PATER'S CHATS WITH THE BOYS.

Otago Witness, Issue 1851, 12 October 1893, Page 42

PATER'S CHATS WITH THE BOYS.

Aristocracy or Democracy.

Last week I finished my note on Gladstone, and the ink was hardly dry when we read that the G.O.M. says that if the House of Lords do not assent to the Home Rale Bill it will endanger its own existence. We, too, have a House of Lords in a small way — the Legislative Council — and it has seriously been proposed to abolish it, though membership depends upon other considerations than obtains at Home.

With the exception of bishops, who are appointed for life, membership in the British House of Lords is hereditary, and the only way that it can be kept in touch with the people is the power possessed of creating new peers, as was threatened, for instance, in 1832 when " Finality Jack " (Lord John Russell) and his colleagues forced the Lords to accept their Reform Bill. Our present Government, you will remember, had a tilt with Lord Glasgow on the creation of the " twelve apostles " not long since.

In this conflict between the Upper Houses and the Lower Houses or between the classes and the masses, or, to ring the changes again, between the aristocracy and the democracy, a great deal of interest is bound to centre soon. Is an Upper House necessary to act as a check on the haßty legislation of the Lower House here or anywhere else 1 la the Contemporary Review for April 1890 a writer argues in the negative. At the outset he says: — "An aristocratic Government is selected from a small hereditary privileged cla6s who, from superior wealth and education, may be supposed to understand political questions better than the masse?. Is it so ? No 1 " And the writer then gives bis reasons for saying so. In the past 50 years the chief features of the policy and feelings of the " classes " have been —

1. Sympathy with Louis Napoleon and the entente cordiale with the French Emperor, which landed us in the Crimean War.

2. Sympathy with Turkey and an exaggerated Russophobia, leading to a policy alike cynical and stupid of trying to bolster up the Sultan's decrepit empire at the expense of Christian populations seeking an enfranchisement which must come.

3. Sympathy with the Southern States in the American Civil War.

4. Violent indignation at the settling of the Alabama claims by arbitration.

5. Successive Afghan wars, undertaken in violation of common sense and in defiance of leading authorities well acquainted with Indian and Afghan affairs.

6. Sympathy with Austria in her efforts to prevent the creation of a united Italy and of a great Germany.

7. A colonial policy of treating Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa as dependencies of Downing street, by which England's Colonial Emjrire would have been lost to her but for the tardy application of democratic principles.

8. The Reform" Bill, Extension of the Franchise and of Education, Repeal of Corn Laws, Disestablishment of, the Irish Church, Irish Land Laws, the Ballot Act, would all have been rejected once for all by the " classes " if they dared.

Men like Mr W. H. Smith [Now dead — Patek.] from trade, Mr Goschcn from the city, &c, are capable of and have shown good work ; but the aristocracy look a 1 ", those outside of their circle with West End glasses, and therefore nine-tenths of them are out of sympathy with public opinion and the political views of their countrymen.

In an American review published a month or so ago somewhat similar opinions are expressed by Justin M'Cartby. In addition to the reforms kept back and noted above, he refers to the " Irish Chorch, disestablished but not disendowed, for the clergy got the plunder and the nation was dodged." The abolition of the paper duties and of purchase in the army ; the refusal twice to admit lay students of all faiths to the universities after the Commons had agreed to the removal of disabilities and other hindrances to the progress of reform are briefly passed in review.

But it requires a very intimate knowledge of history to decide on the special pleading of a couple of hostile men that no Upper House is required . It is possible that while much has been delayed that might perhaps have been hastened, more has been done in vetoing legislation that would have been of incalculable harm to the nation. And we must remember, too, that bills can originate in the Hou*e of Lords, and that many bills having their origin there may have been quite as beneficial to the nation as many having their origin in the Lower House.

The pame objections 3 , but in a smaller degree, can be urged against our Legislative Council. It has during the past few weeks thrown out many of the bills of the so-called Liberal Government ; but in doirg so has it merited the extinction that has 'often been urged ?

To my mind an Upper House is needed both here and at Home to steady the legislation of the Lower House, which ia often inclined to legidate hastily in times of panic or popular agitation. But I think it ought to be an elective body, with members retiring in section?, so that at no tirno will a &uddcn change in public opinion show itself in too marked a manner on that body. Then, too, I think members of the Upper House ought to be elected fcr a longer term than for the Lower House, and by a more select body of electors. The last provision will no doubt be objected to by many, but I think it necessary to stable legislation. I cannot see why one who has only been in the colony a few months, who perhaps has no stake whatever iv the country, and who can at any moment leave it, — I say, I cannot see wby he, or she I must now add, has the rigiit to possess as much power iv guiding the affairs of the colony as one who possesses property, or has money in the banks, or who is injinied a«. d frettlfid aim o.st irrevocably in ii. bo j mink Lbat what 1 cannoc help calling the ruoie thoughtful and eneigetio ought to have a greater say in the Government cL th^ country than tbose who are carelr-fis aad Ihiittlc'ss, and are not permanently settled. Of course it would be difficult to draw the dividing line between l.hotie who were to have votes for an Upper House and thoae who wore not, on the lines I

suggest, but no law is final or without defect co I see no reason why restrictions fairly satisfactory could not be imposed.

If any of you care to give me your ideas about the advisability of retaining an Upper House — and if to be retained on what basis — I shall be very glad to get them. And I hope that in tbe near future the upper classes in our schools wjll receive systematic instruction on the duties of a citizen and elector. Why deep thought and much study ia devoted to so many of tbe professions and so little to the science of lawmaking I cannot imagine. Without any preparation, except tbe demagogue's platform or a unionist meeting, a man thinks himself capable of making laws with the most far-reaching effects. It is time that, at the least, a knowledge of the elements of economics should be insisted on, for the ignorance of the simplest workings ol cause and effect in national life is simply appallicg.