CONSTITUTION OF AN UPPER HOUSE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XII, Issue 4124, 1 February 1875, Page 5 (Supplement)

CONSTITUTION OF AN UPPER HOUSE.

i To the Kilitor of the Herald. Si it, —I have read with attention your 1 leading article concerning the constitution ; of an Upper House. \\ itli .some of your opinions I am disposed to coincide, though probably lor reasons widely different. But 1 write mainly to correct a statement concerning ail Upper House in France, where I lonjj resided. \ oil say that " in Franco the Upper House is regarded as the representative of aristocratic privileges; anil government by one House as the only consistent and logical mode of democratic self-government.' 7 As to the lirst of these statements, 1 can only say that the aristocracy of France are not of that opinion. As a matter of fact, they have been long left out in the cold, —not represented at all as a c!a3s. There have been in France ho many different varieties of Upper House, that it is not easy to speak of the French Upper House without exposing one'ssulf to cavil, but 1 say that since the times of the elder brouch of the Bourbons, the aristocracy has been excluded from the government of the State. The Upper House, in modern times, has been liil'id, not by maintaining seats to hereditary legislators, but by the process commonly known as "pitch-forking." Titles of honour have sometimes accompanied a scat in the Upper ilouse, sometimes not ; but you must pardon me if I decline to admit that trumpery names —titlesof nobility—can create an aristocracy. You can no more create an aristocracy than you can create a full-grown oak. The most that you can do is to plant the acorn. A plutocracy (domination by force of wealth), 1 admit, is of ouly mushroom growth, but with that 1 have as little sympathy as the most beggarly democrat that ever ranted from stump. You yourself, sir, apptar to be quite aware of the difference between the aristocracy of France and its Upper House, when you write of the latter as being " a body of wretched intriguers, bent only oil sacrificing the country and the people to their own order, anil to the emperor or king whom they may set up as a puppet." Kow it is notorious that the aristocracy (as distinguished from a mushroom nobility) kept sedulously aloof from the empire, relegating themselves to the Fauxbourg, away from the Imperial Court. I Your second position is that in France "government by one House is regarded as the only consistent and logical moilc of democratic self-government. ' Of the present feelings of the generality in France neither you nor 1 can have any possible knowledge, but both alike are able, from what we read, to arrive at the opinion of the thinking men. From what 1 read myself" in their own periodicals, they have a most lively sense I in France of the danger of the "tyranny of | a singlo Chamber." That a desire for a ! counterpoise should exist, and that the i " single Cl:amber" should object, is to be expected. Xoiv this brings us at once to the real use and proper functions of an Upper House, — not to support the fcxecutivo against the nether House, as, during the past, in France, but to stand between the tyranny of one House and the people. And the constitution (whether by no:.iination or election) which enables it most effectually to discharge this duty is the Ikst. What is wanted for an Upi>er House i.s power. Make it a reality ; keep clear of all shams. Better to do witluuit it altogether than to indulge in the babyism of a powerless Upper House—an expensive plaything. And to this, by our own act and deed, we have reduced it. So long as the limitation upon the number of members intended by sec. ,'Wot the Constitution Act was in effective force, that House was in • possession of substantial power. But the Home <;overument very foolishly gave way to our foolish desire of enabling a majority of thi! nether House to swamp the Upper House at pleasure, and from that time the ultimate doom of the Legislative Council was sealed. Without pretending to have thought the matter out- foi it is a ijuestion of much deeper import than tlionc who jump to conclusions seem to be aware of, —I incline to your own view in favour of an elective Upper House ; but not upon your grounds ; not for tlie purpose of more completely "representing the people." It does not even follow, necessarily, that because the people elect, they are therefore represented, unless in words. This is no paradox. Go among the people now, and ask them whether in their opinion they are represented by the 1 existing House of Representatives, and the ; answer will be, emphatically, no. The real object of " election" should be to give effective power to resist ill-doing on the part of the other Chamber. The Victorian Upper House (though undoubtedly r;glit ill the wellremembereil conflict) could never have withstood the Lower so stoutly had it not been elective. Let it not, however, be forgotten that : before we can constitute an elective Upper Chamber we have one great dillieulty to get over, namely, that of agreeing among our- 1 selves what the constituency should be. Let I it, moreover, be distinctly borne in mind that | there is no analogy between an Upper j Chamber in a colony and an Knglish House of Lords. Dismiss from the miml all idea of an aristocratic Upper Chamber, for there is | not the material from which to form it. An I aristocracy of race will always retain large | influence in England, for the looking up to the old families seems to be ingrained in the English nature. Foolish or wise is no matter ; there the feeling is and will stick. In a few hundred years we shall have old families ill New Zealand also. Meanwhile let it be our care to avoid the creation of that worst of all shams —a sham aristocracy. — I am, &e., Hci.il C.UtLKTON. Jan. -23, 1575.