The Evening Star TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, 1873.

Evening Star, Issue 3311, 30 September 1873, Page 2

The Evening Star TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, 1873.

Although there may be different views with regard to the advisability of Provincial borrowing in any form, there can be but one opinion as to the utter impossibility of any government being carried on where opposition to it is not so much in the House of Repi’esentatives as in the Tipper Chamber. We do not consider the mere fact of a majority of that branch of the Legislature being opposed to particular measures as conclusive against the utility of a second chamber. In fact, were there never any differences of opinion, the inference might fairly be drawn that a Council, however constituted, is utterly useless. Their utility Is only demonstrated when they prove their independence by rejecting measures passed by the Representatives, or by introducing such modifications as seem to them necessary to their working for good. Were they to be debarred from these expressions of their judgment they would be mere registrars of the doings of the other House : ciphers in the State, neither useful nor ornamental. In condemning their action during the past session, therefore, we do so on the ground that they have been animated by a spirit of faction, not of legislation. Had they acted as drags or breaks, checking hasty or inconsiderate measures, they would have fulfilled their duties 5 but it cannot be said that many of the Bills so summarily rejected by them have been hastily or thoughtlessly adopted. Three or four times has the Bill legalising marriage with the lister of a deceased wife been sent up to them for approval. This, at any rate, proves the measure to have been ttioroughly and maturely considered by the representatives of the people, and it may be fairly concluded to be the expression of the national willas that is concerned, therefore, the action of the Council must be factious. The arguments by which. many members attempted to justify their votes wesa .childish in the extreme : it would be a# insult to them could it be supposed they /convinced even tliose who uttered them ; and jp ig an insult by them to the people to suppose that they are so devoid of intelligence as to accept reasons as sufficient to justify the rejection of a Bill passed by their representatives. After throwing out what was termed the Provincial Borrowing Bill, was not to be expected they would sanction the more objectionable proposals put forward in lieu of it. Some persons may be of opinion that as it appeared before them for the first time they can-

not be considered factious for throwing it out. We admit that, for the first time, it appeared under its specific title ; but we are prepared to show that in former sessions Bills based upon the same principle have been rejected by the Council, and that although there were some points on which it differed from them, they were only such as should have been settled by conference of the two Houses. In unceremoniously rejecting these measures, therefore, they acted in a factious spirit, or in one dictated by fancied self-interest, and not through a desire for the general good. The adoption of an Upper Chamber by the Colonies was dictated, not so much by an aping of the constitution of King, Lords, and Commons at Home, as through a desire to present some barrier to the pressure of popular opinion whenever it should have assumed a form likely to force upon the Government ill-advised measures. It was thought that by instituting a chamber not responsible to the people, and in which men exercised legislative functions for a series of years, or for life, they would become by habits of study and practice better fitted for the work of supervision. Although, therefore, as men, they could not divest themselves of human feelings, it was but reasonable to imagine that a sense -of the duty inseparable from so dignified a position would lead to a scrupulous and even disinterested course of careful and intelligent examination of every measure brought before them. But two points seem to have been overlooked : for men to be capable of conduct so exemplary, they must combine the highest mental and moral culture with thorough business habits and qualifications ; and next to that they must not be men who live upon traditions of the past, but who can advance with the advancing knowledge of the day. Neither ot these requisites can be traced in the conduct of the Legislative Council of New Zealand. Most of them are below fourth form scholars in the High School in education ; they are totally ignorant of constitutional law, political economy, and political and moral philosophy ; and the only position in which most of them (for there are exceptions) are adapted to shine is as station managers, or some one or two as foremen of special workshops. But Colonial Constitutions are placed at a great disadvantage compared with that of the Mother Country. Founded by statute, they possess no privileges beyond those conferred upon them, and are debarred from devising measures beyond those prescribed, by which the contumacy of either House can be over-ridden. In New Zealand the only plan is to “swamp” the adverse majority in the Council by the introduction of new blood. This is at all times an objectionable process, which although onceadopted here, when, during Mr Stafford’s administration, members were appointed from Otago in express defiance of the popular expression of want of confidence in them, no Ministry likes to recommend. At Home the rule, as laid down by Dr Hearn, stands thus ;

If, therefore, the King disapprove of the advice tendered to him by the House of Commons in respect to the exercise of any branch of the Prerogative, whether in the appointment of his servants or in the performance of their duties, his proper course is to summon a new House, and to be guided by its opinion. But the House of Lords has a right of advice co-exten-sive with that of the Commons; and to the House of Lords the remedy of a dissolution cannot be applied. It is necessary, therefore, to determine what course should be pursued when the Peers tender to their Sovereign advice which, after due consultation with his principal servants, he determines not to accept. The rule which the present practice of our political system seems in such cases to establish is that iii all questions of administration the King ought to accept the advice of his Peers, unless a contrary opinion be distinctly expressed by the House of Commons ; hut that if such an opinion be expressed, it should prevail. When, therefore, a hostile vote has been passed against any Ministry in the House of Lords, if the Ministry do not resign, it ought to obtain from the House of Commons a vote of a directly opposite character. The [principle on which this rule depends may be thus stated. A Ministry requires for the efficient discharge of its duties the support of Parliament. Since Parliament consists of two jjiju-ts, and since questions of administration do not, lilfe questions of legislation, admit of compromise or delay, if there be a difference between these parts respecting the conduct of any Ministry, some means of speedily deciding that difference must be found. Accordingly, the rule is that when the opinions of the tjvo Houses are divided, the opinion of the House of Commons prevails. But as the existence of such t difference is not to be presumed, an adverse vote of the House of Lords must so weaken a Ministry, both at Home and in the estimation of foreign power?, %,t nothing but the unequivocal expression of the continued confidence of the House of Commons can restore it to its position,