Not Worth the Candle.

White Ribbon, Volume 1, Issue 13, 1 July 1896, Page 7

Not Worth the Candle.

It is becoming painfully evident that in imitating the British Parliament by setting up an Upper and Lower House, we have committed a great blunder. For years past the Legislative Council has blocked every reform, either by throwing out Bills passed by the House of Representatives, or by so mutilating them that their usefulness has been almost destroyed. The Council, in spite of a slight infusion of new blood, has settled down to a steady policy of obstruction, and has fairly earned the right to be called the “ Anti-Legislative Council.” Its members are dignified by the prefix of Honourable. Presumably this is an ironical recognition of the fact that while they frustrate the wishes j

of the people, they do not hesitate to draw an annual salary. In fairness to some of the Honourable Councillors it should be explained that ■ they are not all actively engaged in obstructing Bills. Some of them remain quietly at home, or travel in Europe for a couple of years, carefully, we presume, drawing their salaries in th a meantime. These salarh s are called honorariums, for the reason, probably, that they are in no sense earned. In all seriousness we would ask the women electors of this colony, in the words of an homely proverb, “ Is the game worth the candle ? ” At a rough calculation, the Legislative Council must cost the colony something like eight thousand pounds a year. This would pay interest on two hundred thousand pounds, which, if expended on State farms, would practically solve our unemployed difficulty. Yet we have paid this money for years past to hinder reform. In defence of the Council it is said that it acts as a revising chamber, correcting errors in Bills passed in the House of Representatives, and rendering them workable. We admit that there is something to t*e said for this view. But when it is remembered how frequently our Representatives are busy passing Amendment Acts, it must be admitted that the Council is not only a costly revising chamber, but a very inefficient one also. We venture to suggest a better plan. Abolish the Legislative Council. Let a revision Committee of three competent lawyers be balloted for by the Judges of the Supreme Court. Pay the members a year each on condition that they attend in Wellington during the sessions of Parliament, and revise the Bills as they come out of Committee. We hazard the opinion that the work of revision will be better done, a large saving will be made, and reform will be hastened.