The Ashburton Guardian. Magna Est Veritas et Prevalebit. FRIDAY, AUGUST 31, 1883. The Honorarium.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume IV, Issue 1036, 31 August 1883, Page 2

The Ashburton Guardian. Magna Est Veritas et Prevalebit. FRIDAY, AUGUST 31, 1883. The Honorarium.

“ The honorarium ” is a topic which our representatives in Parliament assembled seem to be never tired of discussing. A Bill has now been introduced by the Government for the purpose of settling the interesting question once for all; or, at least, for so long as the majority of the House of Representatives will be content to accept the sum which the Bill allots for their services. It does but little credit to the House that such a Bill should be deemed necessary. The honorarium which the colony has been paying to the members for some years past is a remarkably handsome one, and nothing but a spirit of low greed on the part of a section of the House could have given rise to those indecent discussions over the amount which have induced the Government to endeavor to get it fixed by statute. Under these circumstances the Government cannot be blamed for bringing forward this measure; but they are open to censure for the manner in which they have framed it. Pandering to the contemptible feeling of those members of the Lower House who, while ever ready to increase their own emoluments and to squander the public funds in augmenting their personal comforts while in attendance upon Parliament, nevertheless take every opportunity of venting a petty spite against the Legislative Council by refusing to vote proper salaries for the Council’s officers and declaiming against the payment of any expenses whatever to the Councillors, the Ministry propose, in the Bill under notice, to limit the Councillors’ honorarium to one-half of that to be paid to members of the Lower House. The latter are to receive 200 guineas, with free passages for themselves and their wives to and from. Wellington ; the former 100 guineas only. Now why should this offensive distinction be made be tween the members of the two Houses? Each House is an integral part of the Legislature and remains in session for the same term ; and whatever personal expenses may be entailed upon the members of one House must also fall upon the members of the other. If it be urged that many of the Councillors are rich men, it is also true that many members of the Lower House are equally rich and well able to dispense with the honorarium altogether. Moreover it seems to us in the highest degree objectionable to pass measures which would tend to restrict the circle of those persons from amongst whom Councillors can be chosen ; and the reduction of the honotarium would certainly have that effect. Indeed, if we wished to throw the Legislative Council into the hands of the richer classes entirely, the surest means of attaining that end would be to adopt the course proposed by some pretended friends of the people, and abolish the honorarium so far as the Council is concerned : since, in that case, only rich men could afford to accept a seat in that body. We do not believe that the country wishes the Council to be subjected to petty meannesses, or to be placed on an inferior footing tp the House of Representatives in the matter of its monetary allowances. If it be thought expedient to change its constitution, by all means let it be changed ; but the Legislative Council is just as essential a part of our Parliamentary machinery as the House of Representatives, and should be treated with proper courtesy and respect. A Silly Attack: It takes a good deal to stir up the Burnett street Oracle from its normal condition of placid dullness, but now and then it does manage to lash itself into an angry mood over some subject, and on these occasions the leaders are written in a style that puts our old friend the Eatanswill Gazette entirely in the shade. In yesterday’s issue of the Mail, for example, there appears an article that must have caused many of the readers of that journal to smile. The topic discoursed on is a story started some time ago in the Wellington evening paper to the effect that our

Agent-General, Sir Francis Dillon Bell, had been using his position for ! the purpose of unduly favoring a Lon- 1 don shipping company for his own advantage and to the detriment of the colony. This is, it need scarcely be said, a very serious charge to bring against an official, but to do the Post justice that paper did not go farther than to point out certain circumstances which it considered suspicious, and to hint that the matter should be enquired into. To attempt to defend the conduct of the Agent-General would be as ridiculous on our part as is the attack of the Mail on theirs — all discussion on the question being futile until we are in possession of more trustworthy evidence than we have at present. But we can imagine the smile that would pervade the countenance of Sir Francis if some kind friend were to send him a copy of yesterday’s issue of our contemporary. Here he will find that at least one person in the colony considers him not only “ pompous,” but a “ high falutin’ humbug.’' The first reflection of the Agent-General will probably be that the tone of the New Zealand press has, like the ghost in Moliere’s play, improved very much the wrong way since he left the colony. It is to be hoped, however, for the credit of the Fourth Estate, that he will not consider the Mail as a fair specimen of journalism in this part of the world. We have read a good many of Sir Dillon Bell’s despatches, and must confess we never saw any evidence of the pomposity which this local wiseacre deprecates so much. His language is, according to our opinion, terse and to the point, but at the same time we can quite imagine that this fact is itself an abomination to one who can stoop to such absolute vulgarity of expression as does the gentleman who provides the thunder and small beer for the Mail. As to the truth or falsehood of the charge brought against the AgentGeneral by our hot-headed and not over logical contemporary, this, as we have said, is scarcely a question fit for discussion at present. Still, we may remark that the whole tenor of Sir Dillon Bell’s life contradicts the supposition that he has been engaged : irf the dirty work that is suggested, and if the Government thinks it worth while to ask him for an explanation we have no doubt it will be a satisfactory one, so far as he is individually concerned.