THE UPPER HOUSE.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1799, 29 August 1906, Page 16

THE UPPER HOUSE.

REPLIES TO CRITICS.

(By John Young.)

V. “T.M.M.” raises what I may call a constitutional difficulty with regard to the reconstruction of the Upper Chamber. He saysj “Now, as the Upper House is composed at present, is it possible for it to pass a bill to strangle itself? As the electors liave never pronounced for the amendment of the Upper House, whoever tries to amend it will either have to do so with the

consent of the Upper House, or go to country, and face a general election. And even when the trouble may jiot be over,” etc. I have purposely refrained from saying anything in my articles on the constitutional aspect of the question; and my reasons for aVoiding the question are obvious. First, it is no part of my business, and, second, I am not competent to discuss the matter, but must leave it to those who are versed in constitutional law. I took it for granted that the late Mr Seddon had been properly advised before he announced his intonation' of making the changes he spoke of. I have undertaken to advise the people, to the best of my ability, as to what changes are necessary, and which would, I think, be most conducive to the public interests. I do not think,' however, that the difficulties in the way. of change are so gigantic as “T.M.M.” imagines. I am, for one, quite willing to leave the legal part of the matter in the hands of our Attorney-General, who will, I am sure, discover a clear path, to steer us, and steer us clear, of untoward complications.

One thing is clear: The difficulties in our way, as indicated by “T.M.M.,” are, after all, not unsurmountable, and cost what they may, the money would be well spent, if by so doing, we succeed in placing the legislation of the country on a firm and satisfactory basis. “T.M.M.” disagrees with me in the matter of the “referendum,” and he brings forward an array of cases where such a course has proved highly satisfactory. I may remind “T.M.M.,” however, at the outset, that the cases he quotes were very special ones, indeed, and abundantly transcend in their importance anything likely to occur in New Zealand for some time to come. In the case of Great Britain, in 1869, society was seething with intense excitement over the proposed disestablishment of the Irish Church. We all know that the overthrow of the Irish Church was looked upon as tjie immediate forerunner of the disestablishment of the Episcopal Church throughout the British Isles. Consequently, the dissenters voted unanimously in its 'favour.

In the case of .Italy, the Papal States had been defeated by Garibaldi, and the whole country was moved to its profoundest centre, in favour of “a united Italy.” The case of Norway is of more recent date, but every student of history knows that Norway has never willingly accepted the settlement of the Powers, which connected the fortunes of Norway with those of Sweden. Hence, when the inevitable time came, it found the people of Norway ready, as with one voice, to demand their freedom. I will, however, give an instance or two where refer end urns have been resorted to, to settle publio disputes, with very unsatisfactory results." Take the case of Canada. Some three or four years since, §he question of “.license or nolicen&u*'- was submitted to a plebiscite, but the numbers who recorded .their votes represented such an insignificant part of the voting power of the Dominion, that the then Prime Minister refused to’ recognise it as the voice of the people. The same experiment was tried a year or two ago in Victoria, on the question of “the Bible in schools,” with a corresponding result. I might say more on this point, but I think I have advanced enough to show that the referendum'as an integral part of our machinery for the manufacture of laws would be, in the highest degree, unreliable and unsatisfactory. “ T.M.M.” further says:—“ I do not quite agree with Mr Young in his proposed amendment of the Upper House, namely, on the elective , basis,” etc. He also instances the .elective Senates of the United States and Australia as examples to be shunned. I may here repeat that with regard to the United States, if one’s reading is of any value, not only the Senate of that country, but every other public institution in it may be held up as “ a byword and a hissing” to the rest of the civilised world. But, be that as it may, “ one swallow does not make a summer,” nor does,one black crow make a winter.' Nor will two cases of failure, or partial failure, vitiate a great democratic principle. “ T.M.M.” again remarks: “ Y. ini; is wanted is an Upper House that will command the respect of the electors of tho colony, and I would suggest that the present honorarium belaboiished,” etc. The former part of this is what I have been strenuously contending for. But, as to the latter,

the abolition of the honorarium involves a principle that I am entirely opposed to. Surely, New Zealand does not need to go, cap in hand, to wealthy men to ask them to do her work for nothing. . She is far t-oo dignified and self-respecting. Many persons in these islands have had extensive experience on public bodies, and in nearly all cases that work is rendered gratuitously. But, I may remark in passing that I incline to the opinion that all this gratuitous service and the multiplication of public bodies is a mistake. Were we to reduce their number, and pay the members for their services, we should save money and get our work better done. At least one thing is clear. Experience has shown many of us that those who give their services to the public for nothing are, with their work, lightly esteemed.

“ Looker-on ” agrees with me on general principles, except on two points:— Speaking of the proposed alteration in the constitution of the Upper House: “In the first place, is an alteration necessary? I hardly think so, if good men are appointed from all classes in the colony,” etc. We were given to understand, at the outset, that some alteration had been decided upon. If the Government had thus decided to make a change, they must have had good reason for so doing. They must have recognised the fact that the present Upper Chamber is, -in some important respects, faulty and needs renovation. The people, too, although they made no special demand in that direction, evidently acquiesced in the movement, being fully aware of what was intended. In any case, “Looker-on” must admit that a nominated Upper House is inconsistent with democratic institutions. The question for us to decide is not: •Can a nominated Chamber be so constituted as, under the most favourable circumstances, it will answer our purpose? but, is it consistent with representative institutions, and with the fundamental principles which, as a colony, we profess? “Looker-on” futher remarks:—“l think the nomination by t(he Government and election by the Lower House the best and least expensive,” etc. He then goes on to descibe the process of this election. I may remind my critic that expense is a matter of only secondary importance when the public interests are concerned. High-priced articles are generally the cheapest in the end. Better for us to liave a good institution, worthy of its high responsibilities, than to have a makeshift Upper House merely because it is cheap. An Upper House, elected by the Lower Chamber, would be in no sens© a democratic institution. I am Satisfied it would not work well. The risks are too great to ;justify our entering upon any experiments. Either let us have election by the people, or remain as we are. “Looker-on” objects to an elective Upper House, on the ground "that flUch large electorates would exclude the “medium and lower classes,” by reason of the expense, and, further, that the cost of such elections (ho means, of course, that part which the Government pays) would be better spent on the “back blocks.” I see no reason why these electorates* should he so enormously expensive. At least, there will be, if my suggestions are adopted, a corresponding benefit to the successful candidate. He would secure his seat for a longer period, and his' remuneration would lie greater. The “hack blocks,” like the poor, are always with us. They crop up on all occasions Nor would I say on© word against their claims, but, it appears to me that, if wo spent the whole revenue of New Zealand in making roads and bridges, there would still be .“back blocks.”

(To the Editor, “New Zealand Mail.”) Sir, —Mr J. Young, in an article in your columns upon the Upper House, seems to imagine that Switzerland is the only country worth mentioning that is governed by one House. Why travel outside the British Empire? New Brunswick, Ontario, Manitoba and British Columbia are all governed by one House, and so far I believe the sky has not fallen, on the contrary, the people of those provinces are perfectly satisfied with their constitution, 'and there is no agitation for tho establishment of a second chamber. Mr Young says that in times of great social or political excitement an Upper House is necessary to act as 'k bar to hasty legislation. Can he give any instances where, during times of public excitement, our Upper Chamber has so acted. During the Boer war was the Upper House less ready to go the whole hog than its more popular branch. During its old nomin-fated-for-life form it. was ahvays the steady enemy of progressive legislation, and the only measures which were severely criticised a.nd revised were those measures which contained any enlargement or extension of popular rights. Mr Young is the first Liberal I reive ever heard praising the Upper Chamber for defending the people’s liberties from invasion. Mr Young is one of those men who become enamoured of a phrase without examining its meaning, for instance, in two different p'ac-tf lie cautions us iigainsfc charlatans and political adventurers, and says that we want to keep both Houses clear of them at the present crisis. Whv, may I ask. at this

particular crisis more than any other? Will your contributor, for the guidance of the average elector, tell us what a charlatan and political adventurer is? What are the political opinions he generally holds ? Does he, for instance, favour an increase of the graduated land tax? Is he for or against the closer settlement of the land? How can the average elector tell this “curse of colonial politics ?” Macaulay, in one of hie essays, speaks of politicians who ilse phrases instead of arguments. This seems to me to exactly describe Mr Young’s article.—l am, etc., —A RADICAL.