STATUTE OF WESTMINSTER BILL. (Hansard, 7 December 1931)

§ Mr. MARJORIBANKS
I beg to move to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words, "upon this day three months."
The reasons for my Motion are as follows. The Irish Free State and His Majesty's Government have allowed the Lords to propose this Amendment for the consideration of this House and in order, I suppose, that the Statute, which is so repugnant to very many Members of this House, should at least not be repugnant to itself. The Government in this instance were so anxious to force upon the House of Commons, a new, unprepared and bewildered House of Commons, this Statute, that they did not hesitate to put into their Bill a time limit on the consideration about to be allowed by the House. This is the subject matter of the Amendment now brought forward before the House. The Lords seek to strike out from the Bill the words: This Act shall come into operation on the first day of December, nineteen hundred and thirty-one. The 1st day of December, 1931, has passed, and the Government are now cheated of this magic date. We put down upon the 1656 Amendment Paper this identical Amendment, but President Cosgrave's letter was read and the House was alarmed at what might happen at the next Free State election, and so the right hon. Gentleman was not able to give any hope for the consideration of that particular Amendment. Therefore, we proposed another Amendment that the date on which the Statute might come into force should be postponed and that, however, was absolutely refused by the Government. The Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, whom I do not see in his place, strongly resisted the Amendment, so, although there was no prospect of it being possible for the Act to be passed in its present form, it went up to the House of Lords. The House of Lords with their maturer wisdom were not prepared to allow the Statute to come into force. They were not prepared to allow a Statute to come from the House of Lords which said that it became law on the 1st of December when it did not become law until a fortnight or so afterwards. That was the last straw for the noble and learned camels at the other end of the corridor—

§ Mr. SPEAKER
The hon. Member has no right to speak in disrespect of another House.

§ Mr. MARJORIBANKS
The House of Lords has always been famous for its independence, especially when there was a Conservative majority, and I was not speaking in disrespect.

§ Mr. SPEAKER
The hon. Member must confine his remarks as to why the Lords Amendment should not now be considered.

§ Mr. MARJORIBANKS
I will do so. The question before the House is 1657 whether this Amendment should now be considered. I could, in a much longer speech than I am able to give now, give the reasons of the beneficial effect of a delay of three months in the consideration of this Amendment. If the Amendment could be laid aside in accordance with an old form of Motion in this House on consideration of Lords Amendments for three months, the whole of the Bill would he in abeyance for three months. That would mean that the British Empire would continue as a unit for another three months. That would mean the Conservative and Unionist party could retain the word "Unionist" without some sense of shame.

§ Mr. SPEAKER
I would remind the hon. Member that the Bill was passed by a large majority.

§ Mr. MARJORIBANKS
I am giving my arguments for putting the Amendment aside for three months, and I am telling the House the beneficial result which would accrue if the Amendment could be laid aside for three months. It would mean a postponement of the Bill and would be to the advantage of title British Empire. I submit that I should be allowed to state the beneficial results which would accrue if this were only deferred for three months. There could be consultation—