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

§ Mr. JAMES HOPE

On a point of Order. I wish to say that I last night put down an Amendment covering the point which I wish to raise, and it does not appear upon the Paper.

§ The CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member is quite entitled to move his Amendment.

§ Mr. JAMES HOPE

I beg to move in Section (1) after the word "If" ["If a Money Bill"] to insert the words "in any future Parliament."

Whatever may be said of the provisions of Clause 2 of this Bill, un-doubtedly the provisions of Clause I have not been understood, nor publicly argued or properly discussed, as I think I shall be able to show. With regard to Money Bills, the contention of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite has always been that the House of Lords by desuetude have waived all right to reject a Money Bill, and that during the period from 1860 to 1909 no Money Bill was rejected. Again and again it has been pointed out that when the House of Lords rejected the Budget of 1909 they set up a principle that could not be maintained, because the Government would then be dependent on the will, not of one House, but of two Houses. All the discussions which have taken place in the country and here turned on that point, so far as Money Bills are concerned. This was the breach of Parliamentary continuity which was alleged when the Budget of 1909 was thrown out, and it was said that this was a dangerous precedent for the Government. When you examine this Bill you find that it contains provisions which go far beyond the arguments that have ever been addressed to this House or to the country. It would not be in order to call attention to the merits of the Clause, but it is in order, and necessary for my argument to call attention to the scope of the Clause. If you read the latter part of the Clause you will find that a Money Bill means something very different and very much wider than it ever meant before these Debates, and than it ever meant when it applied to former usages of Parliament. Going back to 1860 to the famous controversy about the Paper Duty, of course that was a Money Bill, and the Finance Bill of 1861, which was debated by 2018 the House of Lords, and which they consented to pass, was strictly referring to the finances of the year. But a Money Bill under this Clause may mean not only the finances of the year, but any Bill which is founded upon a monetary basis, even though, as I would submit, it only affected rating. To make my contention clear, I will read the defining words:—

"A Money Bill means a Bill which, in the opinion of the Speaker of the House of Commons contains only provisions dealing with all or any of the following subjects, namely, the imposition, repeal, remission, alteration, or regulation of taxation; charges on the Consolidated Fund, or the provision of money by Parliament; Supply; the appropriation, control, or regulation of public money;——"

That goes far beyond anything that was understood to be a Money Bill

"the raising on guarantee of any loan or the repayment thereof——"

That possibly might mean a loan by some local authority or an authority like the Port of London or the County Council

"or matters incidental to those subjects or any of them."

I am perfectly certain the significance of those words was not understood in the country at the last General Election or at the preceding General Election. I have taken the trouble to examine the principal Acts that have been passed by this House since 1896, and I find that there is hardly one of them which either did not come within this definition or which, with a little ingenuity on the part of the draftsman, might not have been made to come under it. In the year 1896 there was passed the Agricultural Rating Act, which was undoubtedly a Money Bill under this definition. In 1897 there was the Voluntary Schools Act, undoubtedly a Money Bill under this definition. The Workmen's Compensation Act was not a Money Bill, but it might have been made so if a contribution had been given by Parliament, as will be the case in the Invalidity Insurance Bill. In 1898 the Irish Local Government Act was not based on a Grant, but a Grant was involved in it, and if that Bill had been so drafted that the Imperial Parliament, for the sake of relieving the rates in Ireland gave a certain grant, and if it were arranged that the persons to administer that should be elected by the different county councils, and if provisions were inserted as to what should be the share of 2019 the local authorities, then that would be a Money Bill under the words "matters incidental to." In the next year there was the London Government Act, which could have been drafted in the same way, and would have been a Money Bill as "matters incidental to." In 1900 there was the War Loan, which clearly was a Money Bill, although it involved a large question of policy. In 1901 there was the Civil List Act, and in 1902 there was the Education Act. That, as drafted, undoubtedly was not a Money Bill, but there again a large grant from the Exchequer was involved, and the whole of the rest of the structure could have been made to depend on it.

§ The PRIME MINISTER

I rise to a point of Order. The Amendment is that this Clause should not come into operation until some future Parliament. I venture to submit that what the hon. Gentleman is saying as to the definition of a Money Bill has no relevance whatever to that proposition.

§ Mr. JAMES HOPE

My argument was this. That authority is claimed for this Bill as having been brought in as a result of two General Elections, and I wish to show that the significance of this Clause has not been appreciated or understood, and that the arguments with regard to Money Bills have been founded on a neglect of the true provisions of this Clause. Therefore it is necessary to my argument to show that the Clause does contain matter, the merits of which I will not now discuss, but which has not been hitherto generally understood. I do not propose to go into the merits of the definition, but simply to show what the definition is.

§ The CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member must confine his argument to showing that the operation of this Clause ought to be delayed until after the next General Election. He must not discuss the merits or discuss the question of how far the electors might be supposed to understand or misunderstand this Clause, except with the view to bringing that argument to bear on the Amendment. I concluded that was what he was going to do, and he must carry that out.

§ Mr. JAMES HOPE

I shall be able, I hope, to carry it out. I ran through the Acts of a Session, merely as an example of what the Clause did contain, and which it certainly has not been supposed, either in this House or in the country, to contain. 2020 I can go further and give Bills later than 1902. There was the Irish Land Purchase Act of 1903, the Licensing Act of 1904, and the Education Bill of 1906, which could have been framed in the same way, and also the Irish Councils Bill and the second Education Bill, and of course the Old Age Pensions Bill, and the third Education Bill, and the Development Bill of last year. In all the arguments that have been used throughout the country, this question of the Money Bill has been put in a secondary position, and I quite agree if a Money Bill under this Clause was as it was understood, under the ancient usage of Parliament, that it would be in a secondary position. As I ventured to argue yesterday, a Money Bill as here defined means any Bill that is founded upon the control of public money whether apparently from the Exchequer or the rates. Therefore, it could be made to comprehend three-fourths of all the general legislation of the country. I am perfectly certain hon. Members opposite cannot contend that that is what was intended. They have always devoted their arguments to the necessity for some check on the House of Lords, but at the same time fully admitting that there was the need of a revising Chamber. It must come as a shock to them if it can be proved that three-fourths of the legislation at least can be passed without any revising Chamber at all. I do not say passed in the best way or in the convenient way, but the measures can be so drafted that three-fourths of the subjects of legislation can be passed without coming under the purview of a revising Chamber. That, I submit, has never been understood, and it has never been explained to the electors and to this House, and it would be a presumption against all the facts of the case if authority can be claimed for this Clause, and I do not think it can be claimed for the Bill at all, on the ground that it has been understood and approved by the people of the country. Therefore if this Clause is to be persevered in by the Government, they must be able to show that a Money Bill means the old Money Bill as understood formerly.

§ The CHAIRMAN

That does not arise on the Amendment we are discussing. The hon. Member is discussing the Clause itself; he must make his remarks relevant to his own Amendment.

§ Mr. JAMES HOPE

My point is, that at the last election this was not understood, and was not appreciated by the country, 2021 and the Government had no right to obtain the authority of the country. In common fairness they should allow this matter first to be threshed out in Parliament, and not to attempt to force it through until it has been explained, and until they are able to show that they have the authority of the electors for it.

§ The PRIME MINISTER

After a long experience of Debates in Committee of this House, I do not think I ever heard a speech in which the arguments bore so little relation to the proposition. The hon. Gentleman's speech has been entirely confined to criticism of the language and the effect of Sub-section (2), a Sub-section we have not yet reached, and I do not know when we shall reach it, but which, when we do reach, I shall be perfectly prepared to discuss. What is his proposition? His proposition is that this Clause shall not come into effect until after a new Parliament has been elected. We are really repeating the experience of yesterday. Last night we spent four or five hours in discussing a proposition that the operation of this Clause should be confined to the next three years, and now the hon. Gentleman, after all that time has been spent, solemnly gets up and invites us to discuss another proposition that the Clause shall not come into operation until after this Parliament, which is an exact replica of the discussion we had in an earlier part. Those contrary propositions are successively put forward by the same people and voted for in the same Lobby, although it is quite clear, if one is true, the other must be false.

§ Mr. JAMES HOPE

If the right hon. Gentleman had accepted yesterday's Amendment perhaps there would have been no necessity for this.

§ The PRIME MINISTER

I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for that ingenious explanation. My answer is a very simple one of one sentence. This country and the electors of this country, if they determined anything at the last election, determined that in this Parliament we should assert the supremacy of the House of Commons in all matters of finance. That is my answer.

§ Mr. BALFOUR

It is a very bad answer. The whole of my hon. Friend's argument is this: That under the phrase, "Everything connected with finance," the country, which in the right hon. Gentleman's view supported this at the last election, were not aware that this Bill meant 2022 not merely Budgets, not merely what in ordinary discourse would be described as the financial arrangements of the year, but all the innumerable things which would appear to come within the very wide ambit of the definition of Sub-section (2). All the answer the right hon. Gentleman has got to that is that the country did understand this Bill in the light of Subsection (2).

§ The PRIME MINISTER

I did not say so.

§ Mr. BALFOUR

What is his argument then? If that was not so he will forgive me for saying, with all respect, that he cannot appreciate the point made by my hon. Friend. What my hon. Friend said was, "You try to ram this Bill down our throats on the ground that it has been before the electorate twice." That means, and it can only mean, that the electorate have been thoroughly seized of all its bearings and all its provisions. My hon. Friend then points out that under Subsection (2) it is quite obvious that the people have not been seized of it in all its bearings and in all its provisions. Therefore, he argues, that you ought not to act as if this Bill or this Clause had received the general assent of the electorate; because, although the electorate may very likely have given their assent to the broad proposition that the House of Lords should not be allowed to interfere with Budgets or Appropriation Bills or with the strictly financial work of the country, the public has never understood that this Bill was intended to make it possible for the House of Commons to call anything a Money Bill and pass it over the heads of the Lords within one month of its reach the the Upper Chamber. That argument does not deserve the treatment the Prime Minister has chosen to mete out to it. He seems to think there is a wonderful inconsistency between the arguments advanced to-night and those advanced last night. The policy on which the Amendment of last night was based and the policy recommended by the present Amendment are perfectly consistent. The contentions of last night and of to-night, taken together, are these: that you ought within the next three years to bring in your scheme for dealing with the House of Lords, and you ought not to frame your Bills in the guise of Money Bills so that, although they are not really Money Bills, the House of Lords has nothing whatever to say to them. Those are the two points urged last night and to-night. Will any human being say that they are inconsistent? The right hon. 2023 Gentleman has taken advantage of a mere verbal point to suggest that those who support this Amendment will be acting contrary to the intentions which animated their arguments last night. That is wholly inaccurate. The two policies are perfectly consistent, and they are both right. The Government ought to bring in their reform of the House of Lords within the next three years, and they ought not to stretch the circuit of Sub-section (2) so wide by the use of such phrases as "the regulation of public money," "matters incidental," and so on, that they could include all those Bills mentioned or indicated in the speech of my hon. Friend. I entirely agree with what I understood to be the ruling of the Chairman, that it would be extremely inconvenient to discuss on this Amendment the very complicated subject that will arise on Sub-section (2), but I do not think that my hon. Friend was open to the charge that he was dealing with those matters which will have to occupy the time of the Committee later on. The point now raised is much broader. Granting that Sub-section (2) passes in its present form, acting on that hypothesis, as he is bound to do, until the Government make any declaration to the centrary, my hon. Friend's interpretation of Sub-section (2) is that it might take in an enormous number of Bills which the country believed would come under Clause 2 and not Clause 1. I believe he has rightly interpretated the view which the country took of Clause 1. I think there was a feeling—in my judgment a mistaken but a genuine feeling—that the House of Lords had gone beyond their propoer constitutional functions in referring the Budget of 1909 to the popular vote. The comman view of the public is that this Clause is intended, and intended solely, to prevent a recurrence of that action. That is how the Clause was interpreted, naturally enough, in all the broad presentments on popular platforms. Will anybody contradict me on that broad statement? Will any Member deny that what the party opposite really aimed at and what the public believed they aimed at in this Clause was the prevention of a repetition of the rejection of a Budget or anything in the nature of a Budget? If we are to read this Clause in the light of Sub-section (2), the electors who voted for hon. Gentlemen opposite never for one moment intended to express the view that everything which could be dragged in under that Sub-section was to be dealt with as a Money Bill, that in regard 2024 to them the Second Chamber should be prevented from exercising even that control which it has under Clause 2, and should be allowed no more power of delay than that of one month which they have in regard to Money Bills. I think my hon. Friend was well advised in bringing forward this Amendment, but he has received very scant courtesy from the Prime Minister, who has distinctly failed to understand the perfectly legitimate argument which my hon. Friend addressed to him.

§ Mr. WALTER GUINNESS

The Prime Minister was so much concerned with the alleged irrelevance of the mover of the Amendment that he did not in any way deal with the merits of the proposal. The Government apparently attach extraordinary importance to the function of delay. Surely, in view of what they have said of the value of delay, they sought to justify their refusal to grant such delay as would afford a reasonable opportunity for the electors to change their minds on the most far-reaching change in our financial procedure ever brought before Parliament. I will not discuss the limits of Money Bills, as the Prime Minister says that that point is irrelevant; but I think my hon. Friend dealt with it very fairly. According to Members of the Government, themselves, the Government have no authority for putting through a matter of this importance as a result of so inconclusive a General Election as the last. I could quote many speeches, but I will content myself with a quotation from a speech by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, delivered so recently as November last. He said:— He had always taken the view that in regard to constitutional questions there ought to be an over whelming opinion in favour of a change before it carried be carried into law. Constitutional questions ought to have the overwhelming support of the masses of the people before——

§ The CHAIRMAN

I do not see that that point arises. The Amendment proposes that there should be another election. There is nothing in it about the size of the majority.

§ Mr. GUINNESS

My point is that I want another election. If the last election but one was not conclusive, I do not see how the last election, which gave the Government a smaller majority, was any more conclusive. But I bow to your ruling, and will not pursue the point further. The Government suggest that the House of Lords should have power to delay for two years ordinary matters of legislation. If it is 2025 right that they should be able to hang up for two years a matter of merely local interest, perhaps a private Bill promoted by a county council, surely there is every reason why they should be able to suspend this matter until the electors have had an opportunity of considering it in all its bearings. It is no answer to say that the Resolutions have been before the House. Many Bills are dealt with in general terms by Resolutions, and it is well known that vague principles have often passed muster in the House of Commons and been endorsed by the country, but have absolutely broken down and been repudiated by the people when the Government came to grapple with the details. One might compare the present position with what happened in regard to the first Home Rule Bill. Mr. Gladstone got the support of the country to the outlines of his Bill before the election of 1885. It was only when ho filled in the particulars that he came to grief. He talked of preserving the unity of the Empire——

§ The CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member must make his remarks relevant to the Amendment.

§ Mr. GUINNESS

I was referring to the experience of a Government which obtained the general assent of the country to the broad principles, but broke down over the details, and I was making a comparison which I think is absolutely on all fours with the position to-day. I think it is relevant to show that just as Mr. Gladstone, when he came to frame his Bill, was unable to carry out his Midlothian pledges as to preserving the unity of the Empire, so the Government are unable to restrict their changes in the financial relations between the two Houses in the way broadly laid down at the General Election. The field has been very much extended since then. As by your ruling I am not allowed to make any comparison with the past, I will only say that the matter is of such importance that the country ought certainly to have an opportunity of considering it with the details embodied in the clauses of a Bill; they ought not to be committed to this particular proposal until it has been thoroughly thrashed out in Committee and they have had an opportunity of declaring their opinion, not merely on the broad principles, but on the essential details which must make or mar a measure.

§ Sir F. BANBURY

The Prime Minister said that this question was discussed for 2026 some hours yesterday, but I submit that there is a considerable difference between three years and the next General Election. Three years is a fixed period, but the next election might, for all we know, come within three months, and what my hon. Friend suggests is that this proposal should then become operative and not before. If the Amendment were carried, the country would have an opportunity before the next election of making themselves acquainted with what the Bill proposes and with what it will actually do. I say it will be a very great advantage.

§ The CHAIRMAN

The hon. Baronet is talking about the Bill. This Amendment deals only with this Clause.

§ Sir F. BANBURY

I was endeavouring to confine my remarks to this Clause, which is a revolutionary Clause, because hitherto the other House has always had the opportunity of rejecting Money Bills. Therefore, this is a very considerable change. But I apologise if I have alluded to the Bill instead of to the Clause. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite urge that the country has determined that this Clause shall become law within this Session. I say that the country has done nothing of the sort. What the country did undoubtedly was to give, in some cases, a sort of mandate that there should be some alteration of the financial relations between the two Houses, but it never gave any mandate for this particular Clause. I do not really see what harm would be done if this Clause was postponed until after the next General Election. Certainly, the Prime Minister brought forward no reason why this Amendment should not be accepted, unless it is that, having a chance majority, and fearing that when the people came to understand this Clause they will not have it, he is taking advantage of his majority to pass the Clause. The House should have some further explanation from the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary or from the Chancellor of the Duchy (Mr. Joseph Pease), who, on a former occasion, made some enlightening remarks upon this Bill. I would like to draw attention to some remarks made by the Prime Minister on the somewhat similar occasion in this House on the 5th of April of last year:— That the resolution would have to be embodied in the Bill, and that it should have a second reading stage, a Committee stage, a Report stage, and third reading, and will receive as full discussion as the House can give it. The present action of the right hon. Gentleman is against the spirit of the 2027 statement which he made in the House of Commons last year, and which, of course, we all accepted as his statement of what would be carried out.

§ Lord HUGH CECIL

It is, of course, not possible—to reply to the misapprehension as to this Amendment—to discuss any amendment to a Clause without pointing out what the Clause means. You must understand what a Clause means in order that you may form a judgment upon the merits of the Amendment. This is an Amendment for, in effect, referring this Clause to the people. It provides that this Clause is not to come into effect until the people have had an opportunity of pronouncing upon it. I myself do not think that a General Election is the ideal way of referring such matters to the people. I should prefer a system of Referendum. For this purpose, however, for the present occasion, it is only possible to move a reference to a General Election. No one, I suppose, imagines that in this present Parliament disagreements about finance are likely to arise between the two Houses. The precaution the Government is taking I have not the least doubt, and doubtless they have not the least doubt, has reference to future Parliaments. We do not really suppose, at least we may hope, that financial proposals in the near future will be as controversial as in 1909. At any rate, the Government, I suppose, do not imagine that the majority in the House of Lords again during this Parliament will take the course they did. Therefore there will be no practical loss or injury in adopting the Amendment. It would have the advantage of giving the people the opportunity of pronouncing upon the merits of this Clause before it came into effect. I think it is true that this Clause has not been sufficiently discussed by the country. It is hardly possible by platform discussion to bring out the details of Parliamentary proposals. That was one of the great inconveniences of the course pursued by the Government in hurrying the last General Election. The country did not have the opportunity of seeing what really it would be called upon to pronounce judgment upon. Had we been through, as the Prime Minister in his earlier speeches seemed to indicate, this Clause word by word and line by line, as we are going through it now, then the last General Election would have carried very much more weight than possibly it can at the present time. So that my hon. Friend is 2028 entitled to say that there is a strong case for deferring the operation of this Clause till after a General Election. It is silly for the Prime Minister to treat this proposition with contempt. The Government are apparently preventing their supporters from speaking. That is part of their respect for the House of Commons, and part of their idea of the value of the House of Commons discussion. Nobody except hon. Members on the Front Benches opposite are to be allowed on that side of the House to take part in the Debate. Happily, we are so far free from that position, and are able to urge our points one by one, and we urge that this particular Clause should be referred to the people before it becomes law.

§ Mr. G. J. SANDYS

It appears to me that the whole question of this Parliament Bill would be very much settled and simplified if the Government would see their way to accept the Amendment which has been brought forward. I think that every reasonable person will agree that the contention which has been made by the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University that the people at the time of the last election were not in a position to thoroughly appreciate the true significance of this Bill is one that can hardly be denied. The election which we have just passed through, and in which, according to the testimony of the Government, so many mandates were received from the people, was not one in which important constitutional measures could be in any way adequately discussed. I am perfectly certain if a national settlement of this constitutional difficulty is ever to be arrived at it can only be obtained after another General Election, distinctly fought upon this issue, and upon this issue alone. By this method we shall be able to place before the people the true significance of this Parliamentary Bill.

§ Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS

I think the Government may very fairly and safely accept this Amendment. It is not likely, as the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University has reminded the House, that during the present Parliament there will be introduced between the two Houses any matters of contention about money matters. May I remind the Government of what took place in the House of Lords last year. Lord Lansdowne said:— In regard to this provision about Money Bills, the Lords are prepared to forego their constitutional rights to reject or amend Money Bills which are purely financial in character, provided that effectual provision is made against 'tacking.' In view of that statement, if there is no "tacking" in a Governmental Money 2030 Bill right hon. Gentlemen opposite may be perfectly sure that that Bill will go through the other House. If they do "tack," well, of course, it will be another matter! The Government may be perfectly sure that during the present Parliament the House of Lords will not reject a Budget—which is only a Budget! The acceptance of this Amendment will give the people during the next three years the opportunity of expressing their opinion.

§ Viscount HELMSLEY

The Prime Minister, in answer to my hon. Friend who moved this Amendment, laid great stress on his statemnt that this Amendment was precisely contrary to and paradoxical with the one moved last night. I venture to think that is a superficial answer, because if one looks at the Amendment closely it will be found that the principle underlying it is the same as that of last night, and that is a principle which the Government always ignore, namely, that the people of the country ought to be consulted. If the Amendment moved last night was carried, the people would be consulted at the end of three years. Now it is proposed that the Clause should not come into operation until the new Parliament, roughly in about three years. The Government do not ask whether the people want the Clause to come into operation or not. If they had consulted the people on the principle of the Clause, one could understand their refusing this Amendment. The Government profess to believe in the theory of mandate to justify their action. They say they had a mandate from the country at the last election. Surely when it is alleged, as it was alleged this afternoon by us, that this Clause does not carry out their mandate it rests with them to show that it does, but they have not attempted to do anything of the kind. They are tame and dull this afternoon. They will reject this Amendment in the same humour and in the sam effective manner as they propose to reject all other Amendments. We are entitled to point out that, as a matter of fact, this is only one more example of the imposture imposed upon the electorate at the last General Election. The Government did not like the word "fraud" when used by the Leader of the Opposition at the beginning of the Session. I have no doubt they will get accustomed to it in the course of these Debates, or if they do not get accustomed to the word they will become accustomed to the feeling. Perhaps they have already become accustomed to it. No one will deny that this Clause does 2031 not carry out what the people of the country were led to believe would be carried out. It goes much further, and, as a matter of fact, I do not see what necessity there is for the rest of the Bill if this Clause is carried as it stands.

§ The CHAIRMAN

That has nothing to do with the Amendment under discussion.

§ Viscount HELMSLEY

I was pointing out, with all respect, how important this Clause is and how essential it is that its operation should be postponed to another

§ Mr. JAMES HOPE

Moved on Sub-section (1), after "a" ["If a Money Bill having been passed"] to insert the word "public."

§ The CHAIRMAN

This Amendment is not in Order here, but should come in on Sub-section (2).

§ Mr. JAMES HOPE

On a point of Order, Mr. Emmott, I submit this Amendment is a proposal to limit the operation of this Clause to public Bills, and I submit certain private Bills, such as corporations attempting to get certain borrowing powers or the like, would under the definition, be included. I submit that there would be a difficulty in raising this point later on.

§ The CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member may raise it on Sub-section (2).

§ Mr. REMNANT

May I draw your attention, Mr. Chairman, to Standing Order 44, where a distinction is clearly drawn between public and private financial measures. That being so, would it not be in order for the hon. Member to move his Amendment specifying that this is a "public" Money Bill.

§ The CHAIRMAN

As I have already pointed out, that question can be raised on Sub-section (2), and that is the right place to raise it. A Money Bill can be confined to a public Money Bill on Sub-section (2).

§ Mr. POLLOCK

May I draw your attention, Mr. Chairman, to the Amendments standing on the Paper to leave out the word "money." I think we ought to have a definition of what a Money Bill means. If we leave the words "Money Bill" in, it will be difficult to argue the point on Sub-section (2). 2036 There is an Amendment standing in my name to leave out the word "Money,' which I wished to move, in order that we may get a full definition of what is meant by the word "money" in Clause 1. It will be very difficult later on to get a definition of a Bill which has already been established by the House to be a Money Bill.

§ Viscount HELMSLEY

I wish to draw your attention, Mr. Chairman, to the Amendment standing in my name to leave out the word "Money." If you rule that I am not able to move my Amendment now I may not get a future opportunity.

§ The CHAIRMAN

There may not be any future opportunity of getting rid of the word "Money," but a Money Bill can be defined in Sub-section (2), and it can be dealt with there.

§ Lord HUGH CECIL

Evidently it is a matter for the Committee to determine whether a Bill shall be called a Money Bill or not. How can we decide that point if we do not omit the word "Money"?

§ Mr. LAURENCE HARDY

This is a new term which the House of Commons has not known before. In all Resolutions dealing with finance it has always been called a Bill of Aid or Supply. The term "Money Bill" is entirely new, and I think it is competent for the Committee to say whether they are going to engraft the term "Money Bill" upon financial legislation.

§ The CHAIRMAN

I still adhere to my opinion. We have been discussing in the Amendment already dealt with what we are to do with Money Bills. In Sub-section (2) the definition of Money Bill is given, and these points must be left until we deal with that Sub-section. With regard to the 2037 Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for West Derby (Mr. Watson Rutherford) that is a question which can be raised on Sub-section (3), and it will not be in order here.

§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD

The Clause provides that a Money Bill "having been passed by the House of Commons," and so on. What I want to make clear is before that Bill is dealt with, in order to be passed by the House of Commons it should be a Money Bill, because then we should know what we are discussing when we are dealing with Money Bills. It would be in an entirely different category from other Bills. I do not see any other place where we can make it clear that when the House is passing a Money Bill it should pass it as such, and it should be certified to be such before it is passed by the House of Commons upon that footing. That is the point of the Amendment. I respectfully submit to you, Mr. Chairman, that there is no other place but this at which that intention can be conveniently expressed. You have got in the Clause the words "having been passed," and that is a question of time. My Amendment deals simply with the question of time, and not with the question whether the Bill should be certified or who should certify it. The point I am raising is that before a Bill is passed it should bear the imprimatur of being a Money Bill.

§ The CHAIRMAN

I have already ruled that the question dealt with by the hon. Member can be raised upon a later Subsection.

§ Viscount HELMSLEY

Do I understand from your ruling, Mr. Chairman, that in reference to my Amendment to leave out the word "Money" I shall be able to raise it on Sub-section (2)?

§ The CHAIRMAN

Money Bills are limited and defined in Sub-section (2). Amendments relating to their further limitation must be raised upon that Sub-section. I call upon the hon. Member for Oswestry to move his Amendment.

§ Mr. LAURENCE HARDY

Before the hon. Member for Oswestry moves his Amendment I want to ask whether, if a discussion is taken on this rather wide Amendment, it will cut out the discussion later on a qualifying form of Amendments bearing upon the same question. There are several such Amendments standing in the name of hon. Members as well as in my own name. That is a very important 2038 question, and I should certainly desire an opportunity of raising it quite separately from the Amendment now before the Committee.

§ The CHAIRMAN

In all probability it will cut out those Amendments if it is adopted. If the hon. Member desires to move a different form of Amendment at this point he may do so.

§ Lord HUGH CECIL

May I ask that you should cause your ruling to be recorded at the Table, in order that a Motion disagreeing with it may be submitted.

§ The CHAIRMAN

My ruling will be recorded.

§ Mr. BRIDGEMAN

I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "passed" ["passed by the House of Commons"], to insert the words "without restriction of debate."

In ordinary circumstances I should expect a very large measure of support for this attempt to retain some portion of freedom of speech for private Members of Parliament. Hon. Members are aware of the history of the closure, the different defences which have been made in applying it, and the severity with which it has been applied from year to year. During the tenure of office of the present Government the closure has been applied far more rigorously than it was ever applied before. I am anxious to speak against the closure, but if I went into a very long history of what is familiar to most hon. Members of this House I might be providing an argument for the other side instead of for myself. I will content myself by merely stating that I believe everybody in this House will agree that the closure has become more and more severe during the last five years, and that, whether we like the closure or not, there can be no dispute about what I have said on the point. I think hon. Members will agree with me when I state that wherever it is possible to avoid the closure and the guillotine it is desirable to do so. I think that hon. Members will also agree with me that in reference to any financial questions which the representatives of the people have always been free to discuss the guillotine should, if possible, be eliminated altogether. So far I think we are all agreed. I think most hon. Members will agree that when the power of amending a Money Bill is taken away from the other Chamber there is a still greater necessity that it should be fully discussed 2039 in this Chamber. Nobody will dispute that proposition.

Lastly, if these Money Bills are to be Money Bills in the restricted sense, which hon. Members opposite tell us they will be, and if they are strictly confined to raising taxation and entirely free from tacking, then the reasons for curtailing debate will be much smaller than they would be in regard to Finance Bills combined, as they have been lately, with matters foreign to finance. As a matter of fact, the only time in which we have had a very long debate upon a Finance Bill has been the occasion when the Government thought fit to introduce legislation which they could not introduce in any other way than in the form of a Finance Bill. If these Bills are purely Money Bills and purely connected with finance, then the closure and the guillotine will be much less necessary than it ever has been before. Apparently these propositions are agreed to by all sections of this House, and under ordinary circumstances I should expect a very large number of hon. Gentlemen opposite to follow me into the Lobby in favour of this Amendment. I am afraid that on this point they are not enjoying the same liberty which the hon. Member for Somerset told us they were enjoying on the Preamble, which they were allowed to look upon in any way they liked. The Government and their supporters have been going about the country making bombastic speeches about passing this measure without the alteration of a comma, and having the whole Bill and nothing but the Bill. That is a very good illustration of their desire for free discussion in this House. Before this Bill has been discussed here they go about the country saying, "we shall accept no amendments," and consequently they are making discussion here absolutely useless and futils. What is the use of anything being discussed in this House if every-thing is to be pushed through, and if no amendments are to be accepted, however much hon. Members desire them. The Government seem to consider themselves in the position of Ulysses when he was trying to pass the syrens without giving way to their attractions. Those who sit behind them have had their ears and indeed their mouths closed on this subject. The Government, like Ulysses, have tied themselves as well as their colours to the mast, and, although they condescend to listen sometimes to what is being said, they very seldom answer and never agree, 2040 however much they might wish in their conscience to do so. They are not really very much like Ulysses, because Ulysses after all, having seen the cities of a large number of men and having mastered their ideas, used that experience when he came home. The Government, if they have seen the customs and constitutions of cities and countries, certainly have not taken much advantage of their experience, because they are trying to impose on us a system which no civilised country of the world has thought fit to adopt. Therefore, however right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on our Front Bench may be regarded as syrens, a great compliment to their personal and vocal attractions, let me say that, so far from desiring to lure hon. Members opposite on the dangerous rocks, our desire is to put them on safe ground and on ground which has been regarded as safe by their own party for many years past. If they persist in being suspicious of what is said by hon. Members on this side of the House I will refer them to some of the speeches of Members of their own party. The hon. Member for North Salford (Mr. Byles), who I feel certain has absented himself from this discussion for fear of having to allow his principles to rule and to be obliged to support my Amendment, spoke very plainly and very well on this subject on 15th June, 1909, when he said:— The use of the guillotine is one which affects the efficiency and Credit and almost the existence of the House of Commons. …There are two main objections to these guillotine resolutions. One is, they tend to put too much power in the hands of the Executive, and to take too much power out of the hands of the House of Commons, and the evil is they inevitably afford justification for the interference of the Upper House in the decisions arrived at by this House. …It is impossible to justify condemnation of the House of Lords, if Bills are pushed through this House without ample opportunity for private Members of this House."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th June, 1909. cols. 889 and 891.] You are taking away any control of the House of Lords over finance, and therefore it is impossible and unfair to insist on the use of the Closure in forcing a Bill through the only House where it is possible to discuss it with any advantage or effect. If the hon. Member for Salford is not a sufficiently high authority on Constitutional questions, although he has been a great champion of free speech in this House, let me refer to Mr. Bryce, who, I suppose, would be regarded even by hon. Gentlemn opposite as an authority on Constitutional questions. He said in this House, in 1889:— I believe, generally, there is a strong feeling in the country that the House of Commons ought not to have the sole charge of the interests of the nation. The introduction of the Closure, and the way in which the 2041 Closure is worked, makes this House a totally different body from what it was before, and renders it necessary to provide safeguards against the danger of precipitate action which did not exist in 1884. If Mr. Bryce chose to bring his remarks up to date, how very much more forcible he could make them in view of the great—

§ The CHAIRMAN

We cannot discuss the question of the Guillotine in general. This is a question of Bills with which this Bill deals, and the hon. Gentletman's remarks ought to be relevant to them.

§ Mr. BRIDGEMAN

With great respect, my quotation related to the point of my Amendment. If we are to have Single Chamber Government for financial questions, then the Guillotine and Closure should be avoided in this House. With great respect, I think it is perfectly in order to illustrate my point by a quotation from a high authority. I am satisfied you will agree with that, and I certainly will confine myself to the Amendment, as I think I have done up to this moment. If that was the case then, still more is it the case now when the Guillotine is being used so much more freely. We have not only the old forms of Closure, hut we have the Kangaroo and other innovations, which make that point all the stronger. If the right hon. Gentleman will not listen to reason, whether it comes from their own side or from ours. I will ask them not to go about the country claiming they are passing this Bill in order that the will of the people may prevail. I should like to remind them of an instance we have only just had of this way of dealing with the Finance Bill. No one can say that Clause 10 of the Revenue Bill was according to the will of the people. It was the exact opposite the Government themselves had promised, and the people wanted the opposite. The Government, by means of the Closure and by means of methods for which the Prime Minister is not responsible, but for which the right hon. Gentleman next to him (Mr. Churchill) is responsible, brought it on for discussion, first of all at a time of night when no discussion was possible, and, secondly, the guillotine was used in such a way as to make it absolutely impossible to discuss it on the Report stage.

§ The CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member is in Order in referring to the guillotine, but he cannot reflect upon the Closure adopted on that occasion.

§ Mr. BRIDGEMAN

My Amendment is to have no restriction of Debate, and I should have thought I was entitled to 2042 argue that the use of the guillotine on the Finance Bill a few nights ago is a very good illustration. I say the guillotine was used so that it was impossible to debate the Clause on the Report stage. That shows how possible it would be for any Government to force financial measures through although they were absolutely contrary to the wishes of the people, and contrary even to the pledges the Government had given to the people. I must also quote in this connection a speech which the Prime Minister himself delivered on 11th April last year in this House. He said:— There are conceivable and indeed actual cases in which the decision of the House of Commons does not necessarily and perhaps does not even presumptively express the opinion of the people. You might have a case, a conceivable case, of what is called a scratch majority coming together under the coercion of Party exigencies for a particular and transcient purpose."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th April, 1910, cols. 896–7.] It is to avoid that which is so present to the mind of the right hon. Gentleman that I move this Amendment. It is to make it impossible for party exigencies to overrule the will of the people and to make it impossible for Finance Bills to be passed through this House by means of the guillotine and never to have any discussion of any effect anywhere else. The Government are claiming, not that the will of the people should prevail, but that they, as a Cabinet, shall have the power of forcing through this House, without proper discussion, and with no effective discussion in the other House, Finance Bills which affect the liberties and the property of every citizen.

§ Dr. HILLIER

On a point of Order. May I ask whether the Amendment which immediately follows will be in order if this Amendment is dealt with? I would venture to point out that it practically covers this Amendment. It is another alternative. It reads: "Either without the application of the Closure, or after Debate of not less than twelve Parliamentary days in all on the different stages of the Bill."

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. J. H. Whitley)

I will deal with that question when it arises.

§ The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Churchill)

The hon. Member who moved the Amendment devoted a good deal of his speech to the subject of the guillotine, but the Amendment which he asks the Committee to accept is not limited to guillotine procedure. The proposal which he commends to the Committee is that the powers of the 2043 House of Lords to reject a Money Bill shall be be operative over any Finance Bill in the course of which a single application of the Closure has taken place. A Government might be confronted by obstruction so persistent and so prolonged that it would be impossible to finish the measure upon which the whole of the supply of the Public Service for the year depends, within the limits of a Session of Parliament, and perhaps within the limits of a financial year. If a Government were to apply the Closure on a single occasion, no matter how grave the provocation or how urgent the public necessity, then the House of Lords would be invited to exercise the power which, as is well known and as has been abundantly stated, we on this side of the House deny that they have had effectively for generations, and which certainly they have not used, except on the disastrous occasion for them, in 1909, within the currency of the present generation. The position in which the Government would be put would be either that its Budget might be destroyed by obstruction in the House of Commons, or else that it might be rejected in the House of Lords. It is only Liberal Governments against whom these inconveniences would operate. There would be no danger when hon. Gentlemen opposite were in power, because, having a friendly Assembly to support them, any use of the Closure they might find it necessary to make to carry the schedule of a Tariff Reform Budget would be leniently and indulgently viewed by the great majority which support them in another place. It would only work against Liberal Administrations, and it would expose Liberal Administrations either to be stale-mated by obstruction in the House of Commons or to have the whole finances of the country pulled about their ears by another rejection of the Budget by the House of Lords. I need scarcely say that it is not possible for the Government to accept this Amendment. The position which we adopt is the old position which this House has always adopted. We affirm the old practice, and I cannot put that practice better than in the words of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition when he said, "It is the House of Commons uncontrolled which settles our financial system." It is the House of Commons uncontrolled which settles the procedure by which its own debates are conducted. It is unthinkable that the House, at this time of day, should consent to allow 2044 another body to be the judge and censor of any procedure it may think it necessary to adopt in the course of public business. We agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is desirable to avoid the guillotine in debates, and it is especially desirable to avoid it, and, indeed, to avoid any form of closure in regard to finance. But is there any reason to think, from the past records of this House, that it cannot be trusted to consider these matters gravely, according to the importance of the issues with which they are dealing.

I do not propose to enter into any controversy as to the Budget of last year. We threshed that out ad nauseum in the different debates on the subject during the spring. I think everybody's opinion is made up on whichever side of that controversy. But let the House go back to the two most memorable Budgets of modern times—the Budget of 1894 and that of 1909. The 1894 Budget was carried without any application of the closure at all. Although a wicked Liberal Government Administration was in power, and although it had but a very small majority to fall back upon, it carried it through without the closure. The controversy over the Budget of 1909 must be fresh in our memories, and no one can doubt that the temptation to apply the guillotine and closure must have been present to the minds of many hon. Members who sit on these benches. No form of guillotine or closure was, however, applied to that Budget because the opinion of the supporters of the Government, and of Ministers themselves in charge of the Bill, was against the application of such procedure to a measure of such financial importance and of such diversity. That shows very clearly that there are real safeguards for the security of the House of Commons which do secure fair and reasonable discussion in debate for important measures.

§ Mr. MALCOLM

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us why he proposes to follow the procedure of 1894 and 1909.

§ Mr. CHURCHILL

I do not quite understand the point of that question. I was simply showing the House what had been done on notable occasions in the past, when full and ample discussion had been given to novel provisions in the Budget. We have no intention of taking away from the House of Commons any power it has hitherto possessed. We claim the right to control our own Debates and conduct our own procedure in our own way. We are not going to surrender any right, and least 2045 of all those rights we have long enjoyed which are most obviously within our proper authority.

§ Mr. WALTER LONG

The right hon. Gentleman finished his speech in a very different tone to that which he adopted at the beginning. He found fault with my hon. Friend for moving the Amendment, because he said it proposed to exclude not merely the guillotine but the closure, and he went on to say that persistent obstruction on the part of the Opposition was calculated to paralyse the Government and to prevent it passing its legislation unless it retained these powers. I do not think this Amendment would have been put down if it were not for the fact that the Government has departed from old traditions. Right hon. Gentlemen have given us recent instances of their desire and their intention in this Debate to use a system of closure quite as destructive, and therefore when the right hon. Gentleman points to the past and says the House is entitled to remember how it did its work on the Budget of 1894, we cannot admit that that entitles him to ask us to reject this Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman also dwelt upon the obstruction which he said was being indulged in, and he indicated that the Government would be prepared to do all that was necessary in order to get their legislation through. What is the main justification for the Amendment which has been moved. It is that the present Government have indicated their intention to largely use the powers of Closure in this debate. I believe, without any exception, these extreme powers were never employed by the Leader of the Opposition when he sat on the other side of the House; they were never used except when without them it was found impossible to make progress with the Bill. The present Government have not only used their forces more frequently, not only have they made their Closure regulations more violent, but they have used them for their own defence without waiting for any such evidence of obstruction as that to which I have referred. On previous occasions, when we have been confronted with a Resolution for taking time, hon. Gentlemen opp