REFORM OF THE “LORDS”

Gisborne Times, Volume XXXVI, Issue 3994, 26 July 1913, Page 9

REFORM OF THE “LORDS”

BILL DISCUSSED BY THE COUNCIL. STRONG VIEW OF A LIBERAL. “TRYING IT ON THE DOG.” [PEESS ASSOCIATION "’ELEGBAM] WELLINGTON. Julv 25.

The Council met at 2.30 p.m., and the debate on tlie Legislative Council Bill was resumed by Mr Carncross, who urged impartial treatment of the Bill. -He believed the Government was sincere, but it was sincerity in an unworthy cause. He could not see how any such course suggested by Mr Sinclair was possible. Either the Council must be an elective or nominative body. Partial election and partial nomination would raise the barrier of caste. Men sitting by virtue of different rights could not regard themselves as equals. If partial election was advisablej why not the whole ? He was no believer in two elective Houses and was fixed in preference for nominative system. He must therefore vote against the Bill. The Government had not shown in what respect the Chamber had failed so that the constitution should be changed. He deprecated -the bitterness displayed at party elections, instancing Grey, and warned members that this was what would be introduced into the electorates and the Council if tlie Bill passed. The question of an elective Council had never been seriously discussd by the country. The Government came into power on freehold, not reform of tlie Council, and to he consistent the Government must apply the principle of proportional representation to the Lower House. He objected to the present method of “trying it on the dog.” The Minister might succeed in passing the Bill, but if so his work would be that of a destroyer. Mr George deprecated haste in dealing with the Bill. As a result of the suspensions last year the Minister had considerably improved the measure. Perhaps if it got another year’s consideration it would make it ,acceptable to all sides. Ho was in favor of a nominative second chamber, but recognised that democracies preferred elective bodies. He was prepared to concede that point, hut would not, however, support any Second Chamber elected on tlie same basis as the popular House. If elected as the Bill proposed, the members would represent larger territory and more people, and would inevitably become the stronger Chamber. He advocated property qualification and opposed proportional representation under which the “ticket” system must prevail. The expense of the elections would lie ruinous and the ballot papers complicated. Special representation of Maoris should not he perpetuated. The provision for dealing with Bills passed by one house and rejected by the other were absurd —especially money Bills. He would vote on tlie second reading in the hope that the Bill would he knocked into shape in committee, hut he would never vote for a second chamber elected on the same franchise as the Lower House.