§ (c) On the appointed day, the members returned by constituencies in Ireland to serve in the Parliament of the United Kingdom shall vacate their seats, and writs shall, as soon as conveniently may be, be issued for the purpose of holding an election of Members to serve in the Parliament of the United Kingdom for the constituencies, other than university constituencies, mentioned in Parts I. and II. of the Second Schedule to this Act.
1245§ Amendment made: In paragraph (c) leave out the words "other than university constituencies."—[Sir L. Worthington-Evans.]
§ Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANSI beg to move at the end of the Clause to insert a new Sub-section—
(2) If the Parliament of the United Kingdom is dissolved within one year after the first election of members to serve in that Parliament for the constituencies mentioned in Parts I and II of the Second Schedule to this Act, then, unless the said Parliament has previously been dissolved in that year, the members serving for those constituencies at the date of the dissolution shall, without any new election, become Members of the Parliament of the United Kingdom summoned next after the dissolution in like manner as if they had been returned by those constituencies at the general election of Members to serve in that Parliament.
6.0 P.M.
This Amendment is for this purpose. As soon as the Bill comes into operation the Members from Ireland in this House will have to seek re-election, as their constituencies are altered by this Bill. It might be that this House itself was dissolved within a few months after such re-election had taken place. This Subsection provides that if a Dissolution of this House takes place within a year after the re-election of the Irish Members, that re-election shall stand for the new Parliament, and that they shall not be put to the needless expense of a second election, perhaps within a very few months.
§ Lieut-Colonel Sir S. HOAREI do not very much mind whether this Sub-section is inserted or not, but, as an English Member, I should like to point out the very curious position that is going to arise in this House. Irish Members will be elected to the Irish Parliament, and if shortly afterwards a General Election takes place for this House, those Irish Members will not have to seek re-election. That means that the Irish representatives who will be sitting in this House will not have been elected to it. Could anything be more ridiculous? As I say, I do not mind whether this is put in or not, because the whole Bill seems to me to be filled with ridiculous details from beginning to end, and if the right hon. Gentleman wishes to make his Bill more ridiculous by putting this in, let him have it by all means.
§ Major O'NEILLI think my hon. and gallant Friend is making a larger matter 1246 of this than it really is. As I understand the Amendment, it simply applies to the first elections which will take place of Members of this Parliament after this Act becomes law. Supposing the first elections in Ireland to this House take place next May, and a General Election in June; it is, I should have thought, only common sense that those Members returned to this House in May should not have to re-submit themselves to the electors in the following month. I would go further, and suggest to my right hon. Friend that he might have added a further provision. Supposing a General Election takes place for this House between the passing of this Bill and the appointed day; that is to say, before the first election of Members in Ireland to this House; as the Bill now stands hon. Members who are going to stand for this House will have to go back to the constituencies, which will be wiped out within two months, to get re-elected to those constituencies. Then, when their first election under the Bill comes, their old constituencies are wiped out, and they will have in that case to resubmit themselves to their old constituencies and again to new constituencies within possibly two months. I would suggest that the right hon. Gentleman might carry his Sub-section further, and provide that if a General Election takes place before the appointed day, and after the passing of this Act, that General Election in Ireland shall be conducted on the new constituencies set out in this Bill and not on the old constituencies as they exist at present.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSI think my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare), in his contempt for the Bill, hardly did justice to the constitutional point which is raised here. My right hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio seems to have gone one better than the late Mr. Gladstone. Mr. Gladstone had several shots, if I may use that expression, at dealing with the Irish Members in this House. First, they were to be out of the House altogether, then they were to be in the House altogether, and the third time they would be in and out, and now they are to be deemed to be in, although they are out. This is the fourth attempt which has been made to deal with the question of the Irish Members, and it is surely monstrous that we here, in the British House of Commons, dealing with the affairs of the Empire, should be called 1247 upon to decide questions which may be decided by the 46 Irish Members who have not been elected on the same question which we, the English, Scottish, and Welsh Members, have to be elected on. It is all very well to say it may be May and June, but let us suggest that the Irishmen were first elected in January and that the House is dissolved in December. It may be dissolved on some vital question of another war, or, let us say, whether the Government have fulfilled their pledges in regard to an Anti-dumping Bill, and they are forced to go to the country 11 months after the Irish Members were elected. We are to go to the country and to come back, after having put the very question that is the subject of the dissolution before our constituents, with fresh energy and directions from our constituents, and what happens? There are 300 English, Scottish, and Welsh Members voting one way, and 300 the other way, and these 46 Irish Members, who have not dealt with the question at all, or received the instructions of their constituents upon it, are under this Clause to come and decide the fate of the Empire. One has only to state the case to let it be seen that the House ought not to pass this proposal at all. It was not in the original Bill, but was merely an afterthought. The point is, whether the House of Commons is, on perhaps a most vital question, to be dominated by 46 Irish Members, who have not been elected on that question, or whether the same 46 Irish Members am to undergo the expense and the inconvenience of another election, and I say it is clear that the balance is in favour of their having to undergo the difficulties of an election. Mr. right hon. Friend, if I may say so, has been very reasonable this afternoon. He has frankly told us, in regard to the bulk of his Amendments, that he did not believe in them himself, and was quite prepared to leave them to the House. This Amendment, I submit, is on the same lines as the others, and I hope he will leave it to the House.
§ Mr. MOLESThere has been a good deal of reproach with respect to the violation of Constitutional Government, and the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir W. Joynson-Hicks) suggested that this proposal is a monstrosity. He stretches the time to the very limit of the full 12 months— I 1248 doubt not to the last second of the 365 days—and he assumes that you might be elected in January and that some great unforeseen constitutional crisis, which has not entered into the mind of any human being in this House, would suddenly precipitate itself at about 11 o'clock on the evening of the 31st December. I submit that it is perfectly fair that an Irishman, who has had in the meantime to run the gauntlet of a fresh election and to seek a new mandate from his constituents, which no other Members in this House have had to undergo, should not be put to the expense and the confusion and all the turmoil that attend elections in Ireland.
Lieut.-Colonel J. WARDIn answer to the last speaker, I think that after all there appears, even to a layman, to be a much more important point involved Either this Parliament is dissolved on a certain day or it is not. I think that is the most important constitutional point involved. I cannot very well see, without considerable modification of the Constitution as we have hitherto known it, that the King can dissolve parliament and yet there can be 46 Members still belonging to it, and I should like to hear from the Attorney-General what he has to say on that point before we come to a decision.
§ Mr. R. McNEILLI agree with what has just fallen from my hon. and gallant Friend, and also with what was said by the hon. Baronet (Sir W. Joynson-Hicks). I think there is a constitutional question involved, and I quite agree that if you discuss the matter on purely academic grounds, there is a very strong case against the Amendment, but if one makes the admission, as I freely do, that from the constitutional point of view there is an anomaly in the bare possibility of some months elapsing during which 46 Irish Members might be sitting in this House who were not elected on the same issue as the rest, one ought, on the other hand, to have some regard to such questions as convenience and expense. It is only natural that the question of expense is nothing to hon. Members like my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare), but really ordinary Members of this House who are not millionaires have to have some regard to expense, and the House will remember that during the last Reform Bill this question of the expense of elections had a 1249 very large place, and stringent provisions were made limiting the expenses of parliamentary candidates. I would point out that as it is only for one occasion, and that it can only be after the first election for the Irish Parliament, we surely might take the risk, not to put it higher than that, of some such constitutional anomaly arising as my hon. Friends have imagined, very unlikely, I submit, but still possibly. This is a transition period. There must be inconvenience in setting up a new Constitution for a part of the United Kingdom, severing this Parliament, and making the necessary arrangements for bridging over that transition period, but I really do not think it is very unreasonable that we should be asked to undergo the possible risk of some such imperfect mandate as my hon. Friends imagine, for a few months, on one occasion only, having regard to the inconvenience which would be occasioned if the Amendment were not made, and to the great and onerous expense which would be thrown on candidates from Ireland if they should be called upon, quite unnecessarily, except to satisfy that academic constitutional position, to undergo two elections within a few months.
Lieut.-Commander WILLIAMSI think it goes a little further than this. We know that there is a Home Rule proposal in regard to Scotland, and that at some ultimate date there may be similar proposals for other places as well, and if you lay this down here as a precedent, although I am sorry to disagree with hon. Members opposite, and develop this system, you will have other occasions and other places in which you will have a portion of the House of Commons which has not been elected on the same issue as the major portion of the House. That, as I understand it, is not the right system on which to run your constitutional Assembly here. I am sorry for the inconvenience of those worthy representatives, I have no doubt, of the Irish people who will have to return to their constituents, but may I hold out the hope that possibly they might come back in an even stronger position with the added glory of a second election in so short a time, which will stand enormously to their prestige in this House? I quite realise that the question of expense is very serious, but possibly that might be got over. There is a 1250 necessity to look at this question not only from the Irish point of view, but also from the point of view of the House of Commons and the nation as a whole, and of the fact that we are the great central deliberative and legislative Assembly for the whole country.
Lieut.-Colonel ALLENThe county I represent is only represented in this House by three Members. Under this ridiculous Proportional Representation, that entire county is now to be represented by five Members, and each one of those will have to look after his constituents all over the county. If the elections are held, as it is quite possible, on different days for the Ulster Parliament and this Parliament, and it is possible for the Member who may represent the county in this Parliament also to represent the county in the other Parliament, that will mean two elections for him. If there is a dissolution of this Parliament, and this Amendment is not carried, he will then have to stand three elections, whereas the Members elected for English constituencies would only have to stand one election, and I think, when you consider the expense of all this, it is not too much to ask the House, for at least the first election, to let us have this Amendment. I do not think it is an ungenerous thing to ask the House. We must consider the question of expense. It is quite possible that, after the three years which have been granted to us in the Clause already passed, we may have, smaller constituencies, but this only refers to the first election, and, therefore, I would appeal to the House to let us have the Amendment.
§ Sir J. BUTCHERI am sure we all sympathise with the Ulster Members in the view they have put forward as to the inconvenience and expense to which they might be put if the event contemplated by this Amendment is reached, and from that point of view I should be entirely disposed to support the Amendment of my right hon. Friend; but I must say I am more impressed by the danger of making an inroad into the Constitution by saying that, in this Imperial House of Commons, when Parliament is dissolved—
§ Captain LOSEBYIt is not.
§ Sir J. BUTCHERMy hon. Friend says that when Parliament is dissolved 1251 it is not dissolved. That is a proposition which could not be maintained in its logical form by any really sane man. But let me put it in another form. You dissolve Parliament as regards some of its Members, but you do not dissolve it as regards other of its Members. Surely that is an inroad upon our constitutional methods, which ought not to be tolerated for one moment. My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. R. McNeill) said it is merely technical, and that this is an occasion which may never arise at all, and can only arise once. Is it not better, if the contingency is so remote as that, that you should inflict some little expense and inconvenience upon individuals than that, in order to meet one occasion like that, you should make an inroad on the practice and constitution of Parliament? But it is not a mere technical objection. It may be quite possible that an event of great public importance may demand a dissolution of Parliament. It is within the recollection of every one in this House that these events arise unexpectedly, and Parliament is dissolved. I cannot think of anything more detrimental to the character of this House and to the value of its decisions than that there should be a large number of people, entitled to vote upon large new measures, when they have had no mandate from the constituencies at all. Therefore, although I deeply regret that there should be a possibility of inconvenience and expense to my Friends from Ulster and other parts of Ireland, I do hope the right hon. Gentleman will see that the maintenance of the constitution is even more important.
§ Mr. MURRAY MACDONALDI agree with the objections taken to the Amendment which has been proposed from the Front Bench, and I have risen to suggest an alternative that might possibly prove acceptable to the House as a whole. It is that, instead of putting this Section of the Bill into operation, we should enact that those Members who are returned to serve in this Parliament from Ireland should continue to serve till a dissolution of Parliament takes place. I feel myself that we would lose nothing by accepting that as an Amendment. The interval between the coming into operation of this Bill and a possible dissolution of this Parliament cannot be long, and. in the circumstances in which we are, I feel very 1252 strongly that we should not suffer in any way by allowing the existing representatives from Ireland to continue to serve in this House until this House has been actually dissolved. I make that suggestion.
§ Sir E. CARSONOf course, it is inevitable, when you are breaking up this Parliament in the way this Bill does, that there should be great difficulties of this kind with which to contend. My hon. and learned Friend opposite put the extraordinary argument that Members from Ireland should be allowed to remain on in this House if Parliament were dissolved, because they had been previously elected. I quite agree that is almost indefensible. At the same time, there are many worse anomalies in the Bill. On of the most extraordinary—and it shows to me how right I am in always assessing at the very highest maximum the generosity of English and Scottish Members— is that if this Bill passes, and we are conducting our own local affairs in Ireland, we shall be allowed to come here and try to defeat your local Bills, and probably make the majority one way or the other. On the other hand, there is another anomaly, and it is that you will be here setting up the taxes for the Irish taxpayer with only forty or forty-five Members, or whatever the number is present here, whereas our proper quota is sixty-five, and taxation will be without proper representation. That, to my mind, is an even more serious anomaly under the Bill, and one which, as I pointed out in Committee, is likely to lead to a great deal of friction. When you start taxes in Ireland, I think you will hear a good deal about imposing those taxes without our being represented at our full strength in this House.
Another anomaly is when you proceed, as you have a right, to alter in any way you like our constitution over there, and with reduced representation here. It all comes about from considerations of opportunism and expediency. You are proceeding on no principle to break up the United Kingdom. That is the short answer to the whole matter. You undertake an impossible problem. You can separate. You can say to the Irish, "Go and become a Republic." I can understand that. That is the kind of thing which is intelligent, but you cannot deprive us of our great privileges we 1253 hold at present, in that we are equal with you and greater than you, because we have got two Members to every one you have, and you are now putting us into a subordinate position, on the demand of a certain section of the Irish people. Of course, when you proceed to carry out this kind of proposition, you are necessarily landed in these anomalies. But so anxious am I to stand well with my English and Scottish fellow-countrymen, that I really do not think it is worth while, if there is a strong objection on their part, to ask the Government to press this matter. At the same time, we would be put to an enormous expense for this reason, that the constituencies which were returning 45 Members instead of 145 would be enormous constituencies. One constituency would be the whole county of Tyrone and the whole county of Fermanagh. It would be a very nice place to drive about and hold meetings in at elections, and a very considerable expense. The right hon. Gentleman opposite has made a suggestion which I would press upon the Government for their very serious consideration. After all, you have borne with us for a long time in this House with our present numbers; cannot you bear with us until another dissolution? That is really all the right hon. Gentleman opposite asks, I understand. We have been elected under your law for the same term that you have been elected, and why should we not be retained here during that time? It may not have to come into operation at all, but I thank the right hon. Gentleman opposite for the suggestion which, I think, is a generous one. I think it is a far better solution than the Amendment that has been put down, and I would ask my right hon. Friend favourably to consider and to see whether that is not the real way out of the difficulty.
§ Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANSI am very much obliged to my right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. MacDonald) for having made the suggestion he has. I think he really has cut across the mark. This Amendment, which I put down, was put down for the purpose of meeting a real hardship. I quite agree that one does not like any encroachment on constitutional practice, but the situation was exceptional, and in view of such exceptional circumstances, and had no other 1254 way been found, I was prepared to ask the House to accept this Amendment. My right hon. Friend has found another method, which is to leave the Irish representation in this House without alteration until another dissolution. That I am prepared to accept. As the matter now stands, these representatives will remain for at least 15 months. I do not for a moment suggest that a dissolution is going to take place even as soon as 15 months, but should it be so then the Bill, as it stands, would be sufficient to meet the case. It might go on another 16 or 36 months. Therefore, that gap can be bridged by the suggestion of my right hon. Friend. I, therefore, ask leave to withdraw this Amendment, and I shall endeavour in another place to find the words necessary to carry out the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYI am going to object. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] I think hon. Members might have the decency and courtesy to listen. Certain reasons have been given by the representative of the Government for withdrawing his Amendment. I wish to give my reasons for opposing this. To begin with, I do not quite understand what is the intention of the Government. I understand the right hon. Gentleman for Stirling and Falkirk (Mr. MacDonald), but what happens in subsequent years? I understand that by this suggested Amendment the present representatives shall remain in the Parliament. I should have thought they would have been wanted in Ireland on the opening of their own Parliament. But let that pass! I gather that if the Imperial Parliament is dissolved, and their own Parliament not dissolved, they will have to seek reelection, and then unless other words are found by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister without Portfolio they may have to undertake three or four elections to our one. Still the same objection remains, as has been pointed out, for the subsequent years, the objection that this Amendment attempts to remove. I see certain de-merits in this Amendment. It is going to lead to inconvenience to the Irish Members who would sit in this Parliament. Personally I am wholly opposed to Irish representation in this Parliament. Anything that will drive home the added expense of extra elections, and so on, I think is to be welcomed, as it will lead 1255 to the re-casting even of this proposed Bill.
The present suggestion, to be put in place of this Amendment, that the present representation should remain until the first dissolution is to me extremely mischievous. I do not know how long the Parliament will last, but I hope a very short time. It may, however, last the full five years for which it was elected. This Bill may go through and may operate in a way in a part of Ireland in, I suppose, quite a few months. Yet the whole of the present members representing Irish constituencies are to remain in this House. I think that is extremely wrong. For one thing, they are needed in their own country for the start of the new Parliament if they do honestly mean to work the measure in the North-east of Ireland. But I object most of all to the immediate giving way of the Minister in charge of the Bill—the immediate giving way to every crack of the whip by the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Sir E. Carson). This is the second time this afternoon. I regret profoundly that there have not been some of my own Friends here to protest against it, but it gives a light showing the whole genesis of this Bill, and of the Government's treatment of it, and I am afraid also, for the most part, by the House of Commons. If I can get any support on this particular question I shall certainly divide against the withdrawal of this Amendment. The Government do not seem to know their own minds. Their mind has to be made up for them by their real master, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Duncairn. Earlier in the afternoon I thought I was quite safe in relation to an Amendment, and very foolishly went upstairs to a Committee only to find when I came down that, at the crack of the whip of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, the Government had given way. Now we are seeing the same thing repeated. I object to that on principle. I trust I have given some reasons of substance why the Governmental Amendment should remain.
Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESSFrom the constitutional point of view I do not know that there is very much to choose between the original Amendment of the Government and its new form as put forward by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. MacDonald). But I wish to draw the 1256 attention of the House to one aspect of this and other proceedings this afternoon. It is very remarkable that all these Government Amendments seem to be put down at the instance of Ulster, and in the interests of Ulster. I am far from complaining of the action of the Ulster representatives in pressing for these Amendments. It is their right. It is their duty. But I want to draw the attention of the House to the fact, and to ask hon. Members to draw the contrast between the attitude of the Government towards these Ulster Amendments and their attitude towards other Amendments put forward to alleviate the position of those who are going to live under this Bill in the South. This afternoon we have had nothing but Ulster. First it was to enable Ulster to dig a deeper ditch against Irish Union. Then we had another Amendment to enable a change in the franchise to be made which, obviously, would take throe years instead of six years. Now we have this Amendment which the right hon. and learned Gentleman below me (Sir E. Carson) said he would not press on the Government, and he very generously accepted even a more favourable Amendment from Ulster's point of view! Ulster's over-representation, which he quite frankly admitted, is to continue until the end of this Parliament. I agree Ulster has asked for the alleviation of a very real hardship. I do not complain of it. I only want to draw attention to the fact that equally real and far greater hardships exist in the South of Ireland, and when they are brought forward in this House in not one single case is any Amendment accepted with a view to making the position better.
Colonel NEWMANAbout 80 Members have been elected in Ireland as Members of this Parliament who are not here. They object to take the oath. We always take the oath when we take our seats. The hon. Gentleman who sits above the Gangway (Mr. Malone) took the oath the same as I did. He is now the recognised member of a Soviet system—a revolutionary. Supposing it occurred, as it might, that these 80 Members, who have been elected for the South of Ireland, and who have not taken their seats, should do so after taking the oath. They will do so, and act apparently just as the hon. Member for Leyton acts at the present moment. How are we to face that? Is it not worth while looking 1257 at that danger? Supposing the Imperial funds were used to pay the election expenses of these Members, and the unfortunate event occurred of a double election. I am not a betting man, but I could imagine a betting man say that the contingency was very remote, and betting 100 to I against it. But supposing it did happen. Is it not easier to face it now than subsequently?
§ Amendment negatived.