STATUTE OF WESTMINSTER BILL. (Hansard, 8 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."
I rise to resume my argument in favour of my Amendment. I ask the indulgence of the House in this argument and of your special indulgence, Mr. Speaker. You know that I and some of my hon. Friends hold strong views about this Statute as a whole, and it is sometimes difficult to exclude general arguments about it from technical arguments. I know that this argument must necessarily 1816 be of a technical nature, and I leave conscientiously considered, as far as I can, to see how I can advance arguments in a proper manner within the technical limits of the Amendment. The Government placed those who have been considering this Lords Amendment in some difficulty last night, because after a discussion of six hours on the subject of vegetables, we were given five minutes to discuss the question of the date when the new constitution for the British Empire should come into operation. The question of date is of paramount importance in this matter, and we were not perhaps unreasonable in insisting that more that five minutes' debate should be given to it.
I was not surprised that the Government treated us in that way, because that has been their consistent policy on every stage of this Bill, but I appreciate the point of view of and the argument which will no doubt be adduced by my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General. He will say that this is a mere drafting Amendment. As a man of great Parliamentary and legal experience, he will appreciate that that is the kind of argument which is always 1817 adduced when a Government find themselves in a technical difficulty, when they have left out something which ought to have been inserted and then repent at the eleventh hour. He will realise that that argument is also constantly used in the Law Courts. But it needs very little research indeed to realise that this is not merely a drafting Amendment, but one of paramount importance. One has only to look at the resolutions of the Imperial Conference, upon which the Statute of Westminster Bill is based. We have been told throughout the Debate, by every right hon. Gentleman on the Treasury Bench who has spoken, that those Resolutions must be regarded as a law of the Medes and Persians; that they are the foundation of the Statute of Westminster Bill; that we must not depart from them by one jot or tittle, because they are a promise we have made to the Dominions, an agreement of honour which the House is pledged to fulfil precisely, as has been requested and demanded. The first operative Resolution of the Imperial Conference is contained in this Official Report of—

§ Mr. SPEAKER
The hon. Member cannot go into the whole history of the Statute.

§ Mr. MARJORIBANKS
I was coming to the Resolution on which this Subsection must have been based. In that Resolution of the Imperial Conference it says that the let December, 1931, should be the date as from which the proposed Statute should become operative. Clearly, this Sub-section was put into the Statute of Westminster Bill in order to give legal form to that Resolution. Indeed, the precise words will be found in Sub-section (2) at the end of Clause 12. It is the Sub-section which the Lords now seek to eradicate from the Bill, and that is a violation of a most solemn pledge given to the Imperial Conference. Therefore, if we are to place any weight whatever upon the argument which was brought forward again and again that this Bill and this Sub-section embody a pledge definitely given at the Imperial Conference—it is an argument which has been consistently adduced by the Secretary of State for the Dominions and by the Solicitor-General and others—then we must admit that that pledge has been violated already by the Lords Amend- 1818 ment which seeks to take out of this Bill this solemn pledge given to the Dominions.
10.30 p.m.
I wish to place only this reliance upon that point, that having regard to the fact that we have already broken that solemn pledge the whole situation has now changed with regard to the matter of the date. That is why I have produced my Amendment that the Lords Amendment be considered this day three months, or, alternatively, be laid aside, so that we can come to some understanding in regard to the date. If this Amendment be carried, if we agree with the Lords in their Amendment, then this Bill will come into immediate operation as soon as the Royal Assent is given—whenever that may be, and I cannot possibly say when that will be. If, on the other hand, this Amendment of the Lords is not agreed to, then it will be clear on the face of things that the pledge to the Dominions has been broken, and that the Bill is self-contradictory in its very terms. If there was a solemn pledge with regard to the date of 1st December, there was also a solemn pledge with regard to the other proposals in this Bill. As we have already broken our pledge with regard to the precise date, it cannot make any difference in principle whether we delay this Measure for another week or another month. We have already broken our pledge and merely for the sake of putting this Statute into operation immediately, surely it would not be just not to grant our request that we should have a few days or weeks more for the consideration of this Measure, especially having regard to the circumstances which have arisen.
This proposal to lay aside the Lords Amendment is justified by precedent, and circumstances have arisen during the last few days which wholly alter the situation. There has been a change of Government in Australia and those Australian representatives who supported this Statute—

§ Mr. SPEAKER
I am afraid that is not in order. The hon. Member is really arguing against the Bill.

§ Mr. MARJORIBANKS
I was not proposing to argue against the Bill. I was arguing about the date on which the Bill should come into operation, and whether a further consultation would not be ad- 1819 visable in the present circumstances. There may be a change of Government in Australia, and the Secretary of State for the Dominions in supporting this Bill placed great reliance on the opinion of the Governments of the Dominions. Public opinion in the Dominions may have changed since the last Imperial Conference, and there is to be a General Election in Australia and a new Imperial Conference. We are told that we are now fulfilling a pledge given at the last Imperial Conference, and it is useless for the Secretary of State for the Dominions to say that you could not raise a constitutional question at the Imperial Conference.
I think that I have made myself plain with regard to the facts. The pledge given by the Dominions reinforces my argument for a revision with regard to the question of the date, and the date is the essence of this matter. Perhaps I may be allowed to say one or two words as regards the merit of leaving out this Sub-section or including it. This is the subject matter of the Amendment with which the Solicitor-General proposes to agree. My argument is that the course adopted by the Government is contrary to the tradition and the custom in England with regard to laws recently passed. Respect for laws is one of the traditions of the English character. We have been told by those who defended this course in this or the other House that this is a Statute not to be regarded seriously, and I will quote the words of the learned Viscount—

§ Mr. SPEAKER
The hon. Member cannot repeat the arguments used in another place in order to influence this House.

§ Mr. MARJORIBANKS
These arguments were not used in another place, and that is not my object. My object is to put this Bill before the country in the way which is most beneficial to the country and the Empire, and I will reinforce my argument as to whether I am in order or not by quoting the words of Lord Hailsham. He said: We English are sufficiently flexible and sufficiently sensible to allow Statutes which have become obsolete to remain inoperative. I do not see why this Statute of Westminster, even if it contains some of the dangers which some people see in it, should not share the fate of its earlier predecessors. I believe that the Statute of West- 1820 minster, whether it is strictly a correct legal document or not, is regarded, by many of the Dominions at any rate, as a legal expression of the Balfour Declaration. As far as I understand the argument of the Noble and learned Viscount, it was that this is a solemn pledge which we must fulfil to the Dominions, but that it is not a Bill which ought to be taken seriously. He later described the Bill as a "strait jacket" in which the British Empire would never be mad enough to place itself. I do not know whether that was consistent with the English tradition which always regards a law which has recently been passed as one which should be observed and obeyed, or whether the Noble and learned Viscount had in mind other words which were used by the great American President who presided over the Congress which determined what the American Constitution should be which has lasted for two centuries—

§ Mr. SPEAKER
The hon. Member is now dealing with the whole principle of the Bill, and that is entirely out of order on this Motion.

§ Mr. MARJORIBANKS
If that were my only argument, it would be out of order, but my argument is—

§ Mr. SPEAKER
It is not in order even though it be part of the hon. Member's argument.

§ Mr. MARJORIBANKS
My object is to show that this is a most exceptional Statute, and that, having regard to the fact that it is a most exceptional Statute, and is to be disregarded, according to the advice of those people who have been concerned to defend it both here and in another place, it is far better that this Statute should be marked out as one which is not to be regarded, because it contains utterly contradictory pro-visions—

§ Mr. SPEAKER
That might be an argument against the Bill, but on this Motion arguments either for or against the Bill are out of order.

§ Mr. MARJORIBANKS
It is an argument for the inclusion in this Statute of Sub-section (2), which my hon. and learned Friend is seeking to exclude, in order that people may mark the Statute out as one which has not had the ordi- 1821 nary consideration that is usually given by Parliament to Measures of this immense importance. I urge that these words should be included in this Statute in order that Lord Hailsham's prophecy in regard to the Statute may be fulfilled more easily, and in order that they may be a mark of the lack of consideration—

§ Mr. SPEAKER
Now the hon. Member is erring on the other side. In order to influence this House, he is dealing with arguments which were used in another place.

§ Mr. MARJORIBANKS
No, Sir. With great respect, I thought I informed you that the speech from which I quoted was not delivered in Parliament, but was de- livered, I think on the 10th November, before the Royal Empire Society, where the Noble and learned Lord was the only speaker present who took that point of view. I urge that these words should be included in the Statute, in order that that express prophecy should he fulfilled, in order that this strait jacket shall never be worn, in order that it shall be relegated into the cobwebs of the obscurity which it deserves, in order that they may be a mark of the scanty consideration which the Government have allowed to be given to this Measure, and in order that they may be a standing justification of the few lawyers and Unionists who, as best they could, have opposed this Measure with all their strength.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE
I beg to second the Amendment.
I do not propose, Mr. Speaker, to risk incurring your displeasure or being ruled out of order by entering into the merits or demerits of this Measure, but only to support my hon. Friend's request that more time should be allowed for its consideration. There are three reasons which I would adduce for my support of my hon. Friend. One is that we took 400 years to build up this Empire, and now we are giving it away in two days, and I think that that reason alone for further and more meticulous inquiry is one which is well worthy of consideration. The second reason is that we have some pretty adequate information as to the attitude of some of the Dominions on the question of delay. Several States in one of the Dominions, and New 1822 Zealand itself, have expressed a desire for further consideration of the Bill and it would, therefore, be advisable in the interests of the Dominions that they should have that facility and that we should have the benefit of their advice. In an answer given yesterday by the Secretary of State for the Dominions in regard to New Zealand's attitude, as far as I could gather, it was very unsatisfactory.
There is another point, which I have raised before and which might very well be brought into this argument. If the Imperial Economic Conference is going to be held at an earlier date than was originally proposed, surely in the atmosphere it may engender there may well be a further atmosphere of a closer political union between various parts of the Empire. May I put one last argument on the somewhat debatable point of India? We have been told that Dominion status may be granted to India. Surely, in this new era, which may mean so much for the future of India, it would be advisable to have three months in which to see what Dominion status is likely to mean to India, and we should have that time further to investigate and decide whether this Statute can be put into operation at the end of that three months or whether, in view of the new facts that may be elicited—

§ Mr. SPEAKER
To put it off for three months is to kill the Bill.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE
It is the Amendment—

§ Mr. SPEAKER
The Amendment, if carried, would kill the Bill.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE
I thought that in three months time the House would be sitting again, and, therefore, we should have an opportunity of discussing it after the period of three months had transpired, when we should have all that further information before us which would enable us perhaps to come to a wiser decision.