§ MR. O'KELLY (Mayo, N.)I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, in 404 view of his forthcoming Redistribution Resolutions, if he will circulate as a Parliamentary Paper those clauses of the Act of Union between Great Britain and Ireland which deal with the Parliamentary representation of Ireland in the House of Commons.
§ MR. COGHILL (Stoke - upon - Trent)And will the right hon. Gentleman circulate at the same time the 5th Article of the Act which provides for the preservation of the Established Church. Is not that also an essential part of the Act of Union?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI do not see any reason for circulating this Paper. It is open for any Gentleman to make himself acquainted with the provisions of the Act of Union. If we were to circulate it with a commentary on the Act of Union, with or without the approval of hon. Gentlemen, it would become a controversial Paper.
§ MR. O'KELLYIn view of the fact that the Act of Union will be almost continually referred to in the discussion of the Resolutions, will the right hon. Gentleman have the full text of the Act circulated?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI am surprised to hear the hon. Member say the Act of Union will be constantly quoted. I do not think, taking all the circumstances into account, that it is very relevant to the Resolution.
§ MR. JOHN REDMONDDoes the reply of the right hon. Gentleman mean that he has ceased to regard as of any importance this Act, which is spoken of in this country and by the right hon. Gentleman and his political friends as a treaty?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI take, perhaps, an even more favourable view of the Act of Union than the hon. Gentleman, who, with his friends, was an enthusiastic supporter of a breach of the most precise portion of the Act of Union relating to the Irish Church.
§ MR. JOHN REDMONDReally that statement must not be allowed to pass. 405 The Act of Union is regarded in this country as a treaty between two nations. One portion of that treaty has been varied with the consent of the two nations. It is not a question whether I or my political associates enthusiastically approved of that variation. The fact is that portion of the Act of Union was varied by the consent of the two parties to the treaty.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI do not agree with that version. [A NATIONALIST MEMBER: Of course not.] The portion of the Act of Union to which the hon. Gentleman refers was made with those who belonged to the religion of which the Established Irish Church was the recognised ecclesiastical organ. I do not think it would be proper on this occasion to argue the question, but I dissent from the hon. Gentleman's views.
§ MR JOHN REDMONDI recognise that this is not a possible or proper occasion for argument. But the right hon. Gentleman himself has introduced this question, and I must be allowed to point out that the treaty was not made with Protestants, or the representatives of Protestants in Ireland; it was a treaty made between the two nations on the authority of the representatives of the two nations, and the representatives of the two nations varied that portion of the Act of Union.
§ MR. O'KELLYI beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will state what the Parliamentary representation of Ireland would be if determined on the basis of population at the time the Act of Union was carried.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI am afraid I do not perfectly comprehend the meaning of the hon. Member's Question. If he asks me, as perhaps he does, what would be the representation of Ireland under this Resolution—[NATIONALIST cries of "No."] Does he want to ask me what the representation of Ireland would be under this Resolution if the population of Ireland now was what it was at the time of the Union? [NATIONALIST cries of "No,"] The Answer is that probably the 406 representation would be about the same. I understand that is not his meaning. Perhaps he will explain his meaning.
§ MR. O'KELLYsaid he wished to know what the Parliamentary representation of Ireland would have been at the time of the Act of Union if it had been determined on the basis of population.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURDoes the hon. Gentleman want me to put back—[NATIONALIST cries of "Answer the Question" and "You know what we want."] It is not at all clear. Does he want me to consider what would have been the representation in 1800 if the population of Ireland had been what it is now? [NATIONALIST cries of "No."]
§ MR. JOHN REDMONDWithout the slightest acrimony, may I respectfully submit to the right hon. Gentleman that a more clear and precise Question was never put to a Minister? He cannot pretend that he does not understand it. The Question of my hon. friend is this—"If population had been taken as the basis of representation at the time of the Union, what would have been the number of Members Ireland would have been entitled to at that time?"
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURClearly she would have been entitled to a great many more Members than she actually received. In other words, Ireland was far worse treated by the Act of Union than she will be treated by the Resolution.
§ MR. JOHN REDMONDI am precluded by the rules of order from entering into an argument; but I protest against the right hon. Gentleman's making an argument that I am powerless to answer.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURThe hon. Gentleman is mistaken. He asked me a Question, and I was perfectly justified in the Answer that I made.
§ MR. JOHN REDMONDI submit that the right hon. Gentleman in answering a Question is not entitled to enter into 407 an argument unless we are entitled to answer that argument.
§ Subsequently,
§ MR. JOHN REDMONDasked when the discussion of the Redistribution Resolution would be continued after its introduction. The right hon. Gentleman would be the first to admit that the question raised was one of the gravest constitutional importance, and he respectfully submitted that a question of that character could not properly be discussed in what the right hon. Gentleman had himself once called the interstices of debate. When did the right hon. Gentleman propose to take up the serious discussion of the Resolution, and would it be continued day by day?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI cannot give a promise to take the Resolution from day to day. It is impossible to do so, because under the orders we have passed with regard to the Aliens Bill there are some stages of that measure to be interpolated. I propose to take the discussion of the Redistribution Resolution on Tuesday morning next and on Wednesday morning next. I quite recognise that there are disadvantages in any break of continuity; but these disadvantages have constantly to be undergone with regard to other discussions. I will make them as small as I can; but there are other interests which I have to consider.
§ MR. JOHN REDMONDCan the right hon. Gentleman say when the discussion will be resumed after the morning sitting on Wednesday? Will it be on the following Monday, and then from day to day? And is there any precedent for a matter of this constitutional importance being dealt with in this way?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI do not know that there is a precise parallel, nor could I come to any conclusion on that point without very laborious investigation. But the procedure I am suggesting to the House will not, I am convinced, be inconvenient, and I think the allocation of business which I shall propose is one which ought to meet with general approval. At any rate, as far as next week is concerned, 408 Tuesday and Wednesday mornings will be devoted to this Motion.
§ MR. JOHN REDMONDDoes the right hon. Gentleman propose to inform the House beforehand how many hours he proposes to devote to the discussion of this constitutional question, and the; precise moment when the guillotine will fall?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI should hope the House will have the self-control to deal with this question within reasonable limits. In that case, I trust the contingency which the hon. Gentleman contemplates will not come to pass.