Untitled

New Zealand Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 4170, 1 August 1874, Page 2

It is to be presumed that tho Government did not expect to carry the Bill for the amendment of tho Constitution Act through tho Council this session, but it by no means follows that in the opinion of thoughtful men such a measure should not become law, at an early date. There was, as tho Colonial Secretary explained, no actual need for it in. tho circumstances of the present timo._ But difficulties necessitating some legislative interference might occur at any minute, and surely to havo provision for those was a wise precaution. This discretionary power, wo may remark, applies to many more subjects than the provision for a dead-lock in tho constitutional government of a Colony. There seems no pressing need why a halo and hearty man, who has not attained tho meridian of years prescribed in olden times as tho period of a life, should make a will, but everyone knows it is politic forhim to doso. No pressing necessity appears why pro-

perty should be insured against fire, excepting the possibility that it -will be burned down ; but prudence dictates the propriety of this course being adopted. So, the Colonial Secretary argued, it would be statesmanlike for the Council to have an available remedy for a dead-lock which everyone would admit must prove calamitous. In his opinion, and in that of the Government, it would bo better if in a time of quiet, whilst there was not a cloud on the political horizon, forethought should be taken. Victoria, as usual, supplied the “ shocking example ” with which he illustrated his argument. In that Colony there had been a dead-lock, the effect of which had been moat disastrous. No one would be bold enough to say that something of the same kind might not occur here. There is always the prospect of a difference in opinion between the two branches of the Legislature. Dr. Pollen could not see, and we venture to say no other person could, any chance of a settlement of these, but in a meeting of both the Council and. the Representatives. The Government proposed that the Governor should have power to act as ap arbitrator between the two parties, settling what they should be called upon to decide, and suggesting amendments that it might seem to him desirable should be introduced into the matter' in dispute. In case the Council should feel its wings to be clipped to any extent, power was proposed to be given that it should have a voice in the settlement of disputed money bills. Under such circumstances, we could understand the House of Representatives complaining that the elected of the people were deprived of an ancient prerogative ; but it seems difficult to suppose that the Council would bo placed in any worse position than it previously enjoyed. In thus arguing, hon. members exposed very clearly what is an evil attendant upon government by a majority of members, whether elected or nominated. Houses of Parliament are supposed to be deliberative. Hon. members are expected to be not like “ dumb, driven cattle.” We are quite aware of the privilege of pairing that exists, and of the evils it has given rise to. Members can, by it, register their votes without even hearing the debates; but no one will seriously argue that this was ever contemplated when the provision was introduced.

Colonel Kenny’s motion that the Bill of the Government should be referred to a select committee, and thus practically negatived without any decision of the Council being arrived at, was lost. Then came the discussion on the Bill itself. It was assumed by more than one hon. member that its intent was to put the Council in a lower position than it now occupies. Hon. members displayed strong Conservative tendencies. Anythingshould perish rather than the privileges of the Council. To make clear that this was not intended, an illustration seems to be necessary. We will suppose a Bill being sent to the Council, and carried by a small majority, as is. usually the case in the Lower Chamber. The Council might throw it out, and the Governor might decide that it should come before a combined Chamber. Supposing the majority of the Council, in which divisions are not usually very close, were to vote with the minority of the Assembly, the union would most likely cause a majority, and the original action of the Council would be affirmed. Should the Council admit that some of its members might be induced to alter their votes in consequence of arguments adduced by members of a combined Council, there does not appear 'ground for complaint. If:they should do so it would be on what they considered good and sufficient reasons, and the aim of the Constitution Act would be thereby met. There is perfect nonsense in supposing, as some hon. members fancied they did yesterday, that a majority in the Lower House would ever be found voting one way, a majority in the Upper House another, and the views of the majority in the Lower House certainly finding acceptance in the combined Chamber. But the delusion is evidently one that has taken deep root in the minds of some hon. members, and to eradicate it will be a work of time. The speech of Mr. Hart, to the effect that the Government had shown no cause why such a Bill should be introduced, explains the defeat of the motion of the Colonial Secretary. If he could have come down to the House and demonstrated that a dead-lock was imminent, in the opinion of many hon. members his conduct would have justified itself. They prefer not to look the door until the steed has been stolen. Then, we are liberty to infer, they would securely fasten the empty stable. And, with many, their votes were foregone conclusions. As Mr. Campbell explained early in the debate, many members were inclined to give the “happy dispatch” to the Bill, and they . wished to know which was the readiest manner of effecting this. But, before the debate was closed, more than one member took opportunity to pay a high tribute to the existing constitution of the Council. Whether this could be justified is not the question ; what we would like to bo informed is whether the members were correct who gave color to the inference that the majority of the Council had prejudged the case, and would not be moved by arguments ; or whether there was truth in the statement that as a deliberative body they contrasted favorably with any branch of legislation out of Great Britain. Far be it from us to depreciate any just claim they may have ; but we can scarce dissent from the view of the Colonial Secretary that they do take a Fetish-like view of their position. He was quite agreeable that the Bill should bo read a second time, and then referred to a select committee, which might be ballottcd or chosen by the House. What more could hon. members require ?—if they were favorable to reform of any qostion. They, however, elected to remain thoroughly conservative. Surely they recognise the fact stated by the Colonial Secretary, that a dead-look may arise. But they did not give • the slightest indication of what course they thought it would bo desirable to take in the event of such a contingency. They merely argued, as many persons have done, that anytliing in the shape of insurance is unnecessary. They showed no fault in the measure indicated, and left the Government no key as to what course might bo considered advisable for the future. Wo can hardly term such action either prudent or statesmanlike.