ED
Compton Mackenzie
SINCE the House of Commons voted on a resolution in favour of raising the payment of members from £1,000 to £1,500 a year the correspondence of every newspaper in . the country has been seething with the indignation of outraged taxpayers. At a time when old age pensioners are mulcted for any- work they do -and when workmen willing to work harder find that the demands of the Inland Revenue made it not worth their while to do so the handsome increase of £500 provided for members of Parliament by themselves in recog- nition of their own services to their fellow men seems at a first judgement to be a provocative example of inverted altruism. Yet if the reasonable man considers the dog's life—or should I say the sheep's life ?—led by a member of Parliament today he must in fairness admit that the reward at present paid for it is inadequate. Or.se the principle of paying members of Parliament for being members was accepted, for better 'or for worse, it became 'as impossible to fix the wages of politics as to fix the wages of industry. Politics had become a profession, reputable or disreputable according to one's prejudice, and it was absurd to expect professionals to cramp their career by self-denial.
One Conservative member wrote a letter to The Times, the noble selflessness of which brought tears to my eyes. He declared that in his case the deciding factor in supporting the resolution was his conviction that the present scale of remu- neration placed the Socialist Party at an unfair disadvantage. He pleaded for a display of magnanimity from his fellow Con- servatives and begged them to use only fair methods to defeat their opponents. He argued that most Conservative members could obtain outside remuneration whereas the " miners, steel- workers, teachers and others " who made up the bulk of Socialist representation could not engage in outside activities. He besought all Conservative members, however they voted in another resolution, to 'agree to refuse any extra remuneration for themselves during the lifetime of the present Parliament. This he was convinced would demonstrate to the country that in voting for that extra £500 a year no Conservative was animated by the, motive of personal gain.
* * * Whether the country believes that Conservatives or Socialists are animated by such a motive is of no importance. What our professional politicians of today have to fear is the growing belief of the public that they are unnecessary to the welfare of the State. The cold truth is that the House of Commons in its present shape is an unwieldy anachronism; the House of Lords may often be called an anachronism, but at least it is not unwieldy. What is required is an Imperial Parliament or, if the word ' imperial' be forbidden, a Commonwealth Parlia- ment sitting in turn at Westminster, at Ottawa, at Canberra, and in all the other Dominions. Such a Parliament would solve the vexed problem of Home Rule because its representatives would be elected by the various parliaments of Home Rule. In any discussion about Home Rule for Scotland somebody suggests that England herself deserves Home Rule. But would, England want to be ruled by the large flock of sheep that would remain when the Scottish varieties had withdrawn from West- minster across the border ? There would be about 550 left, all waiting to be driven bleating into the lobbies by the sheepdogs under the direction of their cabinet of shepherds. Would. not England be better served by Home Rule for Northumbria, Mercia, East Anglia, Wessex, and London with the Home Counties ? Moreover, that would secure Home Rule for Wales, not to mention, Cornwall, where it may surprise many readers to hear, that there is a growing desire for Home Rule. I am not venturing within the limits of a page to frame a detailed scheme for a Commonwealth Parliament. The pro- portionate representation in such a body would be a difficult and delicate business to negotiate, but no part of our great Commonwealth should be without representation, and what a lively change it would be to hear the voices of individuals in debate instead of the dull grinding of the party machine. We have all been moved by the tale of the Queen's progress and the thought of her opening these Parliaments in her Dominions. How wonderful it would be if on some glorious day in the future Her Majesty could open in Ottawa or Canberra a Parliament of the elected representatives of the whole Common- wealth. I do not believe that even the most harassed taxpayer would resent paying £3,000 a year to men picked from the flower of political service—men of every creed and colour united by their faith in the future of the British Commonwealth of Nations.
If .this seems a daydream it is preferable to the nightmare which the House of Commons is-rapidly becoming. This reso- lution to increase the salaries of members by £500 has raised widespread resentment all over the country, but so effective is the pally machine today that if Parliament should decide to pay its members £5,000 a year I believe the voters would go to the poll at the next general election and surrender docilely to that machine by electing 625 duly enriched representatives. The Independent candidate stands no chance today. The University seats which allowed their holders a measure of independence were abolished by a Socialist Government and a Conservative Government, in spite of pledges to restore them. has done nothing.
More than Pitt have given up to party what was meant for mankind. Are we seriously to suppose that a young nun who finds himself elected to Parliament with a salary of £1,500 a year is going to imperil his political career for the sake of his conscience ? He is going to earn that £1,500 by obeying the Party whips. From the moment that members of Parliament were first paid £400 a year Parliament enslaved itself. The conditions of modern life made that remuneration inevitable, and it is idle to resent that remuneration's being raised from time to time to meet the conditions of modern life. Never- theless, one may ask what is the practical value of a back- bench member of Parliament today, and the sad answer is that the average man or woman does not believe he is of any value at all. He is elected but he is not respected.
* « * What has angered many people about this resolution by members of Parliament to raise their own salaries is the thought of the ministers of religion whose Easter offerings are taxed by the Inland Revenue to contribute toward the payment of professional politicians the value of whom to the country is questionable. The inadequate remuneration of the school-teachers is also taxed to pay professional politicians more than many think they are worth.
I return to my dream of a parliament again in Edinburgh. of a parliament in York, of a parliament in Birmingham, of a parliament in London, of a parliament in Norwich, of a parliament in Wales, and of a parliament in Winchester. The members will have to be paid, of course, but the party machine will be smashed to smithereens. We shall see men instead of sheep making our laws, and from those men will be elected the representatives of Scdtland, Wales and England in the High Parliament of the Commonwealth. Adveniat dies.
Previous page
