SUPPLY [5th September]—REPORT. (Hansard, 7 September 1893)

§ MR. T. P. O'CONNOR
said, he had intended to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he could not see his way to postpone the consideration of this Order to next Monday. If the right hon. Gentleman had seen his way to do so he would have complied with the wish of a large number of his supporters in the House. There was a feeling abroad that the subject of this Vote required a great deal of discussion, and that it was ridiculous for this popular Assembly to supply the means to "another place" to enable it to defy and impede their legislation. He believed that though they might not be able to do it this Session, the time was not far distant when the feeling to which he referred would assert itself by Constitutional methods, and the infringement of the liberty of the people would be resented by cutting off the Supplies. In view of the late hour and the late period of the Session, and of the other business the Government had to do before they broke up for the short vacation, he did not propose to enter at length into the subject to-night. At the same time, he did not think he would be doing his duty if he allowed the Vote to pass without attempting further to reduce it. Though they carried a reduction in the salary of the Clerk of the Parliaments by £500 the other evening, there was a strong feeling that this official was not the worst feature in the long list of sinecurists in the House of Lords, and that the case of "Black Rod" was even worse. In addition to the salary he received as Black Rod, this gentleman was on the Pension List as a retired Admiral, and was furnished with an official residence.

§ MR. SPEAKER
The Question is "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution." That Question having been proposed, no further reduction can be moved.

§ MR. SEXTON
In view of that, Mr. Speaker, I take it that my hon. Friend would effect the purpose he had in 557 view by dividing against the whole Vote.

§ MR. T. P. O'CONNOR
said, he had consulted what he had thought was a considerable authority on the subject, and had been told that he would be in Order in moving a reduction; but as Mr. Speaker had ruled him out of Order—

§ SIR W. HARCOURT
He has not ruled that.

§ MR. SPEAKER
A reduction can be moved to a Vote on Report; but in this case no Notice of Motion had been given, and no hon. Member rose to move; therefore I put the Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

§ MR. T. P. O'CONNOR
said, he was sorry he had not announced his intention to the Speaker. He, however, was willing to accept the situation as it stood. He would adopt the suggestion of his hon. Friend, and signify his protest by opposing the entire Vote.

§ SIR M. HICKS BEACH
said, he thought it was understood that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would make a statement as to the course it was intended to take with regard to the reduction carried upon this Vote in Committee.

§ SIR W. HARCOURT
I do not think there is any course to take except to agree to the Report on the Vote as it was passed the other night. I have been in communication with the House of Lords to see what can be done in reference to the Vote. I hope that some arrangement may be made; but I am not able at present to say whether it will be possible. All that I am at present able to say is that we must take the Vote as passed in Committee.

§ MR. A. C. MORTON
said, he had great pleasure in supporting the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor.) They had stood a great deal during the past few months in the shape of threats from the House of Lords, and now he thought was the time when they must do something more than merely remonstrate. It would be understood that the Division would be taken as a protest against interference with the rights of 558 the people on the part of the House of Lords, and not that it was intended to deprive the officers of that House of any salaries or wages that might be their due.

§ SIR W. HARCOURT
The Government must support the Vote. It may or may not be that this House will ever come into conflict with the other House of Parliament. If it does, this is not the way in which the battle will be fought. If we have differences to settle with the House of Lords, they must be settled in a very different manner to reducing the Votes for Clerks. The Vote was reduced the other night on the ground that the salaries of the Clerks in the House of Lords were too heavy, a view that hon. Members may hold very fairly. But I must protest against the notion that if we have a Constitutional issue between the House of Commons and the House of Lords it can be fought on such a battle-field as a Vote for the salaries of Clerks.

§ MR. SEXTON (Kerry, N.)
We who are Irish Members consider first our duty to the people of Ireland. I cannot forget that before the Home Rule Bill was drawn and introduced into this House the Leader of the House had the audacity to declare in public that the Bill, whatever it might be, would be rejected by the House of Lords. In face of that declaration, I consider that any opportunity for attacking that institution in any form is most opportune.

MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS (Notts, Mansfield)
said, he wished to point out to the hon. Member for Peterborough, who had said that he had no wish to deprive any officers of the House of Lords of the salaries due to them, that if he supported the Motion the hon. Member would refuse payment of all salaries whatever.

§ MR. A. C. MORTON
No; we have given a large amount on account.

MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS
wished to say that when the proper time arrived he would be prepared to take his share in any conflict with the other House if the necessity arose, but he agreed with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that that conflict should be fought out in some different fashion than that now proposed.

§ SIR J. FERGUSSON (Manchester, N. E.)
It is useless to argue with hon. Gentlemen who take the line that on account of political differences with the House of Lords they would refuse to vote money towards its establishment. But I would ask the House generally to consider the somewhat undignified position the House would place itself in if it adopts this Motion. Some time ago objections were raised to the salaries of the officers of the House of Lords, and a Committee of the Lords was appointed by the late Government to consider the matter. The House of Lords freely entered into the feelings of this House and proceeded to reduce the salaries to the scale of the salaries of this House—[Cries of "No!"]—I think it will be found that reductions amounting to £7,000 have been made in the House of Lords, and on the expiry of the tenure of the present holders of the office the salaries will be reduced to the same scale as the salaries of corresponding officers in this House. I think that every Member who desires to maintain the honour and dignity of the House will vote against the Motion now before us.

§ MR. PAUL (Edinburgh, S.)
As I object to voting a single sixpence to the House of Lords for any purpose or under any conditions, I will most cheerfully support my hon. Friend opposite if he goes to a Division.

§ MR. LOGAN (Leicester, Harborough)
said, that as the Representative of an agricultural constituency, if the Motion went to a Division he would consider it his duty in the interests of his constituents to protest against the House of Lords by voting for the Motion.