Wairarapa Daily Times [Established Quarter of a Century.] MONDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 1903. MR. SEDDON'S SCHEME.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 7606, 2 November 1903, Page 2

Wairarapa Daily Times [Established Quarter of a Century.] MONDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 1903. MR. SEDDON'S SCHEME.

The Premier's scheme for superseding the Upper House has one characteristic —it is revolutionary. Whether anything can be urged in favour of it remains to be seen. We grant without hesitation that the Upper House, as it is now mainly constituted, is a travesty upon Parliamentary institutions. We may reasonably congratulate ourselves-upon possessing a representative chamber of some merit and character; but we look in vain for any justification for the continued existence of the Upper House as at present constituted and composed. When, however, Mr Seddon talks about abolishing the Council, and substituting a tribunal of lawyers with revising powers, he proposes an arrangement which, besides being a violation of the Constitution, is also open to serious objection of a more general but not less cogent character. Besides, if we wish to part with the " House of Old Men," it is solely because its members are mere machines, worked from the Cabinet room; and tho public will want to be very well assured that the revising barristers of Mr Seddon's scheme are not also his appointees. The universal idea is that the Upper Chamber should be an elective body, and to that Mr Seddon, as our leading democrat (paradoxical designation I) ought to have no possible objection. Would he be willing to make his tribunal of lawyers an elective body ? Our experience of Mr Seddon makes us rather doubtful of the propriety of any change that he may propose. It is pretty certain that it would be merely a change of form—with a perpetuation of the same old abuse. Even that might havo something to recommend it, perhaps. Instead of a body of commonplace respectable and worthy nobodies, thoroughly out of place in a legislative body, we should have a triumvirate, or perhaps a dozen, of educated men to handle Bills as they came out of the representative workshop; and the revision would thus be carried out with more colerity and " finish" than at present. If wo had an assurance that his members of the legal tribunal would be chosen on their merits alone, one objection might be waived. But when we remember the men whom Mr Seddon deliberately passed over, and tho men whom he appointed when vacancies had to be filled, how shall we entertain hopes of improvement under the proposed regime ? But, apart from the violation of the Constitution that would be involved in instituting unicameral legislation, it seems to us that the substitution of a legal Revising Tribunal would be an unsatisfactory way out of the difficulty. For revision, though it includes legal criticism (a most important desideratum), does not end with it. A Bill requires to be reviewed by laymen, and its social, financial, and general suitableness discussed by men who look at tho matter from many standpoints of that practical life which will be affected by the measure. These persons are not concerned with technical defects; but they readily perceive practical ones, and estimate better than a council of mere professional men can do, the actual value to the Colony of the Bill under discussion. But, of course, for revision of this sort, wo want the best men available. Mr Seddon would scarcely have the hardihood, to main, tain that the worthy persons whom he placed in tho Council, are in that category! When we think of Saunders and Rolleston, who might have been, and of Trask and Beehan who are, members of tho ironically-styled " Upper " House, we experienco " that tired feeling." The division on Mr Massey's amendment was a striking object-lesson. Nobody

perhapß doubts, or denies, that reform of the Upper House is needed—but the suggestion came from the Opposition. Therefore, the word was passed along that its merits were not to be considered. The party was simply ordered to block it. And, like good party-sheep, they went the way the whips directed them. If this is democratic practice, there is mighty little to choose between democratic and tyrannic institutions.