THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. MONDAY, OCTOBER 17, 1892.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXIX, Issue 9011, 17 October 1892, Page 4

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. MONDAY, OCTOBER 17, 1892.

One of the most notable events in the history of the last session has been the passing of the Bill regulating the payment of members. It will be remembered that some years ago, at a time of severe financial pressure, the country insisted at a general election that the amount annually paid to members of the House of Representatives should he reduced. A majority of the House went in at a general election pledged to a reduction, and this was accordingly made. The payment to the members of the House of Representatives was reduced to £150. and to members of the Legislative Council to £100. Various other reductions were made at the same time. Several thousands were taken of! the salary of the Governor. And we may remark, by the way, that although the members of the House of Representatives have restored their own salaries in a liberal fashion, they have never dreamed of again replacing the salary of the Governor. Last session the Government broughtdown a Bill proposing to raise the salaries of the members of the House to £240, and the members of the Council to £150. The Legislative Council determined to lay the Bill aside, informing the House of Representatives that if they passed a Bill affecting their own salaries only, they would pass it, but they did not consider that they should impose on the country the burden of additional salaries for themselves. That action the country highly applauded, and it undoubtedly raised the Council iu public estimation. This year, however, there has been a complete revolution. The Government brought down a Bill enacting that the salary of a member of the House of Representatives should be £240 per annum, "and such payment shall be payable out of the Consolidated Fund by equal monthly payments on the last day of each and every month in each year to every such member from the time of taking his seat until his resignation thereof, or otherwise vacating his seat, or, if a member of the House of Representatives, until his retirement therefrom by effluxion of , time or the dissolution of Parliament, as the case may be." In addition to his monthly cheque on the Treasury for £20, each member receives travelling expenses to and from Wellington, and a gold pass over all the railways. It is also carefully provided that if a member of either House resigns or otherwise vacates his seat he shall be entitled to payment up to and inclusive of the day of the seat becoming vacated. The second reading was moved by Mr. Seddon, and was opposed by Mr. Rolleston. The division list was 32 for the Bill and 28 against, a very narrow margin. It appears, however, to be quite certain that that was a contrivance, and that the Bill has the assent of a large majority of the House. This was proved in a'curious way. Mr. Sandford said he would vote for the second reading to affirm the principle, but he would move in committee that the Bill should not come into operation till after the next general election. Mr. McLean said that he would support Mr. Sandford in this. The division on the main question was, as we have said, 32 to 28. Mr. Sandford and Mr. McLean voted amongst the 32. Supposing that all the 28 who voted against the Bill had voted in favour of Mr. Sandford's amendment, as they ought consistently to have done, then the numbers on that amendment would have stood 30 to 30. ,But when that division came on in committee Mr. Sandford's amendment was defeated by 29 to 15. Mr. Dawson, one of the members for Dunedin, moved that the honorarium should be protected against creditors. That is, each member may comfortably enjoy his £20 per month from the Treasury and smile at summonses or judgment summonses, or any contrivance which may still exist to compel a man who has money to pay what he owes. Again there was a close and cleverly-contrived division. The numbers were 24 to 24, making a tie, and Mr. Rees being in the chair, he gave his casting vote for the clause. In the Legislative Council the spectacle over this Bill was just about as melancholy. Dr. Pollen said he would vote for the Bill, because he had changed his mind about it, and because he had not heard that there was any opposition to it. Mr. Swanson opposed the Bill on the ground that the electors had never been consulted about it. Mr. Reynolds' amendment, that it be read a second time that day six months, was rejected by 12 to 7, and the Bill became law. There are very many reasons why the Bill should not have been passed. The honorarium was reduced by last Parliament under a distinct mandate from the country. Every member of

the present Parliament was elected knowing what the honorarium was, and the question was not brought before the electors. The payment was reduced at a time when it was necessary to observe the utmost economy. It cannot be said that that time has passed away. We are not perhaps subject to such extreme pressure as we were, but then that is because we have subjected ourselves to heavy taxation. There are 74 members of the House, and the income of each, excepting Ministers, is raised by £90. The total increase will amount to about £6000. There are forty members in the Legislative Council, each of whom gets £50 additional, making a total of £2000. while the additional members appointed increases this sum considerably. When during the session, any motion was made for the relief of taxation, the Colonial Treasurer promptly replied that the revenue could not stand another penny of remission. Why, the additional sum that members have voted to themselves would have gone a considerable way to enable the Government to do without the land tax on improvements