NOTES OF THE DAY.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1524, 21 August 1912, Page 4

NOTES OF THE DAY.

Mr. Craigie rendered some service last evening when he moved his amendment to the motion that the House go into Committee of Supply —tho formal motion on which the 'Financial debate takes place. . The amendment probably was a little embarrassing for,.,tho Opposition. For one thing it prevented any other amendment being moved, and thus precluded the possibility of a want-of-confidence motion intercepting the debate. There has been some talk of the Opposition moving in this direction, but probably its leaderless state or its lack of confidence in itself would have prevented this even if Mr. Ckaigie had not dono so by moving his amendment. But the action of the member for Timaru was unfortunate for the Opposition because it served to show now completely the Reform party has converted the country to the freehold tenure, which for years the Continuous Ministry resisted. Mr. Wilford, who, it must be conceded, has always\ so far as we can recall been a freeholder, endeavoured to discount the effect of Mr. Craigie's action in disclosing the failure of the Government he has supported in the past to force the leasehold on the country, by claiming that the time had now arrived when the tenure issue had been disposed of, and that of settlement must take its place. This is true enough so far as it goes, and the credit is due to the persistent efforts of the Reform party, in the face of the most determined opposition from the anti-Reform party, with which the member for Hutt has been so long associated. Mr. Craigie's amendment was defeated by 52 votes to 14, which represents the relative strength of freeholders and leaseholders in the House of Representatives to-day.' Incidentally the diversion of the debate into this channel led to Mr. G. W. Russell receiving a rebuke he richly deserved from one of his own party. It is satisfactory to note that the Prime Minister has informed the House of Representatives that the Government has no intention to introduce legislation to provide for an increase of the salaries of members of Parliament. We pointed out a few days ago, when the question of an all-round increase was first suggested, the impropriety of the Government doing anything in this direction at the present time. Nothing could prove more damaging to it in the eyes of the country, after its professed regard-for care and economy in the matter of public expenditure, than to proceed, as one of its first steps after accession to office, to add to. the cost of government by voting increases of salaries to members. Even should such a course appear desirable, it would be grossly improper for members to vote to increase their own salaries, and any legislation on the subject, should only apply to future Parliaments. It is difficult to believe that any number of members have been seriously contemplating action of the kind— probably the idea has been discussed amongst a few without any real idea of action bcing_ taken. The present honorarium is by no means excessive, and at some more opportune time it may be worthy of consideration whether an addition should be made.