South Canterbury Times. FRIDAY, JULY 20, 1882.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2908, 21 July 1882, Page 2

South Canterbury Times. FRIDAY, JULY 20, 1882.

Sir George Grey’s Constitution Amendment Bill gave rise, on Wednesday night, to a very lively discussion, 1 in the House of Representatives. Our readers will be aware that this is a Bill to enable the people of New Zealand to peacably, by plebiscite, make such alterations in the constitution of the colony as they shall, from time to time, deem necessary or desirable. A proposal of such importance could not fail to engage the earnest attention of the House, and provoke a most animated debate. Ministers flew to arms at once, and, through Mr Bryce, declared their in tention to resign if the motion for the second reading were carried. This Bill is of so important a character as to its aim, that we cannot allow it to pass without urging our readers to seriously consider it. At present no, amendment in the Constitution can be made without a tedious and difficult process, and the consent of Jpcal and Imperial authorities. Should one Chamber, as in the case of the Victorian Council, be obstructive there is no provision for ousting it or depriving it of its legislative functions. The course open to the majority is to stop supplies, and throw the country into a state of disorganisation, and so starve the obstructing Chamber into surrender. This course Mr Berry adopted in the sister colony,with very deplorable results to the community. The same course might at any time be pursued in New Zealand should a similar difficulty present itself, and it is to provide against such a contingency that Sir George Grey’s present Bill is brought forward. But, if we mistake not, this is not the sole object of the Bill. It has also this object in view, the placing of actual self-government in the bands of the people, that they may be really their own masters, and possess the enormous power of fontrolling government by direct voice. Now as to the probability of such a contingency arising here, as in Victoria, there is no reason for us to deem ourselves secure from , it. Indeed there are very often indications in the Upper House, of hostility to the popular interests. And the very constitution of the House is repugnant to the people. Looked at from this point of view, no exception can be taken to the Bill. It places in the people’s hands an easy remedy. Bnt then arises the serious question of the propriety of granting the power of direct selfgovernment to the people, a subject on which there is a fierce conflict of opinion. ,The first question that occurs is,—is the power of direct selfgovernment really the right of a civilised people ? The next, are the people of New Zealand fit for the possession of so tremendous a power ? The answer to the former query seems easy enough. There can be no doubt that a people develop in proportion as it passes from tyranny to freedom. The need of authority over the individual dies away as the individual develops capacity for governing himself. Every country passes through a pupilage which is longer or shorter as the case may bo; —the length depending entirely on the circumstance and temper of the people. In France, for example, the pupilage has been long. The people of that great country were very slow to exhibit, any capacity for self-govern-ment, But, in the end, they did so, and thufr present condition of political trancj it and material prosperity it a sufficient evidence that they have profited by the varied experience of centuries and acquired self-control. In England (we may, without boasting, assert what our Continental writers generally admit) the ability to govern themselves has always existed more or less among the people. The

this, if examined properly. The nation has not yet reached the stage proposed by this Bill. The plebiscite is unknown there as yet. But a power almost tantamount to it is in the hands of the people. They virtually control themselves. Nominated bodies are fast falling, nay, have nearly fallen, into “ the sere and yellow leaf.” The House of Lords exists truly,'but it is a thing of “ shreds and patches,” dying by inches. The great organ of English public opinion has declared that its days are numbered. Nomination is in process of dissolution, and representation is in the front. The people elect their own representatives, and the voting powers are being extended continually. Everything tends to show that the divine right lies, not with anointed kings, but with the sovereign people. Vox populi , vox Dei has for centuries been denied and sneered at and denounced as the maxim of anarchists. But its truth is demonstrated at last. The course of succeeding events proves it beyond a doubt. No one, then, can deny that the power of controlling themselves by direct voice is the prerogative of a free people. Whether New Zealand is fit and prepared to assume this power is another matter. It does not affect the question to say it does not need the power. If it is prepared to use it aright, it should have it. For our own part we can see no serious objection to it. This is how the opponents of the measure put it, we quote the language of the “ Timaru Herald ”:—“ It proposes in effect to abolish Parliamentary institutions in New Zealand, and to set aside both the House of Representatives and theLegislative Council, in favor of mob rule.” Does our contemporary regard the abolition of parliamentary institutions and government plebiscite as altogether suicidal or impracticable 7 In our opinion it is neither.. To designate popular self-government as “ mob rule” is incorrect. Mob rule means anarchy or very little better ; the * mob ’ is the assemblage of the ignorant. We very much doubt whether there really exists a mob at all in this country. Colonial life if hard and full of vicissitudes has an unmistakeably elevating effect upon the masses. The highest places are open to the lowest aspirants. There is every inducement for every man to regulate and govern himself and to identify himself with the interests of the community. Political education never progressed anywhere in the world’s history, so fast and so surely as in the colonies. And the effect of political education is to elevate the mass, to fix upon them a sense of responsibility, and to make them capable of using the greatest power with discretion. We are not prepared to advocate this Bill exactly, but we certainly do not oppose it, nor do we regard it as Utopian. We are quite prepared to see it become law ; not immediately, perhaps, but no long time hence.