THE UPPER HOUSE.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1798, 22 August 1906, Page 68

THE UPPER HOUSE.

THE SUBJECT CONTINUED. (By John Young.) IV. There is an interesting; article in the July number of the “Nineteenth Century/’ -which, throws considerable light, especially in reading between the lines, on the history, constitution, and defects of the House; of Lords. A careful perusal of the article- will,. I think,, suggest to the reader at- least two paints which are deserving of consideration at the present time. The- first is the enormous increase hi the number of its members during the last two hundred years; an increase, indeed, vastly in excess of the increase in numbers of the House of Commons two hundred years ago, or, to speak more definitely, in 1684 the numbers were —House of Commons 513, Bouse of Lords 184. To-day the figures 'Stand- thus- —Mouse of Commons 670, House of Lords 594; but as several new peerages have- been recently created, its numbers exceed 600. Thus we see that, a» the slowly-rising tide of civilisation, has been creeping over the- land, the privileged classes have been steadily maintaining their grip upon the Government' of the country, until we are brought face to face with this strange anomaly—that some 3,000,000 of the privileged classes have nearly as great a number of represent a Liven as the of the common people. It maybe asked: What has this to do wrfcft the subject under discussion, namely, our Upper House of Parliament? I bare already pointed out that, at feast to my mind, there is a close analogy between the two institutions: It is- true, the one is hereditary, the other nominated!; the one is created for life; the ether (now) for seven years; I am not aware that there is any hard-and-fast rule with us limiting the number of members in our Upper House. This 5 1 know, that on more than oner occasion, when a Government has been Bard pressed, it has; largely increased' the. members of the Upper Chamber, and, presumably, with such men as would ask no questions. Then it follows that we'can imagine it possible for circamstances to arise that would render a ’House so constituted a real danger to- the public. There ifi another point which presents itself in this article, that is, the number of “black sheep” that are to be found in the House of ' Lords. Spasmodic attempts have been made more than once to get rid of this undesirable element, but, so far, they have not been successful. But this state of things is no more than we might expect in a Chamber founded on heredity. Solomon said he did not know “ whether his son would be a wise man or a fool ” ;• and Carlyle is credited with saying, “ There are many people in the world, mostly fools,” or words to that effect. Hence it appears that the House of Lords is not exempt from this failing common to humanity, but has among its members some whose wisdom arid common-sense is a vanishing quantity. Now, it seems to me that we run a similar risk in leaving the appointments of. our Upper House to any single individual. That is to say, that if his. judgment of man is faulty, we are just as likely to; get men of inferior capacity, as to. secure the best the country can produce. What I wish to make clear to the people is that there is danger in placing too much responsibility in the hands of one man, seeing that, if his judgment is at fault, serious consequences to the public interests may ensue. Be this as it may, one thing is clear: the people will avoid this danger, if they take their business into their own hands, and elect their representatives themselves. It is an established fact, of which we see evidences every day, that many men are poor judges of character. Given, then, a man in a high and responsible positron with this constitutional defect (I will call it such in the absence of a better name), and the chances are that many of his appointments will not command the respect of the people. The question then arises:—Who is to blame in such oases, the Minister or the people? Undoubtedly the people, and the people only, inasmuch as they have, in defiance of the teachings of history and experience, committed unlimited power practically to one person. * The late Premier announced, some time before his- death, his intention of making some, changes in the constitution of' the Upper House ; but it is

blear, from information since come to hand, that those intended alterations were only of a perfunctory character. Humour has it that he had his men already selected. If so, it follows that he intended to. keep the nomination of members substantially in his own hands, as heretofore. Those of us who have made a study of politics, and have watched the actions of men * in political life, will doubtless have noticed that there are ■ three classes of “undesirables” in the midst of the throng, or hanging round the outskirts, as circumstances suit their convenience.

First, there is the “place-seeker.” This man is a nuisance; he is always to the front, for ever pressing his claims with a perseverance and pertinacity worthy of a better cause. No amoiyit of coolness will discourage him, nor .will plain speaking dismay him. He will take the lead in any movement or agitation that will make him conspicuous or bring him into contact with those in power, and he generally succeeds in securing the main object of his quest. The second I may call “the political money-hunter.” This man has but one object in view, namely, bo make politics pay. Money is the alpha and omega of his political creed. He weighs well the chances of every political movement, and stands “off and on,” as the sailors say, as the fluctuating fortunes of either party favour his interests. If struggles for important principles arise, where hard blows aro likely to he exchanged without prospect of profit, he is well in the rear; far away in the background, watching the progress of the conflict from a safe distance. But, let circumstances change for the better, and substantial emoluments loom in the not distant future, he is seen in the front of the party, and his stentorian voice fills the welkin. And yet, strange as it may appear, such is the gullibility of the people that these time-servers generally succeed in winning their way to the public moneybags. The third character in this trio is the “nonentity.” I need not fully describe him. Ho is well known to us all. He has a peculiar fondness for presiding at social ‘ functions. He makes a neat little speech, the only feature about it being a total absence of ideas, and he is great on “women’s rights.” This individual is generally harmless, and his only fault is that he frequently wonns himself into a public position that should be occupied by a better man. I am well aware that civilised peoples have been careful, to throw the mantle of their protection around the private affairs of the departed, and far be it from mo to violate that sacred custom. But a man’s public actions come under another category, and are open to discussion. Hence it is that* the publi'o actions of men, the results of which have, as they rolled down the centuries, contributed to the weal or woo of our race, have been subjected to the fiercest criticism. All unprejudiced persons will admit that our late Premier was a man of surpassing ability, head and shoulders, in this respect, above the majority of his fellowsw But there was one point in which he did not manifest his usual skill; that was in his judgment of men. Few will question his honesty of purpose; nevertheless, it would be stretching charity to say that some of his appointments were characterised by wisdom, or that they were calculated to conserve the best interests of the State. :

When writing on “The Proper Constitution of the Upper House,” there were twio points which' I was compelled to hold in abeyance, as want tof space prevented me from doing them justice. I refer to the minimum age of member®, and to the emolument® which I think should attach to the position. With regal’d, to the first point, most people will agree that an office of such importance, and involving, as it does, duties of the highest moment to the State and people, should be reserved for men of mature age and experience. Hence I would make the minimum age at least thirty-five, or better, forty. It appears to me that the reasons for such a provision or regulation are selfevident, and so obvious as to need little or no demonstration. We entrust the Upper Chamber with the duty of revising or amending ail acts as they are sent up from the Lower House. Those who have had the misfortune to be drawn into expensive litigation arising from loosely worded acts of Parliament, will be in a position ix> estimate th© value of special care in their compilation. It is clear, therefore, that the members oif such a Chamber should be men in the prime of life, of executive experience and sound judgment, and sufficiently .skilled in language to correct errors and avoid ambiguities. I take it that such a duty, if carefully discharged, would be no sinecure, but would tax their patience, experience, and skill to the utmost , and would result in a marked improvement in our laws that is much to be desired. I now come to the question of emolument. I am not among those who think the public have any right to command mien’s services for nothing. On the contrary, I think we should be better served if we paid our servants better. The country can afford to pay.

and pay well, for good service rendered. We have no right to expect men of ability, experience, and sound judgment to carry on the business of the country for inadequate remuneration. I would, therefore, in view of the great responsibility devolving upon the Upper House, pay its members in proportion to the important services we expect from them. I think £4OO a year would not be at all out of the way, neither would it be beyond our means. I am convinced that some such plan as have outlined in these articles would go far to protect the serenity of the Upper House at once from the inexperience of youth, the wiles of the political axlventurer, and the blatant harping of the demagogue. I have no intention to ignore my kindly critics, but will reserve space m my final article, on Friday next, to reply to them.