THE UPPER HOUSE.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXIX, Issue 86, 31 May 1911, Page 5

THE UPPER HOUSE.

SHOULD IT BE RETAINED? Reference to the Legislative Council was made at a gathering in Wellington oil Wednesday last. The Hon. C. M. Lake spoke strongly in its favour. The House had many critics, ho said, hut it was very brave to got behind a wall and shout at an object that could not reply or defend itself. There were many difficulties in the way of an elective Chamber, and ho would like to know how they were going to be settled. Which Chamber would have control of the finances? -It would mean the existence of two contending Chambers, each claiming to' represent the people and .control the finances. . Ho thought Single-Chamber Government unwise and dangerous. Again and again the Upper House had before it evidence of the necessity for two Chambers. In the rush of legislation, laws could pot always receive the ■ool, calm consideration they deserved. .Much valuable legislation was •initiated in the Upper Chamber, and there was no reason why tin’s should not bo extended. Ho did not make these statements as an excuse for the existence of the Chamber of which .10 is a member, but as touching tiic hinge of other points of view. Mr J. P. Luke, J\l .P.. said he would like to cross swords with his brother (the previous speaker) on this question. The people of New Zealand wore too wide awake, too Liberal,' to extend the functions of the Upper House. The system in vogue was v relic of the system which trad obtained in Britain for hundreds of years, and even there they found a necessity for remodelling it. Ho thought that this year would sec its termination in that country.