§ Order for Consideration of Lords Amendments read.
§ 7.50 p.m.
§ The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir John Simon)I beg to move, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered."
It may be for the convenience of the House if I state briefly how I suggest that the Lords Amendments should be regarded. I propose to move that we agree with these respective Amendments. If the House will look at a copy of the Bill, they will see that three or four points are dealt with. In the first place, an addition is proposed to Clause 2 which arises in this way. The House will recollect that when the Bill was before us there was a discussion whether or not the evidence of physicians should be insisted upon in a case in which it was alleged that it was necessary to appoint a Regent by reason of the infirmity of mind or body of the Sovereign, and the conclusion was reached, in which both sides of the House concurred, that words should be inserted which would modify the Bill as it left this House. In another place it was pointed out that there is another contingency which should be provided against, although the contingency is improbable, that is to say, that the Sovereign, though not incapable of acting by reason of infirmity of mind or body, none the less might not, in fact, be available. There was the historic case of Richard I, who ceased to be available for particular reasons; perhaps a more probable reason would be the possibility of shipwreck or accident when out of the country. I think it is desirable to insert the words suggested by the House of Lords, in order to complete the scheme of that Clause of the Bill.
Then the omission of the word "wholly," in page 2, line 26, appears on reflection to be right. Some of the legal 108 Members of the House of Lords pointed out that, since eminent legal authorities were among those who would have to pronounce on this question, a quite unnecessarily hard task would be imposed upon them if the word "wholly" were insisted upon. The Sovereign might be perfectly well able to sign his name and yet not able to perform some of his other functions, and there is no advantage to be gained by inserting the adverb. These are the only points that arise on Clause 2.
With regard to Clause 3, I feel that I ought to observe, though my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) is not here, that on reflection the Government have thought it well to insert, in page 3, line 13, words which I rather think my hon. Friend did suggest, either in the House or privately to myself. Anyhow I wish to make my acknowledgment to him. He pointed out that, as Sub-section (3) of Clause 3 of the Bill was drawn, it was conceivable, though of course it was not intended, that there might be two Regents at the same time. I think the whole scheme of the Bill is so plainly to the contrary effect that there would be no danger of that misunderstanding arising, but none the less we thought it well to put in these words, and that has been done in another place.
The only other point that arises on the Clauses is that a change has been made at the very end of Clause 5, which is of a slightly technical character, but which is plainly right. Paragraph (c) of Clause 5, as the Bill left this House, ran as follows:
The Regent shall administer the Sovereign's property, and shall, save in the cases aforesaid, have the guardianship of His person.This makes no provision for the case in which private property might be the subject of a trust which had been set up by a previous Sovereign, and it certainly was not intended that the Regent should have power to interfere with the administration of such a trust by the trustees named in the deed. It is a technical 109 point, but I have no doubt whatever that the change proposed is a proper one to make, and I commend it to the House.Lastly, in the Schedule it has been observed that the third of the three forms of Oath there set out, in the form in which the Schedule passed this House, contained an implication which was not intended. In the Regency Act, 1910, which was the last passed before the present Measure, there was a form of Oath which was shorter than the form now set out. I will, if I may, read it to the House:
I do faithfully promise and swear that I will inviolably maintain and preserve the Settlement of the true Protestant religion with the government, discipline, rights and privileges of the Church of Scotland as established by law.It became necessary to change these words because in the interval there had been passed an Act of Parliament which Scottish Members will remember, the Church of Scotland Act, 1921, which provided for the union of the Church of Scotland and the United Free Church. That being so, modification of the words was plainly necessary, and the modifications made have given rise to a possible implication that England is now apparently entirely left out. Under the form of oath as we sent it to another place, there is clearly no reference to England, and that is not, I think, a conclusion which we wish should follow. Therefore, it has been thought desirable, in order to avoid possible misconception, that the Lords Amendment should be made, so that the form should not suggest that the Regent's Oath in this respect applied only to the country North of the Tweed. These are all the changes of which I am aware, and, I shall, with the permission of the House, move in turn that we agree with these different Amendments.
§ Lords Amendments considered accordingly.