THE Evening Star. PUBLISHED DAILY AT FOUR O'CLOCK P.M. Resurrexi. WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 18, 1875.

Thames Star, Volume VII, Issue 2066, 18 August 1875, Page 2

THE Evening Star. PUBLISHED DAILY AT FOUR O'CLOCK P.M. Resurrexi. WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 18, 1875.

One great objection urged against the passing of the abolition measure is that the Parliament has nearly expired — in fact,, that it has almost completed the term for which it was elected. It is difficult to arrive at a just reason for this objection. Parliaments, or members of parliament, like other people require some apprenticeship to the business, and as the present members have many of them completed several apprenticeships, it would seem only reasonable to suppose that they are better qualified to deal with: a great question than a new parliament would be, considering that a general election would probably result in a change in the personnel of the Parliament. It must he borne in mind that the present House of .Representatives contains quite a number of old politicians—men who were at the birth of the Constitution; who have seen the growth and expansion of Provincialism, as well as its decline. Jf these be not competent to deal with the. proposed change, certainly a new Parliament would not be.

"A man. must serve his time to every trade—" If this be true a new* Parliament—or new men in Parliament—would be the last to be trusted with tinkering at the machinery of' our institutions, and the people who give any thought to the matter would infinitely prefer the legislation of tho experienced to the opinions of men unformed for the business, For ourselves we do not believe —and we are justified in the belief by results hitherto —that people wish to see the Abolition Bill relegated to the new Parliament. The bill may not be all that could be desired, but in dealing with its provisions in committee, which, we would ask, would be most likely to eliminate the obnoxious clauses and substitute something useful and acceptable, members who have had experience extending over periods varying from five t6 twenty years, or a House composed perhaps largely of netv members bound hand and foot by local pledges? We certainly should say that in any measure involving prospective and retrospective considerations an expiring Parliament is much more competent to legislate for the good of the colony than a new assembly. Moreover, should the deliberations of the old Parliament be fruitful of evil, as prophesied, it will then be in the power of the people to elect to the new Parliament only those candidates who will pledge themselves to repair the mischief done. If a newly-elected House of [Representatives committed a great blunder, the constituencies might ask in vain for its repeal or for the resignation of represent tatives. If the present members of the Parliament act contrary to the wishes of their constituents, it will be in the power; of the latter, in a few months, to reject; them and.elect others in whom they have! more confidence. The cry that a Par-] liament, because it is in what may prove! to be its last session, should not attempt: any legislation of importance, is so; obviously absurd that we are surprised so. much has been made of it. _ If the last session of a legislative body is to be confined to voting supplies) the colony might well be spared, the expense of calling the Parliament together;. and if the argument is good for anything, it would apply to every session of Parliament, and instead of free representative institutions we might as well have an autocracy with heads of departments answerable for their administration to one head. As t long has an elective chamber has a legal existence that chamber is invested with powers as ample as in its first meeting. The position is unassailable, and there is not the slightest reason in affirmations _ to the contrary. Further, as regards ability, we look upon ay Parliament whose term of office has nearly expired as much more competent to deal with important questions than a new House; for, however much the experienced element may predominate in the new gathering after a general election, there is sure to be an incongruous mixture which requires filtering before it can become useful and workable. The experience of the House of Commons can be accepted^ as a very good precedent by our own legislature for undertaking measures of importance during their last session. Were it otherwise, the Parliament of New Zealand would not be far wrong in establishing a precedent for itself in this direction, by passing the Abolition and Local Government Bills this session, because it is the wish _of a very large majority of the people likely to be affected by such measures that such should be done without delay.