PAYMENT OF MEMBERS. T HOUGH payment of Members, and also payment
of the Returning Officer's expenses, by the State is part of the programme which the Government are pledged to carry out this Session, if possible, nothing definite has yet been settled as to what is to be the amount of the annual salary of a Member of Parliament. The sum of £300 a year has no doubt been mentioned at the Labour Conference and in the newspapers, but no official statement has been put forward. The matter, however, is one of very great importance, and therefore one which, in our opinion, should be thoroughly discussed. It is also one which, in a special degree, deserves debate outside Parliament. To the essential maxim that no man should be judge in his own cause, we might add that no man ought to be his own paymaster, or, at any rate, ought to estimate what his services are worth a year. Even the most vehement upholder of the rights and privileges of a Member of Parliament would probably shrink from saying that he and his fellows ought to decide, without any external interference, the payment due to them from the State. Indeed, if ever there was an act which ought to be referred to the people before it came into operation, it must be an act for paying Members of Parliament. Undoubtedly in such a case the people ought to have a right of veto. Since, however, there is little likelihood of this Parliament agreeing to any Bill being referred to the people, we can only fall back upon discussion and. the influence of public opinion.
We remain what we have always been, strong opponents of payment of Members. We realise certain advantages which might flow from such payment, and we are by no means sure that a thick and thin opponent of Socialism might not welcome payment of Members as setting free those representatives of the people who now receive salaries from outside bodies. When a Trade Union or any other Political Association pays a Member of Parliament, it is sure to exact from him an obedience to its wishes which makes short work of that independence which should be the ideal of the holder of a public trust. In spite, however, of this fact, we hold that the balance of good distinctly inclines against payment of Members. The representatives of the people ought to be in the position of masters, not of servants. It is very right and proper that Ministers should be paid, and well paid, by the State, for they are the servants of the nation and of the Parlia- ment which represents the nation. When once a man is paid he of necessity takes a different position from that which he occupies when his work is voluntary and unpaid. A paid trustee cannot have the moral authority of one who gets ab- solutely nothing from the discharge of his trust. He who says the final word should. be the wage-payer, not the wage-earner. But though we are convinced that Parlia- ment will lose something, nay, a very great deal, by being paid, it is, we fear, useless to employ the arguments which we have just stated. It must be admitted that the country had the question of payment of Members before it at the general election, and it must also be conceded that its verdict endorsed. that policy. All, apparently, that remains to be done is to settle the amount, a question which, as we have said, is one of very great importance. Though we are strongly averse from increasing the burdens on the taxpayer, we feel bound to point out that if Mem- bers of Parliament are to be paid at all, they ought to be paid adequately, The evil of payment of Members, in our opinion, would be not mitigated but immensely aggravated by settling too low a remuneration for a Member of Parlia- ment. If the Member of Parliament is to have a salary, and if men who have no private means are to be directly encouraged. to enter the House, they ought to receive a salary which will enable them to live in reasonable comfort, and put them as far as possible above the reach of pecuniary temptation. Every thinking man admits that it is a most serious evil to underpay judges or any officials whose work is highly responsible, and who have to give decisions which involve very large sums of money. Again, every business man knows that in business it is bad economy to let men at low salaries deal with important pecuniary interests. But no men have to take greater responsibilities in this respect than Members of Parliament. In considering, then, what sum ought to be paid to a Member of Parliament, we certainly ought not to choose a sum upon which it is difficult for a man to maintain himself in reasonable comfort in so expensive a place as London, and under such expen- sive conditions as prevail at Westminster. Can it be said that a Member of Parliament with no private means—and remember that by paying salaries we are distinctly inviting men who have no other means of exis- tence to enter Parliament—could maintain himself and his family (we have no right to assume that he will be a bachelor) on £300 a year ? No doubt plenty of working men, whether working with their hands or as clerks, live and bring up a family not only in comfort but in honour- able independence on a good deal less than £300 a yeas We venture to say, however, that there is no real analogy between them and a Member of Parliament. Be as econo- mical as he likes, a Member of Parliament is bound by the conditions of his life to have a great many special out-of- pocket expenses, not merely in the matter of locomotion, but in the matter of "meals from home." Again, a Member of Parliament, when he comes up from the country, cannot be expected to house himself as cheaply as he housed himself in his home, say, in Lancashire, Yorkshire, or Scotland. He is often, indeed, obliged. to have two re- sidences. A man whose home is in Lancashire must either bring his family to London or else live in lodg- ings or at a hotel in London. Whichever course he pursues, he is bound. to find it expensive. Again, the world being as it is, the wife of a Member of Parlia- ment can hardly be expected to live in London without a servant, although she may have been perfectly willing and able to do so in her old home. It is not the least necessary to assume grand airs on the part of the wife when we say that, though £6 a week may sound a large sum to a. working man, a Member with nothing else to look to will soon find. life in London on £300 a year a veil, tight squeeze. Having achieved his ambition and got elected to Parliament, he will then, if he has only £300 a year, find. that the first need, and most imperative need, in his new life is somehow or other to increase his income But this, we venture to say, is a state of things which, from the public point of view, is exceedingly undesirable. After giving the matter close consideration, we have come to the conclusion that if Members of Parliament are to be paid, the very least they ought to be paid is £600 a year. No doubt on such a sum a working man or small professional man, after being elected, can live in reasonable comfort, and can save something against the time when he will be thrown out of Parliament. That is a pecuniary consideration which becomes urgent the moment the State begins deliberately to attract poor men to the House of Commons. A working-man Member, after paying for his railway fares, his omnibus and tram fares, his rent f,,r lodgings or a house in London, his meals at the House of Commons and his stationery and postage and. other necessaries, and also for making that increase in his home expenditure which it will be very difficult for him to resist in his new position, will not, we venture to think, find £600 a year at all too much. It will certainly give him no great margin for illness in himself or his family. We should. say that, even assuming, as of course we assume, that he makes no attempt to rise above the material standard. of living to which he has been accustomed, he is not likely to spend less than £450 a year. The other £150 would give him that margin without which no man can be said to have real financial independence. But such financial independence is unquestionably the position which the State should. wish the masters of the nation's destiny to possess. Unless he has financial independence the ordinary man will certainly not be able to do really good work for the State.
We shall be told, perhaps, that we are exaggerating, or, at any rate, misunderstanding the situation. The State, it may be urged, does not want to pay Members of Parliament as it pays high officials—that is, a full and adequate wage—but merely to give them a grant to meet such extra expenses as they are put to by becoming Members of Parliament. That sounds very well in theory, but as a matter of fact we do not think it can be maintained. Other countries have attempted it, but in almost all cases they have come in the end to paying a salary in the true sense. America, for example, pays its Senators and Members of Congress at the same rate as it pays the judges of the Supreme Court, while in France Senators and Deputies are paid at about the same rate as responsible French officials. Call it what you like, the moment you begin to pay Members of Parliament, those who seek office will regard the payment made to them exactly as other servants of the State regard their salaries. At present the State in effect says to Members of Parliament : "You had better not become one of the rulers of the land unless you are already in a position of personal independence." In future the State is going to say : "If you can obtain election the Nation will maintain you." It follows, therefore, that such main- tenance must be adequate. We are as certain as we can be of anything that even if £300 is the payment to begin with, it will be but a very few years before it is raised to £600, and possibly more. By putting the figure at once at £600, we shall be in a, much better position to say resist demands for increased pay—demands necessarily humili- ating to Parliament.
Before we leave the subject of payment of Members, we should like to note one more point. Does the public, we wonder, realise that one of the results of payment of Members must be to divide Members into two classes? Hitherto one of the great glories of the British House of Commons has been that it has been a perfect republic. All men have been on the same footing. If payment of Members is voted, there will be a marked distinction in the House. This will arise in the following way : A great many Members of Parliament, for various reasons, will declare that nothing will induce them to accept any salary for their services. They will tell their constituencies that when the money is sent to them they will not touch it, but will at once hand it over for public objects in their consti- tuencies. A Member who is of this mind will probably appoint trustees, of as non-partisan character as he can, in his constituency, and ask them to distribute his salary as a Member of Parliament during his tenure of office on various public and non-partisan objects. Such a course cannot possibly be declared illegal or corrupt. It will, however, have the curious result of giving to rich men an advantage not at present enjoyed by them, and therefore will have an undemocratic tendency. The chief evil, however, will be the distinction which will be drawn between the men who will maintain their absolute independence by gratuitous services to the State and the salaried Members. While human nature is what it is, the non-salaried man will always be on a different footing from the salaried. It may be snobbish, or foolish, or what you will, that this should be so, but the fact remains.
Previous page
