Page:Life·of·Seddon•James·Drummond•1907.pdf/92

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been validated.
Days of Parochialism
71

adequate manner. He took up this attitude largely on account of an instance of gross public ingratitude that had come under his notice before he entered politics. A friend of his had been a member of the House for many years, and had served the country in other directions. At a public meeting at which Mr. Seddon was present this gentleman told how he had enjoyed the people’s confidence year after year, toiling for them and receiving as thanks the plaudits that greeted him. A position arose in which he had to assert his independence. In doing that, he voted aginst Sir George Grey and for Sir Harry Atkinson. For his sin he lost the confidence he valued highly, but not above everything else. He explained to his constituents that his views towards Sir George Grey had changed, but said that he ought not to be punished on account of his independence. He referred the people to his past services and asked that they should be weighed against his recent action. While he was appealing in that strain, someone in the audience said, “See here, old hoss, it is about time you were blistered and turned out.” In other words, after he had faithfully served his exacting master for many years, he was to be turned away, as it was thought that his services were no longer of much advantage.

The appeal and the brutal response made an impression on Mr. Seddon that clung to him through his life. He never forgot that the public, as a rule, is not a generous master, and that it has no scruples in turning away faithful servants who are no longer of any use.

Not once or twice, but on many occasions, Mr. Seddon affirmed that the public ought to pay for the legislative services it received. He felt that had he not insisted upon being paid for his services he would have been doing an injustice to himself and his family by remaining in politics. He never liked the word “honorarium,” which he looked upon as a sham, and he asked in his blunt and forcible manner why the sum granted by Parliament should not be officially known as “payment of members.”

When Sir Harry Atkinson succeeded in reducing the honorarium from £210 to £150 in 1887, Mr. Seddon made one