HC Deb 02 May 1911 vol 25 cc371-89

The enacting formula of every Bill which becomes an Act of Parliament under the provisions of this Act shall be as follows (that is to say):—

Be it enacted by the King's Most Excellent Majesty by and with the advice and consent of the House of Commons, and by the authority of one House of Parliament only.—[MR. Laurence Hardy.]

Brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."


In some ways it might be considered that this is a question of form. Yet underneath there is a very considerable point of substance. Everybody is familiar with the enacting formula in our Acts of Parliament, and also with the fact that all Parliamentary authorities are of opinion that those enacting words cannot be altered except in an Act of Parliament and that they cannot be altered whilst any Bill is passing through Parliament. Therefore if a Bill begins its course in this Parliament and eventually becomes an Act under the procedure of this Parliament Bill, there is no opportunity of altering these words, and the Act will contain words absolutely inconsistent with the manner in which it has been passed, because, if a Money Bill, it will have passed without either the advice or the consent of the House of Lords, or, if any other kind of Bill, without the consent of the House of Lords. As far back as 1483 these words became part of the formula of our Acts of Parliament. The only occasion when they were altered was when the House of Lords and the Monarchy had been abolished by the Long Parliament. The Long Parliament, when it became a Single Chamber, with no restraint from the other Estates of the Realm or from the Sovereign, found it necessary to alter these enacting words, and they adopted a formula limiting the enactment to the action of the Free Parliament without any other constituent at all.

So that the only precedent shows that when you have taken away the power of the other Estates of the Realm you are bound to make some alteration of these enacting words. We passed just now a Clause declaring that the Septennial Act meant a five-year Parliament. Surely we are not going to repeat the absurdity by saying that an Act passed against the will of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal is passed with their consent and advice. It is absolutely ridiculous that we in the mother of Parliaments should commit ourselves to such an absurdity. This is a point of substance which must be met and the Government must tell us how they are going to meet it. It cannot be done during the passage of a particular Bill; it must be done beforehand. My formula is absolutely correct. The words are in accordance with the Clauses of the Parliament Bill as we have passed them. But whether the Government accept the words or not it is clear that they cannot proceed with the old formula. They must provide by statute and in this statute some other formula or find some other means of getting over the difficulty. There are three kinds of Bills at the present time. The two new classes of Bill go distinctly against the existing enacting formula. "By the advice and consent of the Lords, spiritual and temporal," cannot certainly be applied to Money Bills any longer, because they have merely a nominal interest in them. Therefore these words must fall out so far as Money Bills are concerned. If we turn to other Bills, which they have some power of amending, but which they have no power of eventually rejecting, you cannot say that they are passed by their advice and consent. The Government must deal with this matter, and as this is the only opportunity of obtaining the opinion of the Government, I have put forward this new Clause so that they may show us how they are going to get out of this impasse.


The hon. Gentleman has put forward a point that certainly does concern the Committee at the present stage; but whilst in this particular Bill it is not necessary to provide an enacting formula for Bills to be passed in the future under the provisions of the present Parliament Bill, I agree with the observations made by the hon. Member. No doubt the formula which has been in use hitherto has been altered at various times throughout the centuries without the authority of Statute again and again. But I am not quite prepared to agree with the hon. Member that in view of the fact that the formula has been in existence so long, that nowadays—


Will the Attorney-General give the House an instance where the formula has been altered except in the Long Parliament, since we had Acts of Parliament?


I can give the hon. Member a number.


Since we had Acts of Parliament?


I can give the hon. Member a considerable number if he wants them. But I really do not think it would assist the House to read out what alterations have taken place. I can give you one: "Be it enacted by the authority of Parliament"—




In the time of Henry VIII. I could give others, but I will not trouble the Committee by going back into the earlier history of these enacting formulae, because no doubt for a very considerable time we have used the same formulæ certainly for the last 250 years. Hence I do not think it is useful to go back beyond that time except for the purpose of historical interest. Nevertheless, as I have indicated, it will probably be thought desirable to introduce any change by legislation, although that legislation certainly need not take place now. One aspect of the policy of the Government is to avoid making any distinction between the Bills which are passed under the provisions of the Parliament Pill, and Bills which are passed in the ordinary way—of putting two classes of Bills before the Courts. Once an Act has statutory force the Courts should not be in a position to inquire into the various proceedings which have taken place in this House with regard to it.

I doubt very much whether any lawyer would suggest to this Committee that you could have such an inquiry with reference to public Bills, which Bills passed under this Parliament Bill would be, and therefore there would be a very much better way of dealing with this matter, which would be by a subsequent enactment, or otherwise producing an enacting formula, which would meet all classes of Bills, whether introduced under this Bill or any other, so that that formula would be quite agreeable to the House and would cover all the difficulties suggested by the hon. Member. I am not saying it would be necessary that such change should be made, but if it is necessary it is not desirable or necessary that it should be done under this particular Bill. I am not at all sure that it would not be out of order to do it. Certainly it would be out of order to make a new enacting formula in this Bill that would apply to all Bills hereafter. That would be outside the scope of the Bill, and therefore it would not be possible to introduce it into this measure. What we desire to do is to accept no formula which would make a different formula to be applied to Bills under the Parliament Bill, and Bills passed under the ordinary procedure.


Would the hon. and learned Gentleman give a case? Supposing this Bill passed into law, and a Money Bill is at once introduced that happened to come under this procedure, does the Government intend that that Bill should be passed under the present formula?


I do not think there would be any difficulty. If it happened we should deal with a case of that kind, but I do not anticipate any such case arising as the hon. Member suggests. If it did it might become necessary to produce an enacting formula that would meet it. What I am pointing out is it would not be necessary to do it in this Bill. All that would be necessary is that you might at a future time have to pass a new Bill and in the circumstances suggested by the hon. Member at once, but we certainly do not require to do it in this Bill. In any circumstances the formula suggested in this Amendment would be unsatisfactory and could not possibly apply to other Bills. I do not think it would be useful to go into a discussion as to what would happen heieafterwards with regard to enacting formulæ of Bills because, after all, once you get to this point that you recognise, as the Government do recognise, that a change is desirable then the only question that would arise would be whether it is a change that is to be made with regard to all Bills or a change to apply to a particular class of Bills. We do not recognise that distinction, and therefore I submit this Amendment is unnecessary.


I have listened to the Attorney-General's answer and I do not think he appreciated my hon. Friend's Amendment. My hon. Friend pointed out that this formula has been in existence I think since 1483. The Attorney-General challenged that, and could only give a sample of a different formula. The whole basis of this Bill is that the Government insist that what became a matter of Constitutional practice for a long period of years had become a part of the Constitution, and ought to be recognised by Parliament. If that is so this House ought to recognise that this formula which has its antiquity as far back as the reign of Henry VIII. ought still to be preserved, and that if it is to be altered it ought to be altered by Statute. What is the meaning of my hon. Friend's Amendment? If the Attorney-General will look at Sub-section 3 of Clause 2 he will see that—

"A Bill is to be deemed the same Bill as a former Bill sent up to the House of Lords in the preceding Session if, when it is sent up to the House of Lords, it is identical with the former Bill."

You start your Bill with this old constitutional formula in a particular year. It passes in three Sessions and two years with the same formula in it; it is sent up and passed without the consent of the House of Lords, but in order to be an identical Bill with a former Bill that has been once, twice, and thrice sent up, it must still contain the same formula, although that formula has become inaccurate and untrue. To comply with Sub-section (3) of Clause 2 it has to contain this particular formula, but in order to receive sanction without the consent of the Lords it has to retain a formula which is untrue, and which ought no longer to be used. The Attorney-General says we can alter that at some other time. When and by what Act? Can it be done by the Bill which is sent up which has an untrue formula in it? No, because it would no longer be an identical Bill under Clause 3. A Bill passed three times must contain the same formula. The Attorney-General says we will deal with it at some time in the same Act, but that is putting this matter to be dealt with in the by and by, like the Preamble of the Bill. Are we to allow a Bill to go through stating that it is passed by their consent when they have dissented from it and not assented to it.

We surely need not heap another unnecessary indignity upon another place, and we might have Bills drawn truly and accurately stating what are the facts. I think some modification of these words is necessary. Neither under this Bill nor under any existing Act can an alteration be made which will make a Bill passed under this procedure accurately state the facts and record them. My hon. and learned Friend desires that we should have some enacting formula laid down in this Bill so that we should know what are the terms of the Bill. At the present time the Attorney-General answers that by saying it is very inconvenient to have several forms of Statutes, that they become Acts of Parliament, and whether the statements in them are true or not, still they are to become Acts of Parliament whether passed with the consent of the other House or not, and they are to be treated just as Acts of Parliament. So they are, but there is no reason why they should not be so drawn as to be Acts of Parliament and at the same time accurately represent what has been the conduct of their passage through Parliament, and they should represent that they have been passed only by this House and not with the assent of the other House at all. The Attorney-General has in no sense appreciated the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend, for he has not suggested that there are any powers in existence at present which will enable him to get rid of the difficulty which must arise under Sub-section (3) of Clause 2. For these reasons I shall support the Amendment.


We are compelled, of course, to accept the glamour of the knowledge the hon. and learned Gentleman threw over this Clause, but I venture to say most Members of this Committee, when they come to consider them will see his arguments were singularly inconsistent. He began by stating he could give us plenty of instances where there had been. variations of the enacting clauses, but when I challenged him—and I challenge him still—he could only produce one instance, and that I think there is considerable reason for saying is inaccurate. At all events, it was inconsistent with the conclusion of his speech, where he said he did not think there was the least use of considering what the enacting formulæ were at all. There was, however, a more singular inconsistency in his speech. He followed up his opening by telling us it was absolutely insignificant what sort of enacting formula was used because no court of law would dispute an Act of Parliament. Might I have the attention of the hon. and learned Gentleman? It really reduces our proceedings to a farce if the hon. and learned Gentleman who has given an answer does not give us the courtesy of his attention.


The hon. Gentleman is doing me an injustice when he says I am not paying attention. He challenged me with reference to certain formulæ, and I was looking them up.


It appears to me now that the knowledge the hon. and learned Gentleman has acquired of formulæ of Acts of Parliament has been derived from momentary consultation with his colleagues.


I said I had them by my side, and I only refrained from quoting them because I stated to the Committee I admitted what I thought was the substance of the argument of the hon. Gentleman who moved, that it had not been changed for over 250 years. I therefore did not think it necessary to weary the Committee with what happened before. I had them then, and I have them now. They had been taken out in order that I might know how the matter stood before I addressed the Committee. I have a number here, and I am perfectly willing to show them to the hon. Member or to read them.

1.0 A.M.


Of course, I do not press the point. I only asked for the attention of the hon. and learned Gentleman for one moment. I say there were further inconsistencies in his speech. He told us it was absolutely of no consequence what formula was used in an Act of Parliament, because no court of law would consider the formula or would consider that it affected in any way the force of the enacting power of an Act of Parliament. Immediately afterwards he admitted this formula was incorrect. What remedy did he propose? Be suggested, not that this Act should contain the necessary formula, but that some other Act would be necessary hereafter. We know now that this is to be a different thing altogether from what we have understood. This is not to be the final Act, which hon. Members below the Gangway and hon. Members behind the Attorney-General understood. They have changed everything, and we shall have to pass another Act before this Act has any effect at all. We shall have another Act, apparently, to bring this Act within the possible rules of Parliament, and, still more, within the ordinary construction of a truthful Act of Parliament in the eyes of every ordinary citizen, whatever may be the attempts to throw dust in his eyes. We have surely the fact before us that an enactment passed under the provisions of this new Bill will not be passed by the three Estates of Parliament with the assent of the Crown. The hon. and learned Gentleman admits that the phraseology which has hitherto existed will no longer be accurate, and he tells us now, what we have not heard before, that this Act, if it ever becomes an Act, if it is to have any effect at all, if it is ever to lead to those consequences which his supporters hope for, cannot work until a new Bill is introduced and passed through Parliament, which will enact a new formula of legislation.

If that be the case, it puts off for a further stage the revolution which we fear and which his supporters desire. Surely there must be some sort of consistency in the answers given to us by the representatives of the Treasury Bench. We must not hear on the one hand that it does not matter in the least what the formula in the Bill is, because the Courts of Law will accept any formula sufficing to give substance to an Act of Parliament, whilst, in the next sentence, the Learned Attorney-General admits that its formula is wrong and that we will require a new Bill and a new Act of Parliament to make it operative and substantial.


I rise to put one simple question to the Attorney-General, to whose speech I listened with great interest. I was not able quite to understand it, I may have been confused by legal phraseology, and I do not gather exactly what his point was. The Attorney-General, in the very amiable way in which he always endeavours to address the Committee, pointed out what must now be obvious to everyone, that under this Bill there will be in future two classes of Bills passed by the Legislature; one class will be Bills that have been passed by and with the consent of both Houses of Parliament, and the other class, those which have been passed by and with the consent of one House only. I understood the Attorney-General to say that it was desirable that both these classes of Bills should have the force of an Act of Parliament. He devoted a considerable portion of his speech to making clear this distinction, which, as now provided in this Bill, undoubtedly exists. I understood him to point out that it was extremely desirable that both these forms of enactment should have the force of Acts of Parliament, and I think that point escaped the notice of the Committee. As I understood him, he went on to say that whilst both should have the same force, the Courts of Law should not be asked to differentiate between them, and it is important in this sense, that it is the first time these facts have been brought before the Committee. So far as that is concerned, we are on common ground.

But I wish to point out, and I do not think it is a point which is beyond the intelligence of any Member sitting below the Gangway, that as you will in future have these two forms of enactment, one passed by and with the consent of both Houses and the other by and with the consent of only one House, it would be more honest to state specifically what kind of Act amending the formula will have to be brought in. The Attorney-General, having now faced the fact that such an amending Act must be passed, it should be brought in at once. It would be also more fair and honest to state which of these Acts comes under each distinction. If, as the Attorney-General admits, there will he these two classes of Acts of Parliament, one of them, if the provisions of this Bill are retained, in the Clause now under consideration, will be described by what is au obvious misstatement of the fact. You will hare the misstatement that it is passed by and with the consent of both Houses of Parliament when it will really be passed by and with the consent of one House alone. Therefore you will be perpetuating an obvious misstatement in every future Act of Parliament passed under the operation of this Bill. The Attorney-General makes that important admission. He sees the force of the argument, and he sees that there will have to be a further amending Act. Although we ought to be grateful for small mercies, it would be better if he would go a little further, and if he would indicate what form that amending Act would take. The Government are obviously altering the whole essence of the Constitution of this country and of the relations between the two Houses, and surely it would be better at the same time to alter also the form of the Constitution and not perpetuate this misstatement in future Acts of Parliament.


We have heard from the parents of this Bill a good deal about sloppiness in legislation. I think we may accuse them of the very same fault. I cannot imagine any more untidy course to pursue than for the Government to admit as the Attorney-General has done, that this is a matter which needs to be dealt with, and at the same time to say they will put it off, and not even promise to deal with it in this Session. They say, "We admit the difficulty, but we will therefore leave it alone." With regard to the operation of the Act on Bills coming under Clause 2, I think that subject was amply dealt with in the exhaustive speech of the hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Pollock). What I wish to deal with are Bills coming under Clause 2. The hon. Member for the Ashford Division of Kent (Mr. L. Hardy) interrupted the Attorney-General and asked what would happen if, in this Session, a Money Bill is passed by this House and thrown out by the House of Lords'? How, in such a short period, are you going to get your new formula put into it and have it enacted so that it automatically goes through? The answer of the hon. and learned Gentleman was: "We will deal with the matter when it arises."

That might be so if a Money Bill could be altered after it left this House. But it cannot be altered. It goes through under Clause 1. If the House of Lords throw out such a Bill, there is only a month's delay before that Bill passes over their heads. If a Bill of that kind came back to this House for further consideration, as I urged it should do at an earlier stage of the Committee, there would be an opportunity to alter its Preamble. But as the Bill does not come back here, however much the Government may wish to alter its phraseology, it is beyond their power to do so, and I think for that reason it is absolutely necessary and essential to deal with this matter now, and not put it off to a future time. It seems to me it is necessary to provide for an automatic change of title in the event of a Bill coming under the action of this Act.

The learned Attorney-General was, as has been pointed out, a little inconsistent as to the possible course which might be adopted by the Law Courts. I rather understood him to suggest that they might question the validity of an Act of Parliament if it had not the ordinary enacting formula. At first he said they

would not, and then he said they might. It is undesirable to have two enacting formulas for fear this might arise. I do not think they could go behind the enacting formula, because this Bill would compel them to look upon all Acts of Parliament passed in this way as having full force, because this Bill would enact that any Act to which this Bill might apply should, under Clause 1 or Clause 2, alike become an Act of Parliament, notwithstanding the fact that the House of Lords had not consented to the Bill. So that, I think, there is really nothing in the excuse that it is undesirable to have a distinction in your enacting formula to avoid the danger of the Law Courts setting up an arbitrary distinction. I think as the Government have admitted a difficulty, as they have said the enacting formula cannot be left as it is, and it is quite clear unless they provide for an automatic alteration of the formula in the event of a Bill coming under the provisions of this Act in a way that was not foreseen when the Bill was before the House of Commons—for all these reasons it is absolutely essential to deal with it now. It is a matter which is intimately connected with the whole machinery of the Parliament Bill, and therefore the best form of drafting and the metest form of legislation is to deal with it in this Bill and not put it off to a future time.


rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 212; Noes, 86.

Division No. 215.] AYES. [1.15 a.m.
Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour) Chancellor, Henry G Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master Of
Acland, Francis Dyke Chapple, Dr. William Allen Elverston, Harold
Adamson, William Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)
Addison, Dr. C. Clough, William Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)
Ainsworth, John Stirling Clynes, John R. Essex, Richard Walter
Allen, Arthur A. (DumBarton) Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock) Falconer, J.
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) Condon, Thomas Joseph Fenwick, Charles
Armitage, Robert Corbett, A. Cameron Ferens, T. R.
Baker, H. T. (Accrington) Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Ffrench, Peter
Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury. E.) Cotton, William Francis Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward
Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.) Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) Fitzgibbon, John
Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.) Crawshay-Williams, Eliot Flavin, Michael Joseph
Barton, William Crumley, Patrick France, G. A.
Beauchamp, Edward Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy) Gelder, Sir William Alfred
Bentham, George Jackson Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth) Gibson, Sir James P.
Booth, Frederick Handel Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) Gill, A. H.
Bowerman, C. W. Dawes, J. A. Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford
Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.) Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness) Goldstone, Frank
Brace, William Dillon, John Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)
Brady, Patrick Joseph Doris, W. Greig, Colonel J. W.
Brocklehurst, W. B. Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward
Burns, Rt. Hon. John Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley) Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)
Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.) Edwards, Allen C. (Glamorgan, E.) Gulland, John William
Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich) Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid) Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)
Hackett, J. Maclean, Donald Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)
Hall, Frederick (Normanton) Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Hancock, J. G. MacNeill, John Gordon Swift Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) MacVeagh, Jeremiah Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)
Hardie, J. Keir M'Curdy, C. A. Robinson, Sidney
Harvey, A. G C. (Rochdale) M'Laren, F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding) Rose, Sir Charles Day
Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.) M'Laren, Walter S. B. (Ches., Crewe) Rowntree, Arnold
Harwood, George Marks, G. Croydon Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)
Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) Mason, David M. (Coventry) Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)
Haworth, Arthur A. Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.) Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)
Hayden, John Patrick Millar, James Duncan Seely, Colonel Rt. Hon. J. E. B.
Henderson, Arthur (Durham) Molloy, M. Sheehy, David
Henry, Sir Charles S. Money, L. G. Chiozza Simon, Sir John Allsebrook
Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor Morrell, Philip Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)
Higham, John Sharp Nedham, Christopher T. Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)
Hinds, John Neilson, Francis Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)
Horne, Charles Slivester (Ipswich) Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster) Summers, James Woolley
Howard, Hon. Geoffrey Nolan, Joseph Sutton, Jolla E.
Hughes, S. L. Norman, Sir Henry Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Hunter, W. (Govan) O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Illingworth, Percy H. O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) Toulmin, George
Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel O'Doherty, Philip Trevelyan, Charles Philips
John, Edward Thomas O'Dowd, John Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander
Johnson, W. Ogden, Fred Verney, Sir Harry
Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil) O'Grady, James Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)
Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth) O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.) Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay
Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe) O'Malley, William Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Jones, William (Carnarvenshire) O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) Webb, H.
Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney) O'Shaughnessy, P. J. White, Sir George (Norfolk)
Joyce, Michael O'Sullivan, Timothy White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)
Keating, M. Palmer, Godfrey Mark Whitehouse, John Howard
Kellaway, Frederick George Parker, James (Halifax) Whyte, A. F.
Kelly, Edward Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek) Wiles, Thomas
Kennedy, Vincent Paul Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M. Wilkie, Alexander
Kilbride, Denis Pease, Rt. Hen. Joseph A. (Rotherham) Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
King, J. (Somerset, N.) Pickersgill, Edward Hare Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)
Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) Pointer, Joseph Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)
Lansbury, George Pollard, Sir George H. Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West) Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)
Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th) Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E) Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Levy, Sir Maurice Pringle, William M. R. Wood, T. McKinnon (Glasgow)
Lewis, John Herbert Raphael, Sir Herbert H. Young, William (Perth, East)
Low, Sir F. (Norwich) Reddy, Michael
Lundon, T. Redmond, John E. (Waterford) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.
Lyell, Charles Henry Redmond, William (Clare, E.) Dudley Ward and Mr. Wedgwood
Lynch, A. A. Rendall, Athelstan Benn.
Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) Richards, Thomas
Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F. Fell, Arthur Malcolm, Ian
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Fisher, William Hayes Mason, James F. (Windsor)
Arkwright, John Stanhope Fitzroy, Hon, Edward A. Meysey-Thompson, E. C.
Ashley, Wilfrid W. Fleming, Valentine Mildmay, Francis Bingham
Baird, J. L. Forster, Henry William Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas
Baker, Sir R. L (Dorset, N.) Foster, Philip Staveley Neville, Reginald J. N.
Balcarres, Lord Gibbs, G. A. O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)
Baldwin, Stanley Grant, J. A. Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Greene, W. R. Pollock, Ernest Murray
Banner, John S. Harmood- Gretton, John Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Beckett, Hon. W. Gervase Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight) Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)
Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth) Hall, Fred (Dulwich) Sanders, Robert A.
Bennett-Goldney, Francis Hardy, Laurence Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)
Beresford, Lord C. H ill-Wood, Samuel Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Bird, A. Hope, Harry (Bute) Smith, Harold (Warrington)
Boscawen, Col. Sackville T, Griffith- Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)
Bridgeman, W. Clive Harrier, A. L. Swift, Rigby
Burn, Colonel C. R. Houston, Robert Paterson Thynne, Lord Alexander
Carlile, E. Hildred Hunt, Rowland Touche, George Alexander
Cassel, Felix Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.) Valentia, Viscount
Cator, John Joynson-Hicks, William Walker, Col William Hall
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University) Kebty-Fletcher, J. R. Wheler, Granville C. H.
Chaloner, Col. R. G. W. Kerry, Earl of Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Clay, Captain H. H. Spender Lane-Fox, G. R. Winterton, Earl
Clyde, J. Avon Larmor, Sir J. Wolmer, Viscount
Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet) Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts., Mile End)
Craik, Sir Henry Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.
Dalrymple, Viscount Macmaster, Donald Stanler and Mr. Barnston.
Dixon, Charles Harvey M'Calmont, Colonel James

Question put accordingly, "That the Clause be read a second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 89; Noes, 211

Division No. 216.] AYES. [1.20 a.m.
Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F. Fisher, W. Hayes Mason, James F. (Windsor)
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Fitzroy, Hon. E. A. Meysey-Thompson, E. C.
Arkwright, John Stanhope Fleming, Valentine Mildmay, Francis Bingham
Ashley, Wilfrid W. Forster, Henry William Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas
Baird, J. L. Foster, Philip Staveley Neville, Reginald J. N.
Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.) Gibbs, G. A. O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid.)
Balcarres, Lord Goldsmith, Frank Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)
Baldwin, Stanley Grant, J. A. Pollock, Ernest Murray
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Greene, W. R. Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.
Banner, John S. Harmood- Gretton, John Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Barnston, H. Guinness, Hon. W. E. Rothschild, Lionel de
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) Hall, C. B. (Isle of Wight) Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)
Beckett, Hon. W. Gervase Hall, Fred (Dulwich) Sanders, Robert A.
Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth) Hardy, Laurence Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)
Bennett-Goldney, Francis Hill-Wood, Samuel Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Beresford, Lord C. Hope, Harry (Bute) Smith, Harold (Warrington)
Bird, A. Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)
Boscawen, Col. Sackville T. Griffith- Horner, A. L. Swift, Rigby
Bridgeman, W. Clive Houston, Robert Paterson Thynne, Lord A.
Burn, Colonel C. R. Hunt, Rowland Touche, George Alexander
Carlile, E. Hildred Jardine, E. (Somerset. E.) Valentia, Viscount
Cassel, Felix Joynson-Hicks, William Walker, Col. William Hall
Cator, John Kebty-Fletcher, J. R. Ward, Arnold (Herts, Watford)
Cecil, Lard Hugh (Oxford University) Kerry, Earl of Wheler, Granville C. H.
Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W. Lane-Fox, G. R. Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Clay, Capt. H. H. Spender Larmor, Sir J. Winterton, Earl
Clyde, J. Avon Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts, Mile End) Wolmer, Viscount
Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet) Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)
Dalrymple, Viscount Macmaster, Donald TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir
Dixon, C. H M'Calmont, Colonel James Henry Craik and Mr. Stonier.
Fell, Arthur Malcolm, Ian
Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour) Elverston, H. Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)
Acland, Francis Dyke Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Adamson, William Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) Jones, Leif Stratton (Notts, Rushcliffe)
Addison, Dr. C. Essex, Richard Walter Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)
Ainsworth, John Stirling Falconer, J. Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)
Allen, A. A. (Dumbartonshire) Fenwick, Charles Joyce, Michael
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) Ferens, T. R. Keating, M.
Armitage, R. Ffrench, Peter Kellaway, Frederick George
Baker, H. T. (Accrington) Flennes, Hon. Eustace Edward Kelly, Edward
Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) Fitzgibbon, John Kennedy, Vincent Paul
Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.) Flavin, Michael Joseph Kilbride, Denis
Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.) France, G. A. King, J. (Somerset, N.)
Barton, W. Gelder, Sir W. A. Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)
Beauchamp, Edward Gibson, Sir James P. Lansbury, George
Bentham, G. J. Gill, A. H. Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)
Booth, Frederick Handel Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld,Cockrerm'th)
Bowerman, Charles W. Goldstone, Frank Levy, Sir Maurice
Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.) Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough) Lewis, John Herbert
Brace, William Greig, Colonel J. W. Low, Sir F. (Norwich)
Brady, P. J. Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward Lundon, T.
Brocklehurst, W. B. Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) Lyell, Charles Henry
Burns, Rt. Hon John Gulland, John W. Lynch, A. A.
Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.) Gwynn. Stephen Lucius (Galway) Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)
Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich) Hackett, J. Maclean, Donald
Chancellor, Henry G. Hall, Frederick (Normanton) Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.
Chapple, Dr. William Allen Hancock, J. G MacNeill, John Gordon Swift
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Clough, William Hardie, J. Keir M'Curdy, C. A.
Clynee, J. R. Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) M'Laren, F W. S. (Lincs., Spalding)
Collins, G. P. (Greenock) Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.) M'Laren, Walter S. B. (Ches., Crewe)
Condon, Thomas Joseph Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.) Marks, G. Croydon
Corbett, A. Cameron Harwood, George Mason, David M. (Coventry)
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)
Cotton, William Francis Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.)
Craig, Herbert, J. (Tynemouth) Haworth, Arthur A. Millar, James Duncan
Crawshay-Williams, Eliot Hayden, John Patrick Molloy, M.
Crumley, Patrick Henderson, Arthur (Durham) Money, L. G. Chiozza
Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy) Henry, Sir Charles S. Morrell, Philip
Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth) Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor Needham, Christopher T.
Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) Higham, John Sharp Neilson, Francis
Dawes, J. A. Hinds, John Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)
Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness) Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich) Nolan, Joseph
Dillon, John Howard, Hon. Geoffrey Norman, Sir Henry
Doris, W. Hughes, S. L. O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) Hunter. W. (Govan) O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley) Illingworth, Percy H. O'Doherty, Philip
Edwards, Allen C. (Glamorgan, E.) Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel O'Dowd, John
Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid) John, Edward Thomas Ogden, Fred
Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of Johnson, W. O'Grady, James
O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.) Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) Verney, Sir Harry
O'Malley, William Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)
O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) Robinson, Sidney Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay
O'Shaughnessy, P. J. Rose, Sir Charles Day Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
O'Sullivan, Timothy Rowntree, Arnold Webb, H.
Palmer, Godfrey Mark Samuel Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) White, Sir George (Norfolk)
Parker, James (Halifax) Samuel J. (Stockton-on-Tees) White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)
Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek) Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) Whitehouse, John Howard
Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham) Scott,A.MacCallum (Glasgow, Bridgeton) Whyte, A. F.
Pickersgill, Edward Hare Seeiy, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B. Wiles, Thomas
Pointer, Joseph Sheehy, David Wilkie, Alexander
Pollard, Sir George H. Simon, Sir John Allsbrook Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe) Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)
Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)
Pringle, William M. R. Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N.W.) Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Raphael, Sir Herbert H. Summers, James Woelley Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)
Reddy, Michael Sutton, John E. Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Redmond, John E. (Waterford) Taylor, John W. (Durham) Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)
Redmond, William (Clare) Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) Young, William (Perth, East)
Rendall, Athelstan Toulmin, George
Richards, Thomas Trevelyan, Charles Philips TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.
Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven) Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander Dudley Ward and Mr. Wedgwood Benn.
Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

The next new Clause in order is that in the name of the' hon. Member for Central Sheffield, (Mr. James Hope).


On a point of Order. I wish respectfully to submit to you certain considerations in regard to the Question whether the Amendment of the loon. Member is in order. It proposes that "Notwithstanding anything in this Act, an Amendment made in the House of Lords to any Bill other than a Money Bill shall not be deemed to be a breach of the privileges of the House of Commons on the ground that it involves a charge upon public funds." I submit that that is quite clearly an inroad upon the existing privileges of the House of Commons. We have already decided by Clause 4 that "Nothing in this Act shall diminish or qualify the existing rights and privileges of the House of Commons." I quite agree that you did inform the hon. Member earlier in the sitting that his Amendment was not in order in the particular place in which he wished to move it, and that if he desired he could move it as a new clause, but I submit that each point of order must be judged separately and by itself. I further submit that the fact that this Amendment was not in order at the earlier period of the Bill, but would at that time have been in order at a subsequent stage of the Bill, and the fact the Committee has arrived at a decision which invalidates it now, does not in any way prevent you from now ruling it out of order.


It is quite true that the new Clause proposed by the loon. Member for Central Sheffield would constitute an inroad upon the existing privileges of the House of Commons, and it is quite true also that it would be an excep- tion to the Clause we have already passed. At the same time, the Clause which we have already passed only maintains the status quo regarding the rights and privileges of the House of Commons, and it did not seem to one to be within the scope of that Clause to allow the proposal of the new Clause to be made as an Amendment thereto. The proposition is a proper Amendment within the scope of the Bill, and the only way it can be moved is by way of a new Clause.


With great respect, I submit that the House has decided that nothing shall qualify the existing rights and privileges of the House of Commons. There is only a certain amount of rights and privileges as between the two Houses and anything which is conferred on the one is in the nature of things subtracted from the other. It is not a question of looking at a new position. Having specifically safeguarded the existing rights and privileges of the House of Commons, we can only confer new rights and privileges on the House of Lords by taking them away from the House of Commons, and that we have decided by Clause 4 we will not do. I submit in great respect that the ruling you have just given should be made to cover those arguments.


I must put it one way or the other. It would be grossly unfair to strike this out as an Amendment and to say that the Clause having passed the hon. Member cannot move. I said he could not move it on the Clause, and therefore it must be moved as a new Clause.


On a point of Order. May I point out that having already-passed Clause 4 which says, "Nothing in this Act shall diminish or qualify the existing rights and privileges of the House of Commons," if we carry a new Clause definitely qualifying those rights and privileges, how can the two Clauses be read together?


If the hon. Member will allow me, I will reply to his question by asking him what happens in regard to a great many other Acts of Parliament after they become law—when judicial rulings are given in regard to them? It is not for me to interpret the law.


May I ask you, Sir, whether you mean by the statement you have just made that any Act of Parliament contains Clauses contrary one to the other?


I have given my ruling upon this Amendment.