A.—7a

16

Hon. J. B. Whyte. Legislative Council Bill: Three divisions. Absent. Aliens Bill: One division. Voted against Government. Truck Bill: One division. Voted against Government. Auctioneers Bill: Three divisions. Voted once with Government; absent twice. Factories Bill: Nine divisions. Voted twice with Government; absent seven times. Shop-hours Bill: One division. Voted against Government. Female Suffrage Bill: One division. Voted with Government. Electoral Bill: Eight divisions. Voted three times with Government; voted five times against. Land Bill: Fifteen divisions. Voted three times with Government; voted eleven times against; absent once. Payment of Members Bill: Two divisions. Voted twice against Government. Selectors' Land Eevaluation Bill: One division. Absent. Workman's Lien Bill: Two divisions. Voted twice with Government. Land for Settlement Bill: One division. Voted against Government.

Rejected Bills.—Session 11., 1891 (Local omitted). Aliens Act Amendment, in Conference ; Counties Act Amendment, by Legislative Council; Electoral, in Conference; Female Suffrage, by Legislative Council; Friendly Societies Act Amendment, by Legislative Council; Law Practitioners, by Legislative Council; Land Bill, in Conference; Land for Settlement, by Legislative Council; Payment of Members, laid aside by Legislative Council (not rejected); Shop-hours, by Legislative Council; Selectors' Land Eevaluation Continuance and Amendment, by Legislative Council; Workman's Lien, by Legislative Council.

The Governor's Lesson. [Prom Evening Post, Monday, 15th February, 1892. (Alterations and comments of Lord Onslow shown in italics.)] Nothing could have been more apt, better timed, or more suggestively true than His Excellency Lord Onslow's remarks on Friday night respecting the position and functions of an Upper Chamber. He very clearly defined the legal and nominal prerogative of such a Chamber as limited by constitutional usage. His words were pregnant with meaning in the position of affairs in this colony at the present time, although they were, of course, at the present time, quite of a general character. It would have been improper for him to have pointed the application of the principles he laid down, but it is easy for the most careless observer to read between the lines. Paraphrased and simplified, His Excellency's remarks amount to this : that the constitutional function of a second Chamber is not to set up its own will in stubborn and immovable opposition to the will of the people, but to interpose such a check upon hasty legislation as shall give the people time to consider the subject fully, and to form and express a mature and decided opinion upon the questions at issue. For an Upper House to attempt to do more than this would, as Lord Onslow points out, be to admit that the common-sense upon which Englishmen pride themselves no longer guided its action, and the inevitable result would be an irresistible movement for the abolition of such a Chamber. The House of Lords, the most time-honoured and conservative of Upper Chambers, has never yet so set itself against the fulfilment of the well-considered and clearly-expressed popular will. Had it done so, it would ere this have belonged to the things of the past. Conservative although its majorities have always been, it has gracefully yielded when unmistakably shown that the matured opinion of the people was in favour of any measure of progress. The various Eeform Bills at first unhesitatingly rejected by it have been accepted after direct reference of them to the people, and their receiving emphatic approval at the polling-booths. The House of Lords, having made its protest, has ever yielded gracefully when the popular verdict has on appeal gone against it. It has never been necessary to resort to the once-threatened extreme expedient of swamping the House by a creation of Peers. Lord Onslow will himself return to England to take part in another early surrender of the views of the majority of his fellow-Peers to those of the people. The House of Lords will undoubtedly reject the first Home Eule for Ireland Bill which the Commons may pass, and Lord Onslow will no doubt vote with the majority. Practically, of course, the question of Home Eule will be the issue on which the impending general election at Home will depend, and, if Mr. Gladstone returns to power, a Home Eule Bill will certainly be passed by the House of Commons. But no matter what the majority there may be, the Bill will as certainly be rejected by the Lords. Then it will be Mr. Gladstone's duty to take his Bill to the constituencies, and ask them to express a direct opinion upon it. If such an appeal is made and answered by an emphatic expression of public approval, then the House of Lords will have fulfilled its constitutional duty, and Lord Onslow and his friends will, no doubt, with characteristic common-sense, accept and yield to the will of the people. There will be no howl raised at Home at the action of the Lords in refusing to accept the opinion expressed in the general election on the general question, and insisting on a spscific reference of the Bill to the constituencies. It will be within its rights in thus delaying definite action, and no one will complain of such a course being adopted. So in like manner, and this, we take it, was the lesson intended to be conveyed in Lord Onslow's speech, has the Legislative Council been quite within its rights in refusing to pass all the policy measures of the present Government, simply because they have been formulated by a Ministry chosen from the majority returned on general principles at the last general election. [The Council has a clear constitutional right to insist that the precise measures shall be specifically referred to the verdict of the