§ 58. Sir J. BUTCHERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that, according to ancient practice, Members of Parliament were paid, but that their payment was limited to the period during which they attended to their Parliamentary duties in London; and that a considerable number of Members frequently or habitually absent themselves from attendance at Westminster during the Sittings of the House; and whether there are any theoretical or practical objections to paying Members only such part of their salary as is proportionate to the number of days on which they attend the House?
Mr. YOUNGThe answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the remainder of the question, I would refer my hon. and learned Friend to the reply given by the Leader of the House on the 13th May, in which he stated that, having regard to the many and varied duties that fall on Members of the House, he did not consider the course proposed would be practicable.
§ Sir J. BUTCHERWill the hon. Gentleman represent to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it is not right that you should give payment to people who do not do any work for it?
§ Colonel ASHLEYWould it not be much better to pay Members for every day they stay away?
§ Sir M. DOCKRELLDoes not the hon. Gentleman know that there existed in the past a class of jurymen called "guinea-pigs," who used to be always hanging round to earn a guinea, and are Members of this House to be reduced to that?