The Otago Witness, WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED THE SOUTHERN MERCURY. (WEDNESDAY, MARCH 30, 1910.) THE WEEK.

Otago Witness, Issue 2924, 30 March 1910, Page 52

The Otago Witness, WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED THE SOUTHERN MERCURY. (WEDNESDAY, MARCH 30, 1910.) THE WEEK.

" Nanqunm aliu-d natura, aliud aapientia dixit.”— JUVESTAL. “ fiood nature and good sense must ever join.”— POPE. j It is announced that the Government has appointed a commission of

i S inquiry, under the Civil Service Act, to inquire into the charges made against

State Advances to Settlers.

■ O ~ ~~~ -O'---Peter Heves, Commissioner of Taxes and Superintendent of the Advances to Settlers Department. And vex-y properly the proceedings will be in camera, a® much of the evidence will concern the confidential business of the Government's clients. It will be remembered that when the suggestion was made some few months back that the result of the inquiry into the conduct of the Land and Income Tax Department, especially in its relation to the Advances to Settlers Department, conducted by two judges of the 'Supreme Court, should he submitted to Parliament the Prime Minister sternly placed his ban upon the idea. And Sir Joseph Ward’s chief argument against any such report being, made public was that the returns furnished to the Lands and Income Tax Department are of a strictly confidential character, the tenor of his remarks being to the effect thkt thig ’ js never abused—not in

the slightest degree. It is somewhat disconcerting, therefore, to learn upon what appears 10 be the best authority that the information procured under the guise of confidence for the information of one department of the State is habitually disclosed to the officials of another partment for touting purposes pure and •simple. For this is the substance of a communication brought under the notice of the Taranaki Executive of the Farmers' Union not many days since, and unfortunately there is no reason to believe that it is an isolated case. The communication was couched in these words : I have been advised that the insurance on your buildings mortgaged to the Government Advances to Settlers Office falls due on March 31, and I desire tc approach you with a view to securing the- insurance for the State office. * As it is the wish of the superintendent that all insurances on pro-

nerty mortgaged to the department be

effected with the State office, I shall be glad if you will kindly favour me by completing the enclosed proposal and returning same to m© not later than March 28, as it is imperative that the cover reaches the superintendent well prior to the due date. It is, I think, reasonable to ask those settlers Who are enjoying the benefits of the cheap money scheme conferred by the State to place their insurances with the GovernmentFire Insurance Department. Thanking you jn anticipation of an early and favourable reply.

What would be thought of any comoanv or firm whose business included the lending of money on real estate, should they divulge the names of theii clients and the particulars of the property mortgaged in order to assist a fire insurance comoany t< obtain custom ? Yet this is precisely the position occupied by the. Government Advances to Settlers Department, since 'either the officials of the Government Fire Insurance Department I have access to its records, or else the ' requisite information is furnished by the Advances to Settlers Department tc. enthe Fire Insurance Department to Wilt for business. And while the Fire Insurance Department is justly entitled to use every legitimate means of extending its business, such .an alliance wit! the Advances to Settlers Department is mos* improper, and must be stigmatised in the strongest terms. For in . ddition to the offence here specifically set forth, the incident raises the largei question as to the extent to which this illegitimate collaboration between the various departments of the State obtains. For it is obvious i that amy sort of partnership between what I may be called the socialistic ventures of the Government Administration, such for. instance, as the .vending of coal and the insuring of lives and nropeHy against fire." will speedily be able to distance their competitors in the race if they have free access to> the information deposited in the Government archives, and obtained under the pledge of secrecy for statistical and revenue purposes onlv. And sellers generally will be compelled to ask themselves whether the cheap money provided by the Government is an unmixed blessing if the accommodation entails one's private business being made public and utilised for the purpose of crushing private competition. The impression produced in the minds of country settlers by letters of the type of the one above ouoted will undoubtedly tend to shake further the previously much shaken confidence of the electors in the Government. Indeed, it is a moot question whether one ' or two more similar severe shakes, may not .engender that feeling of insecurity in the political work l .' which inevitably precedes a falL ■'.'..'. ■ -

The Easter holidays have brought about a temporary cessation in the

The Peers ani the People.

OiL J XIX VXXCT great struggle now proceeding in Great Britain between the Peers and the

. uvYCCii uic jl ccii) aim mu People, Bat the battle will' shortly be renewed, and everything points to its being fought to a finish, no quarter being asked or given on either side. Jt should be borne in mind that this is no new question, although the issue is now- revived in a more acute form than it has ever presented before. To find anything approaching a parallel we must go back to the great days of Gladstone, when he seriously took in hand a project for the reform of the House of Lords. Professor Goldwin Smith, the state of whose health continues to give his friends great anxiety, has an essay on “The Political Crisis in England,” which, though nearly 20 years old, is worth re-reading in the light of recent events. And one or two of the most striking paragraphs are well worth quoting in the present connection :—“The House of Lords is now the only hereditary chamber left in Europe, though in some there still lingers an hereditary element. It is the last leaf on that tree, and it has hung so long because its power has been so small and its Order:, having no social privileges so offensive as compared with the French Noblesse, given httle umbrage. . . . What has been said about hereditary king-ship is true also of an hereditary peerage. It is not an object of rational hatred, it may be an object of historical gratitude. It was an organising force, perhaps the only available force of the kind, at a time when, there being no central administration strong enough to hold society together, the only method of preserving order was territorial delegation.' Nor could anything else have curbed the lawless aggrandisement of kings, ■ In those days the baron was local ruler, judge, and captain. Historians even think that the lives of the nobility were shortened by their troubles as well at by the sword. But there is nothing now to prevent an hereditary peer from sinking into sybaritism, and into sybaritism, for the most part decent and qualified, but sometimes unqualified and scandalous, hereditary Peers sink. , They cannot be got attend at their own House. The

number of Lords present at. important, debates hardly equals that of a dinner P'alty, though during the session theremast be hundreds of them in town. Their wise leaders have always been lecturing them on this subject, but in vain. Not can it be denied that the Houss of Lords, besides representing .* privileged order in an age when privilege is condemned, represents too exclusively a special interest —that of the proprietors of the land. This disqualifies it from acting as an impartial court of legislative revision. In fact it has never played that part', but always the part of an >rgan of the landed interest indiscriminately opposed to f change. Delay, by whatever

opposition caused, always affords time fo.r reconsideration, but in no other 'lense can it be said that the House o" Lords has given expression tc the sober second 1 thought of the nation. It ~canno ! claim, and it does not possess, the national confidence on that ground. Moreover, the authority of the Peers rests on their entailed estates. A landless peerage would be weak indeed, and entailed estate .are visibly threatened by thp advance of. social and economical democracy. That, the House of Loi'ds will have to be. ended or mended is the general conviction.,- ] alike of those who look forward ;6 the. revolution with glee, arid .of.-, those who - tremble at the thought of being left with ■ a cacus-ridden and. .faction-stricken. House of .Commons. Is the bi-cameral'. systeni.to.be retained? Its existence is an incident of British history, arising ouft: of the division of the barons who sat in the Great Council and the lesser barons who did not. and who formed a gentry, which cast in its lot . with the Commons, while the clergy drew apart to their uw.rj Convocation, preferring to be taxed therein the French States General, and. • in. other medireva! parliaments, there was 1 chamber for each order. Chance, however, often chooses well.. The weakest point of the bi-cameral system is that'to form the Senate it is necessary to take the experience and mature wisdom >-oji* o ! '- th* popular house, which needs their controland to put them into a house by themselves, where they are in danger of beingdiscredited, as the experience and wisdom of greybeards who are behind the. ageand estranged from the feelings and• wishes of the people. . . Again there is always danger of deadlock. In th' United States, where the Senate is really co-ordinate with the House of Representatives, as often as the majorities of the two Houses belong to different parties deadlock ensues, and legislation on important matters is in abeyance. There ia also danger of diminishing the sense o£ responsibility in the lower Housr j£ which members will give a popular vote for a measure which they disapprove, trusting that the measure will be thrown oaf. by the Senate. . . How to reorganise.' the House of Lords, however, is a question the solution of which must be left to those who, believing in the bi-cameral system, have deeply studied the problem of construction A partition between the, hereditary and the life principle does not. seem likely to be successful, even if the' public opinion were to allow the hereditary, principle to be retained. The new cloth'' would fret the old garment. The two elements would hardly amalgamate, and there would be a continual and dangerous contrast between their votes. As oftenas a popular measure was thrown out by. hereditary votes the cry of hereditary legislation would again be raised. .What" is wanted is a settlement in which the mind of the nation may repose not %' mere of collisions. There' might be something said for election the House of Commons, or to put it in a', constitutional phrase, designation by theappointment by the Crown. This wojildT be likely, to keep the two Houses in toler-; able, harmony. It might h*< combined with "membership of right for Ministers or ex-Ministers of State and others holding, or having held high posts or commands.," There would, of course, be provisions foe; removal In ca6e of infirmity or nonattendance. But the problem, it must be repeated, is one for the bi-cameralist to. solve. Another problem to be solved is. that of getting the Commons to consenti to any. reform of the Lords. The Com.-\ mons would feel—evidently, they do feelthat in. reforming.and thereby strengthen-, ing the House of'Lords they were parting, with power. It would be difficult to devise a- bill which in their present mood they, would pass. - The question arises whether the House of Lords can possibly do any-i thing to reform it by resolution, aa(" they abolished proxies, or by understands ing without formal resolution, as it excludes its lay-members from voting out' legal questions. . . Could they nofi legally, yet by moral force, reduce selves practically to something like a[ Senate which would command the ran spect of at least the anti-revolutionary; portion of the country, or *t all events} rid themselves of scandal ?"