New Zealand Times. (PUBLISHED DAILY.) THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 21.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXI, Issue 4836, 21 September 1876, Page 4

New Zealand Times. (PUBLISHED DAILY.) THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 21.

»— The motion of which Mr. Laenach gave notice, and whinh was discussed yesterday, proposing the payment of members a salary of £3OO per annum, is certainly one of the most important and, in our opinion, pernicious in tendency that has appeared on the Order Paper for a long time. It is one which will enlist in its favor the prejudices, the passions, and the cupidity of a large number of people. For that very reason, if for no other or higher, it well deserves to be carefully and jealously scrutinized, weighed, and watched by every citizen who really desires to preserve political purity. We said the other clay that there were not a few persons, and these too not the least intelligent, who have begun to ask if this colony be really ready for such a system as that of Responsible Parliamentary Government; and assuredly the appearance of such a proposal as this is further proof that their questioning is far from idle. Now, are there not to be found in the colony a sufficient number of persons of means ample enough, and position assured enough, to enable them to perform the functions of representatives for a session 1 Or are we to assume that such a class of people really exist, but are at once so devoid of patriotism, or so stupidly shortsighted and indifferent in political interest, that, like Gallio, they care for none of these things 1 Either horn of the dilemma is certainly awkward to take hold of. The subject was brought to an issue yesterday by Mr. Laenach, who, pursuant to notice, moved that the House should go into committee, in order practically that members might vote themselves £3OO a year, or double what they received last year. Of course it will be hero said that the proposed vote was only for the present year, and that therefore it is unfair to say that the members supporting Mr. Laenach contemplated paying members £3OO a year. But it must be remembered that the sum fixed this year would not be likely to suffer decrease next year, and it may be fairly assumed that the standard which might be now fixed would be taken as a precedent next year, and in future would in all probability be accepted as a minimum rather than as a maximum standard. Now, it may be said at once that the country will uphold the action of tho Ministry in yesterday signifying their intention to oppose the contemplated increase in the honorarium, and at the same time there can be no suspicion of motive in Mr. Labnach, for it is pretty well known that five times three hundred pounds, would not compen-

sate that gentleman for the time which attendance on Parliament compels him to abstract from his business concerns. But however that may be, the thing equally requires most careful watching. For ourselves, we have the most decided and pronounced opinion on the matter. Much could be said no doubt on both sides of such a qustion as this ; that is the case with every proposition of moral discussion and practical politics. _ But that is not the point: the point is do the evils of such a plan preponderate over any advantage there may be in it. We say at once, that not only do they so preponderate, but preponderate so vastly that in our view the scheme must in a practical light be held to be purely injurious. Our ancient representatives in England did certainly receive pay, the knights of the shire at the rate of four shillings per day and the burgesses two shillings. But in two respects, and those quite essential, that remuneration differed from such a proposal as the present; in the first place the payment was made strictlyas an indemnityfor expenses incurred, not a source of gain; and in the second place it was charged upon the constituencies which elected the members. "This ancient remuneration for public service," says Dr. Heabn, " differs widely from the form of payment of members which has been advocated by some modern political reformers. The latter project contemplates payment, not by the constituencies, but by the State. Such an arrangement would be equivalent to the creation of so many salaried officers, of which the patronage would be vested in the several constituencies. . . When a large constituency has the patronage of a lucrative office, for which the funds are supplied from without, there can be neither any sense of interest in dealing with their own property, nor any sense of responsibility in dealing with the property of others." This is excellent sense and political wisdom. If this proposal were carried into effect, it would certainly, instead of making the electors more careful in the choice of representatives, inevitably make them reckless. Now let it be clearly understood that the distinction between the present system and the proposed one is not that the former is a half measure, and the latter a complete one ; the two are fundamentally different. The existing scheme is an indemnity, and therefore in unison with our ancient plan. The proposed plan would act solely as an inducement to a very bad class of men to force themselves into the Assembly by fair means or foul. Three hundred a year certainly would not be any temptation to the better class of professional or commercial people to devote themselves to political life. But that sum would be a very cogent inducement indeed to the class of loafers. We have quite enough of these gentry already in all conscience; but if this measure were law, they would swarm upon us thick as leaves in "Vallombrosa, and our Legislature would most assuredly and speedily degenerate in character. That great writer J. S. Mill has delivered his opinion of this proposal in no measured terms :—" Such an institution would be a perpetual blister applied to the most peccant parts of human nature. It amounts to offering 658 prizes for the most successful flatterer, the most adroit misleader of his fellow countrymen. Under no despotism has there been such an organised system of tillage for raising a rich crop of vicious courtiership." If it be said, as it most likely will be said, Oh, but there are many good men who could do good service to the country, but they cannot afford to go to the Assembly and stay there for the session, the answer is simple. If any constituency has such a high opinion of any candidate, what we ask is there at present to prevent such a constituency from electing such a candidate and paying him such a salary as would enable him to serve them 1 This is the proper test of the value a constituency may put on a candidate, and most certainly if they believe they could get that value out of him they would be willing to pay for it. But oh no, it is a far more agreeable sort of thing, in the eyes of a certain sort of people, to elect persons whom the state State shall pay. Whatever be the motives to elect poor men, if they be good motives and really cogent motives, then they will be strong enough to force the hands of the electors down into their breeches pockets. And this the present law does not prevent them doing, and if they choose to do it it is nobody's business but their own. But we insist that it is right, proper, just, and rational that this should be, as in old times it was, the obligation and duty of the constituency itself if it wants to elect a poor man. We regard the present proposal as thoroughly vicious in every way, and we shall be curious to hear, when the House goes into committee, on what grounds the proposer of it and those who support him will base their support. Let Mr. Larnach answer if he can the points we here suggest. We shall give him a dispassionate hearing, and if he can effectually dispose of our objections, we certainly have no personal feeling in the case, and would withdraw our opposition.