LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.
PAYMENT OF MEMBERS.
[To THE EDITOR or TIM "SPECTATOR."] Srn,—As a rule it is futile to quote newspapers against them- selves. Changes of opinion may be, and often are, the result of honest conversion, not mere party opportunism. Yet even so I venture to think that the warning uttered by the Morning Post four years ago against the policy which it now supports is so true and weighty as to deserve reproduction on its own
merits. In the division on the Payment of Members Resolu- tion in March, 1906, the minority of 110 were, I believe, all Unionists, and the Unionist tellers were Sir A. Acland-Hood
and Lord Valentia. Next day (Maich 8th) the Morning Post had a leader on the debate, in which, after admitting that the case for payment of Members had been well argued by Mr. Lever, and that strong arguments could be adduced in favour of it, the writer went on as follows :- . " Against it [the case for the. Resolution] may be urged the overwhelming danger of making a trade of the guidance of national affairs ; the.sound British tradition of government by an honorary body representing the unbiassed common-sense of the nation and controlling the paid experts ; the impossibility of fixing any limit to the principle, once it is introduced, of paying for the services of elected representatives ; and finally, the additional turdan upon an already overburdened taxpayer."
The argument is strengthened, the Morning Post goes on, by "another sinister movement" in modern political life—i.e., the power of Tammany—and by " the doubtful purity of Colonial politics." "The spirit of trade and of buying and selling is
invading every part of social life."—I am, Sir, &c. MEMOS.
Previous page
