The Evening Star: WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATED The Evening News, Morning News, and Echo. MONDAY, APRIL 30, 1894.

Auckland Star, Volume XXV, Issue 102, 30 April 1894, Page 2

The Evening Star: WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATED The Evening News, Morning News, and Echo.

MONDAY, APRIL 30, 1894.

tm tin wins* that lacks asoistanos, For the irTons that nteds resistance, F»r tbi futurt in th« diitance. And th» good that we oan a*.

The proposal quite recently made— and not even in a jocular spirit—in the Parliament of New South Wales, to abolish the Legislative Council, seems to have stirred the vehement soul of Sir Henry Parkes to a heat beyond its normal standard, which is high. He denounced the suggestion, which was mooted by Mr Fitzgerald in an amendment to a motion to prevent the Upper Chamber vetoing the same measure twice in succession, in the strongest and most scathing terms, and pointed out, with prophetic solemnity, the terrible issues which would follow if the proposal were carried into effect.

To Sir Henry's mind the abolition of the Upper House meant and could only mean the inauguration of a reign of terror in which no man's life or liberty would be safe. We do not attach an undue importance to any utterance of Sir Henry on this, or indeed, on any subject. But, at. all events, he knows the House of Representatives in New South Wales, and from certain strange and sinister incidents which have occurred in that remarkable assembly we are inclined to think that on this question his opinion may be not altogether unfounded. For there are Parliaments and Parliaments, and it is not impos-

sible that there might be a Parliament in which the abolition of the Upper House would bring all the eyils which the prophetic soul of Sir Henry anticipates ; and that Parliament might, be the Parliament of New South Wales.

But as regards the ■ abolition of Upper Houses generally, we do ndt endorse the ex-Premier's indignant remonstrance, or share in his excessive apprehensions. At the same time, however, we are fully aware that the question is one of very grave importance, and should not be approached in any over-hasty or partisan spirit. It would be very foolish indeed to disguise the fact that there is much, very much, to be said in favour of an upper chamber, and especially in these Australasian colonies. The idea that lies at the root of it—the idea, of, ah assembly chosen from among the wisest and most experienced persons to be found in the community whose office it shall be to impartially examine, revise, and amend the sometimes hasty legislation which under the pressure of popular clamour may proceed from the best Lower House —that idea is one that must commend itself to the good sense ot the most democratic democracy.

True enough, the idea* has never been realised in practice. In Britain we have a House of Peers, most of whom sit there, not because they have superior wisdom or superior aptitude for the business, but simply, as Lord Rosebery or somebody remarked, because they were the sons of their fathers. We can hardly wonder that that strange anomaly should give rise, as it is doing at present, to many curious reflections in the- most stolid and uriinquiring British mind. Our wonder is that the eyes of our friends in the Old Country are only now beginning to be opened to the strangeness of the anomaly ; and instead of condemning their present impatience to amend it or get rid of it, we feel perfectly amazed at the patience with which they have endured it so long.

Here in the colonies our sense of the fitness of things has not been subjected lo the same trial. We have nothing in our constitution analogous to a hereditary House of Peers, and the arguments which appear to us the strongest for a thorough change in the constitution of the British Upper Chamber are not applicable to our modest Houses of Lords. Take our own in New Zealand, for instance. That body is more or less of our own creating, and we have undoubtedly the power, at any time, to undo, without the slightest revolutionary violence, what we have done. If it fails at present to answer the unquestionably good ends which it was intended to serve, we can remodel it, and if remodelling should prove ineffectual, we can do what Mr Fitzgerald of New South Wales and Sir Robert Siout in New Zealand proposed to do with their Upper Chamber—'abolish it_

But before committing ourselves to such an extreme measure—if we should ever see reason to contemplate it—it is certainly for the interests of all that the whole subject should be most carelully and thoroughly considered in all its bearings and aspects, as of course it will be. It would be easy to show from the history of New Zealand that the Legislative Council has on many occasions rendered good service to the colony. What we want is not ils abolition, but that it may be brought mnre into line with public opinion. There is little doubt that the. question of an Upper House will soon occupy a very prominent place in the deliberations of the British Parliament, and we shall gather much lrom the discussions that arise there that will be of benefit to ns should we wish to make any changes in our Second Chamber.