RETRENCHMENT.

Hawke's Bay Herald, Volume XXII, Issue 7822, 15 August 1887, Page 3

RETRENCHMENT.

Sir, — I have not seen any " Jottings by Argus " lately ; what has become of him"? There is plenty to jot about now, on the eve of a general election. We read and hear a great many speeches on public matters, and they all agree that retrenchment is necessary. That has been the cry for years. We have had commissions of inquiry to recommend how it is to be done, and first one Government and then another has been going to carry it out ; but it appears to me that every attempt to mend the matter only increases the evil. It is my opinion that until we have .1 radical change in the House itself we shall have no retrenchment worth the name. If we would retrench we must begin with the House of Representatives ami reduce their number by at least one half, I think 25 members would be quite sufficient, ami they must be colonial representatives, or men representing the colony, not ench representing a parish. Then we should have— first, a reduction of members ; second, honorarium reduced to £50 ; third, the talking power of the House •would be largely reduced (and that would be a great gain to the country), while the business capacity largely increased. But 91 members and the colony divided into 91 little pieces means division instead of unity. The most of the time of the House is taken up with the ins and the outs, this and that member's little grievances, committees to inquire into this and that member's conduct, why so much was paid for a piece of land, or another member received so much commission, and so on. Then, if it is considered that most of the 91 members have sisters and cousins and aunts to be provided for in the service,

how can we expect any retrenchment ? Of course there are a few good men with a stake in the country, but what can they

do against so many with only a stake of £210, &c. I have no doubt when mem-

hers get back to Wellington they will find that the civil servants are not overpaid ; some of them in fact but poorly paid. For my part I do not think they find their salaries too large. But on the other hand the taxpayers find it too much to pay, especially when it gravitates down to the small wages, or in many cases no wage? at all. Now, this is where (lie little diiliculty conies in. I think would-be members might give us a little of the other side of the question, from a taxpayers point of view. Plow many taxpayers" are there whose income does not reach £100 per annum ? And yet they have to pay taxes to provide honorarium for M.H.R.'s, free passes on railways, and holidays, and pocket money to well-paid officials who are not missed when absent. — I am, (Src, TAXi'AVEK. Hastings, August 10th, ISB7.