With one exception, the constitutional changes of the eight years may be dismissed in a very few words.  The Upper Chamber, or Legislative Council of New Zealand, is nominative and not elective, nor is there any fixed limit to its numbers.  Liable, thus, to be diluted by Liberal nominees, it is not so strong an obstacle to the popular will as are the Elective Councils of certain Australian Colonies.  Prior to 1891, however, the nominations in New Zealand were for life.  This was objected to for two reasons.  A Councillor, who at the age of sixty might be a valuable adviser, might twelve years later be but the shadow of his former self.  Moreover, experience showed that Conservatism was apt to strengthen in the nominated legislator’s mind with advancing years.  So a seven years’ tenure has been substituted for life tenure.  Then, again, in 1891 the Liberal majority in the Colony was scarcely represented in the Council at all.  In important divisions, Government measures passed by decisive majorities in the popular Chamber could only muster two, three, four, or five supporters in the Council.  This not only meant that a hostile majority could reject and amend as it pleased, but that measures were not even fairly debated in the Upper House.  Only one side was heard.  In 1892 the Ballance Ministry, therefore, asked the Governor to call twelve fresh Councillors.  His Excellency demurred to the number.  As there was about to be a change of Governors the matter stood over.  The new Governor proved as unwilling as his predecessor.  Ballance held that in this matter, as in others, the constitutional course was for the Governor to take the advice of his Ministers.  His Excellency thought otherwise.  By mutual consent the matter was referred to the Colonial Office, where Lord Ripon decided in favour of the Premier.  Twelve new Councillors were nominated.  Though this submission to the arbitration of the Colonial Office was attacked not only by colonial Conservatives but by Sir George Grey, it was highly approved of both by the Lower House and the mass of the electors, and was regarded as one of Ballance’s most important successes.

Another he did not live to see achieved.  His Electoral Bill, wrecked twice in the Council, was only passed some months after his death.  Under it the one-man-one-vote was carried to its complete issue by the clause providing for one man one registration; that is to say, that no voter could register on more than one roll.  Consequently property-owners were not only cut down to one vote in one district at a general election, but were prevented from voting in another district at a by-election.  The right to vote by letter was extended from seamen to shearers.  But much the greatest extension of the franchise was the giving it to women.  This was a curious example of a remarkable constitutional change carried by a Parliament at the election of which the question had scarcely been discussed.  Labour, Land, and Progressive