Hawke's Bay Herald. THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 1884.

Hawke's Bay Herald, Volume XXI, Issue 6782, 14 February 1884, Page 2

Hawke's Bay Herald. THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 1884.

UPPER CHAMBERS. Among the questions which, at the next general election will be " placed before the country," as the phrase goes, a prominent one will be that of reforming the Legislative Council. There seems to be an idea among some politicians that the people want something done with the Upper House, either in the mode of appointing its members or of the curtailment of its powers. Our impression is that there is very little feeling indeed on the subject — that the people are quite indifferent whether the Upper Chamber be made elective or remain nominated, whether its power of rejecting measures that have passed the Lower House be limited or whether it remain as at present. The only point in connection with the subject upon which there seems to prevail any strong opinion is with regard to retaining the bi-cameral system. Probably if it were proposed to abolish the Legislative Council public interest would be considerably aroused, and there can be little doubt that the majority would be against the proposal. The people have not yet that unbounded confidence in their representatives in the popular House of Legislature to entrust them with unchecked powers of i legislation, and so there is no likelihood at present of the abolition of the Upper House being favorably entertained. Doubtless the bi-cameral system provides a safeguard, but there can be no question as to its being a very expensive one. Even in England, where the members of neither House receive any honorarium, the members of the House of Peers divide among themselves (including the salaries of Bishops) as much as £621,336 per annum. Here the cost is, of course, nothing approaching that enormous sum, but still in one way and another the Chamber is an expensive branch, in our system of Government, and if it could be safely dispensed with a large saving would be effected and the conduct of the business of the country would be much, simplified. The principal danger would probably be in the increase of power it would at times give to the Ministry of the day. When a Ministry have a large following in the popular House they are apt to carry things in a high-handed fashion, and but for the check of the Upper House might resort to legislation of a nature which would prove injurious to the country. An instance in point was presented in Victoria some few years since when Mr Graham Berry was in the height of Ms j power. His majority in the Legislative Assembly was at one time so very large that the Opposition was utterly overborne, and he treated them with a contemptuous disregard that would have been amusing had it not indicated the extent to which Mr Berry would have gone but for the Legislative Council. Galled by the treatment he had received, or believed he had received, at the hands of the wealthy class, he would have liked to have waged a war that would have sent capital out of the colony, and have put back its progress for many a year to come. Here undoubtedly there was an unmistakable instance of the utility of the Upper Chamber; the only question is whether the gain balanced the cost. Perhaps it did. Vindictive legislation, such as was at that time threatened, and probably also contemplated, by- Mr Graham Berry, can rarely be continued. It can only be effected at all while public feeling runs high, and a revulsion is sure to follow. It was so in Victoria. People lost their heads for a time, but they came to their senses : after a while and opened their eyes to what the " Berry blight " was doing for the. colony. It would haye 5 ,been just, the same if the,. Legislative Council had not stood in the way of Mr ,

Graham Berry's proposed onslaught on wealth, but then perhaps much mischief would have been done, and its cost to the country might perhaps have been very much more than the cost of the Upper Chamber. Taking that example therefore as a guide, it would almost seem that a second Chamber is a necessity. There is not, certainly, always a Graham Berry at hand, but mischief may nevertheless "be done by men in power even though their proclivities are not of the same kind. For instance, if Major Atkinson were to find himself with a following as large and ns obedient as Mr Berry had in his palmy days, would not the gallant Major at once impose his national insurance scheme upon the country 'I Of course he would, or any other pet scheme of taxation that happened at the moment to recommend itself to his fancy. Or it might come to pass that Sir George Grey, borne to the head of affairs on the top of a wave of popularity, would be master of the situation, and would essay to put into practice some of hi« wildest notions in the interests of unborn millions. With manhood suffrage who is to tell what may happen ? Either Sir George or some visionary enthusiast with wilder theories might hold the reins, and have such a willing and strong team to drive that there might be nothing to stop the headlong career of the coach till it was finally smashed amidst the ruin for a time of the country's well-being. Granted that the ruin would be but temporary, still the injury would be very serious, and there really does not seem to be any better way of averting its occurrence than by providing such a buffer as a safety guard as is presented by the Upper Chamber. While therefore admitting that it is an expensive appendage to the system of government, it cannot with truth be said that is a useless one. Its members might certainly be of a better quality than many of them are, but that is the fault of those who selected them, and it is open to question whether any other mode of selection would bring an improvement.