§ MR. JOHN ELLISI beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, having regard to the statements made by some of his late Cabinet colleagues as to the causes and circumstances of their resignation in September last, he proposes now to give the House a full account of the proceedings in relation to 326 such resignations and the consequent reconstruction of the Cabinet.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI do not know that the House or the country can be very usefully occupied with the continuation of a discussion which has been going on steadily now since September last, but if an opportunity is given to me next Wednesday I shall have no reluctance to take advantage of it.
§ MR. JOHN ELLISDoes the right hon. Gentleman really mean to try to intrude his explanation into the discussion, next Wednesday, of a Motion which contains no reference whatever to the resignations and utterances of Ministers?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI unfortunately was not here during the debate on the Address; but I confess I should have thought that an explanation such as I thought the hon. Gentleman desired was as germane to the Motion next Wednesday as the speeches made and the explanations given on these resignations were to the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose. It the hon. Gentleman prefers to discuss the Motion next Wednesday in its narrowest and strictest form it is quite a matter of indifference to me.
§ MR. JOHN ELLISI shall at the proper time ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House.
§ MR. SWIFT MACNEILLI beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been directed to the statement of the late Secretary of State for India in explaining, by permission, the reason of his retirement from the Cabinet, that on the last day of the session the Cabinet was summoned to consider the fiscal question in connection with certain propositions put before its members by the Prime Minister, and that there were two documents under consideration, the one on insular free trade and the other a document which contained substantive propositions embracing preferential tariffs and the taxation of food; whether, having regard to the fact that the document on insular free trade has been published, the companion document advocating preferential tariffs and the taxation of food 327 will now be published; and what explanation, if any, is there for the publication of the one document and the withholding from publication of the other.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI hoped I had already given all the information desired by the hon. Gentleman when I answered a previous Question.
§ MR. SWIFT MACNEILLNo. I wish the Prime Minister to take special note of the statement referred to in my Question, that one of the documents was on insular free trade and that the other advocated preferential tariffs and the taxation of food. My Question is—What explanation, if any, is there for the publication of one document and the withholding from publication of the other.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURThe hon. Gentleman has been misled by what I conceive to be a misinterpretation of anything that has ever fallen from the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex. He seems to think that there were two documents similar in character except that they were opposite in opinion. That is not the case. There was no difference of opinion, and there was nothing similar in regard to their general form. One was, as he is well aware, a pamphlet written with a view to possible publication. The other was one of the ordinary confidential documents which one colleague constantly writes for the benefit of other colleagues, and was a part of the ordinary Cabinet procedure.
§ MR. SWIFT MACNEILLWere both documents sent to the members of the Cabinet that they might take their choice? Would the right hon. Gentleman quote them?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURThey certainly did not, and I have said so several times.