To the Editor:
This is not a new argument. Paying representatives has been the subject of heated debate since at least the Middle Ages. Opponents to payment have cited the need to encourage altruism in public service. In the 19th century, men such as John Stuart Mill and William Gladstone opposed paying members of parliament; Mill feared that it would “promote demagoguery.” Viscount Bury sniffed that, with payment, “a class of representatives would be introduced who would not be drawn from the highest, best-educated, and best-cultivated class of the community, but from the ranks below that class.”
With the expansion of the franchise to men of lesser means, and later to women, there came a desire to have those who vote able to serve. Payment to members of Parliament began in 1911, but at a nominal rate—£400 a year. This was a modest stipend but permitted those without private wealth to serve and perhaps be less subject to bribery or conflicts of interest. Possibly the message is a timely one—a small remuneration to recognize the efforts of those who act on behalf of the public good and defray their time and expenses.
Michael Hanna
Swarthmore
