Hawke's Bay Herald WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 29, 1879. COLONIAL PARLIAMENTS.

Hawke's Bay Herald, Volume XXI, Issue 5524, 29 October 1879, Page 2

Hawke's Bay Herald WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 29, 1879. COLONIAL PARLIAMENTS.

In all the colonies of the Australasia 11 group there is., a process going' on whicH'it is to be hoped will in the.- end bring about some settled noti6h as to the System t>£ pavllamcntaiy government Which is mo^t likely to lead to good re" suits. Biit'befqr'c" we 1 rdach silch a conSummjltidii tee 1 slidU llilvc to l'omove two obstacles wliicli at present' stand very much in the way, . and they are — impatience and- immoderation. In almost fcvery instance wllen - a deadlock has occurred between tlie two branches of a Legislature- in these colonies, a little patience and the exercise of moderation in urging real or supposed rights would have prevented the difficulty arising. But unfortunately the men who rise to high positions in this part of the world are seldom of moderate, patient disposiUoik Gaining their elevation by the voice of the more popular Chamber, Ministers are impatient of any opposition from the other Chamber in carrying out a policy which they have decided upon, and quickly they look about for means of' coercion, forgetting' that "in attempting such a course they would be cndeavorißg to upset the system of parliamentary government as constitutionally established. If the system is really_to.be one consisting Of two Chambers it is obvious that tho Upper Chamber must have a voice in legislation, otherwise there would be no need for its existence. And that is after tt.ll the question at 'issue. Is the \>icam6ral system most suitable to the requirements of a colony ? Those Ministers who are every now and then assailing the TJppor Chamber, and wanting to " reform " it out if all but a shadow 6f! existence, probably hold that two Houses of Parliament are not needed, but if that is their view the more honest course, and the one most calculated to prove beneficial would be to get that question proj)crly ventilated and satisfactorily settled. While, however, we have two Chambers it is an act of disloyalty to the Constitution to reduce one of them to a nullity. The framers of the Constitution doubtless considered that the second Chamber would act as a drag upon the parliamentary coach, and, when that Chamber appears to be obstructive, it is in point of fact merely performing the function for which it was created. It may be vexatious to a Minister that a measure upon which he has set his heart should be strangled in its birth, but if the measure should be really one which the country desires, its becoming law is only a question of time, and the exercise of patience in the meanwhile will prevent a collision between the two branches of tho Legislature. We do not think it is wise — as is now being proposed iv Victoria — to shackle the second Chamber so that it cannot move in an}' direction save tho one in which the Ministry of the day, backed by a large majority in the Lower House, may please, Better have only one Chamber than that. To be of any use as a part of the parliamentary system, the Upper House must be something very much more than a Chamber of record. But while we so consider we do not believe that the system can be expected to work well unless the Upper Chamber exercises its power with moderation. The success that has attended the British system is mainly, if not wholly, attributable to the moderation with which the powers of each Estate in the realm arc exercised. This is the l&son we have to learn in the colonies, and having acquired it wo shall find that it does not matter so much whether the Upper House is a nominated or an elective Chamber, so long as the members are not uneducated men nor devoid of principle. In these times, perhaps, it is better that the members of the Upper House should be nominated by the Crown than elected by the propertied class, as it prevents there being an impression that the Chamber represents class interests. The tenure of membership for life is, we consider, advantageous, as it introduces an element — that of independence — which a body whose members hold office for a limited period could not possess. This element, however, lias been the objection with Mr Graham Berry to the adoption of the New Zealand system. The power of nominating members to the Council whenever lie chose, and in any number he pleased, he would like very much, but he does not relish the idea of their haviug a life tenure of membership. To our thinking, however, that which makes a system objectionable to a man like Mr Graham Berry must be its highest recommendation to men of moderate views who desire to see safeguards raised up against the domination of any one man who may become the popular idol of the hour, and who io preserve his j>owev and popularity will unhesitatingly sacrifice the best interests of his country.