MASTERTON DEBATING SOCIETY.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume 4, Issue 1096, 10 June 1882, Page 2

MASTERTON DEBATING SOCIETY.

Owing to the somewhat inclement weatlier Inst evening there was a rather tliiii attenclauce. Mr Grundy, tho President, occupied the chair, A letter was received from tho Masterton Institute Coinmitteo, d«roeias; to let the Society have the Upper Room, and Mess™ Grunily, Hogg, Sellar, and Payton were authorised to expend ,£ls oii behalf of the Society in furnishing it. Mr Hog" then opened the debate oil the question, " Should the British House of Lords be abolished" He said he approached tho subject with some decree of diffidence lest lie trespassed on the feelings of veneration which some members, no doubt, possessed for an institution which iie admitted to have tho elemonts df grandeur and sublimity, Tho House of Lords resembled old ruins which linked the present age with the past, but they would scarcely like to see those ruins rebuilt and- repeoplod The Housa of Lords had fulfilled its career, and evon in its : old age it wag yyortliy of- veapect. All he wished to show: was tlml its usefulness belonged to tho past rather than to the present, He ttieii sketched tho rise and progress of the House as an institution. In olden times the Parliament of England consisted of one House, Tho Senate of the Kingdom included the representatives of municipal bodies. It was not till the time of King John that the' House of Peers was separated from the Commons, { He nilmitted that some of England's greatest liberties were conceded by the House of Lords. Still, it had outlived its utility, and was no longor a help to legishition, Ho aqued that tho effects of two Houses oii any country must be pernicions, especially when it led to class legislation. The very titles of iho nobility separated them from the people, He instanced the evil of class legislation by n reference to the history of caste in India. The hereditary element 'liad been condemned by writers, 7 poets, and lawmakers, The peers of Great Britain wore not amenable to the ordinary courts of law;. The pcoplo of tho present day required tho best form of representation, which could not. bo obtained from a dual legislature. The Houses of Lords and Commons never worked, harmoniously together. The former House was autocratic and tho latter had to shape its measures to suit it. Two Houses tended to perpetuate class legislation. The progress of legislation was retarded by tho different interests which wore .represented. Palaces and poorhouses, profligates and paupers, were tho outcome of dual legislation. During tho past generation the liberal Governments had in England their greatest enemy in tho House of Lords. Mr Gladstone's designs had been continually frustrated by this instation. If:he had failed in his Irish policy, it was because'tho revolutionary hasty had been aided and abetted by tho House of Lords. He admitted tliat there were many superior men;in tho Uppor House, but such men should fight l in tho arena of tho House of - Commons. It might be : said that the ; House of Lords was necessary to cheek party legislation; why should they have hasty legislation I Divided responsibility and not hasty legislation was what , they had to fight against. If there were 1 but one legislature, members would be ' more careful than they were now. He 1 .believed that aB old institutions wore out ! things improved rapidly. He conohided by quoting extracts from the poets, which hold up lordlings to ridicule, and advocat- ! m« a federal union fpr Great Britain and all her colonies and possessions. Mr 0. Morrison', in reply, said the real J question was abolishing a component part •of,the British constitution. He argued J: that the House of Lords was intrinsically excellent, and that the King and Commons could liot Govern well without.it. Lords might be immoral, but it did not follow from this that they were-bad legislators. There were no > precedents to show the efficacy of, ,'a jingle Chamber, Only. Turkey aild Greeco were without a dual legislature, andjhey were not examples of good .government. If the House of Loids was useless now, it might again become useful;- The Lords and Commons always joined in one common cause when great interests were at stake. Mr Hog® had not shewn that the House of Lords had outlived its usefulness, he had merely made the assertions Mr Hogg admitted 1 hat there,was a,strong; liberal element in ™ House of which refuted his objeotion to olass legislation, the class distinctions, Attributing poorhouses to the House of Lords- remiiulod; him : that , : Mr : > Hogg aseribed-thom on areceiit,"Occasion : tb the dmimiahsatiohonandi-AJdembeHid cou Jy sucL. as England,-:witHout"; tie ™- ! dbo ,very mucli like : sohopli: :vEngi g,^h.tsKm g ;Lor^aSd'ComHo^| was th ; e,happiest, couijtry..in-.the, .world. -? 1 ! 8 Etiglavid gainedWoliberties °. E OI, PJ9 ti; :werej: eja t itjed ~t 0 a voice injhp ;modjfioafcion:.of thejebun'tries law?, If England was governed by King or Commons only, either one tirihe other power would gain the sole control of the country, •

James Russell | considered constitution, >as theifineet one under the ,Buni;j The leading 'men of-the'>Upper House.were,'those who-had-worked.tneir wiy up from thVOommons,"The Rev. Mr Isitt regarclod" himself 'as a very moderate liberal, hut had in the present:' qUestion::a::certainr amonntnof sympathy with tho views enunciated by Mr Hogg. He thought a better aubatitute could he found'for : the House of Lords, and pointed out the inconsistency of the public who resented a parson speaking or interfering in a public"meeting, and yet allowed a bench of bishops to legislate for them, There was no true liberty of the Bubjeot' ihhii: opitiiou if a nation after it had through -its 'representatives decided a particular, question had its decisi/mj,oTe«ed_by, a small minority lite aJHou'se oCLkdi. 1 p •: Mr Hogg , was carried m the affirmative)' voting for and 3 against it>r" r . r -f'r r r tV> V