PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION. (Hansard, 30 October 1912)

§ The PRIME MINISTER
This kind of discussion in Committee we always have on both sides of the House on this sort of point. I have never known a Bill in which a similar question was not raised. I appealed to my hon. Friend who had the first Amendment to withdraw it, and he did withdraw it, in the hope that we might reach a point at which some general discussion could take place. Then the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cork, within his rights, raised the question which is now before the Committee. What he suggests is a specific proposal of his own, which is quite a new one, and the one with which the discussion has hitherto dealt. It appeared to me to be desirable to get rid of that also before we came to the general question that arises on the word "nominated" in order that the Government might explain their views on the matter. If it is the general desire of the Committee, without any strict regard to technicalities of order, that some statement of the kind should be made I am ready to make it. When I introduced the Bill, and again on Second Reading, I said that in the view of the Government the important thing was that the Second Chamber should be relatively a small body, and should be a body in which adequate provision should be made for the representation of the minority or minorities in Ireland, and that, without having regard to the special circumstances of that country, we had come to the conclusion, not without a great deal of hesitation, that the best way in the first instance for securing that object would be to have a relatively small nominated Chamber. We thought it possible by means of nomination to introduce into the Second Chamber elements of Irish opinion and interest which might not secure adequate representation through the ordinary machinery of popular election. It was with that object, and with that object only, we suggested the principle of nomination as the basis of the selection 504 of this body. But I think I indicated then, or at any rate it has always been the opinion of the Government, that so long as the main governing purpose could be attained the particular machinery by which it should be arrived at was a matter which might well receive further discussion and the ventilation of public opinion.
I received myself a deputation, I think in the month of June, shortly after the introduction of the Bill. It was a very representative deputation, including, I think, gentlemen coming from all parts of the country, and it strongly impressed on me and on my colleagues the importance of introducing, for the purpose of the adequate representation of minorities, what is called the proportional principle. I was very much impressed by the facts and by the arguments which were brought forward by that deputation, and I think, though I am not quoting literally but from memory, I said in substance it appeared to me that whatever general opinions we might have about the application of proportionate representation, that there were very few communities which were better fitted for its experimental application than Ireland, under its existing social and political conditions. Subsequent reflection, and the accumulation of evidence, has rather tended to confirm than to weaken the impression which was made upon my mind by the deputation. I think, and I have always thought, that the proposal in the Bill that the places of the original nominees on the Imperial Government should from time to time be filled by persons selected by the Irish Government at the time was open to criticism upon this simple ground that, whereas the Imperial Government in a matter of that kind, I should have thought from what I heard from the right hon. Gentleman, might be trusted to act, and certainly would have no temptation but to act with an honest, bonâ-fide desire to secure the representation of the minority, the same considerations might not operate, might not be expected to operate, with equal force in the minds of those who for the time being are in the position of power and represent the majority of the Irish Parliament. On the other hand, I think it would be open to very grave practical objection if you start with nomination by the Imperial authority, and that for all time to come places vacated by process of rotation or by dissolution or the termination of the body should be filled in the same way as the original Senate was filled, 505 because it cannot be expected, and one can see the force of the argument if yon apply the same plan to our Colonies or Dominions, that the Imperial Government should have the local and personal knowledge as we have in carrying on our own affairs in our own Legislature, as to the persons best qualified to fill these posts, which we might very well have in the first instance.
So far as my recollection goes the only instance we have in the British Empire of a purely nominated Second Chamber is that in the Dominion of Canada. [HON. MEMBERS: "New Zealand."] At any rate Canada is the most conspicuous instance; I will not say it is the only example. In Canada the Senate is recruited from time to time by nomination on the part of the Government of the day. That produces from time to time, as I think all parties in Canada admit, somewhat inconvenient results, because, particularly when one party has been in power, as has happened more than once in the history of that Dominion, for a considerable term of years, the Senate is naturally recruited from adherents of that party. When a dissolution takes place in the popular Chamber and a General Election comes and a new party is placed in power, there is apt to be, and there has been in the past, possibly there is at the present moment, divergence of opinion between the popular Chamber and the Second Chamber, which it is difficult to rectify, and for which the Constitution does not find any remedy. That is undoubtedly an objection, a practical objection, to the continuance of the principle or practice of nomination to recruit a Second Chamber. This is not a matter of principle; it is a matter of machinery; it does not go to the essence of the Bill in any way.
The object is, as I have said, to find a Second Chamber for Ireland which will as far as possible be from time to time fairly representative of the minority as well as of the majority of the electorate of that country. Personally, I do not care a bit, and I should not regard it as a matter in any way affecting the essence of this Bill, what particular plan was chosen if it was a plan which seemed to be the best calculated to attain that purpose. I do not regard this, therefore, as a matter which goes in the slightest degree to the fundamental principles of the Bill. I can only, therefore, give the Committee the best results of such reflection as we have been 506 able to apply to this subject on the various arguments and facts which have been brought before us. But, on the whole, the conclusion which we are disposed to recommend is this: That so far as the first Senate, the original Senate is concerned, the plan in the Bill is the best one; in other words, that it should be a nominated Senate. I think eight years, in view of what I am going to say, and what is to take place afterwards, is too-long, and a shorter term might very well be selected; but having, as we think, by means of a body nominated by the Imperial authority, in the first instance, secured, as I hope we shall, the adequate representation of minorities in the Second Chamber in Ireland, we think that, on the whole, in future, Parliament would be well advised in applying the principle of proportional representation for subsequent recruitment of that body.

§ Mr. W. O'BRIEN
Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this is to apply to the Irish Senate and the Irish House of Commons as well?

§ The PRIME MINISTER
I am speaking only of the Senate. When we come to the House of Commons, the popular body, I think very different considerations apply. It must be understood that what I say applies to the Senate and to the Senate alone. Let us see how that will work out practically. I have looked at the various suggestions that have been made, some of which appear in the form of Amendments on the Paper in the names of hon. Friends behind me. The plan which-seems to find most favour is this: That for the purpose of applying the principle of election as distinguished from the principle of nomination, to the recruitment of the Senate after the first senators, it would be well to proceed, not by counties or boroughs, but by provinces; because if you take the provinces of Ireland you have four large areas, and the distribution of the forty Members between those four areas might easily be arranged on the basis of population. I do not think there will be any real difficulty about that. Taking the case of Ulster, for instance,. it would work out at fourteen Members for that province. Taking the province as a whole, and the same electorate as voted for the Lower Chamber, there would be fourteen seats to-fill by the method of proportional representation, giving to each elector a transferable vote. In that way, over that larger area, you might easily succeed, I think, in 507 obtaining in the Senate an adequate representation of the minority of the electors. I am not sure whether the result would not be even more striking in some of the other provinces for instance, in Munster, where there is not, as there is in Ulster, a comparatively concentrated aggregated body, of people of the same religion and of the same politics, but where you have a number of scattered and relatively small communities, which if their members had to vote in small areas would hardy make their influence felt at all, but which if you aggregate them together over such a large area as that of a province might very well, through the machinery of the transferable vote, obtain an effective minority representation. That seems to us on reflection to offer the best chance of securing for the Irish Senate in the future the character and quality which we desire it should possess, namely, that of not merely reflecting the popular Chamber, but of giving an adequate and faithful reflection of the opinion of the scattered minorities throughout the length and breadth of the country. Although I am not an adherent of or even a convert to the principle of proportional representation as applied to popular election in this country—and I should be very sorry to say that I have changed my opinion on that point, because I have not; I am open to conviction and argument— yet, having regard to the peculiar social, political, and economic conditions of Ireland, it seems to us that, given we have a common object in view, namely, that the Second Chamber shall be a fair representation of the minorities in that country, on the whole the best way of obtaining that result is to endeavour to apply the principle of proportional representation by provinces and not by smaller areas. Therefore, in reply to the perfectly fair and legitimate appeal which the right hon. Gentleman has made to me to state what is the plan favoured by the Government, I have to say that we think it would be better to start, for a short term of years, with a nominated Senate—because, after all, to bring into operation this entirely novel process of proportional representation by provinces is a matter which requires a certain amount of forethought and consideration. We think it would be better to start for a short term of years with a nominated body, a body which will not retire by rotation, but whose term of office would come to an end at the expiration of that period, and then for the recruitment of the Second Chamber 508 we should endeavour by some such system as I have adumbrated—I do not commit myself to the minute details—to give the minorities in Ireland the representation which we all agree they ought to have in a body of this kind.

§ Mr. MALCOLM
Will the right hon. Gentleman say what the term of years for the nominated Chamber should be?

§ The PRIME MINISTER
No; but I think it ought to be a short one.

§ Mr. BONAR LAW
I desire to make to the right hon. Gentleman an appeal which I think must commend itself as reasonable to everyone who has heard the speech to which we have just listened, and which shows with what an entirely new proposal we are confronted. It is out of order for us to move to report Progress, but the Prime Minister has power to do it. I think that under these circumstances I am not making an unreasonable appeal in asking that we should adjourn now, so that we might have some time to consider the Bill of the Government as it now presents itself.

§ The PRIME MINISTER
I hope I am not unreasonable in these matters. I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that this is a new proposition, though I think it is one that the Government were entitled to make, because in a matter of this kind, which is not a matter of principle, but a matter of machinery, I think we were bound to keep our minds open. ["Oh!"] It would be a very bad precedent if the Government were not to keep their minds open. But I do not quite know whether the right hon. Gentleman's appeal to me is to cease our proceedings now, in order that we might go on to-morrow, or that we should have some further discussion now and afterwards report Progress.

§ Mr. BONAR LAW
My appeal is that we should adjourn now, because personally— and I think this will apply to others—I would not like to speak on this subject until I have had time to consider what the general effect of the change will be, and until I have seen in black and white what the Amendments are. I really do not think that that is an appeal which can reasonably be refused.

§ The PRIME MINISTER
If the right hon. Gentleman, speaking as the Leader of the Opposition and on behalf of his party, tells me that they feel that they 509 cannot reasonably go on with the discussion, I feel very much coerced by the appeal, although I should have hoped that we might have had a general discussion, without committing ourselves to any decision—which I should not ask the Committee to do—which discussion might have done much to enable us to come to a final conclusion.

§ Mr. BONAR LAW
May I point out that even if we had that discussion, by what the right hon. Gentleman has already said, he has practically agreed that we should have more time than is allowed under the guillotine? You would have to give an additional day in any case. Would it not be far better to leave this matter now, and come to it with fresh minds when we know exactly what the proposal is?

§ The CHAIRMAN
I think I ought to remind the Committee that under the terms of the Resolution of the House, if we report Progress now, it will still be an allotted day.

§ Mr. BONAR LAW
But surely the Government have power to move an amending Order, which would not be opposed in any part of the House, giving an additional day?

§ The CHAIRMAN
That does not rest with me.

§ Mr. T. M. HEALY
I should like to say frankly to the right hon. Gentleman that, from the point of view-of those who wish to afford solid ground of appeasement to the Protestants of Ireland, his proposal will not effect its purpose. I am perfectly satisfied that the right hon. Gentleman is acting in the most bonâ fide and honourable manner. I am equally satisfied that his object is exactly the same as mine. I am quite sure that as the Prime Minister of this great country he desires that this Bill should have a prosperous and happy career. But I must tell him what he will hear perhaps in accents of less sincerity, or in accents to which he will attribute less sincerity, from Gentlemen above the Gangway, that the proposal he is now making does nothing whatsoever for the solution of this problem. I am sorry, apparently on the spur of the moment, to have to give such a verdict. But it is in reality not arrived at on the spur of the moment, because while right hon. Gentlemen opposite have been thinking of this 510 problem for months, we have been thinking of it all our lives. Having devoted a life-long consideration to this problem, while I am in favour of proportional representation, and while I go the length of saying that I would be prepared to apply it to the Lower as well as the Upper House, I am bound to tell the right hon. Gentleman that in my judgment this system will do nothing to safeguard the objects which I think every patriotic Irishman has at heart. It is of course difficult to come to a conclusion on what is called the transferable vote, but I will give my analysis of its effect. Out of the forty Members to be elected by this scheme of provincial voting, I do not believe that the Tory party would return fourteen.

§ The PRIME MINISTER
Under proportional representation?

§ Mr. T. M. HEALY
Yes. I believe they would be far safer under the nominated system. If I were a Conservative or a man from the North of Ireland, I would rather have the present plan for the safeguarding of my interests than the proposed plan. You could always appeal to the Imperial Government to give a representation to property, or to what I may call the more solid and stable elements in the country.

§ The PRIME MINISTER
Does the hon. Member mean that he would propose to continue nomination by the Imperial Government, or, as it is in the Bills nomination in the first instance by the Imperial Government and subsequently by the Irish Executive?

§ Mr. T. M. HEALY
I wish again to pay a tribute to the Prime Minister's sincerity in this matter. I have watched his proceedings all through with a microscopic eye, and throughout I have detected the note of sincerity. My opinion is that the Bill in its present form, with a purely nominative system for ever, is a better plan for the Protestants of Ireland than proportional representation. That is my honest opinion. They will get more by it; they will get more Members by it; and as the periods of years go by, if the Lower House becomes too fanatical, if you like to use that word, you can always by the nominated system correct it. What you are now doing is this: Under your proportional representation system you are simply providing, two Houses of exactly the same 511 pattern with substantially a Nationalist majority in each. It is a very painful thing, for us to have to discuss religious distinctions, but our country has been fissured with them through your action for 400 years. Accordingly what we as Irish men have to consider is what is good for our own household and to try to bring about a true amalgamation of races and religion. We desire to give to the Protestant party more than their share. We desire to give them more than their due. We desire to remove every sort of apprehension from their minds. Therefore I do not intend to take up the time of the House now by repeating what I have already said. That —I give my honest opinion—if I were an Orangeman or a Protestant, I would prefer the Bill as it is to the Bill as it is proposed to be.

§ Colonel GREIG
I just want to call the attention of the House to one matter which I think it is useful that Members should know. I am sorry the Leader of the Opposition is leaving the House, because I want to call attention to a statement he has made.

§ Mr. R. M'NEILL
On a point of Order. I wish to ask what the Committee is now discussing. Are we discussing the Amendment moved by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cork or are we discussing the appeal made by my right hon. Friend below me, the Prime Minister?

§ The CHAIRMAN
We are discussing the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman for Cork, which proposes to leave out all the words after "of" ["shall consist of"], and insert instead thereof the words "the Lords Lieutenant and custodes rotu-lorum of the counties and cities of Ireland, the chairmen for the time being of the county councils of Ireland, and the Lord Mayors for the time being of the county boroughs of Dublin, Belfast, Cork, and Londonderry." Then a claim was made that we should discuss possible alternative proposals. That was a proposal I could not admit.

§ Mr. R. M'NEILL
On a point of Order. Are we to understand that the right hon. Gentleman opposite has definitely refused the appeal made by my right hon. Friend?

§ Colonel GREIG
The point I wanted to make to the House is that this matter has not been sprung upon the Opposition by any means. [HON. MEMBERS: "Adjourn, 512 adjourn."] The facts are that a society well known to all the Members of this House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."]— for proportional representation—[Interruption.] I shall wait until hon. Members opposite give me an opportunity of pointing out that on the publication of the Home Rule Bill that particular society approached the Leaders on both sides with a view to securing their support—

§ Mr. JAMES CAMPBELL
Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman entitled to discuss the proposition as to whether we should now report Progress or not? That is what I understand he is doing.

§ Colonel GREIG
I am only giving a few-facts.

§ The CHAIRMAN
The Amendment before the Committee is the one moved by the hon. Gentleman the Member for North-East Cork. My suggestion, which I still think was the best, did not find acceptance with the Committee. In deference to the views of the Committee, I have given way that a general discussion should be allowed on that Amendment; therefore the hon. and gallant Gentleman is, of course, in order.

§ Colonel GREIG
Perhaps I might be allowed to put the point that I wanted to mention. Upon the publication of this Bill the secretary of the society I named approached the Leaders on both sides with a view to get their support—a support given by both Liberal and Unionist Members in favour of proportional representation. A representative deputation therefore waited on the Leaders of both sides. The Prime-Minister saw that deputation on 25th May, 1912. He has stated a few minutes ago the substance of his declaration to that deputation. Upon the following day, 26th May, some members of the deputation waited upon the Leader of the Opposition. He said:— He was prepared to stand to his declaration on the Second Reading of the Bill to support any Amendment which would make a bad Bill better. Accordingly, this question of proportional representation would be treated, not as a party question, but on its merits. It would not be even treated as an Irish question alone, but in relationship to the effect which the adoption of that principle might have on Parliamentary institutions in the United Kingdom. He intimated further that the members of his party would be free to vote as they desired on this occasion without affecting in the least their attitude towards the Home Rule Bill itself. Then the right hon. Gentleman the senior Member for the University of Dublin (Sir E. Carson) substantially agreed with his 513 Leader, and said that he had little further to add to what his Leader had already said. Under these circumstances, I think hon. Members opposite cannot say that this matter has been sprung upon them.

§ Mr. CRAWSHAY-WILLIAMS
I am very glad to find that the Government have not yielded to the desire of the Opposition to report Progress. I also hope that the Prime Minister will adhere to his resolve to leave this matter to be decided by the House without any influence further than that which he has already given. I notice that the Prime Minister quoted the example of the Colonies in regard to the question of a nominated Second Chamber, and the very obvious objection was brought forward that nomination put such a Chamber out of touch with the popular Assembly. As a matter of fact, so far as one can judge from Colonial example, a nominated Second Chamber has been found in many respects to get on better with the First Chamber than has an elected Second Chamber. I therefore hope that this matter will be left entirely to the free judgment of the House. There is another reason why I hope that the principle of election will not be substituted for that nomination.

§ Mr. NEWMAN
May I ask the hon. Member if ho is speaking against my Amendment, or against another Amendment?

§ The CHAIRMAN
The point of Order should be put to the Chair, not to an hon. Member.

§ Mr. NEWMAN
Well, I put it to you, Sir.

§ The CHAIRMAN
If the hon. Member listens to the hon. Member speaking, he will be able to tell.

§ Mr. CRAWSHAY-WILLIAMS
I was speaking on the general subject raised by the Prime Minister's announcement which I understood the Chairman to say was in order at the present time. One reason why I hope we shall not substitute election for nomination is—

§ The CHAIRMAN
It is clear that the Committee is in some difficulty, and perhaps I might be allowed to make a suggestion—that we should discuss the specific Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for North-East Cork. The next Amendment on the Order Paper is one by 514 the hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelsea, which raises purely the numerical question of the two Chambers. Then we shall get on to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Enfield which proposes to substitute for nomination proportional representation. If the Committee will be prepared to get that amount of progress it will regularise the general discussion on proportional representation.

§ Mr. HOARE
Whilst agreeing with your ruling, may I point out that hon. Members will be under considerable difficulty in discussing numbers before we have had an opportunity of considering the very important statement that the Prime Minister has just made.

§ Mr. LEIF JONES
Would not the only effect of adjourning now be to lose the hours between now and our regular time for adjournment? I understand that this is an allotted day under the guillotine Motion?

§ The CHAIRMAN
There is no Motion for Adjournment. I have already pointed out that this is an allotted day. If the hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelsea takes that view, then I must proceed to allow a general discussion on the alternative proposal of the hon. Member for North-East Cork.

Mr. BALFOUR
May I ask you, Sir—and through you indirectly make an appeal to the Prime Minister—whether he cannot get us out of what you have described as the rather embarrassing position in which we find ourselves? I understood the Prime Minister to say—and this is relevant to your suggestion—that if my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition made an appeal on behalf of the Opposition he would adjourn the Debate, and would provide the extra day which would be lost, of course, by our not continuing the discussion to-day. I am not going to argue concerning that, but I understood the Prime Minister to accede. Under these circumstances, may I not suggest to the House, and ask you, whether it would not be best that we should act upon that at once. We should then have before us what are the proposals of the Government, and we should come down to-morrow prepared to deal with the proposals of the responsible Government, rather than to deal with the subject of proportional representation which may stand in the name of one hon. Member or another, but who have not 515 behind them the authority of the responsible Government. If I may, without trespassing upon the point of Order, say so, it is of special importance that we should be allowed to meet this question under the best circumstances, because our time is limited. It is, therefore, all-important that we should come down, under conditions which are really favourable to solid and conclusive discussion, on what is, after all, one of the most important changes which the Government have yet made, or are likely to make, in the Bill.

§ The PRIME MINISTER
I am always very anxious with the right hon. Gentleman to carry out anything in the nature of a Parliamentary bargain to facilitate the general convenience of the House. In the first place, I thought we ought to dispose of the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for North-East Cork. There is no reason whatever for not disposing of that Amendment. Further, I acknowledge the reasonable position of those who wish to see on the Paper what the modified proposal of the Government is. Under the Resolution allocating the time of the House, discussion upon this Clause comes to an end to-morrow night. I do not propose to modify that Resolution, but, under the circumstances, I am quite prepared to allow a certain amount of time, say half a day, on the Report stage for the discussion of this particular matter. More than that I do not think I can be reasonably called upon to do. If that meets the views of the right hon. Gentleman, I am prepared to make that offer.

§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
I do not feel in a position to answer the question which the right hon. Gentleman has just put, but before that is dealt with, may I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that it is not the most convenient course that we should be called upon to dispose of the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cork immediately. We have discussed that Amendment as an alternative to the scheme in the Bill. We now suddenly find it is not an alternative to the scheme of the Bill, but an alternative to another scheme, which indeed the hon. and learned Member for North-East Cork thinks less favourable to the minority than the original Government scheme, but I should have thought it would be really better at the point at which we have arrived to adjourn the discussion at once without prejudging any of the ques- 516 tions raised, and to consider the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cork not as we have been doing now in the light of the Bill, but as we shall be able to do tomorrow when we see the Government Amendments on the Paper, in the light of what the Bill is really to be or will be.

§ The PRIME MINISTER
I do not know if the hon. Member for Cork City would see his way to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Mr. W. O'BRIEN
The summary and contemptuous rejection of my Amendment by the Chief Secretary does not entitle him to much consideration at my hands, but after the extremely important statement of the Prime Minister I should not feel justified in standing between the House and its convenience, and I shall therefore ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ The PRIME MINISTER
I mean now to carry out my undertaking. I think I have made it manifest that under the Resolution the discussion of this Clause must come to an end to-morrow night, and, so far as this particular occasion is concerned the Closure must take place tomorrow night, but I have undertaken to give additional time on the Report stage —half a day—in addition to the days already allocated. That, I understand, is accepted, and on that understanding I will move to report Progress.

§ Mr. BONAR LAW
An extra half-day?

§ The PRIME MINISTER
Of course.

§ Mr. BONAR LAW
I am sure my hon. Friends behind me will accept—I will not use any descriptive adjective—the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman.

§ Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD
Before putting that question, Mr. Whitley, are we to understand that when we resume tomorrow the Amendment of the hon. Member for Chelsea will begin the discussion, or will it be on the Amendment of the Government?

§ The PRIME MINISTER
The Government will put down their Amendments and they will appear upon the Paper.

§ Mr. BUTCHER
Will the Government Amendments come first?

§ The PRIME MINISTER
Yes.
Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow (Thursday).