The Dominion. THURSDAY, AUGUST 29, 1912. THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1531, 29 August 1912, Page 4

The Dominion. THURSDAY, AUGUST 29, 1912. THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL.

«- rFive days of debate in the Legislative Council upon the Eeform Bill, one would suppose, ought to have enabled the public to see what it is that can be said. for the retention of the nominative system. But, we have been unable to find, excepting in Mr. Samuel's speech, any real attempt by the opponents of the Bill I to supply a reasoned defence of the system of nomination to which they owe then , presence in the Legislature. There is ample room in the Bill for amendments in details, and the Hon. H. D. Bell expressly invited amending criticism. The members who have spoken have not been backward in expressing their objections to some of the details of 'the Bill, but for, the most part the debate has gathered about the cardinal principle of the measure, and there appears to be every prospect that the second reading will be agreeu to as an_ affirmation of the Council's recognition that the nominative system must be superseded. We have noted that Mr. Samuel's opposition to the measuro had a basis in reason which it is quite impossible to find in most of the speeches against tho system of election, but all his argument amounts to, when you come to the core of it, is that the Council, being required as a check on rash and hasty legislation, cannot supply this check unless it is composed of specially-selected men, who could only be secured by nomination. We should agree with him if we could believe that every Government would be wise, just, magnanimous, and incorruptible. . The ideal Council Mh. Samuel has in his mind—a Council composed of pure and passionless wisdom, ignorant of party politics and aloof from the atmosphere of party feeling, inaccessible to deputations and disturbances of all kinds—is an alluring vision, but it is only a vision. Apart from Mr. Samuel's speech, the Opposition to the elective principle was little more than a mass of grotesqucrie and prejudice. It suffices Mr. Jones, for' example, that the speeches in the debate were good ones: ergo, he says, the Council must not be touched. Mr. Eigg fears election because the right type of men would not be elected, and Mil Eiqo is, or was, a democrat! Mr. Loughnan is convinced that the Bill will lead to civil war. And Mit. Beehan comes out with what appears to be an indictment of the anti-Catholic nature of the measure. Yesterday he sternly asked Mr. Bell whether he "proposed to give a square deal to the Catholics"—a wild and incomprehensible poser that left tho Minister ctupefied and speechless. Mr. Beehan is himself an argument that can be advanced against the nominative system, and he is only one of many appointees whose appointment has led to tin , indisputable demand oE tho country for reform. :The Council was once a strong and reputable arm of Parliament, ns Mr.. noted .ratercls.v, and it wciuld.' as he implied, have regained

strong and reputable bad the Continuous Ministry not outraged public feeling year after year alike by their appointment of unsuitable men .".ml by their obstinate refusal to appoint men of the, highest character and talents belonging to the opposite side in polities. Had the socalled Liberal Government not adhered so rigidly to their practice of making the Council an arm of the "Spoils to the Victors" policy, they would have seen to it, as Mr. OnJtOND pointed out, that the talents of men like Sir Fkascis Dillon Bell, Sin John Hall, and Mi:. Rollestox wore not overlooked. Perhaps the demand for reform would have come almost as soon in any case, but the Council would have been respected, and our country would have been belter governed. Those Councillors may bo sincere, but they are ■wonderfully unobservant, who have said that the country docs not want an elective Upper House. They can rely upon it that they will soon bo disillusioned if they refuse the Bill a second reading or otherwise block [ its passage into law with unreasonable amendments.