld have such a great effect upon the liberties of the people, but. it was necessary for the good of the Colony t:> distribute political power over all the people, and to give manhood suffrage with rea- 1 sonable. restrictions.' The principle of the Government was that they extended political privileges by residential qualification, and no more liberal franchise than that provided by the Bill could be given. As to the Maori question, why the Government had not given the Maori any new power, but had restricted it in certain directions. The grievance was that Katives did not pay rates, and assist in paying for making of roads; and the principle of this Bill was to induce the Maori to pay, «nd obtain 1 political privileges thereby, i hat was a policy which the country at large would accept. - As to the educational test, a high educational test was not justified by experience. For instance, the university of Oxford at home had opposed every liberal measure now on the statute book, aud had rejected Mr Gladstone for his liberal ideas. The principle of rcpresen'atipn of mino.ities was a fallacy. It was un-English, and further, every reform in England had been carried by a simple 'majority.- The genius of the English constitution was the- simple majority, but minority representation was not excluded thereby, for almost every shade of opinion was appreciably represented in the House" of Commons under the present system. The'fact was that Hare's system was a machinery for making divergent minorities a majority, and not for the fair representation of opinion of the country: Dr Wallis had charged certain members of the Government with ultra conservatism, and hinted at a division in the Cabinet.. Why naturally there must be diverse individual opinions, and every great measure could only be the outcome of the united mind of the Cabinet, and this measure really did represent the mind of the Premier, in that it extended suffrage greatly. No doubt there were minor defects, but wexe there not such in every great proposal brought before that or any House ? Was the principle of the Bill acceptable ? He believed the answer of a large majority in the House would be - in the affirmative. . I

On the motion of Mr .Seaton the debate was adjourned. Tbe House was adjourned at 12.30.