New Zealand Times. THURSDAY, OCTOBER 1, 1874.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 4222, 1 October 1874, Page 2

New Zealand Times. THURSDAY, OCTOBER 1, 1874.

What is in reality the question of the payment of members, although it travels under the thin disguise of an honorarium, was, with many other important matters, held over this session of Parliament to be dealt with in the next. How a fee of one hundred and fifty guineas, the recipient of which has the actual fare from his residence to the Assembly by either coach, railway, or steamboat, paid to him, could be called an honorarium, is one of the things'that cannot'be understood but by the initiated. The honorarium that members of Parliament receive, and that in one way or other all strive for, is the dignity of being a member of the Government, the influence that a man of ability necessarily has in the administration of the affairs of the country, or the desire to serve his,country and leave his mark on the legislation of his day and generation. What sum of money ho should receive for doing so will always be a question open for debate ; but whatever the decision maybe that is arrived at, should bo expressly defined by Act of Parliament, and not settled by a Committee or by a resolution of the House. Referring it to a Committee last session was simply an instance of the mock-modesty which refuses to call a spade a spade. The members of the Committee were by no means unanimous in the decision they arrived at, and therefore their report was of little weight or utility. Practically, it was set aside by the resolution movod by the Premier, and carried by a majority of , nine votes—not by one, as has been stated by some of contemporaries who wished to make out that by proposing to raise the sum from one hundred to one hundred and fifty guineas, Mr. Vogel, by his one vote, provided a sop for the purchase 6i some wavering votes. No doubt, the Government, in agreeing to this proposition, did so because it seemed a fair compromise. There were members who thought no payment should , bo made. There were others who thought the existing practice just met the necessities of the case. And there were others, who wore prepared to go the whole animal and vote for members receiving £SOO per annum. Mr. J. L. Gillies said he would like to propose this in the event of Provincial Government being abolished. What the hon. member intended by this is not quite clear. There seems to be rio connection between Provincialism and the payment of members. 'But a proposal to purchase its abolition by a payment of something like £4OO per annum to each member was rather too broad. , In the Bill which the Government will probably introduce next session, dealing with the matter, it is not likely that we shall see any nonsense about honorariums. It will moro likely be one rjroviding that a moderate sum shall be paid to each member—-one sufficient to allow a man of moderate means to live honestly. There are many such persons scattered throughout the Colony who would enjoy

the confidence of the electors, and who would render good service to their country, but who could not afford to. escape their occupations for several months during the year, unless they were remunerated to the extent that they would have to pay a substitute during their absence. There is no pretence that £3OO or £4OO per annum is an adequate remuneration for the services an able member of Parliament may render to his country. His reward for these is the honorarium he receives of the gratitude and appreciation of his fellow citizens. Nor is it supposed that such a sum as we have named would convert an unprincipled member of Parliament, who simply sought that position as one in which he might gratify his lust and rapacity for public money, honorable and unimpeachable. If the electors send such men to Parliament, they have themselves to thank for the result. The only good that can follow their election is that they are shocking examples to be adduced whenover the public is reminded that the franchise should be intelligently exercised. The old idea that the honor of the position is sufficient to induce suitable men to come for ward as candidates, although it holds good in Great Britain, does not apply here for many reasons. One of these is that large cities in England, containing a population double in number that of this Colony, only return two or three members each. If only two members of Parliament were required for New Zealand, instead of seventy-eight, very likely there need be no recourse to the system of paying members. Again, there is not a class of persons in this Colony similar to that in England from which members of Parliament are usually drawn. We have men amongst us who amass immense wealth, but, very often, they are not men of education or intellectual acquirements. Indeed, not unfrequently, it is complained that wealth, squatocracy, and the banking interest, are too largely represented in Colonial Parliaments. The best way out of the difficulty seems to be to allow honest men of ability, willing to serve their country, a sufficient sum to preserve them from want and consequent temptation. It is simply undeniable that need has driven public men, in some Colonies, into the committal of practices that will not bear investigation. The principle may be defended on the ground of the almost universality which it obtains. Great Britain is nearly the only country in which there is constitutional government without payment of representatives. It is the practice on the continent of Europe. It obtains throughout America. The Victorian Parliament, after trying it for three years, has resolved upon its continuance ; and there, we may say, it has produced beneficial results. There were great scandals respecting the unpaid Parliaments of that Colony, and there have been none of moment respecting the paid one. Here there is a paid Parliament which has recently had a high and not undeserved compliment paid to it by such ah authority as His Excellency tho Governor. In South Australia there, is an unpaid Parliament, some members of which live no one knows exactly how, but it is by virtue of their Parliamentary position. They are to be "got at" in a variety of ways. If then, the payment of members appears desirable, wo submit that it is the better way that it should be regulated by law, and not defined by resolutions. Those members who have scruples about touching what they deem the unclean thing, have a very easy way of smoothing over their scruples and. getting out of the difficulty. They may request their share of the plunder to be forwarded to an Athennjum frequented by their constituents, or to some charitable institution situated in the electoral district they represent. This idea was partially acted upon by Mr. Waterhouse at the close of last session, when he presented the sum to which he was entitled to an institution in a district in which he is interested. Whilst the present Earl Derby sat in the Houso of Commons he annually presented the committee of the reading-room in the borough he represented with whatever emolument he was entitled to as a member of Parliamentary Committees or otherwise. His example might be followed by other wealthy men with great advantage to struggling institutions in many country districts.