4."That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £6,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1901, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs."
5."That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £7,200, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1901, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies."
6."That a sum, not exceeding £1,015, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1901, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Lord Privy Seal."
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
asked why the Supplementary Estimates for the increased cost of telegrams were placed in two Votes. On the Vote just passed there were £15,000 for telegrams, and on the one before the House there were another £6,000. Such a system was very confusing, and perhaps the Secretary of State would state why the money was thus divided.
The Vote which the House had under consideration just now was for telegrams sent from abroad to the Foreign Office—diplomatic and consular telegrams. This Vote is for telegrams sent abroad from the Foreign Office, which therefore are accounted for under the Foreign Office The reason the double Estimate is kept up is simply that it follows the pattern set by the main Estimate, as of course it must do.
Is not the real reason that there has been a great addition to the cost of telegrams owing to the state of affairs in China?
That is so.
further asked whether the Foreign Office had not some system under which their telegrams were sent at a lower rate than is charged ordinarily.
thought it rather extraordinary that the additional sum required, should be an even £6,000, without an odd pound or shilling. Did the £6,000 represent the actual amount spent, or did it represent merely in round figures: the amount required? In his judgment,. it was not a correct statement of the actual amount of the deficiency which they were asked to vote.
wished to know if the Government had made any special terms with the telegraph companies in regard to the prices charged for telegrams in the Vote.
The question whether the companies charge different rates or not does not come under this Vote.
said that all he wished to know from the noble Lord was whether any endeavour had been made to enter into an arrangement with the companies so that the telegraphic service might be carried out with economy.
The reason why this item for telegrams appears as a round sum is that it is in the nature of an Estimate up to the 31st of March, and it is, therefore, impossible to go into those odd shillings which have been referred to.
asked how the single pound came into the Estimate?
Because we are dealing with the Supplementary Estimate and not with the original Estimate. This question as to the rates paid for telegrams has nothing to do with my Department, for it concerns the Post Office, but I know that Government telegrams are sent cheaper and there is a reduction allowed for taking a quantity.
Question put and agreed to.
Motion made, and Question proposed: "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
said he did not know whether the explanation given by the noble Lord in regard to the last Vote held good in reference to this Vote. He desired to know why the excess telegrams charged for were not put all into one Vote.
asked if the Colonial Office got those telegrams at a special rate?
|Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.||Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Bignold, Arthur|
|Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel||Bain, Colonel James Robert||Blundell, Colonel Henry|
|Anson, Sir Wm. Reynell||Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r||Brand, Hon. Arthur G.|
|Archdale, Edward Mervyn||Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds||Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Bathurst, Hon. A. Benjamin||Bull, William James|
|Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.||Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol||Bullard, Sir Harry|
|Asher, Alexander||Bell, Richard||Butcher, John George|
|Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis||Bentinck, Lord Henry C.||Caldwell, James|
wished to know if the telegrams alluded to were in connection with the war in South Africa.
It is stated in the Vote that they are cablegrams in connection with South Africa and Ashanti.
said it was stated in the Vote—
Order, order! The hon. Member has already spoken,
contended that he had a right to speak upon the other Vote, and there was an item of £7,200 in connection with official telegrams from the office of the Colonial Secretary to His Majesty's representatives in South Africa. That being so, he wished to know how many of those telegrams had been given to the public.
Order, order! That will arise on the Vote for the salary of the Colonial Secretary.
said they had down in the Vote simply an item of £7,200 for telegrams. Were they not entitled to some information as to the number of telegrams which were sent, and to ask whether they were genuine or not?
In regard to the number of telegrams, we have no information. The telegrams are those sent between the Government. and His Majesty's representatives in South Africa and Ashanti. All those telegrams of importance to the House and the country have already been published, and a vast number of the telegrams upon this Vote are upon trifling matters of business and departmental subjects which, if we were to publish them, would constitute a whole library.
The House divided:—Ayes, 173; Noes, —14. (Division List No. 102.)
|Cautley, Henry Strother||Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightsd.||Priestley, Arthur|
|Cavendish, R.F.(N. Lancs.)||Howard, Capt J (Kent, Faversh)||Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward|
|Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.)||Johnston, William (Belfast)||Purvis, Robert|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex),||Ratcliffe, R. F.|
|Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)||Joicey, Sir James||Reckitt, Harold James|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.)||Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)||Reid, James (Greenock)|
|Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc.||Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh||Rentoul, James Alexander|
|Chapman, Edward||Kenyon-Slaney, Col W.(Salop.||Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge|
|Churchill, Winston Spencer||Keswick, William||Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green|
|Cochrane, Hn. Thos. H. A. E.||Knowles, Lees||Rigg, Richard|
|Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse||Lawson, John Grant||Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas, Thomson.|
|Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)||Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage||Robertson, Herbert (Hackney|
|Cranborne, Viscount||Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Cubitt, Hon. Henry||Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.||Royds, Clement Molyneux|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Levy, Maurice||Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-|
|Davies, Sir H.D. (Chatham)||Lockwood, Lt. Col. A. R.||Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)|
|Dickson, Charles Scott||Long, Col Charles W. (Evesham||Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S)||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.},|
|Duncan, James H.||Loyd, Archie Kirkman||Seton-Karr, Henry|
|Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin||Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)||Sharpe, William Edward T.|
|Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton||Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsm'th)||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Elibank, Master of||Macdona, John Cumming||Simeon, Sir Barrington|
|Fardell, Sir T. George||M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)||Smith, HC(North'mb.Tyneside)|
|Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.||Majendie, James A. H.||Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.),|
|Fenwick, Charles||Malcolm, Ian||Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand).|
|Fielden, Edw. Brocklehurst||Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.)||Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)|
|Finch, George H.||Melville, Beresford Valentine||Stock, James Henry|
|Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne||Middlemore, John Throgmort'n||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Fisher, William Hayes||Molesworth, Sir Lewis||Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings).|
|Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John||Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Goddard, Daniel Ford||More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick||Morgan, David J. (Walthamst.)||Ure, Alexander|
|Gordon, Maj Evans-(TrH'mlets)||Morley, Charles (Breconshire)||Valentia, Viscount|
|Gore, Hon. F. S. Ormsby-||Morrell, George Herbert||Walker, Col. William Hall.|
|Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon||Morrison, James Archibald||Warde, Lieut.-Col. C. E.|
|Goschen,Hon. George Joachim||Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport)||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Goulding, Edward Alfred||Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.||Weir, James Galloway|
|Graham, Henry Robert||Muntz, Philip A.||Welby, Sir Charles C.E. (Notts.|
|Gray, Ernest (West Ham)||Murray, Rt. Hn A. Graham (Bute||White, Luke (York, E.R.)|
|Greene Sir EW (B'ry. SEdm'nds)||Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)||Whiteley, H(Ashton-und.Lyne)|
|Greene, HenryD. (Shrewsbury)||Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)||Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)|
|Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)||Newdigate, Francis Alexander||Willox, Sir John Archibald|
|Grenfell, William Henry||Nicholson, William Graham||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.),|
|Greville, Hon. Ronald||Nicol, Donald Ninian||Wilson, John (Glasgow)|
|Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Ld. G (Midd'x)||O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashfd.||Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Hare, Thomas Leigh||Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)||Young, Commander (Berks, E.)|
|Hay, Hon. Claude George||Penn, John|
|Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-||Platt-Higgins, Frederick|
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
|Heath, James(Staffords., N. W.)||Plummer, Walter R.||Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.|
|Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.)||Pretyman, Ernest George|
|Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.||Gilhooly, James||O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.|
|Ambrose, Robert||Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)|
|Boyle, James||Hayden, John Patrick||O'Doherty, William|
|Burke, E. Haviland-||Jameson, Major J. Eustace||O'Donnell, J. (Kerry, W)|
|Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)||Joyce, Michael||O'Dowd, John|
|Clancy, John Joseph||Leamy, Edmund||O'Malley, William|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||Lundon, W.||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.|
|Crean, Eugene||MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Cullinan, J.||M'Dermott, Patrick||Reddy, M.|
|Delany, William||M'Fadden, Edward||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)|
|Doogan, P. C.||M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)||Redmond, William (Clare)|
|Duffy, William J.||Mooney, John J.||Sullivan, Donal|
|Ffrench, Peter||Murphy, J.|
|Field, William||Nannetti, Joseph P.|
TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
|Flavin, Michael Joseph||Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)||Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.|
|Flynn, James Christopher||O'Brien, K. (Tipperary Mid.)|
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
said that it might be remembered that, when the Vote was under discussion before, he raised a question about the renewal or, what lie might call, the recrudescence of the office of Lord Privy Seal, and that the First Lord of the Treasury defended it as on the whole a convenient abnormality. That was what his reply came to. He did not intend to renew the discussion, but he wished to put one point before the House. The Lord Privy Seal was the Prime Minister, but as Prime Minister he did not appear on the Estimates. As Lord Privy Seal he had no duties to perform, and he appeared on the Estimates in that capacity in order that he might receive a salary for the position of Prime Minister, who had no official or legally-recognised position, and which, therefore, could not be paid for out of public funds. He wished to point out that the Prime Minister as Prime Minister was mainly responsible for the policy of the Government, of which he was the chief. They could not discuss his duties as Lord Privy Seal, there being no such duties, and how, therefore, were they to discuss his policy as Prime Minister, when as Prime Minister he did not appear on the Estimates?
The only course open to the hon. Member is to bring forward the question as an independent substantive motion. The only matter that can be debated now is the duties of Lord Privy Seal.
said that was precisely his point. He desired to direct attention to the fact that the Supplementary Vote they were discussing differed from the ordinary Supplementary Votes, because it appeared not as a Supplementary Vote at all, but as a substantive Vote.
The hon. Member hardly appreciates what I have said. He cannot discuss on this Vote whether or not the salary of the Prime Minister ought to be put upon the Votes in some way so that he could be criticised in his capacity as Prime Minister. That is a matter for a substantive motion.
said that, when the Vote was discussed in Committee, the First Lord of the Treasury and the Attorney General very carefully pointed out that the money in the Vote was not given to its recipient as Lord Privy Seal, but as Prime Minister. The question was discussed whether the salary was suffi- cient for the Prime Minister, and there appeared to be a general concurrence of opinion that the amount should be increased to £5,000. He now wished to ask when hon. Members could possibly discuss the policy of the Prime Minister if not on this Vote. He did not propose to discuss it now, but as a precedent for the future, and with all respect to what had been said from the Chair, he wished to point out as strongly as he could that the House of Commons ought to have it in its power to discuss this Vote as a Vote for the Prime Minister, as undoubtedly it was.
If Lord Salisbury-were still Foreign Secretary and Prime Minister, his duties as Prime Minister could not be discussed on the Vote for the salary of the Foreign Secretary. It is exactly the same with the Lord Privy Seal. The duties of the Prime Minister cannot be discussed on the Vote for the office of Lord Privy Seal.
said that the House was therefore in the position that they could discuss the position of the Lord Privy Seal, who had no duties, and were prevented from discussing his position as Prime Minister, for which this Vote was intended.
said that the position of Premiership was not on the Estimates, and he asked the First Lord whether he did not feel himself compelled, in fairness to the House, to find some opportunity of associating the Prime Minister with an office, such as that of the First Lord of the Treasury, so that the right of criticism applied to every member of the Government might be applied to the Prime Minister.
said the hon. Gentleman was labouring under a mistake. The First Lord of the Treasury had certain duties assigned to him. They were told that those duties were not onerous. He did not mean to discuss whether they were onerous or not, but they did not carry the duties of the Prime Minister. In truth, the hon. Gentleman was dealing not with an anomaly created by the new circumstances in respect to the office of Lord Privy Seal, but an anomaly attaching to the office of Prime Minister. The difficulties of discussion were inherent in that strange and abnormal characteristic of the British Constitution by which the chief person in that Constitution had no recognised place. The Constitution did not recognise the Prime Minister; there were no official duties for him to perform, and there was no salary attached to the position of Prime Minister as such. Therefore, even if the Prime Minister also held the office of First Lord of the Treasury, or any other office, it would be impossible to discuss any action of the First Minister of the Crown, as Prime Minister, until Parliament chose to create the office of Prime Minister and attach to it a salary. This might be abnormal, but on the whole it was expedient, for it was impossible to say where the duties of the Prime Minister began or ended. He supposed that in a sense the Prime Minister was responsible for the action of all his colleagues, but it would be highly inconvenient to discuss his action in that form.
said it was now getting on for two o'clock in the morning, and the House of Commons was engaged in the extraordinary task of voting a sum of £2,000 to a gentleman because he held an office which, anmittedly, had no duties whatever connected with it. Such an absurdity never was heard since Mr. Gilbert gave up writing comic operas for the Savoy theatre. Would it not have been quite as easy for the Government to come down and say, "Let us pay the Prime Minister £2,000 a year," or whatever salary they thought fit to mention? That would have been a straightforward course, and would, at any rate, have relieved the House of Commons from the absurd position in which it now found itself. Apart from the absurdity of it, he protested against voting this salary at all. To his mind there was nothing more extraordinary in the political life of England than the line drawn between the private Member of Parliament and the purely official Member, if ever a question was raised as to the payment of M. P. 's generally, a howl of indignation was at once heard from one end of the building to the other. It was held that there was no justification in pointing out that payment of Members of Parliament obtained in our colonies and other countries. The very idea of private Members of Parliament being remune- rated in this country was treated with derision and hoots. It was said that it would be derogatory to the position of a Member of the House of Commons, and perish the thought of such a thing! But if they got away from the private Members, who worked as hard as Members of the Government, if they did their duty, and came to—he did not use the phrase in any offensive sense at all—the; very meanest and most insignificant Member of the Ministry—then the idea of payment at once blossomed into an absolute necessity. He did not object to Members of the Government being paid for performing duties necessary for the conduct of the Government of the country, but he did say that as long as private Members had to keep the same hours, and to pay the same attention to current affairs in the House of Commons, had to read the same Parliamentary Reports, and had to sit up to the same hour of the night or morning, as Members of the Government, and were paid nothing he would, for one, utter his most emphatic protest, not against payment of members of the Government, but against extending that principle to the absurd suggestion of paying £2,000 a year to the occupant of an office which they were truly told had no duties attaching to it at all. Now the Prime Minister of England either deserved a salary or he did not. If ho deserved a salary, why all this hugger-mugger about it? It would be as easy to vote a salary to the Prime Minister as to vote millions to spend on the war. If they were going to create a new salary for another Member of the present Government, which, collectively, was already overpaid, they should do it honestly and not humiliate the Prime Minister by putting him in the position of Pooh Bah!
said ho did not think the ruling of the Chairman had brought the discussion of this Constitutional fiction down to real business. He was surprised at the absurdity of the Government gravely, seriously, and with a full sense of moral responsibility asking the House to vote £2,000 a year for the payment of an office-holder who had no duties whatever. Did anything in the Gilbertian writings transcend that? But it was not only the Lord Privy Seal's salary. The House was asked to vote the salaries of two private secretaries to a Minister who had no duties, and he supposed these private secretaries would have nothing to do either. If the Government had any sense of the humorous they would withdraw the Vote. It would be far more straightforward to propose a salary for the Prime Minister. The Vote was not a Supplementary Estimate at all. It had been put down newly, and it would have been equally simple to put down a Vote for the Prime Minister, and pay him for the duties he discharged and not pay him for an office which had no duties. He thought his hon. friend was perfectly justified in making his protest. Payment of Members was derided by hon. Members opposite, and by none with more sarcasm than right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Treasury Bench. They said, "Why pay a paltry £200 or £300 a year to men who come into the House of Commons to discharge their duties? It would lower the prestige of Parliament and of public life and public character." But it was not at all derogatory to the highest Member of the Government to have a salary even for an office in which he discharged no duties. If an intelligent foreigner could be confronted with the House of Commons solemnly sitting up till two o'clock in the morning to vote a salary for an office which had no duties, he would consider that hon. Members had reached the acme of absurdity.
said he also desired to protest against a salary being voted to the Lord Privy Seal. The people of England ought to thank the Irish Members for having called attention to the anomaly of voting money for an office which it was admitted had no duties. He was surprised that no hon. Member had spoken on behalf of the over-taxed people of England. It was like throwing money into the Thames after having wrung it out of the unfortunate taxpayers of the country, and, in his opinion, it was nothing less than a scandal. He had no objection to voting Lord Salisbury a proper salary for discharging the duties of Prime Minister, because he held that, whether as a Member of the Government, or as a private Member, the man who did the work of the State was entitled to be paid for it. They would be neglecting their duty to their constituents if they allowed the Vote to pass without a protest. They were not sent to the House of Commons to follow the lead of the First Lord of the Treasury. Every Vote would be amply and properly discussed, and they would leave hon. Members opposite to follow their Leader and vote.
said he had seen during his short acquaintance with the House many strange things attempted, but he was afraid he must characterise the attempt which was being made on the present occasion as one of the most unconstitutional acts he had ever seen. After all, what were they proposing? It was said that the office of Prime Minister carried no official salary. It was also said that the office of Lord Privy Seal did not carry with it in recent years any official salary, and the question then arose to which of the two offices was £2,000 a year to be allocated. The only conclusion that the Irish Members could come to was that while the money was apparently voted for the office of Lord Privy Seal, which has no duties, and which therefore, could not be criticised in the House of Commons, it was really intended for the Prime Minister, though not given to him as such, in order that he might escape criticism. It would be more honourable and more reasonable on the part of the Government to assert plainly that they intended to give a salary to the Prime Minister as Prime Minister, and not to attach a salary to an office which had not had a salary in recent years. Taking into account the family relations which existed between members of the Government, he thought that the country should be enlightened on the innovation which had been introduced. They were led to believe that that family were very well able to look after their own interests. Irish Members intended to criticise every Vote coming before the House. They never hoped to gain anything from the salaries and positions which Englishmen might hope to gain. They did not even hope that Ministers would ever consider the working man in the House of Commons as worthy of a salary. That, in the minds of Members opposite, would be a very dangerous innovation, because then poor men would be able to attend the House of Commons and look after the interests of their class, which were now neglected in favour of the interests of ascendancy.
said he was surprised that Members of the House of Commons should vote away public money without receiving any return whatever for it. There were no duties attaching to the office of Lord Privy Seal, and if such a transaction occurred in private life it would be considered a very serious matter. The anomaly in his opinion had arisen from the Prime Minister being in the Upper House. If the Prime Minister were in the House of Commons he would receive a salary as First Lord of the Treasury. Supposing the Prime Minister had a seat in the House of Commons, would he still hold the office of Lord Privy Seal and draw the salary of £2,000?Would he have added to that the salary of the First Lord of the Treasury, or would that office be held separately from that of the First Lord of the Treasury? These were questions which should be looked into. What would be the position a few years hence, when he hoped and he dared to say it was the general opinion of the House the work of the country would be done by a Prime Minister sitting in the House of Commons? It was certainly most important that no public money should be voted merely as a gratuity.
said he entirely agreed with what had fallen from his colleagues in regard to the salary paid to the Lord Privy Seal, who held an office to which
|Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex F.||Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)||Gordon, Maj. Evans-(Tr.Hmlts)|
|Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel||Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.||Gore, Hon. F. S. Ormsby-|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Chamberlain, J Austen (Worc'r||Gorst, Rt.Hon. Sir John Eldon|
|Archdale, Edward Mervyn||Chapman, Edward||Goschen, Hon. George Joachim|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Churchill, Winston Spencer||Graham, Henry Robert|
|Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.||Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Gray, Ernest (West Ham)|
|Asher, Alexander||Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse||Greene, Sir E W (B'ryS Edm'nds)|
|Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis||Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)||Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)|
|Atkinson, Right Hon. John||Cranborne, Viscount||Grenfell, William Henry|
|Bain, Colonel James Robert||Cubitt, Hon. Henry||Greville, Hon. Ronald|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r.||Dalkeith, Earl of||Hamilton, Rt. Hn Lord G. (Mid'x|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. G.W. (Leeds)||Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chath'm||Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd|
|Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin||Dickson, Charles Scott||Hare, Thomas Leigh|
|Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Brstl.)||Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Hay, Hon. Claude George|
|Bentinck, Lord Henry C.||Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin||Heath, James (Staffords, N. W.|
|Bignold, Arthur||Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton||Henderson, Alexander|
|Blundell, Colonel Henry||Elibank, Master of||Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.|
|Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward||Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brights'de|
|Bull, William James||Fenwick, Charles||Howard, Capt. J (Kent Faversh.)|
|Bullard, Sir Harry||Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst||Johnston, William (Belfast)|
|Cautley, Henry Strother||Finch, George H.||Johnston, Heywood (Sussex)|
|Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)||Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne||Joicey, Sir James|
|Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.)||Fisher, William Hayes||Jones, William (Carnarvonsh'e)|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Godson, Sir Augustus Fred.||Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)|
no duties were attached. If they were to have a Prime Minister, he ought to be paid, and not only so, but he should be paid the largest salary that came from the public purse. It ought to be put before the House in a business fashion. The officials of the House were well salaried, but the Members who came there to do the work received nothing but ignominy and calumny.
asked what were the duties of the two private secretaries, who received £400 and £200 a year, if there were no duties in connection with the office of Lord Privy Seal.
said they were told that they could not discuss the duties of the Prime Minister as such on this Vote. He thought, however, when they found that the Vote included salaries for two private secretaries they were entitled to ask what their duties were. If a district or county council in Ireland were to put forward such an item of expenditure the Government auditor would he down on their heads, and the members of the council would be surcharged for the sum thus paid. He believed in calling a spade a spade, and he had no hesitation in saying, although the Vote was fathered by the First Lord of the Treasury, that it was nothing more nor less than obtaining money under false pretences.
The House divided:—Ayes, 148; Noes, 52. (Division List No. 103.)
|Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop)||Murray. Rt. Hn A Graham (Bute||Simeon, Sir Barrington|
|Keswick, William||Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)||Smith, HC (North'mbTyneside)|
|Knowles, Lees||Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath||Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.|
|Lawson, John Grant||Newdigate, Francis Alexander||Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand)|
|Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage||Nicholson, Wm. Graham||Stanley, Lord (Lancs)|
|Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie||Nicol, Donald Ninian||Stock, James Henry|
|Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.||O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.||Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Long, Col. Charles W (Evesham||Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)||Ure, Alexander|
|Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S||Platt-Higgins, Frederick||Valentia, Viscount|
|Loyd, Archie Kirkman||Pretyman, Ernest George||Walker, Col. William Hall|
|Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)||Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward||Warde, Lieut.-Col. C. E.|
|Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth)||Purvis, Robert||Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)|
|Macdona, John Cumming||Ratcliffe, R. F.||Welby, Sir Chas. G E. (Notts)|
|Majendie, James A. H.||Reckitt, Harold James||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Malcolm, Ian||Reid, James (Greenock)||Whiteley, H. (Ashton-u-Lyne)|
|Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.||Rentoul, James Alexander||Williams, Col. R. (Dorset)|
|Melville, Beresford Valentine||Ridley, Hon. MW (Stalybridge||Willox, Sir John Archibald|
|Middlemore, John Throgmort'n||Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green)||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)|
|Molesworth, Sir Lewis||Rigg, Richard||Wilson, John (Glasgow)|
|Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)||Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson||Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-|
|Morgan, David J (Walthamst'w)||Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Morley, Chas. (Breconshire)||Royds, Clement Molyneux||Young, Commander (Berks, E.)|
|Morrell, George Herbert||Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-|
|Morrison, James Archibald||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.|
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
|Mowbray, Sir Rbt. Gray C.||Seton-Karr, Henry||Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.|
|Muntz, Philip A.||Sharpe, Wm. Edward T.|
|Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N.E.)||Hayden, John Patrick||O'Doherty, William|
|Ambrose, Robert||Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-||O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)|
|Boyle, James||Jameson, Maj. J. Eustace||O'Dowd, John|
|Burke, E. Haviland-||Joyce, Michael||O'Malley, William|
|Caldwell, James||Leamy, Edmund||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.|
|Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)||Levy, Maurice||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Clancy, John Joseph||Lundon, W.||Priestley, Arthur|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.||Reddy, M.|
|Crean, Eugene||M'Dermott, Patrick||Redmond, J. E. (Waterford)|
|Cullinan, J.||M'Fadden, Edward||Redmond, William (Clare)|
|Delany, William||M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)||Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)|
|Doogan, P.C.||Mooney, John J.||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Duffy, William J.||Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)||Sullivan, Donal|
|Ffrench, Peter||Murphy, J.||Weir, James Galloway|
|Field, William||Nannetti, Joseph P.|
|Flavin, Michael Joseph||Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)|
TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
|Flynn, James Christopher||O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid.)||Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.|
|Gilhooly, James||O'Connor, Jas. (Wicklow,W.)|
|Goddard, Daniel Ford||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)|