LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 119, 26 July 1873, Page 2

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL.

to the editor of the new zeadand maid. Sir, —I am glad to learn that the constitution of the Legislative Council is to be altered, for any change must be an amendment ; but I would much prefer to see it improved away altogether. I have not discovered any useful jmrpose that it has. served, but on a few occasions have seen it obstructive to useful legislation ; and if its labor were looked to >for any valuable results, such expectation would have a tendency to diminish the care bestowed on legislation by the elected House. A second legislative body seems to be almost universal, but in most cases members of the Upper Houses have some better qualification than mere nomination, which may be bestowed for party purposes or favoritism regardless of merit or stake in the country. I can imagine the outcry that my proposition would raise if put forward by authority, for people are so enamored of the “ glorious British Constitution,” —that “bulwark of liberty” —that they deem a chamber of aristocrats indispensable, and will raise mushrooms if they cannot have oaks. But if those same people would refer to English history they would be puzzled to find any useful result from the legislation of the Peers. Tbeir ivhole course of action has been cowardly obstruction to improvements, which they have retarded by every low device they could scheme until popular uproar has been too great for them, and then, by large majorities, the same men have swallowed their words and principles, and granted reforms which they could not longer, with safety to themselves, withold. The Reform Bill and the Repeal of the Corn Laws will evidence what I have said. In the first case the bill could not be carried till the country was almost in insurrection ; and in the latter, the bill, which at first was rejected without a division, was afterwards carried by the same Lords unanimously. Does anyone think those gentlemen had changed their opinions 'l I think not; but rather that the nobility of Britain, composing its supreme legislature, on that, as on many other occasions, voted against their wishes and convictions rather than risk their power in the Legislature, And any hereditary or nominated irresponsible body will be as bad certainly if its members are all of one class. We got our Constitution from home, and that, I suppose, is an excuse

for our imitative Peers, but I can see no other. We were not born in the days of feudalism, where the barons have had to fight with the king for power, and the Commons with both. We sprung into existence with an educated community, and® Have full belief in the power of the people, to whom all our legislators should be directly responsible. But it is probably time wasted to talk of abolition of the Legislative Council, ’ so I will suggest some modification in its constitution. I think its* special functions should be, to check, amend, and perfect hasty legislation. To do tliis, its members should be intelligent and conservative, who would jealously watch any departure from the lines of the Constitution. The first qualification I would leave to the judgment of electors, and the other would be secured by ownership of landed property in the colony. I would approve of your suggestion of seven years’ tenure and large electorates. But I am averse to breaking faith with the existing Councillors, and see no necessity for so doing. I would suggest that the number of electorates (each single) be decided in the new Constitution, and on its becoming law, the order in which tiie seats should be filled in case there were more than at present ; and on a death or resignation of a member occurring, to be decided by lot. Of course, such a body, having by way of title added to wealth, should not receive payment. While on this subject, I will add that I think the colony would do well to follow Victoria in the payment of members of the Lower House. The system has acted ivell there, and would be an economy and advantage here, for unpaid servants cannot be expected to work well. This does not contradict my proposition, as to the Upper House, for its members, if it were constituted, as I propose, woxxkl be wealthy, and occupied in watching the interests of their class. I think to get our legislation well done, we should jirovide our representatives with an income which would maintain them, and not leave such as are needy to look to Government employment for their reward. It is very desirable that poor men should be able to enter Parliament. As a rule, I think poverty is more commonly associated with honesty than wealth, and certainly work is. We want men of all classes who mix with every grade of the people, and know their wants, and are possessed of ability, honesty, and energy. If property is to be represented by the wealthy, let the workers have also representatives of their own class. And give to them means which will enable them to devote more of their time to their work, and be independent of Government employment. We should then have fewer of our best men withdrawn from politics, after they had made their mark and qualified themselves for the highest position in the state. Excuse, sir, this lengthy discursive letter, which, however, I hope may attract attention to the subject I have touched upon.—Yours, &c., Radical.