HIE WAIPAWA MAIL WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 25.

Waipawa Mail, Volume I, Issue 4, 25 September 1878, Page 2

HIE WAIPAWA MAIL WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 25.

It is not surprising that Mr Curtis’s motion for the reform of the Legislative Council found few supporters in Parliament. The resolution briefly proposed that the Legislative Council should be elected bv a ballot of the House of Representatives—a principle which has never yet been adopted in any portion of Her Majesty’s dominions. The arguments in favor of the scheme were exceedingly weak. It was not contended that the Legislative Council had in the past been obstructive, or had shown any desire to thwart the will of the people. No collision has yet taken place between the two branches of the Legislature ; but, says Mr Curtis, a change should be made to prevent the possibility of a serious conflict. As loug as the bicameral system of government remains in New Zealand, except the members of one branch of the Legislature are to be reduced to mere nonentities, we must be content to run the risk of disagreement. In the working of our Parliamentary institutions, good sense, good temper, and mutual forbearance should smooth away any difficulties which might arise between the Upper and Lower Houses. It was the absence of these qualities which led to the recent deadlock in Victoria. However, it must be admitted that there are elements of disturbance in Victoria which do not exist in New Zealand. The quarrel between the two Houses there has been the growth of twenty years. Here, looking at the subject in a light free from party prejudice, it muwt He «aid that Imrmony has prevailed between the two Chambers. Where the Council has set itself against the temporary will of the House of Representatives, the action of the Council was invariably for the good of the country. Perhaps the most important measures ever rejected by the Upper House were the Provincial Loans Borrowing Bills in the session of 1873. At that time the country was beginning to enjoy the first fruits of the Public Works Policy. The mania for borrowing raged both inside and outside the walls of Parliament ; and on the principle that “ we could not have too much of a good thing,” Sir Julius Vogel actually proposed that each of the nine provinces of New Zealand should be empowered to borrow to a unlimited extent, with the understanding that the colony was not to be responsible for the loans. Mr Curtis, the gentlemen who the other day proposed to make the Council the creature of the House of Representatives, was then the Superintendent of Nelson, and though in opposition, he eagerly supported the proposal of the Government. The principle was adopted by an overwhelming vote of the House ; and the Superintendents were not long in drawing up schedules of works “urgently required” in their several provinces. As might naturally have been expected, the poorer the province the more money was required; and the dapper little gentleman who represented Nelson was not at all bashful in. asking enough. Taranaki, Marlborough, and other places followed suit. f There was hurrying as to which province should get its Borrowing Bill passed through the House. The. opportunity was too good to be lost. It was perfectly clear such a thing as people getting all they asked for could only occur once in the history of a country, and the Superintendents were determined to make hay when the sun shone. The opposition to these borrowing schemes in the House of Repfesentatives was of the feeblest kind. Any member who opposed them could never dare to look his constituents in the face. By the most shameless logrolling that ever disgraced a Legislature, each Bill was carried, although it was known that in several cases the money would be virtually thrown away. It was the expenditure of borrowed money more than public works of a beneficial character which was the end and aim of the promoters of the measures. It was the sheerest nonsense to say that the colony would not be responsible for these loans after they had been endorsed by the Legislature. The Upper House, however, saved the credit of the country by rejecting the bills. The praiseworthy action of the Council was exceedingly distasteful to the then Government and the majority of the House of Representatives; and Sir Julius Vogel stormed and threatened

the Council with extinction. That was the only great question. of public policy where the views of the Upper House ran counter to those of the Assembly, and nineteen out of every twenty reflecting men in the country in lees than six months after the rejection of the Borrowing Bills were of opinion that the Council had acted wisely, and had saved the credit of the colony, and with it the power to carry on the public works policy. The evil the Council then prevented may be put down as a set-off to the rejection of measures of such a doubtful character, as the Deceased AVife’s Sister Marriage Bill. Tho recent appointments to the Legisla tive Council have not given general satisfaction. The Ministry might easily have made a better selection. However, Mr. Curtis denies that these appointments have in the least influenced his action in moving for a reform of the Counci]. Perhaps the course pursued by the Upper House in 1873 still rankles in his mind. Under the Public Works scheme of the present Ministry, Nelson is left out in the cold. No money is to be spent unless there is a prospect of a return to the colonial coffers. The money already Rpent in Taranaki, Nelson, and Marlborough has been a dead loss, and no Government would be justified in making railways where there is every probability of their not paying working expenses. The Legislative Council has hitherto shown itself to be the great enemy to frittering away of public money. By log-rolling almost any measure may be carried through the House of Representatives; but such a thing as log-rolling is unknown in the Upper House. It is popular to abuse the nominated branch of the Legislature ; but any impartial student of the history of the working of Parliamentary institutions here will repeat the words of a great English statesman, “ Thank God, we have a House of Lords.” In Mr. Curtis’s opinion, nominated councils are not consistent with representative institutions. Theoretically, they may not be ; but experience is a better guide than theory. The Liberals of Victoria at the present moment are strongly of opinion that the great mistake of the Constitution Act is the provision for an elective Upper House. Mr. Graham Berry and his supporters would gladly exchange the elective for the nominative system. Mr. Stout, who is a thorough-going democrat, is of opinion that “ there could be no greater curse to a country than an elective Upper Chamber.” That is a strong way of putting his objection to the principle. Whether an elective Legislative Council would be a curse to the county would depend upon the mode of election ; but this much is tolerably.clear, such a body would greatly diminish the powers' of the House of Representatives. Under Mr. Curtis’s illdigested scheme, the Council might easily become paramount to the Lower House. Elected by the votes of the members of the people’s Chamber, the Council might regard itself as the concentrated wisdom of the country. There is little dissatisfaction with the Council at present, and we fail to see any adequate reason for tinkering with the Constitution Act.