§ MR. SEXTON (Belfast, W.)
I rise Sir, to ask you whether the Attorney General was entitled to vote on the Motion in Committee of Supply last Friday to reduce his salary, it having been laid down in "Erskine May" that no Member who has a direct pecuniary 733 interest in the question should be allowed to vote upon it; but that in order to operate as a disqualification that interest must be an immediate pecuniary interest, and not of a general or remote character? I wish to ask whether the vote of the Attorney General in reference to his own salary was admissible according to the Orders of the House?
§ *MR. SPEAKER
The Motion to reduce the salary was merely made in this case to raise the question as to the conduct of the hon. and learned Gentleman, which is a very different thing from a question in which the hon. and learned gentleman would have a "direct pecuniary interest."