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

§ Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON

I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words, "at least one month before the end of the Session" ["Sent up to the House of Lords at least one month before the end of the Session "], and to insert instead thereof the words, "on or before the thirtieth day of June in any year."

The effect of the Amendment, if it were adopted, as I hope it may be, will be to substitute a fixed date at which a Money Bill must be sent up to another place. It would substitute the fixed date on the thirtieth day of June for that somewhat nebulous and indefinite quantity which is represented by the words "the end of the Session." I attach no especial value to the precise date which I have set down in my Amendment, and if there should prove to be any disposition on the Treasury Bench to consider this Amendment with any favour, I shall be quite ready to meet them and to change the time by a week or so, or perhaps a fortnight or so, upon either side. I say that to make my bona fides clear in the matter. What I am concerned about is that there should be a fixed date. I think it is about the right time of the year that I have chosen for a fixed date. In the first place, it may be objected on the Treasury Bench that Supply does not close until 21st July under the ordinary procedure, and that, therefore, it is the invariable practice to have the Appropriation Bill in the month of August. In case that objection is made 2221 the reply is at once obvious to the Committee and to every Member, that, as in the past, in future any controversy which arise between the two Chambers, will arise not upon the Appropriation Bill or any Bills of that kind, but upon Bills dealing with the remission or alteration of taxation on which controversies have, and indeed can and will arise, and therefore any argument drawn from the fact that the Appropriation Bill is to be introduced in the month of August hardly touches the question. I submit, looking at Money Bills as a whole, they are strictly regarded, in the first place, as Bills dealing with questions of taxation; in short, with what is known as the Finance Bill or Budget. I submit from every point of view, from the point of view of another place, from the point of view of this House, from the point of view of national finance, some such Amendment as this is urgently desirable.

I think it is desirable from the point of view of another place, because under the Government proposal they are to have a month in which they are to consider or discuss any Money Bill which is brought forward. I think the discussion on the subject of a Money Bill in another place is likely to be conducted more efficiently and with greater benefit to the community at large if it is not driven into being conducted in the dog days. I come to the consideration of the convenience of Members of this House. I submit from their point of view it is most urgently desirable that some fixed date, either in the month of June or before the middle of July, should be introduced into this Bill. Every Member knows what happens in an ordinary Session; every Member who is listening to me knows that, as the years go on, the tendency becomes greater and greater towards a state of things in which this House more or less marks time for some weeks at the beginning of the Parliamentary Session, and that at the end of July or the beginning of August the pressure is very great. I do not think that it either conduces to good business or to the health of Members. From that point of view I think this Amendment has a good deal to commend it. There is still more to be said from the point of view of Members of this House. If this Amendment were adopted it would go far—I do not say it would go entirely—to making it less necessary to have resort to what I personally regard as an abominable practice—the practice of holding Autumn Sessions. I do not know that I would be in order in discussing that 2222 question at any length, but I will merely state that I believe the practice of holding Autumn Sessions to be bad from every point of view. It is bad from the point of view of the Government, because Ministers can no longer get the time to attend to their Departmental affairs which they ought to have.

I am sure it is bad from the point of view of Departmental efficiency, and especially from the point of view of legislation, because when the Parliamentary draftsman has to sit constantly under the Gallery during an Autumn Session it is impossible, and it has been proved to be impossible as the Government know perfectly well, in the last few years, for him to be ready and in a forward state of preparation with the drafting of Bills for the next Session. There is a third reason, although of less importance, not without a certain amount of weight. I think the practice of holding Autumn Sessions bad from the broader, the more national and more Imperial point of view, because the very fact of an Autumn Session makes it impossible for Members who are anxious to be here, and in their places for the conduct of public business, to pay visits to other countries and to our own Colonies. I think it very important that every Member of the House should have time and opportunity to visit those places, and I submit, from that point of view, that a fixed date is desirable. From the point of view of national finance, which is the strongest reason of all, a fixed date such as I propose is not only desirable but absolutely necessary. The last few years have brought us an entirely new precedent in the history of Budget legislation. I say nothing about the circumstances of last year, because the Government may plead in extenuation that the circumstances of last year were peculiar. This year, at all events, no such excuse is open to the Government. I submit that, if the circumstances of those years, and if the practice which the Government are now carrying out, are to be regarded as a precedent, there is very great danger in regard to our national finances. I have been unable to discover any precedent for delaying the Budget beyond the month of April, or the beginning of May, ever since the year 1852, and the circumstances in that year, as every Member knows, were entirely exceptional. I do not believe there is a precedent, and I am perfectly certain that this precedent that the Government are now creating is a thoroughly bad one. It is a practice which would not be tolerated 2223 for a moment in any private business. Every company which is created under Statute is under statutory obligation every half-year to publish balance-sheets and estimates of expenditure. If those things be good for statutory companies, which are, after all, the creatures of Parliament, I submit that from every point of view they are good for Parliament itself. I believe the practice of past years to be a healthy practice. I believe it can be continued, that this Amendment would ensure that it would, and I submit it in consequence to the Committee.

§ The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel)

There are many objections to the Amendment of the hon. Member, but there are three which I believe will be considered by the Committee to be fatal to it. In the first place, the hon. Member has argued as though the only Bills which were within the purview of this Clause were Finance Bills. Whatever may be said with regard to measures which are on the border line of Money Bills, it is quite certain that the Appropriation Bill and the Consolidated Fund Bill are Bills which are clearly and distinctly Money Bills, and that any Clause dealing with Money Bills must also contemplate those measures, as well as the main Finance Bill of the year. The House of Commons, in asserting its rights as against the other House as regards Money Bills, should clearly not insert any date which would render the application of the principles laid down to the Consolidated Fund Bill and to the Appropriation Bill impossible. As the Committee is well aware, it is customary to have one Consolidated Fund Bill towards the very end of the Session and to have an Appropriation Bill also towards the very end of the Session. The fact of accepting this Amendment would be, so long as the sittings of the House remain in the period of the year in which they are now, to take those Bills entirely out of the scope of this Clause. Therefore the Amendment, although in form a very humble and modest proposal, really involves a great departure from the whole principle of the Clause.

The second objection is this, that it might be found to be altogether impracticable in certain cases, so far even as a Finance Bill is concerned, within the date specified. The classic instance of that is the Finance Bill of 1909, from the rejection of which this Clause has largely and 2224 mainly originated. That Bill, as the Committee are well aware, and as those are best aware who had share of its conduct in this House, was before the House for many many months, and did not pass from this House until the winter. Let us imagine a similar circumstance recurring in the future. In that case the House of Lords would be free to reject again a Bill precisely similar to that of the Budget of 1909. not because it was not a Finance Bill, not on any grounds of policy at all, but solely because the Bill was so large in its scope, and was regarded as being so controversial in its provisions, that the House of Commons was not able to dispose of it until winter. Obviously a proposition of that kind could not be accepted and embodied in this Bill. The third reason is that the House of Commons in the future may think fit to revise altogether the period of the year in which its sittings should be held. Already voices are heard suggesting that we should rise in the late spring, or possibly in the month of May, for the whole of that period of the year when there is some probability at least of fine weather, and that the whole of the sittings should be concentrated into the time of the winter months. If a proposition like the Amendment were embodied in the Parliament Bill this year, the hands of the House would be tied by that statutory provision, because it might be that the 30th of June, or whatever date would be fixed, would be totally unsuitable for the conditions which would arise if the House decided to re-model the period of its sittings. For those three reasons, any one of which would, I think, be regarded by an impartial man as being conclusive against this Amendment, the Government ask the Committee to reject it.

§ Mr. HARRY LAWSON

No doubt the objections of the Postmaster-General are good, as far as they go, but they are only good as far as they go. The truth is that all this comes from trying to legislate in tabloid form and to fix the British Constitution far more than it had ever been fixed before without considering the different cases that are bound to arise under this reform, or under this altered state of things. It is quite true, of course, that cases will arise which, under the Amendment as now proposed, would make this Clause unworkable, but, I submit, that it is unworkable because there has not been full consideration, and because there is an attempt in a very few words for the first time to sterotype by statute Parliamentary 2225 practice. There is no elasticity allowed, and we are going to fix a Constitution against all the advice of the experts who have ever written about or considered it, in a few words, without allowing such elasticity.

§ The CHAIRMAN

That is not in order. The hon. Member is not speaking to the Amendment. He is speaking to the Clause.

§ Mr. HARRY LAWSON

This is an Amendment to the Clause. I venture to submit that it is very likely unworkable, so far as the Postmaster-General has pointed out, and I am afraid, because the words proposed to be left out, as well as those proposed to be inserted, do not provide, and cannot provide, for the cases that are bound to arise in the attempt to stereotype by statute the relations in regard to Finance Bills of the two Houses. I submit that that is the central vice of the whole of this attempt to stereotype and to fix our relations in this way. I believe, though these words may not be applicable, that you must have safeguards, and therefore that if these words cannot be put in it is for the Government to show how we can safeguard the rights of this House, and ensure due consideration of Money Bills under the altered conditions, by putting in words which will certainly effect it more fully than those which now stand in the Bill.

§ Sir FREDERICK BANBURY

The right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster-General gave three reasons against accepting the Amendment, but every one of them I think might easily be got over. As to the Appropriation Bill and the Consolidated Fund Bill, may I remind him that they are practically the same. The Consolidated Fund Bill is only a temporary Bill with the same effect as an Appropriation Bill. The objection as regards the Consolidated Fund Bill could be easily got over by a definition clause, which would define what is a Money Bill, and which would exclude the Appropriation Bill from it. The right hon. Gentleman smiles, and I am reminded of what was said on that by the hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. Bottomley). But let me assure him a definition clause is really necessary. The Appropriation Bill undoubtedly does come at the end of the Session. A Consolidated Fund Bill generally comes early in the Session. We have already had one this Session, but I would point out that 2226 these Bills could be avided by not having too many Supplementary Estimates. The right hon. Gentleman also pointed out that the Budget of 1909 occupied a very considerable time, because it was a very controversial Budget. Why not introduce a controversial Budget on 1st April, and we then would have April, May, and June to discuss it. There is no earthly reason why a Budget, which is one of the most important measures, should be sandwiched in with all sorts of other measures. The granting of Supply was originally the chief work of the House of Commons, and the fact that the Amendment would procure that the House of Commons should devote a greater part of its time to Supply is a matter which I am sure will commend it not only to a great number of Members on this side, but to a very large number of Members on the other side, and to the Prime Minister himself, who has spoken about the great importance of the House of Commons devoting a large portion of its time to the consideration of Supply. I think I have disposed of two of the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman, which my hon. Friend said were good as far as they went, although I do not think they go very far.

The third argument is that possibly we might revise the period of the year in which the House of Commons sits. The right hon. Gentleman must really be very hard up for argument when he brings that forward, because if the period is to be revised what is to prevent a new Bill being brought in which would alter the date suggested by my hon. Friend, and which would make it consistent with the revised period during which the House sits. I think I have shown that though there may be some good in the first two arguments there is absolutely nothing in the third and last. I come to the Amendment of my hon. Friend, which I have much pleasure in supporting. [HON: MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway cheer, but let me remind them it is an ancient custom of this House to answer first the arguments of opponents. It is an old established custom, and one which I hope will be maintained. The Amendment is an extremely good one, because, first of all, it ensures that the Budget should go to the House of Lords at a period when it would be considered by the House of Lords. It is only a short time ago that some of us brought forward a proposal that the Budget should not go to the House of Lords at all, but should go at 2227 once to the country. The Prime Minister refused to accept the suggestion on the ground that the Debates in the House of Lords might be of use. If that is so, it is necessary that there should be a time in which the House of Commons might consider those Debates; but, unless this Amendment is accepted, the Budget might not be passed before the end of July and be sent up to the Lords in September, and then any possible advantage to be gained from reading the Debates in the other House would disappear, because the attendance in this House would be small, and Members would be anxious to get away for the holidays. Therefore, if we really want to treat financial proposals properly, some such Amendment as this is absolutely necessary. I do not say that 30th June is a date which could not foe improved upon. I think it is a reasonable date, but if the Government tell us that another date would be preferable we would carefully consider their suggestion. On the face of it, it does not look a very important Amendment, but those of us who have sat in the House for a number of years and take a real interest in the financial business, and desire that it should be carefully guarded from any attempt at sharp practice on the part of the Treasury, an instance of which we have had during the last few days, ought to support it. I trust that some of my right hon. Friends below me will give us their opinion on the question.

§ Mr. BALFOUR

I think everybody will agree with my hon. Friend in thinking that we have fallen into a very lax practice in regard to the time at which Budgets are introduced into this House. The Prime Minister recently when speaking about the next Budget said that it might be introduced within a few weeks or, I believe he said, months. That the Prime Minister speaking at the end of one financial year should suggest that it might be months before the Budget for the next financial year was even introduced, is a very clear indication of the new practice which has grown up under the present Government—a practice which is inconvenient both from the point of view of finance and also from the point of view of the convenience of the House. But I rise rather to ask a question as to how this Clause would work. It is contemplated, I understand, that Parliament should sit for one month after the last Finance Bill is sent up to the House of Lords. If the 2228 House does not sit for one month, the Clause, as far as Finance Bills are concerned, becomes wholly inoperative; the House of Lords might reject a Budget, and, if Parliament were prorogued before a month had elapsed, that rejection would stand. Is not that so, as a matter of interpretation? I am not sure that that does not illustrate in the clearest manner the great inconvenience which arises from the very wide definition of Money Bills contained in the Clause. I entirely agree that many Bills might be brought in under the definition laid down by the Government which it would be perfectly absurd not to give the House of Lords the fullest opportunity to debate and suggest Amendments upon; but is it the idea of the Government that Parliament should never be prorogued until one month has elapsed after the Appropriation Bill has been sent up? It is quite a new policy. The House of Lords, as far as I know, has never amended or rejected an Appropriation Bill.

§ The CHANCELLOR of the DUCHY of LANCASTER (Mr. Joseph Pease)

If the House of Lords passed the Bill a case would not arise.

§ Mr. BALFOUR

But this is intended to be a limitation of the powers of the House of Lords. Is it the case that Parliament must go on for a month after a Bill has gone up to the House of Lords? I object to the whole provision, but I think we ought to be told whether it is the Government view that if the House of Lords modifies an Appropriation Bill, or any other strictly Money Bill, sent up in August, or in an Autumn Session, possibly shortly before Christmas, prorogation would be impossible for a month. That seems to me to be the proper interpretation of the Clause. If it is not, I should be glad to have an authoritative interpretation, and I will reserve any criticisms on the policy of the Government in this regard until I quite clearly understand what their policy is.

§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL

The answer is very obvious. If a Bill is sent up to the House of Lords less than one month from the end of the Session it does not follow that the Bill would not become law. All that would happen is that this Clause would not apply. The House of Lords cannot be overridden unless they have been given the period of one month proposed to be fixed in the Statute, during which they can, if they so desire, consider the Bill. Should the Bill be sent up to 2229 the House of Lords within a fortnight of the date fixed for the end of the Session, and that date were maintained, the House of Lords could not be overridden under the terms of this Bill. In almost all these cases naturally the House of Lords would pass the Bills which are largely uncontroversial in character. One cannot conceive the House of Lords out of sheer mischief holding up a Bill, and delaying it simply to cause inconvenience, so that the Session might be unduly prolonged. Whatever views we may have of the House of Lords, we have not so low a view of them as that. If, on the other hand, a Bill unexpectedly proved controversial and the House of Lords deliberately and out of policy rejected it or refused to pass it, then the Clause could not apply unless the Session were prolonged, so that a period of one month were allowed.

§ Mr. BALFOUR

That is a very gratifying admission. I thought the whole point of the Government case was that the House of Lords could not be trusted to carry out their ordinary constitutional functions. It now seems that they stand much higher in the estimation of right hon. Gentlemen opposite than I had conceived, and absolute confidence is now shown that they will never use for controversial purposes what the Government think is an uncontroversial Bill brought up at the end of the Session. I am glad to have elicited that admission from the right hon. Gentleman.

§ Mr. PEEL

There are two further reasons why this Amendment should be accepted. One arises from the statement of the Postmaster-General that there are a large number of Bills to which this Clause might apply. This Bill being in the nature of a punitive measure, you ought to give as much liberty as possible to the culprits whom you are attacking. What might happen? There might admittedly be quite a large number of measures coming under the definition of Financial Bills. Those Bills might be run up to the House of Lords just before the beginning of the month, and the mere fact of so large a number of measures being sent up, would in itself prevent any fair or full discussion. For that reason, I think there ought to be some date fixed before which the measures must go up to the House of Lords. The right hon. Gentleman also stated that under the proposed Amendment the Budget of 1909 would have been in great difficulties. That is perfectly true; but under this Clause if it 2230 becomes part of an Act, you will never be able again to have a measure like the Budget of 1909, because everybody admits that that was a tacking measure, and contained a great deal which could not be considered purely financial. I need only refer to the proposed question of valuation, and the question of the Licence Duties. Let us remember that if the later portion of the Clause the attempting to, or defining provision, is left out, your Budget—to make a comparison with 1909—will be very much attenuated, and therefore you are not likely again to have a "tacking" Budget, or one of such very large bulk. Another point is this: When the hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Irish party was speaking about the Budget of 1909, he described it as "not one Budget, but a series of Budgets." I pay very great attention to what so old and experienced a Member of the House as the hon. Gentleman is says. You are not going to have a revolutionary Budget, with four or five Budgets rolled into it at one and the same time, directly brought before this House; and I think we may regard the Budget of 1909 as entirely a unique Budget.

When you are considering how this Clause will work the right hon. Gentleman is falling into that logical error rather common to schoolboys and young persons: that is generalising from a single instance. The right hon. Gentleman is generalising from a single instance. It is hardly likely that there will be any other occasion that a Budget of the vast bulk of that of 1909 and requiring so very much discussion will be introduced into the House of Commons. Therefore the right hon. Gentleman can dismiss entirely from his mind that idea. "Ah, yes," says the right hon. Gentleman, "but that will entirely prevent our altering the time and period of our Sessions." I think that is a very remarkable argument indeed. We may bear in mind what Professor Dicey says in his "Law of the Constitution." In that book there is a long discussion as to the supremacy of Parliament. The very fact of that supremacy is shown in this way: that any successive Parliament can revoke the work of any previous Parliament. Professor Dicey says, very clearly, that that is one of the points about this Parliament. It has those supreme and sovereign powers which are hardly accorded to any other Parliament in the world. Really, in that case the right hon. Gentleman is objecting to our enacting a particular Amendment which would be of great value to this particular Clause, 2231 merely because it may prevent some other change in the future. You cannot legislate merely on the hypothesis of the future. We must legislate for the present. I quite agree there are great difficulties in putting these definite times and places down in a Bill of this kind. But, after all, this is a difficulty in which you must fall when you begin to have a written Constitution. You cannot have one portion of your Constitution written and the other portion unwritten. You will be inevitably led in the direction I have indicated, and this difficulty in the Bill is one of the inevitable signs of it. The same difficulty was experienced by the founders of the American Constitution.

§ The CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member is not entitled to a general discussion, but to discuss the different ways of dealing with the point at issue.

§ Mr. PEEL

I do not want to enlarge upon the American Constitution. I only wanted to point that this is one of the difficulties which you will be led into if you are going to write your Constitution. You will have to go into further definitions. Though I do not agree with the date suggested by my hon. Friend below me, I think he is justified in urging that some date should be fixed in which these financial measures ought to go up to the House of Lords in order that they may have proper discussion.

§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL

May I appeal to the Committee to come to a decision on this comparatively small point, and go on to the next matter?

§ Viscount MORPETH

This House, or some Members of it, have a complaint against the other House, and this Bill is the outcome of that complaint. It is something new to hear that the other House has some complaint of its own which has been expressed by several hon. Members in these Debates. Hon. Members will remember that when the Leader of the Opposition was in power the House of Lords made very bitter complaints that in the very last day or two of the Session whole shoals of Bills went up to their House, and they were asked to debate and decide upon them in the last day of the Session when there was no time, not only for proper discussion, but even for the barest consideration. The same complaint has been reiterated 2232 during the reign in office of the present Government. If I remember aright, the effect of the Debate, I think, the House of Lords found their hands rather tied by the fact that they had acquiesced in the practice during the Ministry of the predecessors of the present Government, and they found it a little difficult to remonstrate with vigour against a practice which they had tolerated from the Ministry of the right hon. Gentleman the now Leader of the Opposition. Under this Bill, supposing this practice is continued, supposing on the very last day of the Session a large batch of Bills goes up to the other House for consideration. Is it so very certain, as the Home Secretary seems to imagine, that the House of Lords will not take the obvious remedy that lies to their hands, and will not use perhaps even comparatively innocent Bills as a means of reprisals upon this House and upon the Government for indulging in a practice to which they object? I think they may, if they do not throw out, at any rate amend somewhat drastically Bills sent up to them, merely in order to secure that they shall be sent up in time to receive proper consideration.

There is this further consideration, without trespassing upon Sub-section (2) which deals with what a Money Bill is. It has already been pointed out that it will include a great deal more than the Budget and that a great deal of the legislation of past years could be included in Money Bills. Under the terms of this Bill the House of Lords would be unable to amend these Bills. The Bills would only have a month's delay, after which they would become law over the heads of the House of Lords. It is not to be supposed that these important Bills will be sent up much before the end of the Session. Things, it is almost inevitable, are rushed at the end. The effect of this Amendment will be that the right to amend these so-called Money Bills will be restored to the House of Lords; that the whole of this category of Bills will be taken out of Clause 1 and relegated to Clause 2. Unless this House, this branch of Parliament, is to remain sitting some extra months, probably with no work to do, simply marking time, in order to afford that month's duration which is necessary to bring these Bills within the purview of Clause 1, the Amendment had better be carried. Sitting further will be not only very inconvenient to this House, but it will give a lesson in unbusinesslike methods and it 2233 will introduce confusion into the Bills that may be amended, and must be amended, by the House of Lords. Bills dealt with in the method suggested by the Government will cause greater confusion and chaos in a written than even an unwritten Constitution.

§ Mr. BARNSTON

I beg to move in Subsection (1) to leave out the words "one month ["at least one month before the end of the Session"] and to insert the words "two months." One reason why I ask the Government to accept this Amendment is that it will affect the Unionist party just as much as the present Government when we change sides. May I suggest a case which might happen? Assuming a very contentious Budget was produced by our side, such as a Tariff Reform Budget. As the Clause now stands, it might be rushed through by the Closure, provided it passes a month before the end of the Session, unless my Amendment or one something like it is accepted. In this way very injurious taxation might become law without having been fully discussed. One object achieved by my Amendment would be that the Budget would be passed at such a time in the Session as would be convenient, instead of being rushed through at the end of the Session. The people would then know what was being done, and they would have an opportunity of letting their representatives know their wishes. In future, however unfair a Budget is produced there will be no other way except defeating it or altering it by popular opinion outside this House. I move this Amendment so that popular opinion may have time to assert itself, and when a Budget in this House has taken its final shape at any rate there should be two clear months, so that the people may have time to think it over. I suggest this Amendment, because there is no other check of any sort or kind in the Bill.

§ Mr. JOSEPH PEASE

The Government have considered the amount of time which ought to be allowed to the House of Lords to review a Money Bill, and we have come to the conclusion that one month would be really ample. If the Committee considers the course of a controversial Bill through this House they will at one realise that the country has ample time to consider what the character of any new taxation is which may be proposed in any Budget. There are so many stages in connection with a controversial Money Bill that it is practically impossible to rush it through the House of Commons. [An HON. MEMBER: "You have done it."] Such a Bill cannot be rushed through without the country having a reasonable opportunity of realising what the new taxation is that is being proposed. The Leader of the Opposition has admitted that 2242 the House of Lords at the present time has no power, whatsoever to amend a Money Bill, and it is really a question of what time should be allowed the House of Lords to review finance as proposed in any Money Bill which may be submitted to them. We have concluded that one month is ample time to review any measure which may be sent to the House of Lords which they have no power to amend, and which they have only the power to reject. The proposal of the Government allowing one month is really calculated to induce a Government to pass its controversial Money Bills not later than one month before the expiration of the Session. To that extent I think it will have a wholesome influence upon the Government of the day. If we were to extend the period to two months, the other House might experience a great deal of inconvenience in getting through the necessary Money Bills before the anticipated end of the Session, and the House of Commons might be called upon to do exactly what the Leader of the Opposition has just condemned—namely, to remain here when we were all anxious to bring the Session to an end, waiting for the decision of the House of Lords to reject a Money Bill. If the other House wish to reject a Money Bill they will have ample time to do it within the twenty Parliamentary days which one month would give them. For these reasons the Government cannot accept the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member opposite.

§ Mr. JAMES HOPE

It seems to be the custom of Ministers to deal with these Amendments as if they referred only to Budgets and Appropriation Bills, but may I point out that this Sub-section applies to an immense amount of legislation in no way confined to Appropriation Bills or Budgets. There may be a variety of measures introduced under this Clause, some of them very long and complicated, which are quite outside the ordinary financial proposals. It is quite clear from the Debate on Monday that the Government contemplate the possibility of discussions which may have important results, because they have inserted into this Clause the words "Unless the House of Commons direct to the contrary." That must clearly indicate the possibility that during the discussions in the House of Lords the House of Commons may change its opinion before presenting a measure to His Majesty to receive the Royal Assent. In that case one month would not be enough. The House of Lords may have other business in hand when a Money Bill is sent up to them, and 2243 they may not be able at once to devote their attention to that particular measure. For this reason I think a greater space of time ought to be allowed. As regards Budgets and Appropriation Bills I think a provision of this kind is very valuable, because it will attract the House of Commons back to its main function, that is, the business of Supply. At the present time we have every August the very unseemly practice of passing millions of money——

§ The CHAIRMAN

This Amendment raises similar points to the last Amendment, and I think as far as posible the discussion ought to be confined to the question of the applicability of two months instead of one month.

§ Mr. JAMES HOPE

I will endeavour to confine my remarks to that point. I do not think the extension of the period of one month to two months can be open to many objections. If the Government cannot get through their financial business in a reasonable time it will be much better to have an Autumn Session. May I say how very much interested I was to hear the statement of the Postmaster-General that the rejection of the Budget was largely and mainly the cause of this Clause. That is a most interesting statement, because the way the Clause is drawn up shows that it goes far beyond the range of Budgets and Appropriation Bills.

§ Mr. CHARLES CRAIG

One argument put forward by the Chancellor of the Duchy against this Amendment struck me as being rather significant. The right hon. Gentleman said that one of the main objects of limiting the time to one month was that it might ensure that a controversial Money Bill will always be passed at least a mouth before the end of the Session. I presume we are to take it from that statement that had it not been for that consideration the Government might probably have reduced the time to be allowed to the House of Lords down to even a week or two days. It seems to me that this is a ridiculously short time to allow, and it is only another instance of holding a pistol to the head of the House of Lords. I think if the right hon. Gentleman and hon. Members opposite will think of some of the Bills mentioned by my hon. Friend they will realise that it is quite possible at any rate that the twenty full Parliamentary days of which the right hon. Gentleman 2244 spoke might be utterly insufficient for the proper discussion of a so-called Money Bill when it went up to the House of Lords. The right hon. Gentleman, in saying that twenty Parliamentary days will be ample, omits to consider the fact that the House of Lords may be engaged on some other important matters which may require a great deal of attention. They may be in the middle of the Committee stage of some important Bill. Apparently the view of the Government is that upon all occasions when a Money Bill is sent up to the House of Lords their Lordships should be there sitting expectant twiddling their thumbs waiting for the measure to come before them. The House of Lords are not always engaged in that way, for they are often doing very useful work, and it is absurd to say that they should be prepared to give up their entire time and always be ready to receive a Money Bill. I think to make the period two months is a very reasonable suggestion, and it would be ample to dispose of any inconvenience which might arise and leave the other House ample time to deal with a Money Bill. Seeing that the Government have not shown the slightest indication of accepting any Amendment suggested from these benches, I think a most excellent opportunity is now offered for the Government to show what reasonable people they are.

§ Mr. CASSEL

I am quite sure the right hon. Gentleman has not fully appreciated the purport of this Amendment or of that part of the Clause with which it deals. His argument was merely directed to the point as to what length of time the House of Lords was to have to consider a Bill. This Amendment does not deal with that point, but with the question as to the time before the end of the Session when a Bill is to be sent up to the House of Lords. The distinction is of vital importance. Assuming you only give the House of Lords a month to consider the Bill, the House of Commons, under the Clause, may direct to the contrary, so that before the end of the Session you must leave some time for the House of Commons to consider the decision to which the House of Lords has come. How can you work the Clause otherwise? Supposing the House of Lords took its full month and did not pass the Bill in the course of that month and the Session was at once to come to an end, the House of Commons would never have the opportunity of reconsidering the Clause. If you consider a month is the proper time to leave to the House of Lords for the con- 2245 sideration of a Bill, then you ought to allow some reasonable time, whether it be a month, fourteen days or a week, more than a month in order that the House of Commons may have an opportunity of considering, in the light of the discussions in the House of Lords, whether possibly it might introduce some Amendment in consequence of those discussions. No doubt, as a rule, this House does not accept Amendments of the House of Lords to financial measures, but, if you are to have a discussion in the House of Lords, and that discussion is to be valuable, and if you have in the Clause the words "unless the House of Commons direct to the contrary," then I do not see how you can logically carry out your intentions unless you make the period before the end of the Session longer than the time you allow to the House of Lords.

§ Colonel GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN

I wish to join in asking the Government to give a little more time before the end of the Session when the Bill is to be sent up to the House of Lords, and also a little more time for the House of Lords to consider it. We are informed that this Clause is to apply not only to the existing House of Lords but to a reformed House of Lords, and, under a reformed House of Lords, a totally different state of things may exist. At present you have a Liberal Government and a Conservative House of Lords. When this Bill is passed, there may be a Conservative Government and a Liberal House of Lords, if the House of Lords is reformed in accordance with the words of the Preamble. Under those circumstances, would not the Government think it reasonable that the House of Lords should have a little more time to revise a Conservative Budget? Let us imagine that a Conservative Government under these conditions passed a Tariff Reform Budget. I sincerely hope they will. Would not the Government think it perfectly right that a Liberal Second Chamber should have ample opportunity of considering it? They might want to refer it to a Select Committee—that would be a very reasonable course to take—and surely, if they did, it is only reasonable they should have more than one month in which to do it. They could not do it in one month, and the result would be that a Tariff Reform Budget, which, in the view of hon. Gentlemen opposite perhaps might never have been before the country, and on which the country might not really have spoken the last word, might be 2246 passed through both Chambers simply and solely because the Government of to-day will not give a future Second Chamber more than one month in which to consider a Budget. We have got to look at the matter, not only from the point of view of present circumstances, but also from the point of view of circumstances of a totally different character which may arise in the future, and for these reasons I sincerely hope the Government will be willing to give way on this point. After all, this is not an unreasonable Amendment. I had the honour last night of moving an Amendment which the Government declared was absurd and unreasonable. I do not admit it for one moment, but, at all events, no one can say this is unreasonable. It is simply designed to improve the conditions under which the new Constitution will work. I venture to say the Government have tied up the new Constitution in a most ridiculous way by putting in these limitations. To say that every Finance Bill must go to the House of Lords within one month of the end of the Session and that there is only to be one month in which to consider it is not giving a Second Chamber in the future any opportunity of carrying out their duties at all. I rose, not in any controversial spirit, but simply to ask the Government to show their sweet reasonableness by making this very reasonable concession.

§ Sir R. FINLAY

I think it will be admitted on all hands that the House of Lords have shown themselves very sparing in the exercise of their legal and constitutional rights with regard to Money Bills. They have put those rights in force only on occasions of very great gravity. That must be admitted on all hands; in fact, it does not admit of any controversy whatever. Surely for measures of great gravity, even though they are Money Bills, a month is too short. The House of Lords may have other business on hand. The point I wish to emphasise, however, is that we are not dealing with what everybody understands by Money Bills, because the definition contained in this Clause proposes to include within that phrase many things which no one would understand to be Money Bills. Bills dealing with public money really raise questions of the utmost possible importance which deserve discussion and which certainly cannot receive discussion in the House of Lords if one month is the time provided. I would respectfully ask the Government to consider the time to be allowed in the light of their 2247 own extensive definition of what is to fall within the words "Money Bills." If they do that I hope it will be realised that one month, having regard to the other engagements of the House of Lords, which often accumulate at the end of the Session, is too short.

§ Sir F. BANBURY

The right hon. Gentleman has advanced three arguments against this Bill, and all of them, I venture to say, are wrong. He said it would be quite impossible to pass a Finance Bill in so short a time that the public was unaware of its provisions. It has been done within the last three weeks. We not only passed the Bill in such a hurry that the public were not aware of its provisions, but it took away a provision which the Government had already granted to the local authorities in a Bill which was introduced and passed under similar circumstances. That Budget was twice guillotined within five months. The argument of the right hon. Gentleman therefore has no weight in it at all. His second argument