South Canterbury Times, SATURDAY, JULY 17, 1880.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2288, 17 July 1880, Page 2

South Canterbury Times, SATURDAY, JULY 17, 1880.

The Legislative Council of Victoria is so thoroughly opposed to the principle of Payment of Members that on more than one occasion it has brought about a political deadlock by its resistance, and although defeated, about a dozen of its members have affirmed practically their repugnance by refusing to accept the money. In remarkable contrast with this action stands that of the upper chamber in this colony. So far from disapproving of payment of members, “our lords” have almost unanimously endorsed the principle. The Hon Mr Peacock undertook the task of testing the self-abnegation and lofty patriotism of his colleagues, and the result is on record. His motion that “ Councillors do not take the honorarium this year,” was rejected- by 29 to 1. Years have elapsed since the Council took so decided a stand on any question as they have on this honorarium question. A division with such an overwhelming majority on on one side has rarely been taken. There can be no doubt as to the views held by the members of our Upper House on this vital subject. On measures dealing with sheep and rabbits, and Guineaworms and three-rail fences, and deceased wives’ sisters and sisters’ brothers there may be some division of opinion,

but they are faithful to their honorariums. It is quite evident that Mr Peacock lias sadly mistaken the self-sacrificing qualities of his colleagues, when ho expected that they would voluntarily contribute their honorariums towards the reduction of the great national debt of New Zealand. The Legislative Council have' a reverential regard for good old maxims, and they believe that lire laborer is worthy of his hire,” and that “ charity begins at home.” Hence all the special pleading on behalf of a needy treasury and the sore stratagems of Ministers to make both ends meet was mere waste of words. The Councillors had their own exigencies to consider, and they could not regard the exigencies of the state. Had the member, who brought .forward Ibis motion, anything like a decent acquaintance with human nature of the loftier type, lie would never have suggested such a voluntary sacrifice to “ our lords.” In their estimation the proposal must have seemed like a. piece of unblushing impudence, and its scornful rejection by twenty-nine to one clearly indicates their contempt.

If any reform of the kind contemplated by .Mr Peacock is to succeed it must come from without, and not from within the Legislative Council. That a large sum is annually wasted on sterile legislation, and in a way (hat is qnile unnecessary, is notorious, it cannot be denied that the members of flic Upper House give a, most inadequate return for the amount of their honorariums. If they arc incapable ol realising the necessit y for retrenchment the House of Representatives should come to the rescue, and if the House declines the delicate operation, the voice of the country must be invited. The colony is suffering, not alone from a large national debt, but from a needless expenditure in connection with the work of legislation, and not only the Civil Service, but the governing machinery of the country requires a thorough overhauling.