The Ashburton Guardian. Magna Est Veritas et Prevalebit. TUESDAY, JUNE 24, 1884. The Honorarium.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1288, 24 June 1884, Page 2

The Ashburton Guardian. Magna Est Veritas et Prevalebit. TUESDAY, JUNE 24, 1884. The Honorarium.

Knowing that although “retrenchment” was the great watchword with our representatives during the recess, they would be the last persons in the world to apply such a principle to themselves, we were far from sanguine that the debate on the honorarium would result otherwise than it has done. Last night in Committee of Supply the question was discussed, and on a division it was found that twenty-'ive members voted for a reduction and thirtyfive against it. But if the result of the division was a foregone conclusion, and therefore did not trouble us much, we were rather curious to know by what arguments those who felt justified in taking two hundred guineas of the public money for a fortnight’s absolutely useless work would support their position. Let us see what these arguments were. Mr Seddon was the first to oppose a reduction, and he did so on the grounds that the proposal came from the wealthy men, and that it was a contract made with members which should not be broken, Fish took much the same view, only he went farther and appeared to think that to make such a sacrifice would be virtually an infraction of the law, which would under the circumstances be a serious consideration to the member for Dunedin South. Mr Moss emphasised the disadvantages attaching to the position of a (representative of the people, inasmuch as he could not enter into a Government contract nor accept payment on commission, He was evidently of opinion that the fat should be taken with the lean, and that a short session like the present was a providential piece of luck that it would be morally wrong to refuse to be benefited by —an argument worthy of a true-born Welshman. Sir George Grey, as might have been expected, took a broad democratic view of the question, indulging in some characteristic high-falutin’ concerning the merits of the payment-of-members system, which opened the doors of Parliament to rich and poor alike. He concluded with one of the most extraordinary examples of logic we remember to have met; namely, that as an election contest was about to come on members should grab as much public money as they could lay their hands on in order to be prepared for the battle. Major Harris was willing to compound, on condition that Ministers reduced their salaries, but we shall have to wait till Hansard is published before we learn how he justified the analogy Between the position of representatives who did no work and that of members of the Cabinet who have to earn their salaries. We have given above what the four gentlemen founded their opinions on, and it may be presumed that their arguments were considered unanswerable by the other forty who voted or paired on the same side.

Now, if there is one thing that M.H.R.’s, when being questioned by their constituents, resent more than another, it is the suggestion that the payment they receive for their legislative duties is in any sense a salary. They assert that the two hundred guineas is not more than sufficient to pay their expenses in Wellington during the session, and they accept it simply as a refund for necessary outlay. We have an idea that this is simply a convenient fiction, for even admitting that the Empire City is full of harpies whose harvest time is ddring the sitting of Parliament, and who at their own sweet will fleece the members during their compulsory stay there, payment at the rate of LBOO a year is not so very bad after all: It may of course be martyrdom. in the case of some of the representatives, but it can scarcely be so with the majority. But even taking the fiction for a fact, can it be for a moment granted that the same amount would be expended to “ refund necessary outlay’’ in little more than a fortnight as would be required in a session of three months. This conclusion is altogether absurd, and we think that most people will agree with us in considering that the voting of the full honorarium for a session of eleven sitting days is unjustifiable. Electors should examine the division list, and mark their sense of such a proceeding by refusing to support those who voted or paired with the •“ Noes ” last evening, when the general election takes place.

We very much doubt whether there is a single person in the Ashburton electorate who honestly consider Mr S. G. Jolly to have the remotest chance of being re turned to Parliament, but if such there be he must have been disillusionised by last night’s meeting jn the Town Hall. The candidate, at the conclusion of an address in which the most primitive views of political economy were expressed ig. lan? guage more forcible than choice, made a pathetic appeal to those farmers and others who had asked him to come forward, to contribute something to his election. It is impossible not to sympathise with Mr Jolly to a certain extent, as no doubt he has been flattered by illjudging friends into a belief that he is really a great man. Among the blind

the one-eyed is a, .king, and nobody vrould grudge this so-called working-man's candidate his patent of royalty so long as he remained in his proper sphere. If he believed that those who put it into his head to contest the seat would contribute one farthing towards his electioneering expenses he must have found out his mistake ere this, as was shown by his c emarks on the subject of ingratitude last evening. After all, he has chiefly his own self-conceit to blame for having been placed in his present position, and wo can accord him no kinder wish than that his experience may have the effect of distroying an ambition which can never be gratified. The truth is that the real working man possesses too much common sense and shrewdness, not to be fully alive to the fact that his interests are safer In the hands of intelligent representatives, who study the questions affecting him, than in those of bush politicians, whose views are gathered from cursory reading of newspapers and pamphlets. Among the many grievances of Mr J OLLY, not the least appears to be that he has not been reported in the press to his satisfaction, and he uttered a tremendous comminution against those representatives af the Fourth Estate who had sinned in this respect. Wore it not that there would be compensating disadvantages, wo should be inclined to think it a pity that Mr Jolly is not likely to sit in a New Zealand Parliament, as his speeches in the House would serve to enliven that rather dreary publication, Hansard. As to ourselves, if we took the trouble to report the nonsense that every person afflicted with cacoethes loqutndi chose to pour forth froir a public platform we are afraid the circulation of the Guardian would be seriously affected, and this is a result we are not inclined to risk, even to earn the approval of Mr Jolly.