CORRESPONDENCE.

Waikato Times, Volume XVII, Issue 1405, 5 July 1881, Page 3

CORRESPONDENCE.

[Our correspondence columns are impartially open to all, but we do not in anyway identify ourselves with opinions expressed therein ]

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, — I have perused Mr McMinn's letter to yourself in reference to the proposed change in the Legislative Council, with some interest and with great pleasure — with interest, because it shows a praiseworthy struggle on the part of the writer to investigate and become better acquainted with the higher branches of politics, and with pleasure, because it is quite devoid of acrimony or malevolence. I should not, Sir. have to trouble you with any remarks on the subject but for the fact that Mr McMinn has introduced my name in connection with my address at Hamilton as the peg upon which to hang his remarks. The writer says he is "disposed to join issue with me" on this subject, and I should be sorry to disappoint hia laudable ambition. Before proceeding to discuss the question, I should like to say that in replying to any communication that may appear in your columns, I am under considerable disadvantage, because Ist : The issue containing it, does not reach me until nearly a week has elapsed from the date of its publication, and by the time my reply can be published in the Waikato, the original matter has faded from the minds of your readers ; and 2nd : Because my time is so incessantly occupied that it is hard to find leisure for the discussion of abstract political questions in the columns of a newspaper. However, I trust that any of your readers who may take the trouble to peruse these few lines will also take the pains to refer back to your issue of June 21st, in which Mr McMinn's letter appears, so as to have the whole discussion fairly before them. The question then is simply this : Is it wise whilst we continue to have two chambers that the constitution of the Upper House should remain as it is, or that its members should be elected by the Lower House, should be limited in number, and should, in case of a deadlock, be permitted to pit and vote coni'ointly with the popular chamber? Mr McMinn begins by expressing 1 astonishment at my remarks on the proposed change, adding that "for a thoroughgoing liberal my sentiments are, to say the least, decidedly conservative." Let us see how far logic will bear out this assertion. The first proposition is "election of Legislative Councillors by the House of Representatives." The objection raised by Mr McMinn to the present position of affairs "That the Legislative Council might at any time become the creative of the Ministry of the day," applies with nearly equal foroo to auoh an election as proposed, because the Ministry of the day would certainly propose one candidate, the opposition would propose another, and a party division would almost certainly ensue, when Ministers having presumably a majority in the House, would carry their man m. But apart altogether from this I hare always understood tliat a Liberal creed recognised this principle as paramount, viz., that nil power is vested in the first place in the people, and that so far as possible any delegation of that power to pcraons or public bodies should bo direct from the people, and not second hand. Whereas in a new conntry like this political views are to constantly changing and progressing, politicians may be honestly in accord with the popular will at the time of their election, and at some period during their term of office may be honestly in antagonism, and yet they, and not the people, would, under the proposed system, have the power of electing men to seats in the Upper House who, as I shall presently show, would in certain cases have vote for vote, as much power as the real 1 representatives of the people in the Lower Chamber. lam aware /that this objection would apply with equal force to the present system, but the question I am considering is not whether the present constitution of the Council is perfect or even good, but whether the proposed change is likely to be for the better or is founded upon any sounder principles. ' I need not follow Mr MoMmn into the * questibn ' of Curtis' s scheme. Whether, it; was good or bad, it did not appear to bo very acceptable to the public, or to have excited much attention or admiration in the country, for on going to the country after making his propositions Mr Curtis was not returned, out he and his bill were ■ relegated to political obscurity, which, in the case of the gentleman himself was', I 'agree witn Mr J^pMin^ japity. Let. us now. turn to another portion, of the iievr .prpgpamme — viz. , theproposal that in case of a dead-lock both Etouses should sit an& vote 'together. Let ,me premise th.at undei;; the, .present constitution the number of persons who can be called to 'the Upper' House is unlimited, and therefore if a crisis.arisefy the ! sanie remedy can' be 'applied as i'a'avail^ i able for re&ifonable' coercion w tlie' Lo^-da '< at'home; the oretttibn of a sUfncietttnuniVe'r' ! lof Councillors' to ! entftte 1 the' Wof ' tatf representative chamber to be enioroe<L

But as proposed by Mr Hall, the number of colonial Lords is to be limited to, half that of ,tha Lower House, and the proposition , wp , are - $ow considering-^ vie., a joint sitting, is made to meet the difficulty of ,a dead-look when power of unlimited creation exists no more. Let us now take a supposititious case and see how this idea will .work out. ,We will assume the number of representatives in the " Commons" to be ninety ; this would give us forty-five " Lords.*' A popular measure, say a bill, providing for an elected, instead of a nominated Waste Land Board is introduced into the populaT chamber, and is carried by 45 to 44, [the Speaker, of course, not voting.] In due time the measure reaches the. Legislative Council, and is rejected' bjr 24 to 21. A dead-look ensues, and a joint sitting ensues, when on a vote being taken the 24 Councillors who were against the Bill join forces with the minority of the House the 44 and the measure is then finally rejected and the law of •' majorities" in the Representative Chamber practically subverted. In other words a majority in the Upper House, which is not brought into contact with the people iv any way, can join with a minority in the Lower House to enforce the will of thut minority upon the majority of those who are directly responsible to the electors for their actions, are the recognised chanael for the exposition of the popular will. In connection wi f h this part of the subject I notice that Mr MoMinn fallß into a great error. He says :—": — " As for the proposition for the two Houses to sit together as one body." It must be remembered the principle of that is in force now, as when neither House will give way on oertain points a conference is arranged of an equal number of members of each body who sit together and decide the disputed question. Sir, the present state of affairs bears no similarity whatever to the proposal of Mr. Hall. The decisions arrived at by the conferences which now sit are not in themselves binding on the Lower House at all and have no validity unless subsequently confirmed by the majority of its members. In the oase of the new scheme the Councillors sit and voto with the other House, and tho decision of the mixed majority is binding and final and m<iy produce the result I have described above. I shall not now discuss the question of the best method of reforming the Council [if reform i 9 yet necessary] nor shall I touch on the relative advantages of the unicameral system [which the advanced radicals advocate], and tho bi-cameral system which prevails in Great Britain and most of her colonies. All these things will be ventilated and discussed when the people in the usual manner signify to their representatives that the time has arrived for discussing them. In the meantime my object in writing this letter is not to move as the advocate of one system, or the other, but, simply to show that in tho popular change at all events, there is little or no advantage to be gained over the system at present in force. — I am, &c. F. A. Whitaker. Wellington June 27, 1881. + .