CLAUSE 1.—(Powers of House of Lords as to Money Bill.)

§ Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS

I beg to move to postpone the Clause.

I move this Amendment because I think it will be generally convenient to deal with the Clause about general legislation before we deal with the narrower issue of financial legislation. The Committee will remember that the Resolution passed in Parliament presided over by the late Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, on 24th June, 1907, was confined to general legislation. It ran in these terms:— That in order to give effect to the will of the people, us expressed by their elected representatives, it is necessary that power of the other House to alter or reject Bills passed by this House, should be so restricted by law as to secure within the limitation of a single Parliament that the final decision of the Commons shall prevail. I admit that when the Veto Resolutions were passed last year another element was introduced. The Resolutions passed in 1910 came about in this way. The Budget had been referred by the House of Lords to the judgment of the people, and an additional Veto Resolution was moved by the present Prime Minister to cover the case of a Finance Bill which had been passed by this House and had been rejected by another House. I think it would be very much more convenient if the larger issue were discussed first for this additional reason. It may be that in 1852 the discussion on Clause 2 matters may arise which may largely affect the financial issue on Clause 1, and it would be extremely inconvenient to the Committee, having discussed and disposed of Clause 1, to have to discuss matters which naturally enter into Clause 1 on Clause 2. That, I think, is a very good reason why we should postpone Clause 1 as being the narrower issue. There is a further reason. Various Resolutions have been from time to time passed by this House on financial matters. The first I will mention was in the year 1671. There was another in. 1679, and a third in 1860, when the Paper Duties were rejected by the House of Lords. If we discuss this financial Clause now, all these Resolutions, I take it, will have to be opened up in a most complete manner before we are in a position to deal with the question of general legislation. That is another very good reason why we should take the Clauses in their natural and logical sequence, which is that we should take the general question and general legislation first, and then take the narrower issue and limit it to financial questions.

§ The PRIME MINISTER

I must congratulate the hon. Gentleman and his Friends on the fertility and resource which they are all exhibiting, from a dialectical point of view, in the discussion of this Bill. I observe the hon. Gentleman himself who has moved the Amendment, has also got down an Amendment on page 58 to postpone Clause 2, so what provisions of the Bill he desires the Committee to discuss I am at a loss to know. If the hon. Gentleman had his way, we should commence our discussions in Committee by discussing Clause 3. "Any certificate of the Speaker of the House of Commons given under this Act shall be conclusive for all purposes, and shall not be questioned in any court of law."

§ Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS

My object was clearly to postpone Clause 2 until after the Preamble of the Bill had been taken.

§ The PRIME MINISTER

Let us see exactly where the hon. Gentleman is. He wants us first to postpone Clause 1, and then, when we come to Clause 2, he proposes we should postpone Clause 2, and then, I understand, he proposes ws should postpone Clauses 3, 4, and 5 in order that we may discuss the Preamble of the Bill. So much for the hon. Gentleman. But what of those who are sitting around him? 1853 I suppose they are going to support him in this dilatory Motion. We have been engaged for nearly two hours in discussing an instruction—I am not complaining—to divide the Bill into two parts. Why? In order that we may take Clause 1, the Clause dealing with finance, and that Clause may be exhaustively discussed and reported to the House before we ever entered upon the consideration of any other part of the Bill. Now, after two hours spent on that discussion with a division which has negatived that proposition, we have an hon. Gentleman getting up to move the direct contrary, and that we should proceed at once to postpone Clause 1, the Clause on which we were assured at any rate there was a certain amount of common ground, in order that we may enter at once upon the most controversial part of the Bill. I think I have said enough. It seems to me, quite apart from these dialectical difficulties on the other side of the House, that the logical course is to begin with finance, where we are absolutely limiting the powers of the House of Lords, and then to proceed to general legislation, where we only impose a qualified restriction.

§ Sir R. FINLAY

If the object of this Amendment were simply to postpone Clause 1 in order that we might proceed with the consideration of Clause 2 there would be some ground for the reasons given by the Prime Minister, but what my hon. Friend desires is that we should postpone the Clauses of the Bill in order to get to the discussion of the Preamble. I think what took place on the last Amendment is enough to show how absolutely desirable it is that we should know exactly the position of the Government on the Preamble before we come to the Clauses of the Bill. We had in the course of that discussion two hon. Gentlemen sitting below the Gangway on the other side, one of whom said he would support the Bill out and out on the ground that it was permanent and intended to be permanent, and the other of whom declared he would support it on the ground that it was temporary and intended to be temporary. How is it possible the House should with advantage engage in the discussion of a measure when they are absolutely in the dark as to what the Government mean with regard to the intention stated in the Preamble?

§ The CHAIRMAN

The Preamble stands postponed until after the whole of the Bill 1854 is dealt with, and we cannot now therefore discuss the question which the right hon. and learned Gentleman is discussing.

§ Mr. HARRIS

I should like to give a few reasons why it would be convenient that Clause 1 should be postponed until we have considered Clause 2. The case for Clause 1 will be in a large measure destroyed if Clause 2 is passed in its present extraordinary form. If Clause 1 stood alone, and if the proposal in the Bill was one to deprive the House of Lords of their constitutional right to amend and reject Money Bills, it might fairly be argued that is bringing the constitutional right of the House of Lords in accord with what is the usual practice. That would be a proposal that might be considered on its merits, and as a separate proposition, as was proposed by my hon. Friend earlier in the afternoon. Clause 2 does not stand alone. The Bill proposes not only to exclude the House of Lords entirely from the domain of finance, but also to restrict its power in the most drastic manner as regards Bills not Money Bills. It must be obvious that to deprive the House of Lords of its financial powers, while leaving its powers as regards general legislation, is one proposition, and that to propose to deprive the House of Lords of its financial powers, while restricting its powers over general legislation in an extraordinary manner, is an entirely different proposition, and I think we are entitled to know what is the exact proposition before the Committee with regard to Clause 2 before we come to the discussion on Clause 1, If Clause 1 stood by itself and was the whole Bill it could be considered in an entirely different way than what we understand to be the conjoint proposal of the Bill.

The proposal of the Bill, as a whole, is a proposal for which I venture to say there is no precedent in the whole world. The Australian and South African Senates can reject a Money Bill, and they have only a suspensory veto as regards general legislation. Provision is made for joint sittings of the two Houses, and in the Australian case there is power of reference to an electorate. While the whole of Clause 1, taken by itself, might be accepted as a temporary measure, it cannot be accepted in conjunction with Clause 2 and what we understand to be a permanent proposal as regards the powers of the Second Chamber in this country. Therefore I venture to 1855 submit that really, as a matter of convenience, it is extremely desirable to know in what form Clause 2 is going to be passed before we have to consider what should be the financial powers of the Second Chamber. For that reason I hope the Government will agree to let Clause 1 be postponed.

§ Mr. JAMES HOPE

I think the Prime Minister was really not quite fair to my hon. Friend in suggesting that the present Amendment was irreconcilable with the Instruction of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Colonel Griffith-Boscawen). The object of that Instruction was not that Clause 1 should be taken before Clause 2, but that it should be taken and reported as a separate Bill. That was the whole, I think, of that proposition. The ground then taken was that if it were discussed and reported as a separate Bill it might be possible for all sides to agree.

§ The PRIME MINISTER

I do not like to be accused of misrepresenting the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Samuel Roberts). The hon. Gentleman (Mr. James Hope), although he is seconding, does not appear to have read the Instruction. What was it? To divide the Bill into two Bills, the one dealing with the powers of the House of Lords as to Money Bills, and the other with the restriction of the powers of the House of Lords as to Bills other than Money Bills and with the duration of Parliament, and that the first Bill be reported to the House before the other is proceeded with. In effect Clause 1 was to be reported before we could proceed to consider Clause 2 at all.

§ Mr. JAMES HOPE

The idea was that the first Clause should be reported as a separate Bill, and the reason why we put that forward was that an agreement of that Clause as a Bill by itself was not impossible, when the Clause had been threshed out and amended. In the speech I made I suggested it would be practically possible that it should not only be reported as a separate Bill, but even passed as an agreed Bill. The right hon. Gentleman would not consent to that course; hence the present motion. There are certainly very good reasons why the second Clause should be taken first, and I think the right hon. Gentleman will see that it is really to his own interest that it 1856 should be so. There are certain objections applicable to both Clauses, but some of these apply in a far greater degree to the second Clause than to the first. If the objections are argued on the first Clause it may be that the answer given will not apply to the arguments that would be advanced on the second Clause, and when the first Clause has been disposed of these arguments may again be put forward with still greater force as against the second Clause. The Debate will consequently have to be taken all over again. I think the course which the right hon. Gentleman has taken will very much prolong the Debate. Important as the first Clause is and great as is the evil that lurks in it, as at present drawn, undoubtedly the whole pith of the controversy, as it is understood outside this House, turns on the second Clause. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman wishes our Debates to be conducted not only for the edification of Members of this House, but also for the information of the country outside, and I suggest that the proper course is to go straight to the important issues involved. I would add that that cannot be achieved if we discuss the technicalities of Clause 1 instead of proceeding to the broad issues of Clause 2 at the first possible moment.

§ Mr. F. E. SMITH

I think my hon. Friend is fully entitled to say that the discussion which took place on the Instruction dealt entirely with the question whether or not the Clause should be reported as a separate Bill, and not with the chronological order in which the discussions should take place. My hon. Friend, in moving his Amendment, based himself entirely on the recommendation of the Committee and on the desire that the Preamble should be discussed in a certain place under certain circumstances. You have ruled that out of order. I should have supported my hon. Friend for the reasons he gave had it been possible for us to discuss the point, but I am not sure he will think it worth his while to carry this matter to a Division in view of your ruling, in which you tell us that at this point it is not convenient to discuss the question of the postponement of the Preamble.

§ Lord HUGH CECIL

I wish to make an appeal to the Government. It is in their power to suspend the Standing Order which prevents a postponement of a Clause until after the Preamble. I think such a suspension might easily be carried by 1857 agreement, and that would enable us to raise the question whether the Preamble should be discussed first. The Standing Order certainly was not passed in view of Preambles of this kind; and, therefore, I would invite the Government to consider whether it would not be wise, in the interests of sensible discussion in this House, to have the Preamble first discussed, and then pass to the discussion of the Clauses. It certainly would be much more convenient and much more businesslike

§ The PRIME MINISTER

We think we must first discuss the operative Clauses.

§ Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS

I would have withdrawn my Amendment if the right hon. Gentleman had agreed to suspend the Standing Order; but, as he will not, I fear I must press it to a division.

§ The CHAIRMAN

The first Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. James Hope) is not in the right place. It will come in later on. The Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for West Derby (Mr. Watson Rutherford) is also in the wrong place.

§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD

I wish, Sir, to call your special attention to the fact that unless my Amendment is allowed to be Moved at this stage there will be no opportunity of making it clear at what stage we are to know whether we are discussing the case of an alleged Money Bill or a Bill that is not a Money Bill. May I draw your attention to the fact that the Clause as drafted begins by saying:— If a Money Bill having been passed by the House of Commons and sent up to the House of Lords at least one month before the end of the Session, We ought to know in the first stage of a Money Bill whether it is a Money Bill or is claimed to be a Money Bill, and not wait till it is passed, because there are different provisions made with regard to such a measure, and it comes in a different category if we pass the Clause. In my judgment, there is no place so proper as the commencement of the Clause for putting in the words which I propose, which are:

"A Bill which has been certified by the Speaker of the House of Commons (in manner hereinafter provided) to be exclusively a Money Bill shall," and so on—I think it will be proper to make it clear whilst we are passing this part of the Clause that it cannot be made a Money Bill by a subsequent proposal.

§ The CHAIRMAN

I have listened to the hon. Member, and the point which he wants to make, because later on in the Clause I may tell him I was completely puzzled as to what he meant, because the very next Amendment standing in his name is to leave out the word "if" which stands at the commencement of the Clause.

§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD

I do not propose to leave out that word.

§ The CHAIRMAN

The Amendment is out of place and will come later on. The same thing applies to the Amendments of the hon. Member for St. Pancras (Mr. Cassel) and the hon. Member for Wirral (Mr. Stewart). The hon. Member for St. Ives (Sir Clifford Cory) proposes an alternative Clause, which is not in order. The hon. Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave) has an Amendment which is also out of place.

§ Mr. CAVE

I do not know what has happened in connection with the Amendment standing in my name. Have you ruled that out altogether, or will it come on later in the Clause. The substance of it is that I want to raise the whole question of substituting a Joint Committee of the two Houses for the Speaker. Although, of course, it can be raised in another way, this is a way in which it is open to us to raise the discussion, and I think the Committee will be glad to come to the discussion of the question early.

§ The CHAIRMAN

I think the best way would be to take the alternative course after that which is at the beginning of the Clause. I take the order in which the provisions are in the Bill as a general rule, unless there is some definite advantage to be gained by taking another course. The next Amendment which appears on the Paper is to leave out Sub-section (1), and it is not in order. The Sub-section in question is an operative part of the Clause, and its omission would necessitate leaving out the Clause. The next Amendment of the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. James Hope) is not in order unless it is to be taken in conjunction with the consequential Amendment later on.

§ Mr. JAMES HOPE

It is to be taken in conjunction with the Amendment later on. I beg to Move in Sub-section (I) to leave out the word "If." ["If a Money Bill having been passed by the House of Commons."]

I desire to move this Amendment in order to ask the Government what func- 1863 tion they expect the House of Lords to discharge in future with respect to Money Bills at all. Under the Section a Bill will go to the House of Lords in the ordinary course, and I presume it will go through all its stages. I presume it will be moved and discussed, but apparently whether it is moved or whether it is not, whether it is discussed or whether it is not, it equally becomes law at the end of a month's time, and is sent for the Royal Assent at the end of the month. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he attaches any importance to keeping up the form on this occasion. This Bill will be discussed, and the Peers may say "content" or "not content," but the result at the end of a month is the same and the Bill is to receive the Royal Assent. If this Amendment is considered in the light of a subsequent one which is on the order paper, the substance of the proposal is that the House of Lords may suggest changes in a Money Bill and send them down to the House of Commons simply by way of suggestion, just as in a similar way it is provided in a later Clause in this Bill that Bills are to be passed about between the two Houses.

§ Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY

Will the hon. Member explain where the subsequent Amendment which he means to propose is to be found

§ Mr. JAMES HOPE

I know it is a little difficult to follow. I am now proposing to leave out the word "If" subsequently to that is an Amendment at the bottom of page 38 to leave out from "Commons" to end of Sub-section and to insert:—

"Shall be presented to His Majesty and become an Act of Parliament on the Royal Assent being signified, notwithstanding that the Bill has not been before the other House of Parliament."

The effect of the two Amendments taken together is that the Bill will not go through these forms in the House of Lords. I move, then, not because I am enamoured of their substance, so much as to ask the Government what importance they attach to any of these Bills going before the House of Lords at all. Presumably they go through all their stages. I suppose it is brought in and read the first time, and then another day is given for its discussion on the Second Reading, then, perhaps there will be a Committee stage and a Third Reading, but whether it is discussed or not, whether it is divided against or not 1864 it is apparently to have the force of law at the end of a month. As things stand, I do not see why the Government attach importance to these stages. If they would accept an Amendment lower down on the Paper, which would give the House of Lords power not to make amendments but suggestions to the House, the matter would be entirely different. By that Amendment I suggest that the House of Lords may at any stage return to the House of Commons any Money Bill requesting by message the omission or amendment of any provisions therein, and the House of Commons may if it think fit, make any such omissions or amendments with or without modifications. If anything of that kind were possible the Clause would have some value, but if nothing of the kind is possible I really do not see any explanation of the point as to the necessity for going through these stages. I cannot help thinking that this is done deliberately in order that the ugliness of the Government proposal may be cloaked, and, perhaps, if Thomas Carlyle were yet alive he would re-write another chapter in "Sartor Re-sartus" to show how the present Government had adopted certain clothes so as to cloak their present proposals. I think that is the reason why the Government want to retain these old forms while they are still proposing by this Clause to deprive the Second Chamber of any right to do anything with a Money Bill, the result of such a proposal being to throw an unendurable onus upon the Crown.

§ The PRIME MINISTER

It is always very dangerous to reason by metaphor, and the hon. Gentleman has alluded to the philosophy of clothes as explained in Carlyle's "Sartor Resartus." The difference between the hon. Gentleman and us in this matter is that we propose to retain the present constitutional arrangement, whereas he proposes to divest us of it altogether. That is the most revolutionary proposal that has yet been made, and I wonder whether it will be supported by the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford (Lord Hugh Cecil). It is, as I say, the most revolutionary proposal that has yet been made. It is not merely that we should assert the supremacy of this House in matters of finance, but that we should not even allow the House of Lords to have an opportunity of discussing any financial measure which has passed through this House. That is the proposal, and when the hon. Gentleman asks me why I resist it, I say it is because I see no reason for 1865 it. It is going further than the Government think it necessary to go in asserting the rights of this House, because our view has always been that in this Clause we are giving legal and statutory effect to what has hitherto been, or was till 1909, the almost unbroken constitutional usage. There is no innovation here of any sort or kind—absolutely none—except that we are putting into the form of an Act of Parliament now that the necessity has arisen that which up to a couple of years ago, by universal consent, was the adopted practice without any Act of Parliament at all. The House of Lords discussed Finance Bills; they did not amend them; they did not reject them. We are proposing to leave them in the position in which by constitutional usage they always have been, to discuss financial proposals which emanate from this House. That other is a power which for over fifty years they never claimed, and certainly never exercised—namely, that to amend or reject. The hon. Gentleman proposes to go further, and deprive them of the power even of discussing these proposals. The Noble Lord shakes his head, but he has not read the Amendment, or has not read the consequential Amendment, because, according to the hon. Member for Sheffield, if this word "if" is omitted, the Clause will run as follows: "A Money Bill having been passed by the House of Commons, shall be presented to His Majesty and become an Act of Parliament on the Royal Assent being signified, notwithstanding that the Bill has not been before the other House of Parliament." The House of Lords would then have no power of expressing any opinion upon it or considering it. That is the proposal. The advantage of the Government proposal is three-fold, although the Noble Lord attaches no importance to it. The Government view is that we should disturb the existing constitutional system as little as possible. In the second place, if the Bill is sent to the House of Lords, in ninety-nine cases out of one hundred the House of Lords will pass it.

§ Mr. REMNANT

Under the Amendment it does not go to the Lords at all.

§ The PRIME MINISTER

That is exactly the point. What I am arguing against is the proposal that the Finance Bill should not go to the House of Lords at all.

§ Mr. REMNANT

I understood that, but the right hon. Gentleman said, in reading it, "and sent up to the House of Lords at least one month before the end of the 1866 Session." If the Amendment is carried that will be left out altogether.

§ The PRIME MINISTER

I admit that. I apologise. We are talking about the difference between sending a Bill to the House of Lords under the limitations proposed by this Clause and not sending it to the House of Lords at all. In the first place, we make the minimum of disturbance with existing constitutional practice. In the second place, the House of Lords in all probability will pass the Bill. It always has done so, and most likely it will do so again. The Bill will go to the country with the joint assent of both Houses of Parliament. Perhaps the Noble Lord (Lord Hugh Cecil) attaches no importance to that. In the third place, even when the House of Lords refuses to pass the Bill, is it to be said it is no advantage whatever to have a debate there, considering the manner in which that House is constituted and the eminent persons who take part in its deliberations? We are constantly being told that is the real reservoir of political wisdom and ability. Is it to be said that the country is to deprive itself of the advantage of hearing the financial proposals of the Government discussed and reviewed with all its vast resources of dialectical skill. I do not go so far as that. On the contrary, it is very desirable that we should preserve in the House of Lords the powers it already possesses, and that we should not plunge into revolutionary innovations in our Constitution unless abundant reason is shown for doing so. As regards the only other point raised by the hon. Gentleman—namely, the later Amendment of his own—I need not point out that it will be quite out of order to discuss that at this stage. It is an alternative proposal. It assumes that Finance Bills do go to the House of Lords, and it gives the House of Lords a new power of suggestion, as distinguished from Amendment, which would bring Bills back to this House for further consideration. We can discuss that point if and when the Amendment is reached. It is sufficient for present purposes to say that the Government is proposing the least possible disturbance of our existing arrangements which is consistent with the assertion of the uncontrolled supremacy of this House in all matters of finance.

§ Mr. BALFOUR

I really should like to know what place the word "revolution" fills in the right hon. Gentleman's vocabulary. He informed my hon. Friend Mr. Hope) that this was the most revolutionary proposal ever made in this House.

§ The PRIME MINISTER

No, no. I said "yet made in this discussion."

§ Mr. BALFOUR

I suppose by "this discussion" the right hon. Gentleman means the discussions which have been going on for the last two or three years?

§ The PRIME MINISTER

To-day.

§ Mr. BALFOUR

There has been no proposal to-day. If it is the most revolutionary proposal yet made to-day, I quite agree. The proposal which we have discussed at great length, though very important, is not revolutionary. No doubt it is possible to deal with the Constitution in a more revolutionary spirit than at all appeared on the face of the Instruction which occupied the earlier part of this afternoon's debate. In truth, my hon. Friend's proposal, whether it be good or bad, may deserve many epithets, but it certainly does not deserve the epithet "revolutionary." The right hon. Gentleman is passionately attached to the existing forms, which he seemed to think only carry with them that the House of Lords and the eminent persons in that Chamber may make speeches, but may do nothing else with regard to finance, and he has taken this opportunity of reiterating the amazing doctrine, for which he has made himself responsible on more than one occasion, that the House of Lords have at present, under our existing system, no constitutional right whatever to reject Money Bills. That is really a profound delusion on the part of the right hon. Gentleman. Quite apart from party purposes, I understand and agree with those who say the House of Lords has not the power of amending, but certainly has the power of rejecting Money Bills. There can be no doubt whatever. It is perfectly true that that power has never been exercised since 1860 because in that year arrangements were made by this House, not with a view of preventing the House of Lords from rejecting Money Bills, but with a view of preventing the House of Lords dealing with part of the financial proposals of the year without dealing with the whole of them, and no doubt if you put, as since 1860 you have put, the House of Lords in the position of either leaving alone or rejecting in toto the financial provision of the year, of course the constitutional power which they possess is one which must be exercised on the rarest possible occasions. I really do not believe that any impartial student of our constitutional history can doubt that that is the true interpretation 1868 of the development of our Constitution in regard to the power of the House of Lords over Money Bills. That power has not been exercised for amending purposes for more time than is worth considering now. When it could be exercised in the form of rejection of a part of the financial schemes of the year, of course it was much easier for the House of Lords to use that power. The House of Commons made it extremely difficult for the House of Lords to use that power, and, having made it more difficult, of course the result is that it has been very rarely used and ought only in cases of extreme necessity to be used. Whether 1909 was a case of extreme necessity is, of course, open to dispute. Hon. Gentlemen opposite may think the Budget of that year was of so ordinary a type that the House of Lords ought to have let it go through as all other Budgets have gone through since 1860. I think the House of Lords would have been failing in its duty if it had not referred to the people so very exceptional and so very remarkable a departure in the finance of the country. However, that particular point may be disputed, and I cannot conceive why the right hon. Gentleman should have raised it on this Amendment, to which it appears to be only remotely relevant.

What we have to discuss now is whether we shall retain these forms which the Government propose to leave to the House of Lords, and which my hon. Friend (Mr. Hope) proposes to withdraw from them. To withdraw these powers is not revolutionary—it is absurd to call it revolutionary—but in my judgment it is not expedient, and I should be sorry to see these forms withdrawn from the House of Lords, not in the least, because I think the proposal of my hon. Friend is revolutionary, but because I think the possession of these forms by the House of Lords on a Money Bill might, in certain very easily foreseen circumstances, be extremely useful. Supposing this Clause passes, as I most earnestly hope it will not pass in its present form—supposing, in other words, it is left to the Speaker of this House alone to decide, after a Bill has gone through its stages here, whether it does or does not contain tacking provisions, I think it is an excessively bad proposal, but if the Amendment is carried there would be no opportunity for reviewing the decision of Mr. Speaker, which may have the most far reaching consequences, beyond the sphere of the House over which Mr. Speaker reigns, stretching perhaps into the life of 1869 every man and every commercial institution of the country. The House of Lords, if your Clause passes, will have no power of rejecting the Budget, but they will have the power in debate of showing that the Budget, which has been decided by Mr. Speaker to be purely a financial measure, is nothing of the sort. They will be able to show that it goes far beyond the limit of a purely financial measure, and it may be that, as the result of their debates, the Government themselves might think it worth while to modify a scheme, the unconstitutional character of which has been thus exposed. That is only one illustration, though I think a very important one of the sort of advantages which might still accrue, even under this Clause, to the House of Lords, if you leave with them the power of surveying the Budget. I do not take so low a view of the effect of discussion in Parliament upon public opinion as some critics of our Parliamentary institutions are disposed to do, and even if the House of Lords retains the constitutional power which it now possesses of referring great new financial departures to the constituencies, debate in that House upon some great issue, in which the whole country is interested, cannot fail to modify and mould public opinion. In these circumstances, though I think the epithet "revolutionary" is probably the last epithet which the Amendment really deserves, I am disposed to think that this Clause will not be improved by the modification which my hon. Friend suggests.

§ Lord HUGH CECIL

After what has fallen from my right hon. Friend I do not desire to press the Amendment on the Committee, but there are one or two points which deserve attention as a matter of Debate. The Prime Minister seems to suppose that because a power is not exercised for a number of years it is non-existent and, whether existent or not, is of no importance. That is a profound misconception. This House has never exercised in the whole course of its history the power of rejecting an Appropriation Bill. Would he say it is desirable that the passing of an Appropriation Bill should be taken as a matter of form? It is obvious that the existence of a power, even, may be a valuable thing. It may check proposals being introduced. It remains in the background, a security against scandalous and unusual abuses of the power of this House, and for that reason I regret that, whether in the hands of the present House of Lords, to which 1870 there are objections, or in the hands of a more popularly constituted body, there should be no financial power. Some financial check on this House will ultimately be found to be necessary.

But the important objection to the Government proposal, though I quite agree with the weighty argument my right hon. Friend has put forward, is simply that it is an untruthful proposal, which makes believe that you have a security when there is no security. In the language of the late Lord Salisbury, it erects a rotten fence on the edge of a precipice, against which people may lean, and, leaning, fall over. Lord Rosebery, in a memorable metaphor, said the Bill was like hamstringing a horse and entering it for the Derby. If you are cruel enough to hamstring a horse, it is better not to enter it for the Derby. To see it limp round the course is unseemly and merely an exercise of cruelty. However, my right hon. Friend thinks the House of Lords limping round the course will produce an effect on public opinion, and it is possible that it may show the inhumanity of the hamstringing to which it has been subjected. From that point of view no doubt there is a good argument against the Amendment, but I think the Prime Minister's speech was a revelation of his point of view. What he cares about is the clothing of the Constitution—the seemliness, the pretence, the unreality—that is what he values. The real power of the Second Chamber he does not value at all. He does not value it because it is inconvenient to the party he leads. Because the thing is merely pretence, he likes it for the purpose of throwing dust in the eyes of the public among other useful functions. My hon. Friend's Amendment shocks his constitutional sense, and he rebukes him for being revolutionary. The right hon. Gentleman's conception of a sound Constitution was what the late Mr. Carlyle would have called a thing which depends elaborately on pretence. The right hon. Gentleman wants one House managed by the guillotine in the interest of the Liberal party, and another going through mere forms. I quite agree that my hon. Friend's Amendment, if pressed, would shut out other Amendments, and there is so much weight in that that I do not think he should divide the Committee upon it.

§ Sir F. BANBURY

The Prime Minister says this proposal is the most revolutionary that has been made in this discussion. It is the most honest proposal made 1871 since the Bill was brought before the House. I say so because it says what will happen if the Clause is passed. The Prime Minister objects to the Amendment because it is going to get the clothes off the Government and the party opposite. That is exactly what I want to do. I want to take the clothes off hon. Gentlemen opposite. That would have a startling effect upon the electors of this country. My hon. Friend, like myself, is a businesslike person. We both dislike shams, and therefore my hon. Friend says, "This Bill is going to take away from the House of Lords their power to alter or amend a Money Bill. Take away their power to debate, and do not let them sit in the gilded Chamber discussing nothing at all, or only subjects which are not to be affected by their discussion." He says further, "Let the House of Commons say whether a Money Bill is for the good of the country or not." I was rather surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that he likes to hear speeches.

§ The PRIME MINISTER

I did not say so.

§ Sir F. BANBURY

I thought he did. I apologise. I see where I made the mistake. He said he liked speeches in the House of Lords where he cannot hear them. He does not like them here. Why does he not like to hear speeches in this House? There would be only one advantage apparently if this Amendment were carried. My hon. Friend desires to allow this House to send up a Money Bill once. "Alice in Wonderland" said, "If I say a thing three times it is so." Why does not my hon. Friend say, "If the Liberal party pass any Bill three times it must become law." When passed the first time Parliament can be prorogued to meet on the following day. It can then pass the Bill a second time, and prorogue again. In the third Session it would become law. Then we shall all be happy, and hon. Members opposite will be able to indulge their love of legislation. I share with my hon. Friend the desire to reject, if possible, every Clause in this Bill, but if we are going to have a Bill let us have an honest one. Let the Government say to the country, "In our opinion we are the only people who ought to have any power in legislation." That may be a very laudable ambition for them, but my business instincts prevent me from supporting such a proposal. I think it is a sheer waste of time. I think my hon. Friend has done a 1872 very valuable service in bringing forward the Amendment. If his speech is reported it will show clearly that he wishes to be straightforward and honest.

§ Viscount MORPETH

The Prime Minister said that it was desirable that the Second Chamber should be able to express its assent. I wonder if that commends itself to hon. Gentleman below the Gangway on the other side. What is the value of being able to assent if a person has no power to dissent. If a slave had power to assent to his sale that power would have no value if he could be sold contrary to his will. The power of assent by the House of Lords is a thing to which not the slightest attention would be paid by this House or Government. It seems to me that the pretence is not worthy of the Government of a constitutional country. The Prime Minister attaches great importance to discussion. Personally I attach no importance to discussion where it is not accompanied by any power to act. Everyone who has sat on a Consultative Committee knows it is the most weary thing that has ever been known. The Committee has power to make recommendations, but no power to enforce them. I assure my hon. Friends below the Gangway that I dislike unrealities. If this were to be a permanent. Bill I would say that the unrealities had better be swept away. On the other hand, if it is not to be permanent, I would say that before we part with realities we should know what is to be done. If the realities are left, some control to the Second Chamber may be restored. When this Government are no longer in power and others have taken their places, the very forms which are left may be utilised to restore what has been destroyed.

§ Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY

I think the Committee is very much indebted to the hon. Member for bringing forward this Amendment. The discussion of it has led to a remarkable speech by the Leader of the Opposition. The Amendment itself is based upon the proposition that this Bill is intended to establish Single Chamber Government. That is entirely denied by the right hon. Gentleman, who has admitted that the mere power to discuss a Finance Bill in another place is a valuable possession. I build upon that a fortiori the argument that the power of discussion and revision contained in the Bill will be valuable also under the second part in 1873 relation to ordinary legislation. Therefore early in this Debate we have got the admission that this Bill does not set up Single Chamber Government, but leaves powers to the other place which are valuable. I hope I shall have an opportunity of saying later on that that admission carries the right hon. Gentleman a little further with the powers which are left to the other place. I think I am speaking for other hon. Members on this side of the House as well as for myself when I say that the powers so retained or left to the other Chamber instead of being too shadowy or too vague, are rather too large to be entrusted to that Chamber.

§ The CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member is not dealing with the Amendment before the Committee.

§ Mr. CAVE

I cannot help pressing a little further the metaphor of the Prime Minister when he said that the Government proposed to leave to the House of Lords their clothes. There is a story in Hans Andersen which relates that there came at one time to a town people who gave out that they were going to make clothes of such wonderfully thin texture that no one could see them except people who were wise. What followed was that they went through the gesture of making clothes, and they sold like wildfire. Everybody bought them and admired them, until one day a little child came, and, looking at them, said, "Why they have got nothing on." Then the whole fraud came out. It came out that these people had been trading on the credulity of others. In this case the Government are conferring power like the merchants in these clothes. My hon. Friend takes the part of the child, and is frank enough to say, "If this Bill passes there will be no clothes at all." I think the Amendment is useful as showing that the Bill is, in fact, a sham. Those who pretend to leave under this Bill any powers whatever to the House of Lords are only misleading this House, and it would be better, if possible, to have reality in the Bill, and to say that no Money Bill can go to the other House at all. The Prime Minister said in terms that the Upper House has now no constitutional right either to reject or to amend a Money Bill. I venture to differ entirely from that statement, and I think he is the first Minister and this is the first Government who have said it in this House or elsewhere. I need only refer to Mr. Gladstone, who said in the clearest possible terms——[An HON. MEMBER: "He is dead."] Mr. Gladstone's 1874 reputation is not dead. There are many in this House, mainly I think on this side, who have still some reverence for what Mr. Gladstone said on constitutional matters, because in these matters no one was more Conservative in the best sense of the word than Mr. Gladstone. On 5th July, 1860, he said that the House of Lords had the right both to reject and to amend. What he said was this: that, in fact, the two Houses meant the same thing:— The House of Commons by its privilege with respect to Money Bills has meant to reserve to itself the integrity of the taxing power, and the House of Lords, by declining to admit the claim of the House of Commons, has intended to preserve to itself an effective means of preventing the House of Commons from forcing upon it other matters of general legislation under cover of Money Bills. Mr. Gladstone was not the only one, because Lord Morley, in very recent times indeed gave utterance to sentiments something of the same kind. I have his words here:— The bare legal right (to reject the Budget) has not been denied. Some, no doubt, and I do not know that I would quarrel with them, would argue that the bare legal right may, on certain occasions, be appropriately transformed into a moral duty. Yes, but I can imagine a state of things—I can imagine it with difficulty—which would justify the transformation of a legal right into aspect of moral duty by reason of the wildcat proposals of a demented House of Commons."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th November, 1909, cols. 1140–1.] That admits the constitutional rights in an extreme case. That is all that anybody can look forward to. I think it right to protest against the view as things stand that there is this constitutional bar, and if you are going to define a Money Bill in the wide terms of this Clause, I should strongly oppose the restrictions of the House of Lords further in this matter. If you are going to restrict the House of Lords against interfering only with—to use the old word—Bills of aid and supply, that is one thing, but under the terms of this Clause the Government will be able to bring in, without any check whatever, without even the check of delay, proposals which may alter the whole aspect of this nation. I am glad my hon. Friend moved this Amendment, because it will enable us to know, though, of course, we knew it before, but it will expose to the Committee what this Clause really does, namely, to remove, so far as these matters are concerned, all power whatever from the other House.

§ Sir HENRY DALZIEL

I do not think we can congratulate the Opposition on the skill with which they have selected the Amendment of which they are taking their first stand. The hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down described the Bill which we are discussing as a sham.

§ Mr. CAVE

I did not say the Bill was a ham. I said that the Bill would make the House of Lords a sham.

§ Sir H. DALZIEL

Then there is some reality in the Bill itself. I only refer to that in order to describe this Amendment, and to say that if this Amendment is not a sham then I do not understand what a sham is. Hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House have been denouncing the very extreme character of the proposals of the Government in regard to finance, and the limitation of power of legislation on the part of the House of Lords, yet here we have them to-day-occupying a great amount of valuable time of the Committee in supporting an Amendment which will go a great deal farther than any proposals which the Government have made. In effect the intention of this Amendment is that a Finance Bill cannot go to the House of Lords at all. How many of them will have the courage to vote for that in the Division Lobby? They have brought it forward for discussion, with no real earnestness of intention of pressing it upon the House.

§ Lord HUGH CECIL

The Amendment has been brought forward in order to expose the character of the Government Bill.

§ Sir H. DALZIEL

Are we to understand that the attitude of the Conservative party is simply to expose the policy of the Government? I think that that policy will stand any exposure, but we are now to understand this, that in exposing the policy of the Government you bring forward proposals of your own that have no reality as far as you are concerned. Those who talk of exposure have no belief in their own proposals, and they have not the courage to vote for them in the Division Lobby. This is, in my opinion, a good proposal, and but for the argument put forward by the Prime Minister as to leaving the existing state of things to some extent as they are, with regard to the machinery of Bills passing from this House I certainly would have advocated this Amendment myself. If we mean, as I presume the Government do that in future the House of Lords shall have no power in regard to finance then I contend there is a great deal to be said for the view that we might send the Finance Bill direct from the House to the Throne to receive the Royal Assent. That is the purport of the Amendment which the hon. Gentleman has moved. If 1876 they care to go into the Division Lobby in favour of that with any real earnestness I shall certainly support him. So far as I can see, the Amendment is only put forward with a theoretical, but not very useful object, because they have not the intention of voting for it in the Division Lobby. Unless it is unanimously rejected I shall vote for it in the Division Lobby.

§ Sir R. FINLAY

I think that the speech to which we have just listened shows rather less than the sense of humour which is said to be possessed by natives of the country to which the hon. Gentleman and myself both belong. I consider that this discussion has been extremely useful in showing up the real character of the Government proposals. What the Government propose is this, to leave the people under the impression that they have a Second Chamber, and I say that the simulatum of a Second Chamber is a great deal more dangerous than the absence of a Second Chamber altogether. The Prime Minister talked about constitutionality and about the danger of revolution. But he is carrying out a revolution. I absolutely differ from the right hon. Gentleman when he asserted that this Clause merely embodied the existing law of the Constitution. Of course, I do not intend to enter on that subject at the present moment, but no one who looks into the precedents can assert that the proposition laid down by the right hon. Gentleman is a correct statement of the law upon the subject. This proposal is revolutionary, because it deprives the. House of Lords of any right to deal with Bills of this class, while at the same time it proposes to leave the country under the impression that that right exists by leaving to the House of Lords the power of discussion. The Amendment moved by my hon. Friend has been extremely useful in unmasking the real character of the Government proposals, and having unmasked the Government proposals, I think that my hon. Friend will be of opinion that the whole purpose of the discussion has been served, and that any one who is capable of appreciating that ridicule is sometimes the best way of combating dangerous proposals will agree that he was well advised in moving this Resolution.

§ Earl WINTERTON

The hon. Knight the Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Sir H. Dalziel) mentioned the other day, I think, in a speech in the country that when he sat on this side of the House he delayed business with more artistic flavour than 1877 those who sit here now. All I can say is that he has lost that art since he went to sit on that side. I must protest against the assumption which is apparently held by him and his friends that it is not for the Opposition to bring forward an Amendment in order to obtain a discussion, and an answer from the Government, and not to go to a Division. I never heard such an argument before. I think we shall have had a most useful discussion on this Amendment if we can get an answer to a question which I now propose to put to the Government. There is a point which I think has been hitherto missed in the course of this discussion. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister in the course of his speech was good enough very wisely to refer to a head shake of mine on the subject whether or not a Money Bill could be discussed if this Amendment is carried. This is a point which I think is very clear. There is nothing whatever, and there cannot be in this Act anything that will prevent the House of Lords from discussing anything they want. Nothing that the Government can put into this Bill can affect the power of the House of Lords to discuss money or any other Bill. As I understand my hon. Friend's Amendment, it is that these Bills shall be presented to His Majesty and become an Act of Parliament, the Royal Assent being signified notwithstanding that the Bill has not been before the other House of Parliament. The point I thought made admirably by my hon. Friend which has not been taken up is this: Are you going to say that the House of Lords is in future to go through all the action of discussing the Bill? Is the Chancellor to rise upon the Woolsack and ask the "contents" and "non-contents" to signify their approval or disapproval, and is all the form to be gone through when they know perfectly well that by going through it they will gain absolutely nothing and that they have neither power to give assent to or dissent from the Bill. In this Amendment there is nothing to prevent them discussing it, but, as I understand it, the point of my hon. Friend's Amendment is to prevent the hollow mockery being gone through of this Bill being brought to the other place and their assent being asked for when it makes no difference what they do. The junior Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Keir Hardie) said on 7th April, 1910:— They are not to have the power to amend the Bill, nor to reject it, nor to suspend it. Why send it to them? Why make two bites at, the cherry? Why not say emphatically here and now that the House of Commons is supreme in finance, and so show that in practice as well as in theory by sending the Finance 1878 Bill direct to the Crown, without going to the House of Lords at all?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th April, 1910, col. 705.] That is exactly what the Government propose to do. They propose to make these unfortunate gentlemen whom they have sent in such confusion to the other place Viscount Morley, Viscount Haldane, and all the rest of them—give their time and sit in the House while they are being asked whether they are in favour of the Bill, and, whether they say Yes or No, it will not make the slightest difference on the question of whether the Bill will become law or not. If that is not a mockery I do not know what the meaning of the term is.

§ Mr. GUINNESS

The hon. Member for Northamptonshire quoted the words of the Leader of the Opposition as admitting that discussion of financial provisions on the part of the House of Lords would be valuable, and the hon. Member said that, therefore, there would be still a two Chamber system. But the point we are making is that under the new powers, though the House of Lords may have opportunity of discussing, they would have no power of revision; there would not be an opportunity for the House of Lords to do so, even if they thought fit. For that reason the Prime Minister was not accurate when he said that this Clause leaves the House of Lords in the position in which they have always been. Of course, he was alluding to the fact that it is very rare for the House of Lords to reject the Finance Bill; but he seems to forget that it is a very common occurrence for the House of Lords to put Amendments in Money Bills which are often accepted.

§ The CHAIRMAN

What has this got to do with the Amendment before the Committee?

§ Mr. GUINNESS

My point is that under the present proposal of the Government there will be no opportunity here for considering Amendments which have been made in the House of Lords by consent.

§ The CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member can deal with that point in a later Amendment. A question upon it was asked of the Prime Minister, who said that this was not the time to deal with it. It arises on a subsequent Amendment, and therefore the hon. Member is out of order.

§ Mr. GUINNESS

May I ask the Prime Minister to deal with this question? He said that the House of Lords would have power to discuss Money Bills. May I ask whether they will have any opportunity of 1879 making Amendments, and whether the House of Commons will have an opportunity of reconsidering the matter after it has been discussed in the House of Lords?

§ The CHAIRMAN

I must point out that we cannot discuss these questions over and over again. There are later Amendments which raise the point. A question was put to the Prime Minister in regard to it, and he refused to deal with it now because it comes on at a later stage. I think, therefore, the hon. Member should wait until we come to that Amendment.

§ Lord HUGH CECIL

The Prime Minister stated that the situation of the House of Lords under the Government proposals will be left as it has always been, but we show that it is changed, suggestions made by the Lords cannot be sent down to this House for consideration.

§ Mr. GUINNESS

May I point out that the House of Lords has very often amended Money Bills, and those Amendments have been accepted. May I quote the ruling of the Speaker on the occasion of the Old Age Pension Bill:— Almost every year, certainly very frequently this House does not insist upon its privilege. It accepts amendments, and in sending a message to the other House the statement is made that this House does not insist upon its privilege. My point is that the position of the House of Lords will not remain the same under this Clause, and for that reason we are perfectly entitled to resist it. We have seen the House of Lords making Amendments to Money Bills with the consent of the Government, yet the House of Commons under these proposals will have no opportunity of taking those Amendments into consideration. What will be the effect? The Bill will go to the House of Lords, and there will be no means of reconsidering it here, unless the Government withdraw it, prorogue Parliament, start a new Session, and reintroduce it. If there is to be no power of reconsideration, though it might be of merely drafting mistakes in Money Bill——

§ The CHAIRMAN

This is really dealing with a later Amendment, and the hon. Member is arguing a point which does not rise upon the Amendment before the Committee.

§ Mr. CLAVELL SALTER

I hope the hon. Member will restrain his impatience. I fancy that we had better all arm ourselves with a certain amount of patience considering the magnitude of the enterprise upon which we are now entering.

§ The CHAIRMAN

I must ask the hon. Member to speak to the Amendment before the Committee.

§ Mr. SALTER

I will endeavour to do so, Sir. A more legitimate Amendment than that which my hon. Friend has moved was never placed before the Committee of this House, and if only because of the speech elicited from the Prime Minister, a speech which appears to me to contain a tacit admission of the profound sense the Prime Minister has of the value of the cooperation of the House of Lords in matters of finance in any Constitution. If my hon. Friend does not press this Amendment to a Division it is no