THE Wairarapa Age MORNING DAILY. FRIDAY, JULY 12, 1907. THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXX, Issue 8485, 12 July 1907, Page 4

THE Wairarapa Age MORNING DAILY. FRIDAY, JULY 12, 1907. THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL.

It is certainly a matter of pleasurable surprise that Sir W. J. Steward's Legislative Council Election Bill has passed its second reading. It is, of coui-se, generally recognised that there is no prospect whatever of the Bill becoming law, and, as to the Bill

itself, in our opinion, were the promoter oi it to succeed in fulfilling his long-cherished hope, the measure would not prove to be reformatory in character. It is unnecessary to consider the Bill seriously, but the discussion that it has evoked and will evoke in the future may probably be productive of good. Hie Legislative Council could be reformed, or, in other words, greatly improved, and the Government should undertake the task, although it may be a somewhat unpleasant one. We cannot see why the Premier should defend the Council, as a whole, and we do not consider that Sir Joseph Ward is wise in refusing to recognise the widespread and growing feeling throughout the country that the Upper House must be reformed. No doubt it is difficult* to devise a satisfactory system upon which to constitute the Upper House, but even under the present system the Premier has it within his power to bring about a certain amount of reformation. It is absurd to suppose that the Legislative Council will ever commit political suicide, which the members of the Lower House, who voted for Sir William Steward's Bill, practically asked them to do; and supporters of the Bill, of course, were perfectly sonsible of the fact, but the passing of the Bill was virtually a vote of censure on the manner in which appointments are made to the Upper House. We are glad to know that the House contains forty men of sufficient backbone and independence of character to vote for the Bill. Of the twonty-nine who voted against the Bill six were Ministers. The very common practice of appointing "the rejects of the people" to the Upper House

should be stopped. A "reject," who has seen Parliamentary service, may, perhaps, be eligible, but men who have always unsuccessfully endeavoured to enter Parliament should not, in any circumstances, be appointed. Defeated Parliamentary candidates have, in effect, been declared by the people to be unsuitable as legislators, yet the Cabinet, practically, says, "We know very much bettor than the people—rejected candidates make excellent legislators and when we think fit, we are going to put them into the Upper House to amend, to criticise and to condemn the work of the Lower House." Such an attitude, or system of appointing is not only absolutely indefensible, but it cannot be too strongly condemned. A stror.g Ministry in power for any length of time, could do much towards improving the Upper House, without adopting any revolutionary measure, and such a policy would meet with general and deserved approbation.