PAYMENT OF MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT.

Tuapeka Times, Volume III, Issue 157, 9 February 1871, Page 6

PAYMENT OF MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT.

Mr. Henry Campbell, a young and rising statesman in the Imperial Parliament of the United Kingdom, in giving an account of bis stewardship to his constituents, said : —

He had still another vote to explain, and it perhaps was the strangest of all. He gave his vote in favour of Mr. Peter Taylor's bill to reintroduce the ancient and constitutional custom of paying members of Parliament. Now, all the bills he had just spoken of were in what may be called the ridiculous stage at present. — (Laughter.) In the old days when there was muoh bigotry on the carth — when any man advanced a new dogma, or made a discovery in physical science, or promulgated a fresh opinion, he was always met with opposition, and especially in three successful ways. First, he was laughed at ; secondly, it was contrary to Divine truth; and thirdly, it was all right, and they had believed it all along. — (Great applause.) Some years ago household suffrage was considei'ed to be perfectly ridiculous, and every man who advocated it was considered to be almost a maniac. Then they were told it was dangerous, that it would

undermine the constitution, and that all the efforts of the sober-minded people must be diverted to stave it off. That was said by Mr. Disraeli's party, and yet the only way to save that party was to give Household Suffrage. He had said all these bills were in the ridiculous stage at present, and he might say that he had been laughed at on all hands for voting in favour of them. Yet he had done so after having given them much thought and consideration, and especially after hearing the very admirable speech of Mr. Taylor, who entered into the whole history of the question, and quoted numerous instances from other countries. He never had heard that speech answered, and he felt bound to say that it could not be answered. He did not mean to say that members of Parliament should get large suras of money out of their seats, but he considered it was a sound principle that if they appointed a man to do a public duty, they should pay him for it. Let them look at the Prime Ministers of Cabinets. Did they suppose that the wretched £5000 a-year paid to Mr. Gladstone or Mr. Disraeli, for being Prime Minister, made them ambitious of the office, and was the only object for which they were striving, and bent all their energies to attain ? Did they not think these m.en would serve taem

quite as willingly without njfcjgmcNet they were willing to give tHeS the £5000; and, he thought, they did a very great deal of work for the money. In the same way, he thought a member of Parliament was transacting public business. He goes to London and works through laborious nights for the sake of his constituents, and he thought the only way to put an end to a state of things which was not very satisfactory was to pay the members. .And he believed the onl^way to get some of those men into Parliament who would be very useful, but who were not very full of money, would be to pay them a sufficient sum, so as to cover their expenses while in London. — (Applause.)