RESCISSION OF AMENDMENT TO RESOLUTION. (Hansard, 18 November 1912)

I beg to move, "That the Order be discharged."

I think it will be the general opinion that I should take the earliest opportunity afforded by the position of the Orders on the Paper to make a very brief statement. Before the adjournment on Thursday last, you, Sir, made an appeal from the Chair that the interval between the adjournment and our meeting to-day should be given to discovering some other and, if possible, some less contentious solution than that proposed last week by the Government to what you described as a Parliamentary difficulty. The Government at once responded to that appeal. I am about to state very briefly the proposal which they will make with a view to giving effect to your suggesstion. I must, however, first remind the House—and I will try to do so in as uncontroversial a manner as I can—the exact nature and dimensions of the difficulty to which you referred A week ago to-day the House, by a majority of twenty-one, inserted an Amendment into the Financial Resolution of the Irish Government Bill which on the previous Thursday had been carried unamended in Committee by a majority of 121. It is not disputed in any quarter 37 that the Amendment made upon Report is fatal to the whole finance of the scheme. If it remains the Government could not proceed with their Bill. In face of such a, misadventure—I purposely use a colourless expression—as was pointed out last week, there are precedents for Governments resigning, and there are precedents for Governments not resigning. We came to the conclusion, for reasons which I went into fully last Wednesday, and which I need not repeat, that it was not our duty to resign. But we could not, having come to that conclusion, as has sometimes been the case—as was the case, for instance, with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Balfour) opposite in 1905—we could not simply ignore the adverse decision of the House. If we were to remain in office and continue to prosecute the Bill, to which that decision was fatal, that decision must in some way or another be got rid of. There must, in other words, be some means discovered to determine which of two inconsistent and indeed contradictory decisions recorded within a few days of one another represented the considerate judgment of the House of Commons. We thought, and we have not changed our opinion, that the simplest and the most direct way of dealing with the matter was to ask the House to rescind the second vote. I do not, naturally, in the circumstances in which we are placed, reargue that question; I only wish to make our position perfectly clear. The circumstances were peculiar, if not unique, and in our view the course we proposed, if not within the letter, was certainly, as I endeavoured to show, within the spirit of the Parliamentary precedents. If, therefore to-day, we now suggest another course, as I am about to do, it is partly from a repugnance which, so far as I personally am concerned, is almost invincible, and which. I believe, is universally felt, to the possible recurrence of disorder, but still more, because we do not feel it consistent with our duty to ignore such an invitation as has been extended from the Chair.

Briefly, therefore, Sir, what we should, in these circumstances and for these reasons, suggest to the House is this: In the first place, looking at the Order Paper on the question of the further consideration of the Money Resolution, we propose to negative to-night the whole of the Financial Resolution, as amended, and to set up again the Committee on the finances of the Bill. That is the first step. The next is that to-morrow, Tuesday—not, of 38 course, treating it as an allotted day within the meaning of the Closure Resolution—we propose to take in the Committee; then set up the next stage of the new Financial Resolution, which, as regards the second and third paragraphs of the old Resolution will be the same, but as regards the one to which the Amendment was made last Monday, will be substantially varied by limiting the payment out of the Consolidated Fund to the Irish Exchequer in three distinct ways, all of which, however, are practically provided for in the text of Clauses 14 and 17 of the Bill as it stands. The limitations will be: first, limiting the payment to fixed sums based upon the present cost of the branches of government to be administerel by the Irish Government, and in the case of future transfer of any other branches, further sums based upon the saving to the Exchequer resulting from the transfer; and, next, the sum of £500,000, diminishing in each year, after the third year of payment by a sum of £50,000, and, lastly, sums equal to the proceeds of any tax imposed by the Irish Parliament in pursuance of the powers given by the Act. There is nothing new in any of these limitations, for they all appear, I think I am right in saying, in either the fourteenth or seventeenth Clauses of the Bill.

The Resolution, so amended, will, of course, substantially differ from the Resolution carried in Committee the other day because under the powers of the Resolution carried in Committee it would be open to the Committee upon the Bill here to vary and to increase, at any rate, to disregard, the limits contained in the Bill itself. It would be within their powers—whether they were exercised or not—and would be perfectly open to the Committee to do that. The hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), whatever may be said of the merits or demerits of his Amendment introduced the other night, I am bound to admit, as a very long opponent and victim of his criticism, has always been perfectly consistent in this—he has always thought to introduce into all our Financial Resolutions, whether in Committee or on Report, some limiting of the total amount to be expended or authorised. I do not think, if he will forgive me for saying so, that he was very happy in the precise figure in this instance. That, however, is merely a question of the application. As regards the principle itself, he has always been perfectly consistent, and he will, therefore, I 39 am sure, be the first to agree with me that if we introduce into our new Resolution an upper limit we are doing homage to the principle he has so long and so constantly advocated, and at the same time we are presenting to the House a substantially different Resolution to that which was amended last Monday. That Resolution we propose to take in Committee tomorrow.

On Wednesday—which we shall again treat as being an unallotted day—we shall take the Report stage of the Resolution in whatever shape it is passed. Then on Thursday we propose to go on with the Committee of the Bill as the next allotted day, namely, the 17th, and shall take the fourteenth Clause. And here I may anticipate criticism, which, I daresay, will be made. Under the Closure Resolution, if the misadventure to which I referred had not happened, the Report stage of the Resolution would be brought to a conclusion at 7.30 last Monday, and there would have been three hours, from 7.30 to 10.30, for the discussion of the fourteenth Clause in addition to the time allotted on the seventeenth day. That, I agree, did not happen. But let me note, in regard to it, that, in the first place, weave giving a good deal more time—one full day, if not more—than is proposed by the Closure Resolution for the discussion of the finance of the Bill; and, in the next place, by limiting the Committee Resolution in the manner in which I have indicated, we make it conform precisely to the provisions of Clause 14, and therefore raising upon the discussion of that Resolution identically the same questions which will have to be discussed when Clause 14 itself comes up as a separate and independent subject of discussion.

And, thirdly, if it is the wish of the Opposition to bring to a conclusion on Wednesday night at 7.30 the discussion of the Report stage of the Resolution, we can devote the remaining three hours exactly in the same way as we should have applied those three hours last Monday—that is, to a preliminary discussion of Clause 14. So that on all these grounds, not only is there no curtailment, but under the plan I am proposing there is really an enlargement of the time which, under the Closure Resolution, would have been given to the discussion of that question. That, briefly stated, is the alternative suggestion the Government make, and I hope it may commend itself as a reasonable alternative to 40 the proposition which the Government made last week. Of course, it involves what were deeply regret, the loss of valuable time, and the prolongation of the discussion upon these Clauses beyond the term which was originally fixed under the Resolution of the House. That, I acknowledge to be, in the circumstances, an inevitable result of the vote given last Monday. I do not think—and we have, Mr. Speaker, looked at the matter with the most honest and sincere disposition to carry out your suggestion and act fairly to both sides of the House—that the proposal I now submit can be regarded in any sense as unjust, or even ungenerous, and therefore I will now conclude by moving to discharge the first Order of the Day.