§ "That there be charged on the Consolidated Fund as from the demise of Her late Majesty the following annual payments:—
| £ | |
| For the King's Civil List | 470,000 |
| For retired allowances:—Such sums as may be required for the payment in each year of retired allowances granted by Her late Majesty or by His present Majesty to members of Her late Majesty's household not exceeding in all £25,000. | |
| For Civil List pensions:—Such sums as may be required for the payment in each year of Civil List pensions already granted or hereafter to be granted. | |
| For the Duke of Cornwall and York | £20,000 |
| For the Duchess of Cornwall and York | 10,000 |
| For the Duchess of Cornwall and York in the event of Her surviving the Duke of Cornwall and York | 30,000 |
| For His Majesty's daughters | 18,000 |
| For Queen Alexandra in the event of Her surviving His Majesty the King | 70,000 |
§ And that provision be made for continuing for a period of six months after the close of the present reign certain payments so charged which would otherwise be then determined."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
1215§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN (Stirling Burghs)The right hon. Gentleman, as he has reminded the Committee, spoke on this occasion, in the very clear statement which he has made to us, not only on the part of His Majesty's Government, but on the part of the Committee to which the House of Commons referred this important matter, and over whose deliberations the right hon. Gentleman presided. I do not doubt at all that the prevailing desire in this House and in the country is to see that a provision should be made for maintaining the state and dignity of the British Crown which shall fittingly represent the loyal attachment of the people. The right hon. Gentleman has said enough to show to the Members of this Committee, even if it was not apparent to them before, that there was no room in this matter for any large reduction of expenditure. The Court has for many years been living quiet days, owing to the circumstances to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, and yet, in spite of that fact, the expenditure has lately been advancing almost alarmingly. And now, with a new reign, there can be no question that some increase of expenditure will be expected, and will be incurred. My belief, Sir, is that the proposals now submitted to Parliament will be held to represent a reasonable provision for this purpose. The Bill when it is introduced will no doubt give opportunities for any Members who are not satisfied on detail points, but I can only trust that on this occasion, at least, there will be substantial unanimity.
§ MR. JOHN REDMOND (Waterford)As the Chancellor of the Exchequer has explained to the Committee, Irish Members sitting in this House took no part whatever in the Committee over which I believe he presided, and the Report of which we are concerned with to-night Under those circumstances I think the Committee will agree that it is reasonable that we should be permitted very shortly and as clearly at possible to explain our attitude in this matter, and to give some account of the reasons that actuate us. Let me say at the very start that, so far as I know there is not only no desire to offer anything which would be open fairly 1216 to the construction of obstructive opposition to this proposal, but there is among hon. Members sitting here no desire even to take part in what may be called captious criticism with reference to the details placed before the Committee, But there is an intention on the part of a number of Members to vote against this resolution as a whole, and I therefore claim from the Committee that I may be permitted to explain the reasons which actuate us in taking that action.
I may say that we are moved by three reasons in this matter. It will be in the recollection, I think, of hon. Members, that when the appointment of the Committee which has just concluded its labours was before the House we protested that we could not take any part in the appointment of that Committee, and that we would oppose its appointment so long as there remained unrepealed a statutory obligation on the Sovereign to take a succession oath the character of which is an insult to Irishmen. That is one of our objections.
*THE CHAIRMANThe hon. Member is entitled to refer to that matter, but I do not think he would be entitled to go into it and argue it at length.
§ MR. JOHN REDMONDOn the last occasion, when the Speaker was in the chair, he informed me that in his judgment it would be impossible for me to discuss this question, and I have no intention with you, Sir, in the chair, of trying to avoid the ruling which he laid down, but I may state shortly what occurred. When we first made the objection the First Lord of the Treasury made an announcement which induced us to withdraw our opposition to the Committee. He proposed to refer the matter to a Committee, and what I desire—and I pass from the question—what I desire to do is to point out the position in which we now stand with reference to this question. Nothing further has been done except that the terms of reference have now been published, and we find in the terms of reference to the proposed Committee an additional and fresh insult to our country. Therefore, we are reunited to our original position in which we stood, and we are bound, according to our conscientious opinion upon this matter, to vote against 1217 this resolution upon the ground which I may not discuss, but which I think I have sufficiently indicated to all quarters of the Committee.
The second ground of opposition is that in all these matters where burdens are placed upon the people of Great Britain and Ireland an unfairly large portion of those burdens falls upon Ireland. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has no doubt pointed out according to his calculations of the value of Crown lands and so forth that the margin of the burden which will fall upon the people will be comparatively small. I cannot on this occasion go into the question of Crown lands, but it is sufficient for me that a considerable margin of burden will be thrown on the people of Ireland by these proposals, and that is sufficient to justify me in protesting on behalf of Ireland, in view of the fact that we pay more, as more than one of your own specially appointed experts have pointed out, than our fair share. I will not go into the question of the financial relations between the two countries; I might be ruled out of order if I dealt with it at any length; but let me point out one thing which is incontrovertible—an ascertained and incontrovertible fact—the fact that Ireland to-day per head of the population pays towards Imperial purposes double what she was paying eighty years ago, while England pays fully 25 per cent. less than she was paying eighty years ago, and that during those eighty years the wealth and prosperity of England have enormously increased, whilst in Ireland poverty has increased with equal rapidity. That is the second ground we take; but for my part I regard these grounds as subsidiary grounds altogether.
The real ground of opposition which I take to this proposal raises far higher and broader issues than those to which I have been alluding. The monarch for whose maintenance this sum is required is a Constitutional Sovereign; he is a necessary part of the British Constitution as it stands at the present moment, and I, for my part, most fairly admit that under that constitution the constitutional liberty of the English people is safeguarded and maintained. The vital and fundamental principle of the British 1218 Constitution is that the nation shall be governed only in accordance with the constitutionally expressed wishes of the majority of the people. By that principle constitutional liberty is assured, and England to-day is loyal for the most part to the Crown and Constitution. Sir, I might be allowed to say that the exact opposite to this is the state of things in Ireland. We in Ireland are mocked by the form, but are deprived of the substance, of the British Constitution. The Irish nation to-day is not governed in accordance with, but is permanently governed in direct opposition to, the constitutionally expressed will of the majority of the people. That is to say, we are governed by a principle, the fair definition of which is slavery. We are the victims there of the Government. Our liberties are not assured and maintained, but are violated and outraged in the form of this Constitution, and we are now asked to vote money to maintain a necessary part of that Constitution. Well, Sir, we decline to do so. When Ireland had a free Constitution of her own, and a free Parliament of her own, she was fair and generous, aye, and according to her means lavish, in voting money to maintain the Constitution and the Sovereign, and for helping wars which were being waged in all parts of the world with which she had no concern; but an enslaved province, which is practically the position of Ireland to-day, will not willingly contribute to the burden which this will place upon us. Hon. Members may say that all this is but another proof of what they are pleased to call the disloyalty of Ireland. Loyalty is a relative term. For my part, I believe by nature there is no people in the world more prone to genuine and true loyalty than the people of Ireland; but, after all, every man of us feels that the first and most genuine loyalty we owe is to the liberties of our own country. What I freely admit is this, that our action upon this question is a symptom of the disease from which Ireland has suffered ever since the Union. That disease is susceptible of a very easy and rapid cure, but until the remedy is applied it would be affectation and folly on the part of this House to express surprise at the recurrence of the malady, and it would be the most arrant hypocrisy for us to: come here and cover up and hide from you 1219 what are the true sentiments of the masses of the people. Our great countryman Henry Grattan said, "Loyalty is a noble and great principle, but loyalty apart from liberty is corruption." On that ground we take our stand, and, while abstaining from any obstructive or vexatious opposition to this proposal, or any capricious criticisms as to details, at the same timer we shall make our protest at every stage of these proceedings, voting against them on behalf of a people who have been impoverished under your rule, and enslaved under your constitution.
§ *MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)said that he was a Member of the Committee which sat to consider the question, and, when the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the House was fully represented upon it, he took the liberty to disagree with the right hon. Gentleman.
§ *SIR M. HICKS BEACHI said that every shade of opinion in the House was represented.
§ *MR. LABOUCHEREWell my shade was not fully represented. The Committee consisted of twenty-one members, seventeen of whom were either Members of the Conservative side of the House, or Members of the Front Opposition Bench who it was well known always voted with Government upon any question affecting the Court. As the hon. Member for Waterford had pointed out, no Irishmen were upon it. [Cries of "Why?" from the Conservative Benches.]
§ MR. JOHN REDMONDBecause we would not act.
§ *MR. LABOUCHEREHowever, they were not there. The Committee had reported that a sum largely in excess of that granted to her late Majesty should be granted to the present King, upon the ground that it was necessary; at the same time the Civil List was relieved of a number of charges which it had borne during the late reign. He could not agree that the augmentation to the Civil List was, under the circumstances, necessary, although he quite agreed that the Crown ought to be maintained with honour and dignity. Had he thought 1220 such a large sum of money was necessary to maintain the honour and dignity of the Crown, he should have voted for it, but as he did not agree he presented a humble report of his own. According to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the taxpayer had no right over the Crown lands, and taking the value of the Crown lands into consideration, the taxpayer only paid £30,000 per annum. That was an illusion and a myth. In 1869 a Report was issued by the Treasury in regard to public income and expenditure, and it went into that matter very carefully, and published two Blue books, from which he had taken the figures from which he proposed to correct the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Before the revolution of 1688 there was no such thing as a Civil List. There were certain hereditary revenues derived from Crown lands, and certain revenues voted by the Parliament for the lifetime of the sovereign. All those amounts were devoted to the civil government of the country. The first Civil List voted was that of William and Mary; it was for the expenses of the King and Queen and other necessary expenses, and these included many payments for the civil government of the country. The amount was £600,000, but that amount was subsequently reduced by £192,000. In the reign of Queen Anne there was again a Civil List Act, and the List was subject to the same payments. The Civil Lists of George I. and George II. were practically the same. In the preamble of the Civil List Act of George III. it was stated that—
the Sovereign consented to such disposition of the hereditary revenues as might conduce to the utility and satisfaction of the public.But George III. had no title to the hereditary revenues; they belonged nominally to the Sovereign of the time, but to the Sovereign as the representative of the State, and not in his individual capacity. For example, the Judges, the Treasury, and pensions were paid out of the Civil List of George III., and the salary of the Speaker of the House of Commons was included. A Committee was appointed in the time of William IV., and it advised that the Civil List should be applied only to the dignity and state of the Crown. This advice was partially adopted. There was an idea prevalent 1221 that in some special way the Crown lands belonged personally to the Sovereign. The Report stated that at an early period of the history of this country the landed property of the Crown afforded the principal source of revenue, and since then no Act had been passed to alter that position of the Crown lands, and only Acts affecting them were to prevent the alienation of Crown lands. The case of the smaller hereditary revenues was peculiar. It was asserted that the Crown was entitled to them by prescription, but George III. and George IV. took them for themselves, and in order to prevent this improper action on the part of the Sovereign the surrender of the Crown lands by William IV. and Queen Victoria included the surrender of the casual revenues. The Duchy of Lancaster had never been included in the Crown lands. There was to a certain extent a distinction, but it was a distinction without a difference, as far as the present right of the State was concerned. When Henry IV. came to the Throne he represented the White Rose in the Wars of the Roses—["No, no," laughter, and Ministerial cries of "Edward."]—well, he would say when "the Henry" came to the Throne [renewed laughter and interruption]—
§ SIR F. DIXON-HARTLAND (Middlesex, Uxbridge)Henry IV. represented the Red Rose and Edward IV. the White Rose.
§ *MR. LABOUCHEREreplied that he might represent the blue rose for all he cared, so far as his argument was concerned, but when Henry IV. came to the throne he possessed the Duchy of Lancaster as his own private property. He passed an Act separating it from the rest of the Crown lands, which proved that at that time at least the Crown lands were not regarded as the private property of the Sovereign. But he claimed that the lands of the Duchy had been his property, and they remained his own private property when he was King. When Edward IV. came to the Throne he forfeited these lands, and then he passed an Act in identical terms, making them the special property of himself and his heirs. When George III. was on the Throne he passed an Act declaring that he was possessed 1222 by himself and his heirs and successors of these lands; but he was possessed of these lands in precisely the same way as he was possessed, as the representative of the State, of other Crown lands. He called attention to the doctrines of the Chancellor of the Exchequer because they were contrary to the doctrines which had been held by the Whigs from time immemorial; and he was only renewing the protest of all old and respectable Whigs. In looking to the total of the Civil List to which the House was asked to assent, the actual amount received from the Duchy of Lancaster and from the Vote proposed was £530,000; but from the Estimates there were voted £25,000 for pensions, yachts £23,000, palaces £18,000, and carrying luggage £1,000. The last-named was a curious Vote. It was to be found in the Navy Estimates, though the luggage was carried by train. When the late Queen came to the Throne Parliament voted £385,000. At that time the Duchy of Lancaster produced only £5,000, the Estimate based on the Civil List amounting to £590,000. When her late Majesty married, £30,000 a year was voted to the Prince Consort. As showing what the action of the then House was, it might be pointed out that the Liberal Government of the day proposed that there should be £50,000 voted for the Prince Consort, but Mr. Sibthorpe, a Conservative Member, moved to reduce the sum to £30,000, and, thanks to the votes of some Radicals and of almost the entire Conservative party, the Vote was reduced to that amount. That was a Very excellent example for the House to follow on the present occasion. The Civil List of her late. Majesty and the Prince Consort then consisted of £415,000 voted, and as at that time the revenues of the Duchy of Lancaster were £15,000, the total of the Civil List was £430,000, or £100,000 less than the Souse was asked to say was needed for his present Majesty and his Consort. Caking the reductions which had been made in the expenditure thrown upon the List and the amounts now thrown upon the Estimates, the difference between the two Civil Lists amounted to the enormous sum of £160,000.
Coming to the classes and the various items of expenditure upon which 1223 they were based, it would be seen that Class 2 represented the salaries of the Household and retiring allowances, in regard to which it was proposed to grant £126,000, as against £131,000, a reduction of £5,000. But the class was relieved of £12,000 odd by the reduction of posts and salaries at once, and of £10,000 for pensions. The relief on those two items amounted to £22,000, but it was in reality greater, because the reduction of £12,000 did not include the reductions contemplated in regard to political officers. It was perfectly true that there was added to this class a charge of £10,000 for the personal staff of the Sovereign, but the country had nothing to do with that; it was simply removing it from, one class to another. The amount was paid by the late Sovereign out of her. Privy Purse, and the only result of the present arrangement was that the Privy Purse would gain to the extent of this amount. Allowing, however, for the personal staff, it was very evident that, as compared with the same class in the last Civil List, the reduction ought to be not £5,000, but £26,000. The next class was the most important, namely, the expenses of the Household. During the last reign this expenditure was reckoned at £172,000, and it was now proposed to put it down at £193,000, an increase of £21,000. But the increase was very much more than that, if the charges to be met were taken into consideration. For instance, the class was relieved of £10,000 in regard to the internal decorations of Windsor Castle and Buckingham Palace; of £4,000 for the Royal Hunt; of £5,000 for the Mistress of the Robes; and of £5,000 for the "Queen's Premiums"; making a total relief of £24,000. This amount, added to the increase of £21,000, made a difference of £45,000 as compared with the late reign. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had alluded to the fact that during the later period of her reign the late Sovereign had been obliged to meet deficiencies from the Privy Purse. During the last five years of the reign the average so taken was £11,000. Therefore, if anything could be made of that argument, the amount added should be, not £45,000, but £11,000. In regard to this deficiency, taking the whole reign—and it had to be remembered that her late Majesty's 1224 retirement was only a temporary ones and that during her happy married life she entertained very largely—the total amount taken from the Privy Purse for the expenses of the Household was £632,000. As to the basis upon which the amount allocated to this class was recommended, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not so lucid as in his general observations. The Report said that it was—
In order to ensure that no restriction should be put upon the hospitality of the Sovereign, and that his comfort should not be interfered with"—It was difficult to see how, when speaking of these hundreds of thousands of pounds, the word "comfort" could be used. As to the hospitality of the Sovereign, Her late Majesty, even during her retirement, had the usual parties given by a Sovereign; there were drawing-rooms, levees, State concerts, and balls; and he failed to see why any more was needed to maintain the state and dignity of the Crown. The only persons who would gain by that increase were a very few of the shopkeepers in London. The vast majority of those who would have to pay did not go, under any circumstances, to these parties, and they would be perfectly well satisfied if the Court continued to be maintained as it was by Queen Victoria. The whole Civil List that the House is asked to voter is based upon the principle of reducing the ceremony and adding to the Privy Purse of the Sovereign. For the Privy Purse the House was asked to vote £110,000, to which would have to be added £60,000 from the Duchy of Lancaster and the unappropriated balances, bringing the amount up to £178,000. The Privy Purse was at the same time relieved of £10,000 in regard to personal staff; the £12,000 for non-effective service under Classes 2 and 3 also went to it. Thus the Privy Purse was really more than £200,000. Let that be compared with the amount voted to the, late Queen. On her accession to the Throne the Privy Purse, including the revenues from the Duchy of Lancaster and the unappropriated balances, amounted to £73,000. On the marriage of the Queen an additional £60,000 was voted, with £30,000 for the Prince Consort, while the revenues 1225 from the Duchy of Lancaster had risen to £15,000. It was therefore £113,000.Looking at the whole question, he failed to see that any sort of a case had been made out for the increase now proposed. On the Committee he had suggested that there should be granted to the Sovereign a lump sum of £415,000, that being the amount of the Civil List granted to the late Queen and the Prince Consort, which with the revenues of the Duchy of Lancaster would bring the amount up to £475,000. He would leave the expenditure of this money to the Sovereign. It was not the duty of the Committee to pry into all these small matters of expenditure, and, as far as he was concerned, it was a matter of no importance whether the Sovereign chose to spend the money in one way or another. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had given as a special reason why the Committee should have confidence in the present King that he was an excellent business man; but it appeared to him that a want of confidence was shown by the Government in proposing allocations as to the spending. He apprehended that the real reason for these allocations was that in the Civil List of Queen Victoria there was a proviso that in the case of a deficit in one class and a surplus in, another, the surplus in the one might be used to meet the deficit in the other; but that, as he understood the proviso, when there was a surplus in one class and no deficit in any other, the unexpended surplus remained in the Treasury. That, however, was not the view of the law officers of the Crown, and such surpluses went to the Privy Purse, with the result that the transfers to the Privy Purse amounted altogether to £650,000 during the late reign. Another objection to this mode of allocating the amounts to be spent was, that many of the items of expenditure put down by the Committee as being desirable or necessary were not such as should receive the approval of the House. One item was for political or parliamentary officers, the amount being £13,100. Most of these officers were noblemen, and went out of office on a change of Ministry. This payment was simple bribery, in order to induce Gentlemen in the Upper House to take a favourable view of the Government in power. He 1226 read in the newspapers a little while ago and was asked as a Liberal to rejoice over the fact, that the Earl of Buckinghamshire had seen the error of his ways as a Conservative and had joined the Liberal party. He did not see any special reason to rejoice, but still he rejoiced to a certain extent over one repentant sinner. But two weeks afterwards he read that the Earl of Buckinghamshire had become a Lord in. Waiting, with £600 a year. The Liberal party wanted none of these bought, recruits, whether they were noblemen or anybody else. The House would probably be astounded to hear that one of the Whips of the House was paid out of the Civil List. Under ordinary circumstances, any question with regard to a Whip could be raised on his salary in the Estimates, but in this case it was not so, because he was paid £900 or £1,000 a year as a Whip from the Civil List. To show how absolutely unneeded a large number of these political officers were, he referred to the chief State officers in the Department of the Lord Steward. The total amount voted for the Department was £28,000. The Treasurer received £700, the Comptroller, £700, the Master of the Household, £1,156, the Paymaster of the Household, £1,130, the Secretary,£1,000; and at the head of these gentlemen, who certainly could do between them the business of looking after the £28,000, a large, portion of which was drawn by themselves, was the Lord Steward, who not only received £2,000, but had the right of using the carriages of the Court. One reason given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the increase in the Civil List was that the present Court would require more horses than the last Court. If that was so, why should not the right of the Lord Steward and other such ornamental sinecurists to use the horses of the Court be withdrawn? Another thing, which would scarcely commend itself to the Nonconformist conscience of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton, was an item of £6,000 for "Ecclesiastical officers and allowances." Among these officers were thirty-six chaplains, each of whom received £40 per annum. The duty of each chaplain was to preach once before the Sovereign, but they could be relieved of this duty by a payment of £3. Most of these 1227 chaplains, he suspected, paid the £3, and were thus £37 to the good for doing absolutely nothing. But it was not so much the question of the amount; it was the absurdity of having thirty-six chaplains. Surely such a number could not be necessary whether for a sovereign or for any other human being. There was, however, a graver objection, and that was that by imposing upon the Sovereign the necessity of spending £6,000 in ecclesiastical officers and allowances the House was practically further endowing the Church of England. He was in favour of doing away with the endowments at present possessed by the Church of England, in which view most of the Members of the Opposition concurred, but probably every Member of the House would agree that they ought not, under the guise of the Civil List, to give to this endowed Church a further endowment of £6,000. Then there was the Poet Laureate. Why was such an absurdity continued? There were distinguished men who had held the office, and others who were not so distinguished. He did not wish to allude to anyone personally, but there must be in the minds of every Member of the House the names of one or two—one, if the Committee liked—whose verses, putting them at the highest standard, certainly were not worth 5s. taken in the gross. Another such officer was the Examiner of Plays. Why in the name of common sense should the Examiner of Plays be a Court official? There were dozens more of similar appointments, and the House of Commons ought not to accept the responsibility of advising His Majesty to maintain them. His suggestion to give the Sovereign a fixed sum, to be spent as he chose, was a thoroughly sound and reasonable one, and it was far more respectful to the King than the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
With regard to the sum total, he personally did not see the advantage of a Court. He regarded it as a mediaeval survival, the tendency of which was to create a spirit of flunkeyism in the nation. This was not an impeachment of the principle of monarchy, because monarchy was in no sense involved in a Court. If he had his way, he would give the head of the State some such amount as was given to the French 1228 President, and do away entirely with Court ceremonials, but unfortunately the common sense of the nation did not keep pace with his own on this matter. He frankly admitted that, and therefore he had to accept things as they stood. If, however, people insisted on having a Court, they should look at the matter of the amount needed for it in a thoroughly business spirit. While he believed the question of amount should be dealt with generously, he really could not see why the lavish prodigality suggested by the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be adopted. One ground adduced for it was that care should be taken that the Sovereign did not incur debt. He believed that George IV. would have incurred debt no matter how much had been given him. It depended upon the Sovereign on the Throne, and he was perfectly prepared to show his confidence in the King by giving him a certain sum of money, and he believed that whatever sum was given the King would not incur debt or spend more. The country was passing through an orgie of extravagance, but he was happy to say that there had been to a considerable extent an awakening to the fact. He tendered his thanks to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because he believed that his speeches in the House had tended to a great extent to the awakening of the country to the folly of the course that was being pursued. There seemed to be an idea abroad that money was to be squandered for the sake of squandering it, that because the Budget went up by leaps and bounds in millions of pounds, there was no need to look after the thousands, while to suggest a reduction of £1,000 here or £1,000 was something mean and preposterous. The times were out of joint for this lavish and reckless expenditure. A war was proceeding which was admittedly costing a good deal of money, and every year the country had additional claims made upon it for outlay in regard to the Army and to the Navy. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had been obliged to impose fresh taxes which weighed heavily on industry; he had not only been compelled to suspend the Sinking Fund, but he had been obliged also to throw the expense of the greater portion of the war upon posterity. If they did not fulfil their bounden duties as guardians of the public 1229 purse, of examining closely every proposal for expenditure which was brought before them there would be nothing left for education, for bettering the lot of the poor man, for old-age pensions, and other most important objects. Working-men did not desire this expenditure. [Cries of "Yes."] Well, he should like to see how the working-men's representatives would vote on this occasion. He should be very much astonished if a large majority of the working-men's representatives in this House voted against the Amendment which he had proposed. Did the Liberals throughout the country want this grandiose Court? If they did not, they should watch how their Members voted. Upon this question the Liberals were united—outside this House, liberals throughout the country were opposed to any sort of increase in the expenditure upon the Court, and he could prove to the House that this was so. In the year 1889 there was a Committee appointed, and a proposal was put before that Committee to grant a sum of money to the children of the then Prince of Wales. The late Mr. Gladstone advocated that proposal, but he opposed it on the Committee. The hon. Member for Morpeth and himself were the only Members on that Committee who voted against the proposal. He renewed his objections in the House of Commons, and he did not believe that, including the Front Bench, there were ten Liberals who voted against his proposals. Some of them said to him, "Do not you think a protest would be better, without a division?" "No," he replied, "and I will tell you why—I want to see how you vote." Many of them came to him afterwards and said that although they had been in doubt and hesitation about voting for his motion, when the election came round and they went to their constituencies they found that the most popular vote which they had given during the whole Parliament was that recorded against any augmentation of the sum spent upon the Court. He felt that would also be the result in the present instance. He was convinced that the Liberals outside the House were stalwarts in the doctrines of economy. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and a few other hon. Members of this House, including himself, stood together in the cause of economy. He begged, therefore, to move the reduction 1230 of the sum of £470,000 to £415,000. He did so because that was the amount voted to the late Queen and the Prince Consort. It would be open to any hon. Member to move a still further reduction when the Bill came on before the House.
§
Amendment proposed—
To leave out '£470,000' (for the King's Civil List), in order to insert '£415,000.'" (Mr. Labouchere.)
§ Question proposed, "That '£470,000' stand part of the proposed resolution."
§ *MR. KEIR HARDIE (Merthyr Tydfil)complained that the working classes had not been represented on the Committee which inquired into this matter. In a matter of this kind, affecting, as it did, not only public expenditure but also a question of principle, some Member at least who was entitled to speak for the working classes ought to have found a place upon that Committee. He should support the Amendment moved by his hon. friend the Member for Northampton, and he should also divide against the motion as a whole. This was not the occasion upon which increased expenditure should be submitted to the House of Commons. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had given as one reason for this proposed increase that the cost of living had increased. He was glad to have that acknowledgment from so responsible an authority. It was a common fiction in this country that the cost of living during the last fifty years had decreased. That was certainly not the case, and he was glad to find that this fact had now been admitted in high quarters, and he trusted that at a later stage of the session, when they were considering the wages paid to the men employed by the State, that fact would be borne in mind. If it was necessary to increase the amount voted to His Majesty because of an increase in the cost of living, by what process of reasoning did the right hon. Gentleman justify the reductions in the salaries of officers and attendants in and about the Court, which were being cut down in a cheeseparing manner. The salary of the Treasurer of the Household had been reduced from £900 to £700 a year, or a reduction of £200. The salary of the Comptroller of the Household had been reduced by a like amount, and the Vice- 1231 Chamberlain's salary had also been reduced by £200 a year. The allowances of the lords-in-waiting had been reduced £100 per annum, and, in addition to this, two of them had been dispensed with. The salary of the eaptain of the gentlemen-at-arms had been reduced by £200 per annum. The amount to be paid to the captain of the yeomen of the guard had been reduced by £200, and the sum paid to the Master of the Horse had been reduced by £500 a year. He could not understand why there was such a cheeseparing policy in regard to the salaries of the attendants of the Court while at the same time an increase was being made in the amount voted to the King and his Royal Consort. It had been stated that this was being done because of the generous action of the Sovereign in handing over to the State certain revenues which by right belonged to the King. It was now understood that those revenues were not the personal property of the Sovereign. It would be within the recollection of the House that, when the Civil List Committee was being appointed, he endeavoured to secure the adoption of an Amendment instructing the Committee to present to the House a Report showing the whole of the expenditure upon royalty and the sources of income of His Majesty. His Majesty, in addition to what was voted in this House by the Civil List and what he derived from the Duchy of Lancaster, was also an officer in various regiments, for which presumably he received his salary. In dealing with this matter the nation should understand how much was being paid to the Royal Family in order that they might be able to decide whether the Royal Family was worth the money. He also wished the Chancellor of the Exchequer to impart to the Committee whether the amount allotted to the Queen Consort would be paid to Her Majesty direct, or would it be handed over to His Majesty to be disposed of at his good will and pleasure? If they voted that money it should be paid direct into Her Majesty's account, and not handed over to her husband. It was not his intention at that stage to make anything in the nature of a long speech. There would be other opportunities for going into detail upon the various items 1232 included in the Civil List. He would, however, again point out that when taxes were being increased, when trade was depressed and wages were going down, when thousands of the employees of the State had clamoured in vain for years to have their wages increased from 19s. a week to 24s. a week, it was not a suitable time to ask the House to vote what amounted to an increase of £100,000 a year to the income of His Majesty the King and the Queen. If an example of economy was to be set, for which the Chancellor of the Exchequer pleaded so eloquently, that example should be set in high places. It could not be expected that the other spending departments of the State would pay much heed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's warning in regard to economy, when they found the very highest officers of the State increasing their expenditure in connection with the occupants of the Throne to an extent which had never occurred before. For those reasons he should support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northampton.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)said he was sure that neither in this House nor in the country would there be any disposition to make other than the most generous provision for the Sovereign and his Consort. If he were to make any criticism of the proposal now before the Committee it would be, not that the provision were too great, but that it was hardly great enough. When they considered the great benefits they owed to the fact that they had a Monarchy firmly established in this country, he thought it would ill-become them to higgle or haggle over the sum to be paid to their gracious Majesties. Their Sovereign was the head of the whole British nation, and as such they expected him to show that magnificence which would make him a fitting ceremonial head of this country. He only rose to occupy a few moments of the time of the Committee in order to ask two specific questions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. One of his points had been mentioned by the hon. Member opposite who had just spoken. He thought this country had always taken the greatest interest in and felt the greatest 1233 love and affection for that gracious lady whom they had hitherto known as the Princess of Wales, and who was now the Queen Consort. The Privy Purse was set down at £110,000, including, as he understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the provision for the Queen Consort. The Queen Consort, he was informed, had a separate. Court and a separate establishment, including even a separate Attorney General, and he desired to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he could inform the Committee what part of the £110,000 was to be allocated to the Queen herself. Another question he wished to raise was a small one, although it was not without importance. They were told in the Report that the pensions granted under Clauses 5 and 6 of the Civil List Act were to be separately charged on the Consolidated Fund. That raised a very important point, for those pensions amounted last year to about £20,000. He understood that they were distributed as an act of bounty by the Monarch, and because of that they were withdrawn, and properly withdrawn, from all control on the part of this House. He was aware that by the Civil List Act a regulation was laid down that those pensions must be confined to persons who had rendered personal service to the Monarch or to the State in some capacity. That provision only applied to the pensions so long as they were on the Civil List. The 6th section of the Act provided:—
That the pensions which may hereafter be charged upon the Civil List Revenues shall be granted to such persons only as have just claims on the Royal beneficence, or who by their personal services to the. Crown, by the performance of duties to the public, or by their useful discoveries in science and attainments in literature and the arts, have merited the gracious consideration of their Sovereign and the gratitude of their country.So long as those pensions formed part of the Civil List they were subject to that condition. It was now proposed that they should no longer form part of the Civil List and therefore they would cease to be subject to that condition. When a sum amounting to £20,000 last year, which had hitherto been in the personal disposition of the Monarch, was taken from that category and placed under the absolute control of a Minister, it ought not to be made a permanent charge upon the Consolidated Fund, and removed from the control of Parliament. 1234 He had no objection to there being no Parliamentary control when the pensions were distributed by the Monarch, but when they were handed over to a Minister, who was to be allowed to spend £1,200 this year and £1,200 the next year, he thought it was most objectionable and most improper that such a sum should be put into the hands of a Minister without any Parliamentary control. As long as it was the act of the King it was all right.
§ *SIR M. HICKS BEACHIt will be the act of the King in the future.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he could not see how that could be the case if the pensions did not form part of the Civil List.
§ *SIR M. HICKS BEACHWhat I meant was that they were not included in the £385,000.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESFrom year to year those pensions had been issued by virtue of the Civil List Act, which created the right to grant those pensions as part of the Civil List. Now, the right hon. Gentleman had arranged that they should no longer be part of the Civil List, and he said at the same time that they were still to be granted as an act of the King. His contention was that as soon as they ceased to be on the Civil List the granting of the pensions was the act of the Minister. The pensions would at once be withdrawn from all the safeguards put upon them by the Act which he had quoted, and he did not think the right hon. Gentleman was right in suggesting that they should be left as a permanent charge on the Consolidated Fund without any Parliamentary control whatever.
§ *MR. JOHN BURNS (Battersea)said the House of Commons obviously laboured under some disadvantage in discussing this matter, in so far as the Committee appointed by this House to consider His Majesty's Civil List were practically unanimous in the decisions they arrived at and in the recommendations of the report which they now had before them. But notwithstanding that disadvantage, and in spite of the practical unanimity of the Committee which was appointed to inquire into this question, 1235 he desired to associate himself with the protest which had been made by the Member for Northampton and the Member for Merthyr Tydvil against any increase being made to what he considered the large and generous sum already voted by the nation to the King and Queen. He never expected any wide divergence of opinion upon that Committee as it was constituted. One did not expect too much from any Civil List Committee. Her late Majesty had only recently passed away, and it stood to reason that that fact would weigh considerably in favour of any decision which the Committee might come to. He was not particularly impressed either with the conclusions or the recommendations of the Committee, and he was not satisfied that all the information that could have been presented to that Committee for a full and correct finding was submitted to it. The Committee's deliberations had been more or less secret. The universal respect for the late Queen undoubtedly coloured much that the Committee had recommended, and the universal respect for the present Queen-Consort undoubtedly appealed to the Members of the Committee. When they added to those facts political expediency and the prospects of preferment it was not surprising that the hon. Member for Northampton was found in splendid isolation, and that he was the one bold man struggling with adversity. He preferred to be with the minority upon this occasion. He did not think the very plausible speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer had materially affected the situation. He knew those proposals had the concurrence of the official Opposition. On this point he agreed with the hon. Member for Northampton that whenever they found the two Front Benches unanimous upon anything there were good public reasons for suspecting that concurrence.
He did not intend to approach this question from the point of view of haggling about details. The increased cost of living had been advanced as a reason for this increased expenditure, but that was hardly an argument one liked to hear in connection with an allowance which was £385,000, and which was to be raised, roughly, to over 1236 £500,000. This increase in the cost of living within the last few years did not apply to Royal personages or Royal palaces, because that increase, so far as the working men and the upper and middle classes were concerned, was merely in the direction of increased rent. He thought also it would be invidious for a Labour representative, whose chief occupation was arguing for increases of salary, when circumstances warranted it, for wage earners, to argue, as some Members might think, the other way that evening. But it seemed to him there was a great deal of difference between asking an increase of salary For people whose income was already below the level of subsistence and defending and demanding an increase of a salary which was now considerably over £1,000 per day, and which would, under the recommendation in this Report, be more than £1,500 per day. Notwithstanding all that could be said in favour of this increase he intended to support the Amendment. The hon. Member for King's Lynn, whom he often followed in his excursions against extravagance, and whom he invariably supported when he pleaded for economy, was under the impression that this was a popular Vote in the country. There had been many things put forward as popular during the last two or three years that subsequent proceedings had corrected, and time had not justified all that had been said of their popularity. The same would be said of this additional burden with others when they were felt. The hon. Member for King's Lynn had given as his reason for supporting this Vote that the King and Queen were the ceremonial bead of the nation. That was true, but they ought to be something more. He trusted that the monarchy would never be reduced so low that the fact of their being the ceremonial head of the State would be put forward as the chief reason why their salary should be increased, If that only be true, there was an argument for reduction or abolition. It was one of the proud privileges and duties of Members of the British House of Commons—and this was what differentiated this country from all other countries—to criticise if they saw fit, and to argue for the increase or the reduction of the salary of any public official from the head of 1237 the State down to the charwoman who dusted the, benches of the House of Commons. He sincerely hoped they would never find any Member of the House of Commons reluctant to speak and vote against any proposal to increase a salary when he disagreed with the attempt. He attached very little importance to the ceremonial side of monarchy. Her late Majesty was personally very much opposed to ceremonial, and he believed she would perhaps have lived longer had she not taken part in quite so many in recent years. She endeared herself to the people of this country by other qualities and characteristics than a love of ceremonial. It had been put forward that the Crown had to be maintained with honour and dignity. He thought £385,000, in addition to palaces and other emoluments, was quite sufficient for maintaining the honour and dignity of the reigning monarchs. He ventured to say that those who put forward that as an argument for the increase were casting a reflection on the past reign, and he had yet to learn that relative poverty of the purse on the part of the monarch was incompatible with that monarch acting with dignity, honour, and respect of the highest quality. On the contrary, he believed that the personal wants of Her late Majesty could have been satisfied with a few thousand pounds. He ventured to say that in many cases money was squandered on useless formalism, stilted ceremonial, and hosts of dependents, not to say flunkeys, whom he was not so sure that Her Majesty wanted. He protested against the increase being voted on the ground that the King and Queen were the ceremonial head of the nation. The arrangement with her late Majesty was that she should receive £385,000, including a sum of £13,200 for Royal bounties, alms, and special services, and beyond that the privilege of creating pensions up to £1,200 a year. Hon. Members contrasted this apparently diminished sum with the £700,000 at which it previously stood. But since the bargain was made, at the accession of the late Queen, many of the charges that previously devolved upon the Privy Purse were transferred to the Consolidated Fund.
The proposal before the House was that the £385,000 should be increased to £530,000, and, as the hon. Member for 1238 Northampton had proved, when they included a number of other things which were borne by the Consolidated Fund, such as the cost of palaces, pensions, and grants to other members of the Royal Family, the total cost to this country of the Royal Family was nearer £800,000 than £385,000. Some hon. Members might want proof. Well, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given it in the Report. Four yachts had been paid for, and their annual cost for maintenance amounted to anything between £30,000 and £35,000. The maintenance and adequate repair of royal palaces, parks, and pleasure grounds in the first fifty years of Her Majesty's reign alone cost the country the enormous sum of something like £7,000,000. He was not arguing the question of Republicanism versus Monarchy, but he was speaking from the point of view of money received for services rendered. When they considered the enormous amount spent on royal palaces, parks, and gardens, together with pensions, we had the extraordinary fact that during the sixty-three years of the last reign the aggregate charges received from the Civil List and the Consolidated Fund was something like £35,000,000. The hon. Member for Northampton had disposed of the illusion and the delusion that we ought to increase the salary of the King and Queen on the ground that we at some time or other had taken over the Crown lands, which, if they had not been taken from the monarchs, would have been bringing in an extravagant revenue. He did not think there was any warrant, any legal or historical justification, for that fact; but even if there were years ago revenues from the Crown lands which were commuted to a lump sum to settle outstanding disputes, it seemed to him that the lump sum of £385,000, plus the allowances to other members of the Royal Family, was sufficient for the purposes of their high offices. Another argument put forward in the newspapers—it was curious how some papers could argue for increases of expenditure on some things and denounce it in others—was that the Civil List of other monarchs was greater than that of the King and Queen of Great Britain. Well, we ought to compare like with like. We ought to see what other Civil Lists had to bear, and what some monarchs with larger 1239 salaries had to disburse. For instance, the German Emperor received £786,000. Anyone who visited Prussia, and especially Berlin, must see—and this was the only point on which he agreed with the German Emperor—that he spent an enormous proportion of his salary in art patronage, in decorating Berlin and other cities with statuary and art objects, a practice that might well be followed by those in high places here. There was no comparison between the claims which an autocratic Monarch had to meet and those made upon the Monarchy we fortunately had in England.
He objected to this particular increase at the present moment because of what we had seen in the British Empire recently. We had seen in the last ten years two or three, it might be four, famines in India, the people there living on 30s. per head per annum, people whose poverty was beyond endurance, and who were continually claiming the relief we ought to give; we had seen during the past two years a love of ceremonial, a love of display, beget a love of expansion; and we had seen all this departure from our serious past leading us into excursions to the far corners of the earth, and the result was that we had wars and rumours of wars in every part of the Empire to such an extent that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had brought up a Budget showing the largest expenditure of any year in the history of the Empire. It seemed to the hon. Member that with famines in India, with a sugar tax and a coal tax, with a war sure to involve us in as much expenditure in the future as it had done in the past, and with a period of unemployment upon us, that those in high places ought to set a good example, and not ask for increases of salary. If he were satisfied that the King would get this money he should probably hesitate to vote against it, but it would go in useless formalism and stilted Court functions, of which we had had too much. He would suggest that two-thirds of the present officials, such as the Lord Chamberlain, the Lord Steward, the Master of the Horse, lords in waiting, grooms in waiting, gentlemen at arms, yeomen, officers, and so forth, might be dispensed with, and in that way the King might obtain an extra £50,000 or £60,000 a year. Some hon. 1240 Members might say that was an exaggeration, but if they would turn to the Report, at page 6, they would find an item of £125,000 for officers of the Household. The expenses of His Majesty's Household were mainly swallowed up by useless officers. Some would say that the throwing of £500,000 or £250,000 extra at the heads of the King and Queen was the best way the House of Commons and the country could testify their loyalty. He did not believe that loyalty to the Throne or to their Majesties was in any sense measured by the amount of money the House or the country, either willingly or reluctantly, gave to the Privy Purse or the Royal Family. Some would say that the honour and dignity of the Crown must be satisfied. He said it was more than met by the present ceremonial and the money voted to such purposes. He remembered when the present King came to the Throne all the society journals shouted with joy at the prospect of ceremonial after ceremonial, and displays of Royal glory such as had not been experienced under Her late Majesty. Did Her late Majesty win the respect of the people as Queen, woman, wife, and mother, by the money spent on Court ceremonial? She earned loyalty, gratitude, and respect in many quarters, not by her service as a figure in processions, but by the lack of all this ceremonial. I saw the Queen on Jubilee day. Strip that pageant of all its soldiers, sailors, and martial panoply, there was still a figure that evoked respect. It was a plainly dressed simple old woman guarded by the respect of the thousands who came to see her as the embodiment of character and duty. He believed that she had a contempt for the whole business for which this additional money was asked. In these days when money was buying Legislatures in other countries; when plutocracy organised was threatening the liberty and freedom of some peoples outside this country; when thrift was being preached to the agricultural labourer who earned 10s. to 14s. a week; when mere money was being worshipped to a slavish extent that it never ought to be worshipped; when people were living above their incomes; when plutocrats were usurping the judgment seats and the places of kings and senators, the time had arrived when we should dispense with the argument 1241 and ask ourselves the question—Is any more money necessary for the King and Queen to maintain their Throne with honour and dignity? The answer to that question was to be found when we looked back on the sixty-three years of Her Majesty's reign, which was an emphatic contradiction of the statement that more money was needed. What evoked respect was character in those whom the State exalted, and money without it was poor indeed. At a time like this to increase our Civil List was a mistake. He knew that there were soldiers' widows walking the streets of this big city—women whose husbands had died in South Africa, and only a few days ago two soldiers' daughters were taken up off the streets near Hampstead Heath. In these days when there was necessity for retrenchment, when from the highest quarters they ought to have lessons how to live under rather than above their incomes, neither King nor Queen should approach Parliament for such a substantial addition to their salary. He was none the less loyal to the King who said His Majesty had been
§ wrongly advised in asking this increase. It did not bring him any more respect from people whose respect was worth having. But this Vote would carry the lesson to many that we might have monarchy at too high a price if we had to pay a salary to enable the King to vie with such men as Barney Barnato, Beit, and Carnegie, a transient species of creature who he hoped for the benefit of humanity would not last so long as the monarchy would last. It was because he believed that it was ill-advised, extravagant, unnecessary, and unjustifiable that he should have pleasure in supporting the hon. Member for Northampton, and in doing so he believed he was not only voicing the opinion of the working class of his constituency, but that he was expressing the views of hundreds of thousands of loyal working men who believed that the King and Queen had quite enough for the discharge of their Royal duties.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 250; Noes, 62. (Division List No. 175).
1243| AYES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F. | Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) | Fergusson, Rt.Hn.Sir J.(Manc. |
| Agg-Gardner, James Tynte | Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm. | Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst |
| Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel | Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc. | Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne |
| Aird, Sir John | Churchill, Winston Spencer | Firbank, Joseph Thomas |
| Allen, Charles P (Glouc., Stroud | Clare, Octavius Leigh | Fisher, William Hayes |
| Archdale, Edward Mervyn | Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E. | Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond |
| Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. | Coghill, Douglas Harry | Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry |
| Arrol, Sir William | Cohen, Benjamin Louis | Galloway, William Johnson |
| Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir E. | Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse | Garfit, William |
| Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John | Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready | Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert J. |
| Austin, Sir John | Colville, John | Goddard, Daniel Ford |
| Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy | Compton, Lord Alwyne | Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E. |
| Bailey, James (Walworth) | Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas | Goschen, Hn. George Joachim |
| Baird, John George Alexander | Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) | Goulding, Edward Alfred |
| Balcarres, Lord | Cox, Irwin Edward B. | Grant, Corrie |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r | Cranborne, Viscount | Gray Ernest (West Ham) |
| Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds | Cripps, Charles Alfred | Greville, Hon. Ronald |
| Bartley, George C. T. | Cross, Herb. S. (Bolton) | Griffith, Ellis J. |
| Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin | Cubitt, Hon. Henry | Groves, James Grimble |
| Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M.H.(Bristol | Dalrymple, Sir Charles | Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill |
| Beckett, Ernest William | Denny, Col. | Hain, Edward |
| Bill, Charles | Dewar, J. A. (Inverness-sh.) | Haldane, Richard Burdon |
| Black, Alexander William | Dickson, Charles Scott | Hall, Edward Marshall |
| Blundell, Col. Henry | Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. | Halsey, Thomas Frederick |
| Bond, Edward | Digby, J. K. D. Wingfield- | Hamilton, Rt.Hn Lord G(Mid'x |
| Boulnois, Edmund | Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred. D. | Hamilton, Marq. of (L'd'nd'rry) |
| Brigg, John | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert W. |
| Brookfield, Col. Montagu | Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. |
| Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson | Doxford, Sir William Theodore | Harmsworth, R. Leicester |
| Bryce, Rt. Hon. James | Duke, Henry Edward | Harwood, George |
| Bullard, Sir Harry | Duncan, J. Hastings | Haslam, Sir Alfred S. |
| Butcher, John George | Dunn, Sir William | Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D. |
| Caldwell, James | Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin | Helder, Augustus |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. | Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart | Helme, Norval Watson |
| Causton, Richard Knight | Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton | Hoare, Edw Brodie (Hampstead |
| Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.) | Emmott, Alfred | Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich) |
| Cawley, Frederick | Faber, George Denison | Holland, William Henry |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw. | Hope, J. F. (Sh'ffield, Brightside |
| Howard, John (Kent, Faversh'm | Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford | Stanley, Lord (Lancs.) |
| Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham | Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport) | Stevenson, Francis S. |
| Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil | Mount, William Arthur | Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart |
| Hudson, George Bickersteth | Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute | Stroyan, John |
| Jacoby, James Alfred | Newdigate, Francis Alex. | Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley |
| Johnston, William (Belfast) | Norman, Henry | Start, Hon. Humphry Napier |
| Jones, David Brynmor (Swans'a | Palmer, Sir Charles M (Durham) | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.) | Parkes, Ebenezer | Talbot, Rt Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ. |
| Keswick, William | Paulton, James Mellor | Thomas, F. Freeman- (Hastings |
| King, Sir Henry Seymour | Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington) | Thorburn, Sir Walter |
| Law, Andrew Bonar | Peel, Hn Wm. Robert Wellesley | Tomkinson, James |
| Lawson, John Grant | Pemberton, John S. G. | Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray |
| Layland-Barratt, Francis | Percy, Earl | Tritton, Charles Ernest |
| Lee, Arthur H. (Hants., Fareh'm | Pierpoint, Robert | Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward |
| Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage | Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard | Tuke, Sir John Batty |
| Leigh, Sir Joseph | Platt-Higgins, Frederick | Valentia, Viscount |
| Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie | Plummer, Walter R. | Vincent, Col. Sir C E H (Sheffield |
| Leng, Sir John | Pretyman, Ernest George | Walker, Col. William Hall |
| Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S | Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward | Wallace, Robert |
| Llewellyn, Evan Henry | Purvis, Robert | Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S. |
| Long, Col. Charles W (Evesham) | Randles, John S. | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Long,Rt.Hn.Walter (Bristol, S | Rankin, Sir James | Warr, Augustus Frederick |
| Longsdale, John Brownlee | Rasch, Major Frederic Carne | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Lowe, Francis William | Rea, Russell | Webb, Col. William George |
| Loyd, Archie Kirkman | Reid, James (Greenock) | Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.) |
| Macartney, Rt. Hon. W. G. E. | Remnant, James Farquharson | Wharton, Rt. Hn. John Lloyd |
| Maconochie, A. W. | Renshaw, Charles Bine | White, Luke (York, E. R.) |
| M'Arthur, William (Cornwall) | Renwick, George | Whiteley, George (York, W.R.) |
| M'Iver Sir Lewis (Edinb'rgh W. | Rickett, J. Compton | Whitmore, Charles Algernon |
| M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire) | Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson | Willox, Sir John Archibald |
| Maple, Sir John Blundel | Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) | Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid |
| Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir HE(Wigt'n | Ropner, Colonel Robert | Wilson, John (Falkirk) |
| Maxwell, W J H (Dumfriesshire | Rutherford, John | Wilson, John (Glasgow) |
| Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William | Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford- | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh., N. |
| Melville, Beresford Valentine | Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander | Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.) |
| Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M. | Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse) | Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath |
| Middlemore, J. Throgmorton | Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert | Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm |
| Mildmay, Francis Bingham | Seton-Karr, Henry | Wrightson, Sir Thomas |
| Milton, Viscount | Sharpe, William Edward T. | Wylie, Alexander |
| Molesworth, Sir Lewis | Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford) | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) | Skewes-Cox, Thomas | Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong |
| Moon, Edward Robert Pacy | Smith, H. C (North'mb. Tynes'd | Young, Commander (Berks, E.) |
| Moore, William (Antrim, N.) | Smith, James P. (Lanarks.) | |
| Morgan, David J (Walthamst'w | Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES— |
| Morley, Charles (Breconshire) | Spear, John Ward | Sir William Walrond and |
| Morrell, George Herbert | Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R. (N'th'nts | Mr. Anstruther. |
| Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F. | Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk | |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N. E.) | Flynn, James Christopher | O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.) |
| Ambrose, Robert | Gilhooly, James | O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.) |
| Barry, E. (Cork, S.) | Hammond, John | O'Dowd, John |
| Bell, Richard | Hayden, John Patrick | O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) |
| Blake, Edward | Jameson, Major J. Eustace | O'Malley, William |
| Boland, John | Joyce, Michael | O'Mara, James |
| Boyle, James | Leamy, Edmund | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. |
| Burke, E. Haviland- | Lundon, W. | Power, Patrick Joseph |
| Burns, John | MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A. | Priestley, Arthur |
| Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) | MacNeill, John Gordon Swift | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | M'Dermott, Patrick | Redmond, William (Clare) |
| Crean, Eugene | M'Fadden, Edward | Roche, John |
| Cremer, William Randal | Mooney, John J. | Schwann, Charles E. |
| Cullinan, J. | Murphy, J. | Sullivan, Donal |
| Delany, William | Nannetti, Joseph P. | Tully, Jasper |
| Dillon, John | Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Donelan, Capt. A. | O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid) | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.) |
| Doogan, P. C. | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Young, Samuel (Cavan, East) |
| Duffy, William J. | O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.) | |
| Elibank, Master of | O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES— |
| Ffrench, Peter | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) | Mr. Labouchere and Mr. |
| Flavin, Michael Joseph | O'Doherty, William | Keir Hardie. |
§ Original question again proposed.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREmoved, as an Amendment, to leave out "For the 1244 Duke of Cornwall and York, £20,000." He said that the Duchy of Cornwall produced £60,000 a year, and he thought 1245 that sum, together with the £10,000 a year provided for the Duchess of Cornwall and York, was a sufficient provision for the Duke and Duchess and their young children. When the Duke of Cornwall and York was engaged in a great ceremony, which might or might not be for the benefit of the country, such as his visit to Australia, the cost of the voyage was provided by the nation; he was entertained by the colony, and he believed it was proposed to vote him a sum of £20,000. He thought that was a bad principle to adopt. He complained of the secrecy which had been observed with regard to the Civil List, which put Members to the inconvenience of speaking without notice. The same rule applied to the Budget, but it was necessary in that case to conceal as long as possible the sources of proposed taxation. In the case of the Civil List there was no such necessity, and he thought it would be more convenient if a change were made which would enable the House to have these matters placed before them at an earlier period, so that then they might have some knowledge of what they were discussing, and not have things of this sort sprung upon them as this had been.
§ Amendment proposed—
§ To leave out "£20,000" (for the Duke of Cornwall and York).—(Mr. Labouchere.)
§ Question proposed, "That '£20,000' stand part of the proposed Resolution."
MR. LLOYD MORGAN (Carmarthen, W.)said he should not care to go as far as to support the Amendment, but he desired to say that he did not think the House or the country were called upon to support the grandchildren of the Sovereign. It was the duty of the House and of the country to support the Sovereign in a way that was fitting his great position, and also to provide for the Queen-Consort and the daughters of the Sovereign, but he thought the line ought to be drawn there. He would not have mentioned this matter at all but for the language of the Report of the Committee, which made it perfectly plain that later on an application would be made to the House in respect of an allowance to be made to the children of the Duke of Cornwall 1246 and York. He was in the House in 1889 when the Bill known as the Prince of Wales's Children Bill was before it. He was of opinion then and was of opinion now that in the interests of the Royal Family it would be well that questions of this kind were as far as possible kept out of the House. He was strongly of opinion that there was no obligation on the country to support the grandchildren of the Sovereign, and in his judgment the Committee had made a great mistake in not making a final settlement of the question.
§ CAPTAIN GREVILLE (Bradford, E.)said that the working classes of the country were just as desirous of maintaining the dignity of Royalty as any other class in the Empire. There were two points to be considered—equal dignity with other Courts, and the position in which His Majesty had been placed by the surrendering to Parliament the revenues of Crown lands, etc.—
*THE CHAIRMANOrder, order! The question now under discussion is the sum to be allotted to the Duke and Duchess of Cornwall and York.
§ CAPTAIN GREVILLEpointed out that there were many dependent Courts under the rule of Great Britain, and that those Courts attached great importance to splendour and magnificence. He thought that the Duke of Cornwall should have an allowance equal to that of his father when Prince of Wales.
§ MR. CALDWELL (Lanarkshire, Mid)said that the Committee had been placed in some little difficulty with regard to the amount that might be voted to the Duke of Cornwall and York. The amount was £20,000 a year for the Duke and £10,000 a year to the Duchess, but in addition to this there was the revenue from the Duchy of Cornwall, which amounted to about £67,000 a year. The difficulty which he felt was with regard to the revenues of the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster, a great deal of which had been invested in London property let on long leases, which were now beginning to fall in. There was no information as to the value of that property, and he thought 1247 it would be much better for the country if it took the revenue of the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster for a lump sum cash down and farmed them for the benefit of the nation. Nothing worse could be conceived than the fact of the Heir Apparent becoming a great landlord. Could anything worse be conceived than an eviction being carried out under his name? The country should take over the Duchies and pay the Heir Apparent out of the Consolidated Fund.
§ *SIR M. HICKS BEACHsaid he had very carefully considered the matter referred to by the hon. Member who had just sat down. He had come to the conclusion that it would be a mistake to alter the existing state of things. The revenues of the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall ought to remain in the position they had been in for hundreds of years. I No conceivable State management could be better than the estates were now under. The whole matter was debated and decided in the House on the accession of Her late Majesty. He did not anticipate any large immediate increase in the revenue of the Duchy of Cornwall, but in 1910 there would be a further falling in of ground leases in connection with the London property. The property was in a bad condition, and would require large expenditure.
§ The relations between landlord and tenant on this property had been admirable. He submitted that the annuity proposed for the Duke of Cornwall and York was a moderate one, and he hoped the Committee would now be allowed to come to a decision.
§ MR. JOHN BURNSsaid he regretted to hear the view put forward by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because, in his view, it would be far better if the control were taken from Royalty altogether. He urged such a course because he recollected the King when Prince of Wales referring to his difficulty as an owner of property in Lambeth, which was part of the Duchy of Cornwall. His Majesty evidently thought that to be an owner of slum property was not an ideal position for a king to be placed in. Neither the King nor the Heir Apparent should be put in the relationship of landlord with regard to the people, especially with regard to some of the property in that Duchy.
§ *SIR M. HICKS BEACHsaid that directly the leases of the property to which the hon. Member referred fell in, the property would be put in thorough repair.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 261; Noes, 58. (Division List No. 176).
1251| AYES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F. | Brookfield, Colonel Montagu | Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh |
| Agg-Gardner, James Tynte | Brunner, Sir John T. | Dickinson, Robert Edmond |
| Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel | Bryce, Rt. Hon. James | Dickson, Charles Scott |
| Allan, William (Gateshead) | Bullard, Sir Harry | Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. |
| Archdale, Edward Mervyn | Burt, Thomas | Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon |
| Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. | Butcher, John George | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- |
| Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis | Carlile, William Walter | Douglas, Chas. M. (Lanark.) |
| Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John | Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. | Doxford, Sir William Theodore |
| Austin, Sir John | Causton, Richard Knight | Duke, Henry Edward |
| Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy | Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire | Duncan, J. Hastings |
| Bailey, James (Walworth) | Cawley, Frederick | Dunn, Sir William |
| Bain, Col. James Robert | Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) | Edwards, Frank |
| Baird, John George Alexander | Chamberlain, Rt.Hn.J.(Birm. | Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton |
| Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r | Chamberlain, J. Austen (Wore. | Elibank, Master of |
| Balfour, RtHnGerald W (Leeds | Chapman, Edward | Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas |
| Banbury, Frederick George | Clare, Octavius Leigh | Emmott, Alfred |
| Barry, Sir F. T. (Windsor) | Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E. | Evans, Sir Francis H (Maidstone |
| Bartley, George C. T. | Coghill, Douglas Harry | Faber, George Denison |
| Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin | Cohen, Benjamin Louis | Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward |
| Beach, Rt Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol) | Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse | Fenwick, Charles |
| Beckett, Ernest William | Colville, John | Fergusson, RtHn.Sir J.(Manc'r |
| Black, Alexander William | Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas | Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst |
| Blundell, Colonel Henry | Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) | Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne |
| Bond, Edward | Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) | Firbank, Joseph Thomas |
| Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn) | Craig, Robert Hunter | Fisher, William Hayes |
| Brassey, Albert | Cranborne, Viscount | Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond |
| Brigg, John | Cubitt, Hon. Henry | Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon |
| Broadhurst, Henry | Dalrymple, Sir Charles) | Flower, Ernest |
| Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John | Denny, Colonel | Fowler, Rt. Hn. Sir Henry |
| Galloway, William Johnson | Lowe, Francis William | Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse) |
| Garfit, William | Lowther, Rt. Hon James (Kent) | Seton-Karr, Henry |
| Gladstone, Rt. Hon. H. John | Loyd, Archie Kirkman | Sharpe, William Edward T. |
| Goddard, Daniel Ford | Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth | Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford) |
| Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon | Macartney, Rt. Hon. W. G. E. | Simeon, Sir Barrington |
| Goschen, Hon. George Joachim | M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinb'rgh, W | Skewes-Cox, Thomas |
| Goulding, Edward Alfred | M'Kenna, Reginald | Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East) |
| Grant, Corrie | M'Killop, James (Stirlingsh.) | Smith, H C (N'rth'mb., Tyneside |
| Gray, Ernest (West Ham) | Martin, Richard Biddulph | Smith, James P. (Lanarks.) |
| Greville, Hon. Ronald | Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh. | Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) |
| Griffith, Ellis J. | Mellor, Rt. Hon. John Wm. | Spear, John Ward |
| Groves, James Grimble | Melville, Beresford Valentine | Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R. (Northnts |
| Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill | Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M. | Stanley, Lord (Lancs.) |
| Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton | Middlemore, J. Throgmorton | Stevenson, Francis S. |
| Hain, Edward | Milton, Viscount | Strachey, Edward |
| Hall, Edward Marshall | Milward, Colonel Victor | Stroyan, John |
| Hamilton, Rt Hn L'rd G (Midd'x) | Molesworth, Sir Lewis | Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley |
| Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry | Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) | Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier |
| Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm | Moon, Edward Robert Pacy | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William | Moore, William (Antrim, N.) | Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E. |
| Harmsworth, R. Leicester | Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow) | Thomas, F. Freeman. (Hastings |
| Haslam, Sir Alfred S. | Morley, Charles (Breconshire) | Thorburn, Sir Walter |
| Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D. | Morrell, George Herbert | Tomkinson, James |
| Helder, Augustus | Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F. | Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray |
| Helme, Norval Watson | Morton, Arthur H. A (Deptford) | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Henderson, Alexander | Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport) | Tritton, Charles Ernest |
| Hoare, Edw Brodie (Hampstead | Mount, William Arthur | Tufnell, Lieut,-Col. Edward |
| Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich) | Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute) | Valentia, Viscount |
| Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.) | Palmer, Sir Chas. M. (Durham) | Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H. (Sh'ff'ld |
| Holland, William Henry | Parkes, Ebenezer | Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter) |
| Hope, J. F. (Sheff'ld, Brightside | Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington | Walker, Col. William Hall |
| Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry | Peel, Hon. Wm. Robert W. | Walton, John L. (Leeds, S.) |
| Howard, John (Kent, F'versh'm | Pemberton, John S. G. | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T |
| Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham | Pierpoint, Robert | Warr, Augustus Frederick |
| Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil | Pilkington, Lt.-Col. Richard | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney |
| Hudson, George Bickersteth | Platt-Higgins, Frederick | Webb, Colonel William Geo. |
| Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C. | Plummer, Walter R. | Welby, Sir Chas. G. E. (Notts.) |
| Jacoby, James Alfred | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp | Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd |
| Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton | Pretyman, Ernest George | White, Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Johnston, William (Belfast) | Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward | Whitley, J. H. (Halifax) |
| Jones, David Brynmor (Swans'a | Purvis, Robert | Whitmore, Charles Algernon |
| Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.) | Randles, John S. | Williams, Osmond (Merioneth) |
| Keswick, William | Rankin, Sir James | Willox, Sir John Archibald |
| King, Sir Henry Seymour | Rasch, Major Frederic Carne | Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid. |
| Law, Andrew Bonar | Rea, Russell | Wilson, John (Falkirk) |
| Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth) | Reckitt, Harold James | Wilson, John (Glasgow) |
| Lawson, John Grant | Reid, James (Greenock) | Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.) |
| Layland-Barratt, Francis | Remnant, James Farquharson | Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm |
| Lee, Arthur H (Hants., Fareh'm | Renshaw, Charles Bine | Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd |
| Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage | Renwick, George | Wrightson, Sir Thomas |
| Leigh, Sir Joseph | Richards, Henry Charles | Wylie, Alexander |
| Leigh-Benuett, Henry Currie | Rickett, J. Compton | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Leng, Sir John | Rigg, Richard | Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong |
| Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S | Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson | Young, Commander (Berks, E.) |
| Llewellyn, Evan Henry | Roberts, John H. (Denbighs. | Younger, William |
| Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R. | Ropner, Col. Robert | Yoxall, James Henry |
| Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham) | Rutherford, John | TELLERS FOR THE AYES— |
| Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S. | Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford- | Sir William Walrond and |
| Lonsdale, John Brownlee | Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander | Mr. Anstruther. |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N. E.) | Delany, William | Joyce, Michael |
| Allen, C. P. (Glouc., Stroud) | Dillon, John | Leamy, Edmund |
| Ambrose, Robert | Donelan, Capt. A. | Lundon, W. |
| Barry, E. (Cork, S.) | Doogan, P. C. | MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A. |
| Boland, John | Duffy, William J. | MacNeill, John Gordon Swift |
| Boyle, James | Ffrench, Peter | M'Dermott, Patrick |
| Burke, E. Haviland- | Flavin, Michael Joseph | M'Fadden, Edward |
| Caldwell, James | Flynn, James Christopher | Mooney, John J. |
| Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) | Gilhooly, James | Murphy, J |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Hammond, John | Nannetti, Joseph P. |
| Crean, Eugene | Hardie, J. K. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) |
| Cremer, William Randal | Hayden, John Patrick | O'Brien, Kendal (T'pper'ry Mid |
| Cullinan, J. | Jameson, Maj. J. Eustace | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) |
| O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N. | O'Malley, William | Tully, Jasper |
| O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W. | O'Mara, James | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. | Young, Samuel (Cavan, East) |
| O'Doherty, William | Power, Patrick Joseph | |
| O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.) | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES— |
| O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.) | Redmond, William (Clare) | Mr. Labouchere and Mr. |
| O'Dowd, John | Roche, John | John Burns. |
| O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) | Sullivan, Donal |
§ Original question again proposed.
§ *MR. KEIR HARDIErose for the purpose of dividing the Committee against the main question. As a believer in Republican principles, he could not see the uses of the Royal Family. ["Oh, oh."] He was entitled to his opinion, and intended to express it. In the present day the Royal Family, according to his view, was an anachronism. ["Oh, oh.") The Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated, and it had been repeated by several other Members, that the Crown was growing in importance as the link that bound the Empire together. That argument might be pushed too far. The strength of a chain was measured by its weakest link, and, while Queen Victoria had been a source of strength to the Empire, there had been foolish kings in England before and there might be again, and one foolish king might wreck the Empire in six months. If the Empire was to be held together it would have to be by forces stronger than those which gathered around the occupant of the throne. He also objected to the voting of this money because, as had been said, Court life was the centre of sycophancy, and led to an unhealthy state of public opinion. Everything the occupant of the throne did or left undone, said or left unsaid, was eulogised and glorified as being the highest wisdom. That of itself had a demoralising influence on the nation. As a democrat, he objected to a ruler occupying a position of such power and influence in regard to whose selection the nation had no voice, and he intended to divide the Committee on this question in order that those Members who were so fond of professing democratic principles on the platform at election times might have an opportunity of proving the faith that was in them by a consistent vote in the lobby. He frankly admitted that at the present moment the opinion of working men and of the people generally was favourable to Royalty, 1252 but that because they did not understand Royalty or what it meant to them. The duty of working-men's representatives was to teach the working-men that it was inconsistent with the dignity of manhood to admit the principle of hereditary rulers, whether in the House of Lords or on the throne. In days gone by the party now in opposition was a power in the land, and it was then so strong because it was permeated and dominated by the Republican principle. To-day it was weak, ineffective, and shattered, because it had foresworn that principle in common with many others. The object of a working-class party would be to purify the system of government by eliminating from it every element which could not be discussed from the point of view of common-sense, and that test could not possibly be applied to a reigning and Royal Family.
§ MR. CREMER (Shoreditch, Haggerston)said he intended to vote with the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil, but did not care to do so without stating his reasons. If the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northampton had been carried he would probably have found himself voting against the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil on the present question, but that Amendment having been rejected he felt it to be his duty to enter a protest against this extravagance and shameful waste of the nation's wealth. He knew from his experiences of the working classes of the country that, while unfortunately they favoured monarchical institutions, they were bitterly opposed to the extravagance attending the maintenance of the Royal Family. If a poll were taken of the working classes of the country as to whether the dignity of the Crown might not be maintained upon half the money now voted, he believed there would be an almost unanimous vote in the affirmative, He would be perfectly willing to make an honest, honourable, and economical provision for the maintenance of the 1253 Crown and its dignity, but he could not vote for the expenditure of money on the host of sinecures, and in the wasteful manner which had been described by the hon. Member for Northampton.
§ MR. WILLIAM REDMOND (Clare, E.)Where is Chamberlain the Republican!
§ *MR. LABOUCHEREsaid he had never, like the Colonial Secretary, avowed himself a Republican, and therefore he was in an independent position in regard to this matter. He should vote against the resolution, not because he objected to a fair and reasonable sum being granted for the maintenance of the state and dignity of the Crown, but because he believed that if the resolution was carried the Sovereign would get more than he really needed. In view of the mania for expenditure which had seized the country, he felt a certain amount of gratitude towards the Chancellor of the Exchequer in that he had not asked the Committee to vote, say, a couple of millions sterling for the purpose. If the right hon. Gentleman had proposed that amount he believed it would have been accepted by the Committee, and he would have been even more popular on the other side of the House than at present, but perhaps not quite so popular with the Opposition. To show the extraordinary manner in which the Civil List had been piled up he referred to the proceedings before the Civil List Committee. After thorough investigation the estimate of the future annual charge was fixed at £470,000. The Committee came to the conclusion that the sum of £6,000 should no longer be devoted to the Royal Hunt. That item being withdrawn, one would naturally have thought that the total sum would
§ have been reduced by that amount. But, instead of that, although all the other heads of expenditure were considered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to have been fully provided for, this £6,000 had apparently been spread over the other items, so that the total amount remained the same. He asked why it was that the nation did not have the advantage of that £6,000.
§ *SIR M. HICKS BEACHThat question is very easily answered. After it was decided that in the opinion of the Committee the Hunt should be abolished and this item was struck off, the question of the amount to be allotted to Class 3 came under discussion. In the opinion of all the Committee it was thought that that class required to be increased as compared with the previous reign; I do not think that even the hon. Member himself objected to that. After considerable discussion it was agreed to add to it the amount cut off for the Hunt. I believe that was done with the unanimous consent of the Committee. This much, I remember, that the hon. Member made no objection and did not divide the Committee against it.
§ MR. KEIR HARDIEasked whether the money voted for the Queen Consort will be paid to Her Majesty direct or from the purse of the King.
§ *SIR M. HICKS BEACHI am afraid I cannot exactly explain the arrangement under which the amount of the Privy Purse will be paid to Her Majesty, but I have no doubt it will reach Her Majesty direct.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 307; Noes, 58. (Division List No. 177.)
1257| AYES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F. | Bain, Col. James Robert | Bond, Edward |
| Agg-Gardner, James Tynte | Baird, John George Alexander | Boulnois, Edmund |
| Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel | Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r | Bowles, T. G. (King's Lynn) |
| Aird, Sir John | Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds) | Brassey, Albert |
| Allan, William (Gateshead) | Balfour, Maj. K. R. (Christen.) | Brigg, John |
| Allen, Charles P. (Glouc. Stroud | Banbury, Frederick George | Broadhurst, Henry |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Barry, Sir F. T. (Windsor) | Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John |
| Archdale, Edward Mervyn | Bartley, George C. T. | Brookfield, Col. Montagu |
| Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. | Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin | Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson |
| Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis | Beach. Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol | Bryce, Rt. Hon. James |
| Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John | Beckett, Ernest William | Brymer, William Ernest |
| Austin, Sir John | Bentinck, Lord Henry C. | Bullard, Sir Harry |
| Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy | Black, Alexander William | Burt, Thomas |
| Bailey, James (Walworth) | Blundell, Col. Henry | Butcher, John George |
| Caldwell, James | Gray, Ernest (West Ham) | Morgan, David J. (Walthams'w |
| Cameron, Robert | Greville, Hon. Ronald | Morley, Charles (Breconshire) |
| Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. | Griffith, Ellis J. | Morrell, George Herbert |
| Carlile, William Walter | Groves, James Grimble | Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F. |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. | Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill | Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford |
| Causton, Richard Knight | Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton | Morton, Edw. J. C (Devonport) |
| Cautley, Henry Strother | Hain, Edward | Mount, William Arthur |
| Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.) | Hall, Edward Marshall | Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bute) |
| Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh. | Halsey, Thomas Frederick | Newdigate, Francis Alexander |
| Cawley, Frederick | Hamilton, Rt. Hn Lord G (Mid'x | Nussey, Thomas Willans |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Hamilton, Marqof (L'nd'nderry | Palmer, Sir C. M. (Durham) |
| Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) | Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm. | Palmer, George Wm. (Reading) |
| Chamberlain, Rt.Hn.J.(Birm. | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. | Parker, Gilbert |
| Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r | Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'd | Parkes, Ebenezer |
| Chapman, Edward | Harmsworth, R. Leicester | Partington, Oswald |
| Churchill, Winston Spencer | Haslam, Sir Alfred S. | Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington |
| Clare, Octavius Leigh | Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D. | Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert W. |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. | Helder, Augustus | Pemberton, John S. G. |
| Coghill, Douglas Harry | Helme, Norval Watson | Percy, Earl |
| Cohen, Benjamin Louis | Henderson, Alexander | Pierpoint, Robert |
| Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse | Hoare, Edw Brodie (Hampstead | Pilkington, Lt.-Col. Richard |
| Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready | Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich) | Pirie, Duncan V. |
| Colville, John | Holland, William Henry | Platt-Higgins, Frederick |
| Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas | Hope, J. F. (Sheffield Brightside | Plummer, Walter R. |
| Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow | Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp |
| Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) | Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham) | Pretyman, Ernest George |
| Craig, Robert Hunter | Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham) | Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward |
| Cranborne, Viscount | Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil | Purvis, Robert |
| Cripps, Charles Alfred | Hudson, George Bickersteth | Randles, John S. |
| Cubitt, Hon. Henry | Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C. | Rankin, Sir James |
| Dalrymple, Sir Charles | Jacoby, James Alfred | Rasch, Major Frederic Carne |
| Denny, Colonel | Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton | Ratcliffe, R. F. |
| Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh. | Johnston, William (Belfast) | Rea, Russell |
| Dickinson, Robert Edmond | Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex) | Reckitt, Harold James |
| Dickson, Charles Scott | Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea) | Reid, James (Greenock) |
| Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. | Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire) | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Digby, John K. D. Wingfield- | Keswick, William | Renshaw, Charles Bine |
| Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon | King, Sir Henry Seymour | Renwick, George |
| Dorington, Sir John Edward | Kitson, Sir James | Richards, Henry Charles |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Law, Andrew Bonar | Rickett, J. Compton |
| Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) | Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth) | Rigg, Richard |
| Doxford, Sir William Theodore | Lawson, John Grant | Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson |
| Duke, Henry Edward | Layland-Barratt, Francis | Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) |
| Duncan, J. Hastings | Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham) | Roe, Sir Thomas |
| Dunn, Sir William | Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage | Ropner, Colonel Robert |
| Edwards, Frank | Leigh, Sir Joseph | Rutherford, John |
| Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton | Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie | Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford- |
| Elibank, Master of | Leng, Sir John | Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander |
| Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas | Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S | Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse) |
| Emmott, Alfred | Llewellyn, Evan Henry | Seely, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Evans, Sir F. H. (Maidstone) | Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R. | Seton-Karr, Henry |
| Faber, George Denison | Long, Col. Charles W (Evesham | Sharpe, William Edward T. |
| Fardell, Sir T. George | Long, Rt. Hn Walter (Bristol, S. | Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford) |
| Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw. | Lonsdale, John Brownlee | Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.) |
| Fenwick, Charles | Lowe, Francis William | Shipman, Dr. John G. |
| Fergusson, Rt Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r | Lowther, Rt. Hon. James (Kent | Simeon, Sir Barrington |
| Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst | Loyd, Archie Kirkman | Skewes-Cox, Thomas |
| Finch, George H. | Lucas, R. J. (Portsmouth) | Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.) |
| Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne | Macartney, Rt. Hn. W G Ellison | Smith, H C (N'rth'umb Tynes'de |
| Firbank, Joseph Thomas | M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) | Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks) |
| Fisher, William Hayes | M'Arthur, William (Cornwall) | Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand |
| Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond | M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W | Soares, Ernest J. |
| Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon | M'Kenna, Reginald | Spear, John Ward |
| Fletcher, Sir Henry | M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire) | Spencer, Rt. Hn. C R (Northants. |
| Flower, Ernest | Martin, Richard Biddulph | Stanley, Lord (Lancs.) |
| Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry | Maxwell, W J H (Dumfriesshire | Stevenson, Francis S. |
| Galloway, William Johnson | Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William | Strachey, Edward |
| Garfit, William | Melville, Beresford Valentine | Stroyan, John |
| Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J. | Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M. | Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley |
| Goddard, Daniel Ford | Middlemore, J. Throgmorton | Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier |
| Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick | Milton, Viscount | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon | Milward, Colonel Victor | Taylor, Theodore Cooke |
| Goschen, Hon. George Joachim | Molesworth, Sir Lewis | Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E. |
| Goulding, Edward Alfred | Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) | Thomas, David A. (Merthyr) |
| Grant, Corrie | Moore, William (Antrim, N.) | Thomas, F. Freeman- (Hastings |
| Thorburn, Sir Walter | Webb, Colonel William George | Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.) |
| Tollemache, Henry James | Welby, Sir C. G. E. (Notts.) | Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm |
| Tomkinson, James | Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd | Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (H'ddersf'd |
| Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray | White, George (Norfolk) | Wrightson, Sir Thomas |
| Tritton, Charles Ernest | White, Luke (York, E. K.) | Wylie, Alexander |
| Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward | Whitley, J. H. (Halifax) | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Tuke, Sir John Batty | Whitmore, Charles Algernon | Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong |
| Valentia, Viscount | Williams, Osmond (Merioneth) | Young, Commander (Berks, E.) |
| Vincent, Col. Sir C E H (Sheffield | Willoughby de. Eresby, Lord | Younger, William |
| Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter) | Willox, Sir John Archibald | Yoxall, James Henry |
| Walker, Col. William Hall | Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.) | |
| Walton, John L. (Leeds, S.) | Wilson, F. W. (Norfolk, Mid.) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES— |
| Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. | Wilson, John (Falkirk) | Sir William Walrond and |
| Warr, Augustus Frederick | Wilson, John (Glasgow) | Mr. Anstruther. |
| Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N. | |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.) | Hammond, John | O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.) |
| Ambrose, Robert | Hayden, John Patrick | O'Dowd, John |
| Barry, E. (Cork, S.) | Jameson, Major J. Eustace | O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) |
| Boland, John | Joyce, Michael | O'Malley, William |
| Boyle, James | Labouchere, Henry | O'Mara, James |
| Burke, E. Haviland- | Leamy, Edmund | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. |
| Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) | Lundon, W. | Power, Patrick Joseph |
| Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton | MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A. | Priestley, Arthur |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | MacNeill, John Gordon Swift | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) |
| Crean, Eugene | M'Dermott, Patrick | Redmond, William (Clare) |
| Cremer, William Randal | M'Fadden, Edward | Roche, John |
| Cullinan, J. | Mooney, John J. | Sullivan, Donal |
| Delany, William | Murphy, J. | Tully, Jasper |
| Dillon, John | Nannetti, Joseph P. | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Donelan, Captain A. | Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.) |
| Doogan, F. C. | O'Brien, Kendal (Tipper'ry Mid | Young, Samuel (Cavan, East) |
| Duffy, William J. | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | |
| Ffrench, Peter | O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES— |
| Flavin, Michael Joseph | O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W. | Mr. John Burns and Mr. |
| Flynn, James Christopher | O'Doherty, William | Keir Hardie. |
| Gilhooly, James | O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.) |