The Deputy-ChairmanI think the Amendment in line 19, the Amendment in line 21, and the two new Clauses could conveniently be discussed together on the first Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Oxford University (Sir A. Herbert).
§ 7.23 p.m.
§ Sir Alan Herbert (Oxford University)I beg to move, in page 1, line 19, at the beginning, to insert "Subject as hereinafter provided."
I do not think the Committee stage of this Bill need detain us long because half of the Amendments I do not intend to press severely and the others, I have gathered privately, may be out of Order. As you rightly say, Mr. Bowles, these first two Amendments can be conveniently discussed with the two new Clauses. I would like to get it formally on the record, if only for the instruction of the members of another place to which this Bill may go, so far as I know, that these Amendments and new Clauses together propose a different solution of this difficult problem from that which was proposed in the reasoned Amendment on the Second Reading.
Briefly, the suggestion is that this House shall accept—and indeed it accepted on the Second Reading—the principle and the terms of the Bill as they appear in the Schedule to the Bill, but because we do not know enough about them and because they have not been discussed with Newfoundland, they shall be sent to the Government of Newfoundland, according to the British North America Acts, and, when they have been discussed and approved by the Parliament of Newfoundland, they shall automatically have the force of law. The difference between that suggested procedure and the procedure suggested on Second Reading is that in that case there would be no more recourse to this Parliament, and we shall have an end of it. I will not weary the Committee by repeating the arguments used on the Second Reading.
§ Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore (Ayr Burghs)I support the Amendments proposed by my hon. Friend. As the Committee will appreciate, the new Clauses are really the basis of our argument in regard to this Measure. I would remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman who will be answering that there is no hostility to confederation as such, but merely to the hasty and unconstitutional method of bringing about confederation. If Newfoundland wants confederation, then let the Committee accept these Amendments, which will enable a duly constituted Parliament of Newfoundland, democratically elected by the people of Newfoundland, to decide whether they want confederation or not. If this Amendment, which gives us the power to discuss the new Clauses, is accepted, and the new Clauses are accepted, that will meet our arguments and will satisfy the uneasy feeling that exists in the House of Commons and in the country regarding the state to which we are committing the people of our oldest Dominion.
§ The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross)I wish I could share the hope of the junior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir A. Herbert) that this stage of the Bill might not take too long. Unfortunately, it falls most unhappily to me, and most unwillingly to me, to prolong the discussion a little by placing on record what I fear may be a somewhat tedious and technical argument in regard to the constitutional position about this matter as we see it. In view of the remarks made by the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore), and in view of the discussions we had in the Second Reading Debate, it was thought that we ought to make quite clear what we conceive to be the technical position.
The Amendment we are discussing, the next Amendment, and the two new Clauses which are consequential, raise a number of issues. Some of them are political, not in any party sense but in the sense that they will require the Committee to decide what it is right and expedient to do, and some of them have a legal complexion. I do not propose to say anything about the political aspects of the matter except this, that what it is sought to do now is no more than the culmination and completion of a policy which has been openly and consistently 1261 pursued ever since 1943 and which, from time to time, has been publicly canvassed and discussed. The policy, the propriety, the expediency and legality of it was never questioned until after it had become manifest that the result of its adoption would be that the people of Newfoundland would join with the people of Canada in the great, the free and the self-governing confederation of that country.
We readily accept the view—indeed we assert the view—that however strong the case for the Bill might be on grounds of policy, nothing should induce us in these important matters affecting the relationship between the different countries in the Commonwealth—a relationship which does not rest upon the iron framework of any rigid constitution but which is founded largely in unwritten laws, in conventions, in practice and in even less tangible ties of association—to depart from the law, the practice or the spirit of our constitutional doctrines.
7.30 p.m.
One comes at once to the question of how it is said that the present Bill does or may involve some conflict with the law, the practice or the spirit of our constitution, the things that we should certainly, on both sides of the Committee, wish most strongly to maintain. As I understand it, there are said to be four ways in which we may be departing from the law or the spirit of the constitution in these matters. It is said, first, that Confederation with Canada can only be effected under Section 146 of the British Nationality Act, 1867; secondly, that what it is sought to do here involves an infringement of the Statute of Westminster, 1931; thirdly, that in view of the terms on which Responsible Government was suspended in Newfoundland in 1933, what is now being done should only be done on a request from a Legislative Assembly in Newfoundland; and finally, it is said—this is a point which has given us some anxiety and which we have considered most carefully—that the present legislation should await the advice which may be tendered to His Majesty by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in an appeal from the Supreme Court of Newfoundland which is at present pending.
I will try not to be too technical or too long, but it is, perhaps, important that a view should be placed on record 1262 in regard to these matters. I will deal with each of these matters in the order in which I have stated them. There really is nothing in the first point standing alone. Section 146 of the 1867 Act was in a sense an enabling Section. It enabled Her Majesty, by an Order in Council and without the necessity of any further statute or legislation of the United Kingdom Parliament, to admit Newfoundland into the Canadian Confederation on a request from the Legislatures of the two countries; but it really cannot be suggested that thereafter that was the only and exclusive means by which union between Newfoundland and Canada could have been effected. All that the Statute did was to provide a method short of legislation by the United Kingdom Parliament by which union could be brought about, but that legislation by the United Kingdom Parliament could still have brought about exactly the same result is really, I venture to think, not in doubt at all.
At that time, as hon. Members will recall, the doctrine of the sovereign independence of the different Commonwealth countries had not arisen at all. The United Kingdom Parliament enjoyed a completely unfettered sovereignty over all the Dominions, as we called them at that time, and the United Kingdom Parliament could at that time, without any question, have passed another Statute immediately afterwards effecting a complete union between Canada and Newfoundland and totally disregarding the provisions of the 1867 Act. Indeed, in 1915 Parliament did, as a matter of fact, pass another Statute, which, notwithstanding the 1867 Act, materially altered the representation which Newfoundland would have had in the Senate of the Canadian Constitution if union had in fact been brought about. So much for the position under the 1867 Act. I venture to suggest that there really is no possible doubt at all about that aspect of the matter.
§ Mr. J. Langford-Holt (Shrewsbury)The right hon. and learned Gentleman is quoting the 1867 Act. Are we to understand that what he is saying is his and the Government's interpretation of that Act rather than any statement which is explicit in that Act, because the Section to which he is referring is only an enabling one?
§ The Attorney-GeneralNo. I am submitting my view as to the effect of that Act, a view which, I suggest, is supported by the fact that subsequently Parliament did alter the Act. Then it is said—very truly, of course—that all that about the 1867 Act may be quite correct in itself as at that time, but that much water has flowed under the constitutional bridges since 1867 and that the position has been radically altered by the Statute of Westminster. It is perfectly true, of course, that a great deal of water has flowed under the constitutional bridges since 1867, and it is equally true that the position has been radically altered.
§ Sir Patrick Hannon (Birmingham, Moseley)The bridges still remain.
§ The Attorney-GeneralThe bridges still remain. It is our intention to maintain them. It is also true that the position has been radically altered since 1867 but, so far as Newfoundland is concerned, it has not been altered at all by the Statute of Westminster. The Statute of Westminster was in the main what is called an adoptive Act; that is to say, it was brought into operation in relation to the particular Commonwealth countries if and when the Legislatures of those countries chose to adopt it. Newfoundland never did adopt it. In consequence, the operative parts of the Statute of Westminster—Sections 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6—never at any time applied to Newfoundland. In any event, Section 7 of the Statute of Westminster expressly excluded the alteration or the amendment of the British North America Act, 1867, from the scope of the Statute of Westminster. Even if, therefore, the Act had been adopted by Newfoundland, there would still have been that exclusion by Section 7 of the effect of the Act on the old 1867 Statute. One can, therefore, quite safely say—and I have confidence in advising the Committee about this—that there is nothing contrary to the Statute of Westminster in what is now being done.
§ Sir A. HerbertWould the right hon. and learned Gentleman say something about the Preamble to the Statute of Westminster?
§ The Attorney-GeneralTo say that there is nothing contrary to the Statute of Westminster in what it is now sought to do is, as the junior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir A. Herbert) obviously has 1264 in mind, by no means to conclude the matter. I speak with great diffidence about this, because it must sound very much like a lecture on constitutional law, and there is nothing I should less wish to deliver to the Committee than that. As the junior Burgess for Oxford University knows very well, our constitution—and this, I think, is one of its very greatest merits—consists in part of written laws which are enforceable in the courts and in part of doctrines or conventions which, although they are not directly enforceable in the courts, do in fact effectively control the machinery of government. Although, when dealing with these conventions, we have not got written rules which we can go to court and immediately enforce, I should certainly not wish to rank them any lower in importance than the ordinary rules of law which are immediately enforceable in the courts.
The relationship between the different Commonwealth countries within the Commonwealth is very largely founded upon conventional doctrines of this kind, which the Executives and the Legislatures rightly regard as fettering their own position and their own power and as being binding upon them. I mention that for this reason, that although Newfoundland did not adopt the Statute of Westminster it had for some years prior to 1931 undoubtedly been the constitutional position and the accepted constitutional convention that no law should be passed by the United Kingdom Parliament to extend to any Dominion, except at the request and with the consent of that Dominion, and that doctrine was embodied and enshrined in the recitals which are set out in the Preamble to the Statute of Westminster. Setting them out in the Preamble gives them no greater legal effect. They are not part of the substantive enactment itself, but the conventions are in fact set out in the Preamble in a way which leaves no doubt at all as to their existence as constitutional conventions. Those conventions before the Statute of Westminster and in the Preamble to the Statute of Westminster did undoubtedly apply to Newfoundland, although Newfoundland did not so adopt the body of the Statute itself.
Probably that meets the point the junior Burgess of Oxford University had 1265 in mind, and I would agree at once that unless something had subsequently happened to alter the constitutional status of Newfoundland and to do away with the conventional doctrines which otherwise would apply to her, the doctrine I have just mentioned about the legislative powers of the United Kingdom Parliament would no doubt have been conventionally applicable to the present legislation. But, of course, something did happen after the Statute of Westminster and after that conventional doctrine had been firmly embodied in the Preamble to the Statute. What happened was that Newfoundland abdicated her position of equal sovereignty as a member of the Commonwealth and it was only to those countries in the Commonwealth which enjoyed equal sovereignty with each other that the convention ever applied as a constitutional doctrine or was ever intended to apply by the Preamble to the Statute of Westminster.
§ Sir A. HerbertI quarrel with the word "abdicated." It is very important. The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows very well that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer played a great part in the discussions of the Newfoundland Bill and insisted to the last moment that the word "suspension" of the powers should be put in. I therefore quarrel with "abdication."
§ The Attorney-GeneralI accept the correction of the hon. Gentleman. "Temporarily abdicated" is a more accurate phrase—abdicated, at all events, for the time being, the position of an equal sovereign country which hitherto she undoubtedly enjoyed within the Commonwealth. That occurred when the 1933 Newfoundland Act was passed and, incidentally, the recital to that Statute indicates that it was passed not under the Statute of Westminster machinery at all, but in accordance with the previous and still existing conventional practice in regard to the matter—the conventional practice and doctrine of complete sovereign equality. The effect of the 1933 Act, both as a matter of law and as a matter of the less tangible conventional doctrine, was that sovereign equality was at least suspended for the time being, and for the time being—that is to say, during the period in which the 1933 Statute was in operation 1266 —neither the Statute of Westminster nor the conventional doctrine of sovereign equality had any possible application to Newfoundland.
The true position in law—and I am expressing my opinion to the House about a legal matter subject always to the qualification that law is not an exact science—after the 1933 Statute had been passed, was that the United Kingdom Parliament enjoyed complete sovereignty, unfettered sovereignty, over Newfoundland and that Newfoundland, although in name a Dominion, was in fact a Colony. During this period, the United Kingdom Parliament passed a number of Statutes applicable to Newfoundland and it is significant that not only did nobody at any time doubt the capacity of this Parliament to pass Statutes binding on Newfoundland, but in the Statutes which were passed, Newfoundland was always ranked with Colonies and not with Dominions, as we called them then. I have three such Measures in my hand and will not go into detail, but I would point out that in the Prize Act, 1939. it was provided by Section 4:
This Act extends to the following countries and territories, that is to say … (d) Newfoundland and every Colony. …7.45 p.m.Almost the same words were used in the Ships and Aircraft Act, 1939:
This Act extends to the following countries and territories, that is to say, … Newfoundland, and any Colony except Southern Rhodesia or a Colony administered by His Majesty's Government in a Dominion.Again, in the Merchant Shipping Act, 1948, we provided in Section 9:His Majesty may by Order in Council … extend the provisions of the Act to such places as may be specified in the Order, namely, the Isle of Man, any of the Channel Islands, Newfoundland or any Colony.That, in effect, was the constitutional position which Newfoundland has occupied during this intervening period, the position of a Colony having a special form of government, one of the many varieties of government one finds in different Colonies within the British Commonwealth. Had it been otherwise—and this is the point to which I invite the attention of the junior Burgess for Oxford University—the present obviously temporary form of government in Newfoundland might have had to continue indefinitely and might have been incapable of alteration ever, since the conditions for 1267 the restoration of Responsible Government, namely, solvency plus a request from the Dominion, might never have arisen.During this period of temporary abdication, this period of suspension, a request to the United Kingdom Parliament for legislation, even if it had been, which manifestly it was not, a condition precedent to legislation by the United Kingdom Parliament, could ex hypothesi not have been a request from the Legislature of Newfoundland, for the Legislature of Newfoundland had gone. It could only have been made by some other method of popular expression. No such request was made by any method of popular expression for the restoration of self-government, but there has been a request for union with Canada. Even, therefore, if the constitutional convention had applied to Newfoundland and even if, contrary to the view I am submitting to the House as the better view, this Parliament had no right conventionally, as opposed to legally, to legislate for Newfoundland except at the request of the people of Newfoundland, the people have made the request in the only way open to them to make it in existing circumstances.
Finally, I come to the point on which it is said that various issues, including the issues about which I have been speaking, are raised in the pending appeal to the Privy Council and that our action in Parliament should await the decision of the Privy Council. I must confess at once that that is a very attractive argument and an argument to which, if it were at all possible, we would certainly wish to defer, even if it were only out of the high respect we hold for the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. But, it is not always possible for a sovereign Parliament to delay its legislative processes in case the supreme appellate tribunal should take a different view of the law from that which is for the time being laid down by decisions of the courts, which are binding statements of the law. Parliament, in proceeding with this Bill, is in fact proceeding on the basis of the law as at present ascertained and as laid down by the courts.
§ Professor Savory (Queen's University of Belfast)Will the Attorney-General say whether, if we pass this Bill into law, 1268 it will make a subsequent appeal to the Privy Council absolutely vain and nugatory?
§ The Attorney-GeneralI would not go so far as to say that it would make an appeal vain and nugatory, but it would certainly remove some of the intended practical results of the appeal. About that there can be no doubt. It may well be that if this Bill were passed those who are pursuing the appeal would not consider it worth while so to do. That would depend on what confidence they had in some of the issues raised in the appeal. One of the issues raised in the appeal is that even if this Bill is passed, it would not be effective in Newfoundland. If those who are pursuing the appeal have any confidence in the submission which they are making—perhaps they have not—they will no doubt prosecute the appeal and see whether they can persuade the Privy Council of the correctness of that point of view.
§ Sir P. Hannonis there any precedent where Parliament has proceeded, in similar circumstances, with legislation while a case was pending before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council?
§ The Attorney-GeneralThere are certainly cases in which Parliament has proceeded with legislation whilst appeals have been pending to the Court of Appeal or to the House of Lords in this country, and in which Parliament has dealt with the law and made the law what it thought it ought to be, disregarding any view which the Court of Appeal or the House of Lords might have had as to the existing state of the law. That is obviously the right of a sovereign Parliament. It is not concerned as to the view which the highest court might ultimately take about the existing law. It has proceeded to enact what it wished the law to be. It is entitled to do so and that has often been done.
I cannot say if any problem has arisen in the case of an appeal by a Commonwealth country to the Privy Council. An analogous problem has certainly arisen in the lifetime of this Parliament. At one time there were some cases involving appeals from death sentences which had been imposed, I think, on the Gold Coast. Several appeals were brought, and the position was reached that each time an appeal was dismissed an attempt was 1269 made to bring forward a new appeal, and so to gain a delay in the execution of the death sentence. The position that was taken up then was that the process could not be allowed to go on indefinitely, and that it would be proper in certain circumstances—I have forgotten what was done in the actual cases—for the Executive to act on the existing view of the law as laid down by the existing courts, and not allow its action to be delayed by the possibility that on appeal to the Privy Council a different view might be taken of the legal position.
§ Mr. E. P. Smith (Ashford)Is it not a fact that a number of people were hanged as a result?
§ The Attorney-GeneralI am afraid that my recollection of what actually occurred in that case does not enable me to say whether that happened or not. I think it is right to say that no one was hanged who was afterwards found by the Privy Council to be innocent. I imagine that the appeals to the Privy Council did not go on after the sentences had been executed.
The position is that it would be most unfortunate if, after our legislation had been carried right through and received the Royal Assent, the Privy Council should take a view of the law different from that which had so far been laid down in the courts, including the Supreme Court of Newfoundland. In this matter the Committee has to weigh the risks of that happening, and the extent of the misfortune which would follow, against the manifest and certain misfortune which would result from delaying our legislation now. One of the manifest misfortunes which would result from delaying our legislation now would be that Canada would have to pass a new Statute, and there would at the best be a prolonged delay in bringing about confederation. Unfortunately—and we have explored the possibilities of this—the rules under which appeals are brought to the Privy Council do not enable the matter to be expedited so that it can be disposed of in the limited time which remains available.
I say "the limited time which remains available" because unless this Bill is passed into law before the end of March, the Canadian Statute will cease to be 1270 operative. The problem was therefore to get the Privy Council appeal brought on before the end of March. That seems to be quite impossible. Indeed, the appellants, who have already delayed their proceedings until the eleventh hour—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—perhaps that is not quite right. But the proper time for the appellants to take this action was before the Convention and before the Referendum. They should have sought an injunction to declare those things illegal. They did not do that. They waited to see the result, and it was only when it was a result that they did not like that they questioned the legality of what had been done. I do not want to make what might seem to be a debating point. It is sufficient to say that even with the utmost good will on both sides it is impossible to get the matter before the Privy Council before the end of March. Consequently, one has to weigh in the balance the disadvantages of the risks which are attached to either course, the course of delaying this legislation or that of proceeding with it.
Many of the matters raised in the appeal are irrelevant. I venture to think that some of the others are only of academic and historical interest, and although the view of the Privy Council about these matters, if the Privy Council comes to pass its judgment upon them, will be of interest and importance, Parliament is clearly entitled to act as it thinks right in regard to them because they are not matters which affect Parliament's legal powers. For instance, it is now said that there was no power in law to hold a National Convention and the Referendum. But they have been held and they have produced certain results. It is an argument which reminds me of the story of the steward on the cross-Channel steamer who says to a passenger who looks a bit queasy "You cannot be sick here," and the passenger points out that he has just been sick, and is sick again.
The legal position does not really overcome the facts of the case. The Referendum is a fact and it is a fact which is at least as important as the earlier Petition to which the junior Burgess for Oxford University referred during our Second Reading Debate. The absence of any legal basis for it, if that were eventually established, would not really entirely destroy its factual significance.
1271 8.0 p.m.
In addition to these irrelevant points, the appeal raises one point of critical significance. It is a point which I mentioned in answer to a question put to me from the other side of the Committee. The appellants contend that the United Kingdom legislation would not be binding in Newfoundland. That view is based on the view that the Statute of Westminster applies to Newfoundland. It is a view which I venture to think is completely misconceived; and even if it were correct that it did apply to Newfoundland the legal conclusions which the appellants seek to establish from that fact may be completely erroneous. No Government and no Parliament in the United Kingdom would dream for a moment of seeking to over-ride the provisions of the Statute of Westminster in any independent Commonwealth country to which the Statute applied. That is one of the cases where the conventions, rather than the strict law of the Constitution, would effectively constrain the action of our legislature. But it is a very different thing to say that the Privy Council, or any other court in this country, could pass upon such legislation if in fact it did take place.
His Majesty's Government, if I may say so with respect, accept in this matter the very clear, very closely reasoned and very strong judgment of the Newfoundland courts, including the Supreme Court of Appeal in Newfoundland, as to the legal position as applied to the present case. We accept the view that there is nothing in the circumstances of this appeal which should in any way affect the present legislation. In face of that statement of the law contained in the judgment of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland, and taking the view that the United Kingdom Parliament is competent to legislate for Newfoundland and that it has been requested to legislate by Canada, we do not feel justified in wrecking the present proposals, rendering abortive the Statute passed by the Canadian Parliament and ignoring the the request of the Canadian legislature that we ourselves should pass this Bill. We do not feel justified in delaying the aspirations of the recorded majority of the Newfoundlanders because of the risk that the Privy Council may possibly take a different view from that of the 1272 Supreme Court of Newfoundland when this appeal eventually comes before them.
If the Privy Council do take a different view, and do so advise His Majesty, the position would not really be much worse than if we were to delay the present legislation. If the Privy Council did take that view we should at once accept it, and we here, and Canada and Newfoundland, would have to start all over again. But so we should in any event. If we now delay the present Bill the Canadian Statute then ceases to be operative and this Bill will fall to the ground because it will no longer be in accordance with the request of the Canadian Legislature. We would therefore have to go through the whole of this process again and have a new Bill and a new Statute in Canada, further procedure in Newfoundland and eventually a new Bill in this House.
§ Sir A. HerbertThose difficulties may arise, but the Government should have foreseen them as long ago as last July when the first representations on those lines were made. It is the folly of Ministers that has got them into this mess.
§ The Attorney-GeneralWe take the view, and events have shown us to be right, that the action brought in Newfoundland was a frivolous and vexatious action. We did not think it right that the action of a sovereign Parliament should be delayed or impeded by an action defined by the Supreme Court as a frivolous and vexatious action. If we allowed that to be done in every case—and I am putting this as a general proposition—if we allowed the possibility of a frivolous and vexatious action to delay and impede the work of a sovereign Parliament, the work of Parliament would never go forward at all.
We had to make up our minds at that time whether there was any substance in this action. We considered that there was not—and our view has so far been borne out to be the correct one—and we are acting now in accordance with what is the ascertained law. If the Privy Council eventually comes to a different conclusion, that would show that, relying on the decision of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland, we have acted on a mistaken view of the law. That is always possible. In advising the Committee I always start off by saying that the law 1273 is not an exact science. The hon. Member for Oxford University or I, or both of us, may possibly be mistaken about it. I certainly would not pledge my opinion as being infallible on this or any other matter. But if that does happen, the worst that will arise is that we shall have to start all over again. We shall have to start all over again on either view. If we delay the legislation now we shall have to start over again. If eventually the decision of the Privy Council goes against us, we shall have to start all over again. But on the whole, balancing the risks and the advantages, we think—and I hope it will be appreciated that our view involves no kind of disrespect to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the circumstances we ought to carry through the policy to which the Government have been pladged ever since 1943.
§ Professor SavoryMay I ask a question? If it has already been answered in my absence, I apologise, but it seems to me to be very important. Does not this phrase:
… notwithstanding anything in the British North America Acts of 1867 …preclude an appeal to the Privy Council on the ground that the only means of altering the constitution is by an address to His Majesty from the Legislature, from both Houses of the Newfoundland Parliament?
§ The Attorney-GeneralNo, Sir. I do not think it affects the possibility of presenting that appeal to the Privy Council. The basis of that argument is that it is no longer in the power of this Legislature to over-ride the provisions of the British North America Act, 1867, in these regards. The point still remains open, although it is clearly a bad point.
§ Sir T. MooreI think that everyone who has listened to the Attorney-General will agree that he has made one of the most persuasive speeches in his career in this House of Commons; but to my mind it was singularly unconvincing. There were quite a number of points which, although possibly unintentionally, he slid over, or he did not attach sufficient importance to them. When he referred—and I am glad that he disapproved of the word, which was inappropriate in the circumstances—to the abdication of sovereignty by Newfoundland he did not at that time mention the 1274 two specific qualifications to that abdication. They were, as he knows as well as we do, that when Newfoundland was again self-supporting and when she wanted back a responsible Government she should have it; secondly, if, unfortunately, the decision of the Privy Council should run contrary to the decision we take in this House of Commons then the whole processes which have been undertaken in this country by this House would have to be postponed, the Canadian Statute would lapse, and Canada, and ourselves and Newfoundland would have to start all over again.
§ The Attorney-GeneralI wish to make it clear that what I meant was that if the decision of the Privy Council on the one point to which I referred—the critical point whether the United Kingdom legislation would be effective in Newfoundland—was contrary to the view we were taking. It is only on that aspect of the case that the decision of the Privy Council would affect the position at all. All the other matters would be quite irrelevant to what we are now doing.
§ Sir T. MooreI appreciate that point, but I cannot follow the argument that the world would collapse simply because we would have to start again. It seems to me that it would be far wiser to start again, rather than to create this hatred, this contempt on the part of many thousands of people in Newfoundland—with 98 per cent. of British blood in them—or that they should have these feelings of animosity and resentment brought into their attitude towards us.
One more point raised by the right hon. Gentleman was also on the Second Reading. It was a very strong point: Why did these people defer raising their appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council until they knew they had failed in their Referendum? That was the weakest argument that has been raised on the opposite side of the House. Surely it was only reasonable that they should wait until they saw the result of the Referendum.
§ The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker)The intention was to say that these actions were invalid in law. Surely, they ought to have brought that matter up before the actions were performed, and not afterwards.
§ Sir T. MooreAs we know, the majority of the people who made this appeal are poor people. They cannot afford to take risks such as the very great financial expenditure which they are incurring today. I cannot agree that that argument ought to have been used, and I still trust that the Attorney-General will re-advise the Government on this point.
§ Mr. Benn Levy (Eton and Slough)Does the hon. Member recognise that at least a verbal protest could have been lodged with no expense whatever?
§ Sir T. MooreThe Bill has reached this House backed by 400 well-disciplined supporters. It is only by that action that the protest has not succeeded. The only alternative that the people of Newfoundland have was to appeal to the highest Court.
§ Sir T. MooreUnfortunately our newspapers are too small—[Laughter]—yes, too small to take notice of the very important protests that are made against actions of this House, supported by hon. Gentlemen who are in power. I believe that the Attorney-General and the Government mean to do right, in a way, but they ere doing it in an untimely way. They are doing it without proper consideration of the vast issues involved. If it will cause delay somewhere, or give more trouble to someone, or will cause certain processes to lapse, what is all that, against the alternative of creating anger and hatred amongst our very old friends? In response to the speech made by the Attorney-General I would ask that he revise him opinion and re-advise the Government to take the right and just action in this matter.
§ Sir A. HerbertMay I very briefly thank the Attorney-General for his very careful and lucid speech? I will qualify the word "lucid," because even though I say he is lucid I cannot always follow what he says, but that is my fault, no doubt. Anyhow, I am very glad that I have not to argue against him before the Privy Council. I want to raise one point which was not quite so fully covered as others with which he dealt. It was when the Attorney-General said that Newfoundland had never adopted Section 4 of the 1276 Statute of Westminster. We must not forget that Newfoundland was made a Dominion by the Statute of Westminster, which was passed in 1931.
§ The Attorney-GeneralNewfoundland clearly adopted the doctrine of equal sovereignty prior to 1931. The matter had been the subject of record in 1930 and discussion took place in 1926. There is no doubt that before the Statute of Westminster was passed the conventional doctrine applied to Newfoundland, and that it continued to apply up to 1933. The Statute of Westminister did not affect Newfoundland at all.
§ 8.15 p.m.
§ Sir A. HerbertI quite agree, but, that being admitted, let me say that I was only quarrelling with the right hon. Gentleman's remark that Newfoundland had never adopted Section 4 of the Statute, which was passed in 1931. In 1933 Newfoundland began to have her financial troubles, since when she has had no Government and could not adopt Section 4. But, as the Attorney-General does not seem to attach much importance to that point I will leave it aside.
Assuming that he is sound on his legal points—and he is a very fine lawyer—let me try to simplify the thing down to two matters of factual significance, to use his own phrase. First, the Newfoundlanders say—this is not my opinion but theirs "Under the Act of 1933 the Commission of Government with its six or seven oligarchs"—I use that term in no offensive sense—"were given power to make laws for the "peace, welfare and good government" of the Island for a temporary period. They had no power to make laws making away with the future and the sovereignty of Newfoundland." That is one simple point.
The other point is: Suppose the Attorney-General to be quite right legally; what is the actual situation we have now? Here, in the House of Commons, we are discussing the affairs and the future of Newfoundland, and the terms of the Bill. Tomorrow in the House of Lords there will be more Parliamentary discussion of the Bill and the terms. For 16 days in the Parliament of Canada these terms of union were discussed. There is nothing to stop the Federal Parliament in Australia or the State Parliaments from discussing in 1277 an airy way tomorrow this great union between Canada and Newfoundland and saying: "These terms seem to be very favourable and fair." In New Zealand and South Africa they can do the same, in the cold air of Hobart or the hot sun of Queensland. They all have Parliaments. There is only one place in the whole Commonwealth where there can be no Parliamentary discussion of these terms, and that is in the Dominion of Newfoundland. Let us sweep away all the legal arguments and the quibbles; that does not seem to be a democratic thing which can be adjusted to our ideas of law or of fact in this Empire. Therefore, if I only have one man with me I am going to ask the House of Commons to divide with me in favour of this Amendment.
§ Mr. Tolley (Kidderminster)I have heard with a certain amount of surprise the hon. Member for Oxford University (Sir A. Herbert) take up his present attitude. Those of us who have taken the trouble to follow the fortunes of Newfoundland during the last 10 or 15 years should be welcoming the fact that we are giving to Newfoundland a future to which she has never been able to look forward, without first deciding for herself—I believe that she has done that in every sense of the word—with whom she wished to become allied, because of the impossible position in which she has been in the past. She will be in that position in the future also, unless she throws in her lot with the Canadian people.
We know of the poverty an misery that were operating in Newfoundland not many years ago. But for the aid that she was given, the position would in all probability have been much worse until it became intolerable. The result of it all is that this is not an attempt to squeeze out of existence the country or its people. It is not that, but the exact opposite. I give my support to this Measure tonight because I am sincere in believing that here is a glorious opportunity for the people of Newfoundland to enjoy the rights and privileges of civilised men and women and to look forward with a great sense of hope. We should be doing wrong in delaying the Measure.
I listened to the Attorney-General explaining the situation. I cannot believe 1278 that the Privy Council will for one moment accede to the requests being made to them. If they do so, I believe they will be penalising for all time many thousands of people whom I want to see enjoy all the privileges which civilisation can give them. If I speak feelingly, it is because I have followed the fortunes of this little country with some interest. Because I have done that, I welcome very much indeed the generous gesture of Canada, plus the help which we in this country and in this Parliament are endeavouring to give towards this alliance. I have no hesitation in saying that if that alliance is made, the people of Newfoundland will indeed have something to which to look forward which they have never had before.
§ Mr. Hopkin Morris (Carmarthen)I listened with great interest to the Attorney-General. I agree with two of the three points on which he seemed to base his case—his observations upon Section 146 of the Act of 1867, that the Statute of Westminster had not been adopted by Newfoundland in 1931 or at any time, and his observations about the sovereign power of Parliament and that whatever the decision of the Privy Council might be, it does not affect the rights of this Legislature. I find difficulty in accepting the right hon. and learned Gentleman's third point. This point was that in 1933 the Legislature was not in being, and Newfoundland having got into financial difficulties, she fell back to the rank of a Colony and was administered as a Colony until the position was restored in about 1942 or 1943 when she became solvent again.
§ Mr. P. Noel-BakerIt was in 1941.
§ Mr. Hopkin MorrisThere was one other element left out. Although she became solvent, there was a second condition which was omitted, namely, that there should be a request for the restoration of the Legislature. There has been no such request and, therefore, another procedure has been adopted. That procedure has been the procedure of a Referendum. I believe the right hon. and learned Gentleman admitted that there was no legal foundation for the Referendum.
§ The Attorney-GeneralNo, I did not by any means say that. I would be far from conceding that. I said that was one of the allegations made in the pending appeal, but it was completely rejected both by the court of first instance and by the Supreme Court of Newfoundland—so much so in the Supreme Court that the Attorney-General who appeared to argue the matter was not even called upon. The Supreme Court thought that the suggestion that the Referendum and the Convention were not on a legal basis was quite unarguable.
§ Mr. Hopkin MorrisI did not seek to make the point that it was illegal. It was clearly lawful for the Referendum to be made. The point I am now making is that although it may have been lawful to do it, it would have been far more satisfactory and in the interests of Newfoundland not to have adopted that procedure. The result may have been exactly the same; I am not disputing what the result may have been, but since Newfoundland had been restored to her position and was no longer in the position of a Colony—in fact, not in law—it would have been much better if the Legislature had been restored. It is not a legal case but a political case which I am arguing.
§ The Attorney-GeneralI have not sought at all to deal with the political aspects of the matter. I tried to confine myself to the constitutional position. Under the Act of 1933 it was not open to the Legislature here to restore the Legislature in Newfoundland unless and until the people of Newfoundland had made a request. That was the position under the Act of 1933. This Parliament is sovereign and can do anything it likes. The scheme under the 1933 legislation was that Responsible Government—that is to say, a Legislature—would not be restored to Newfoundland until two conditions were fulfilled—solvency plus a request. That request had to come from someone. It could not have come from the Legislature because it was only after the request had been made that the Legislature was to be restored. Therefore, the only way in which we could provide for enabling such a request to be made was by the National Convention and the Referendum.
§ Mr. Hopkin MorrisI readily accept what the right hon. and learned Gentleman 1280 says, that there should be a request, but there was no request for the Referendum. Therefore, the Government had to make up their minds. I am now talking of the political aspect; I am not discussing the legal argument, nor am I disputing it for a moment. I am not suggesting that anything illegal has been done. When a decision for the Referendum was made, the position being that prior to 1933 Newfoundland had been a Dominion, it would have been a wiser decision politically on the part of this Government to have restored that Legislature so that Newfoundland was no longer in the position of a Colony. It would have been wiser and more satisfactory for Newfoundland if that position had been restored, and we should probably have had precisely the same result.
§ Mr. E. P. SmithWhat seems to me to be distressing is that a Referendum should have been held in Newfoundland at a time when popular democratic government as we understand it was suspended. That point was made very forcibly by the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin Morris). The other point I wish to make is that the Attorney-General has argued that Newfoundland is in the position of a Colony rather than a Dominion. If that is so, and Newfoundland is, in fact, a Colony, then, following his argument, a Referendum could be held in any British Colony for adherence to some Power other than Great Britain. I think that point has its dangerous implications. I am sure the Committee realise that the Attorney-General has been very dignified and reasonable in the case he has put. but my opinion is that when he is most dignified and most reasonable he is least sure in his law.
§ Mr. Benn LevyI should like to say a few words in reply to the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin Morris), because he raised a point which at first sight seemed to have some validity, but which I do not think in fact it has. I understood him to argue that it was politically expedient to restore self-government to Newfoundland, even though it was not legal according to the 1933 Statute. It is perfectly true, as my right hon. and learned Friend has said, that it was within the competence of the House to pass another Act abrogating the 1281 Act of 1933 and making it no longer obligatory for the people of Newfoundland to make a request. But I cannot quite understand why that should be regarded as a politically expedient course of action. The only way in which it could be regarded as politically expedient would be by begging the question of whether or not the people of Newfoundland really want the restoration of self-government.
§ Mr. Hopkin MorrisNo, it is not a matter of status. It is true that Newfoundland had not lawfully regained the status of a Dominion, but in fact she has.
§ Mr. LevyThat could only be true if we regard Dominion status as synonymous with solvency. But that argument really involves the legal position and not the factual position—and only half the legal position at that. The hon. and learned Gentleman is taking half of the legal position and saying that it is de facto. It certainly cannot be described as de jure because he split it in half. From the point of view of political expediency, what surely would have happened would have been that we would have offended that section of the Newfoundland population, which turned out to be the majority, that did not want self-government.
8.30 p.m.
The junior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir A. Herbert) made a sincere and impassioned speech on the ground of the following argument. He said it was deplorable that, alone in the Empire, Newfoundland was unable to discuss the details of her own confederation. He made that point in the Second Reading of the Bill. I think that it was answered, but he has ignored the answer. The answer is very simple. The Newfoundlanders had the choice of discussing the details if they wanted to. The Referendum really gave them the choice. What they were asked to decide in the Referendum was, "Do you wish selfgovernment with the right to discuss at some future time if you want confederation with Canada or accept confederation now with the knowledge that——
§ Sir A. HerbertI think that the hon. Gentleman is wrong. In the Referendum they were asked, "Do you in principle 1282 want Confederation with Canada? "By a small majority they said "Yes." They were not asked, "Do you want Confederation with Canada, cutting out all the constitutional arrangements for discussing the terms through Parliament?" They were not asked that at all.
§ Sir A. HerbertNo.
§ Mr. LevyEverybody who cast a vote in favour of confederation knew that there was not to be an intermediate step where a legislature would be in a position to discuss the details of confederation.
§ Sir A. HerbertHow does the hon. Gentleman know that?
§ Mr. LevyObviously, if one is to vote either for immediate confederation or for self-government, one excludes self-government as a prelude to confederation.
§ Sir A. HerbertOh no.
§ Mr. LevyIs not that obvious? I cannot think that there could have been any misunderstanding in the minds of the people of Newfoundland, nor, until this very moment, has any one—not even the junior Burgess himself—suggested that there was that misunderstanding. Nobody at any time since the Referendum was voted upon has suggested that there was this kind of misunderstanding. Surely, it is reasonable to conclude that when the people of Newfoundland voted, as they did vote, for Confederation with Canada, they voted with the understanding that the details of confederation would be discussed by the junior Burgess's so-called "oligarchs," and that they were perfectly satisfied for it to be discussed in that way.
§ Sir T. MooreAs far as I could follow the hon. Gentleman, his one argument was that of the danger of offending the 78,000 people who voted for confederation in the Referendum. But if a responsible, democratically elected Government were set up and the majority of that Government voted for Confederation, what offence would be committed towards anyone? Why should anyone feel hurt?
§ Mr. LevyThe hon. and gallant Gentleman is begging the question. He is assuming that Newfoundland wanted self-government and therefore it was justifiable and inoffensive to impose it.
§ Sir T. MooreI am not discussing anything at all. I am merely asking.
§ Mr. P. Noel-BakerI am reluctant to prolong this Debate and I do not intend to say more than a few words. The junior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir A. Herbert) and some of his hon. Friends have said hard things about the Government. I will not say any hard things about them. Their case has rested entirely on certain constitutional and legal arguments. The Attorney-General has demolished those arguments tonight. I want to add, in view of the last speech which the junior Burgess for Oxford University made, that the whole of what the Government have done has been founded on proposals which he himself put forward—every bit of them, from 1933 onwards. In the Act of 1933, it was laid down that two conditions were to be fulfilled—that the country was to be self-supporting, and that a request from the people should be made. In 1943, the junior Burgess came back from Newfoundland when the Budget was balanced, and he said that he did not for a moment believe that, in any modern sense of the word, Newfoundland was going to be self-supporting. I have got his exact words, and I could read them to the Committee if it is desired.
§ Sir A. HerbertWhere are they taken from?
§ Mr. Noel-BakerThey are taken from a speech made by the hon. Member in the House of Commons on 16th December, 1943. Shall I read it. The hon. Gentleman then said:
Is Newfoundland likely to be self-supporting in the strict economic sense, say, within two years after the war."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th December, 1943; Vol. 395, c. 1781.]which was the time when he suggested self-government should be restored. But he answered "No." He went on to say:I am certain that even if, say, two years after the war, Newfoundland is able to maintain her social services at their present level, which is a deplorably low one—and that is doubtful—it is certain that, without assistance from someone … they will never be raised 1284 to a level which will be compatible to the dignity of a British people under the British flag."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th December, 1943; Vol. 395, c. 1785.]"Never," said the hon. Gentleman, and he went on to say that, even if we gave them two Parliaments tomorrow and said nothing about their economic future, they would not even thank us. That is the first condition. I do not want to deal with it at all; I am only giving the views of the hon. Gentleman at that time.Now we come to the request. How was it to be made? Was it to be made by a legislature? Were we to reestablish responsible government, and, until they made the request——
§ Sir A. HerbertI have asked the question before whether these words "by request" came in later, because they were not in the original constitutional paragraphs or in the Letters Patent.
§ Mr. Noel-BakerThey are in the Act of Parliament passed by this House in 1933, and will be found in paragraph (g) of the annexe to the Schedule. They are in the Act, and we cannot disregard the Act. Is the hon. Gentleman now saying that, because the Royal Commission did not write the words "by request" into its first report, therefore, we should now disregard the Act passed by this House 15 years ago? Of course, he is not saying that. How was that request to be expressed? When the hon. Member came back from Newfoundland at the end of 1943, he made proposals to the then Government, and my predecessor, now Lord Salisbury, considered those proposals. They were on the basis of what the hon. Member said—that there should be first a National Convention and that that should be followed up by a Referendum.
§ Sir A. HerbertNot about Canada.
§ Mr. Noel-BakerNo, but what did the hon. Gentleman propose? He said they should consider a number of alternatives—the election of three Newfoundlanders by the people themselves, some different form of single Chamber, with the elected and appointed representatives face to face, as in Jamaica. Perhaps, he thought that the Jamaican Constitution would do for Newfoundland at that time. Above all, he suggested—and this is what he insisted upon and begged the Govern- 1285 ment not to set aside—the inclusion of Newfoundland in the United Kingdom on lines roughly, but not exactly, similar to Northern Ireland. Is that Confederation? Not with Canada, but Confederation with the United Kingdom. Of course, it was Confederation, and the hon. Member never suggested that it would be an essential preliminary to have the re-establishment of responsible government, which should consider the matter. On the contrary, I will tell him some other things which he said. He said:
We should announce, I suggested, that, say, two or three years after the war, or from now if you like, we intended to restore full self-government to Newfoundland unless by a plebiscite one year before that they had chosen some other form of Government."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th December, 1943; Vol. 395, c. 1783.]When we announced in December, 1945—
§ Sir A. HerbertThere is not a word about Canada.
§ Mr. Noel-BakerIn some of his writings and speeches the hon. Member has shown a certain bias against Canada.
§ Sir A. HerbertWhere?
§ Mr. Noel-BakerI will tell him—in "Humphrey's Magazine." Words could not be plainer than those he used. Of
§ course, he was proposing this method which we have adopted, and when, in December, 1945, the present Government followed up what Lord Salisbury had done and announced the system of the National Convention to be followed by the plebiscite to consider a variety of forms of Government, the hon. Member rose in his place and congratulated them. He did not rise and say, "You must first restore responsible Government." He said the exact opposite.
§ I want to end by an appeal to the hon. Member. He has given wide publicity to a certain number of propositions, which as my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has shown, have no foundation in law or in constitutional practice. He has helped to prolong the unhappy bitterness which has existed in Newfoundland. I hope he will now help us to secure the acceptance of this new thing which is going through so that in Newfoundland, as in Canada and elsewhere, this will be accepted as a splendid form of democratic self-government for the Newfoundland people as part of the great nation of Canada and as part of the great Commonwealth to which we all belong.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 12; Noes, 241.
1287| Division No. 77.] | AYES | 8.45 p.m. |
| Bowen, R. | Mullan, Lt. C. H. | Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W. |
| Gage, C. | Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth) | Smith, E. P. (Ashford) |
| Gruffydd, Prof. W. J. | Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.) | |
| Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley) | Ropner, Col. L. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen) | Savory, Prof. D. L. | Sir Alan Herbert and |
| Lieut-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore. | ||
| NOES | ||
| Adams, Richard (Batham) | Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. | Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E |
| Agnew, Cmdr. P. G. | Brook, D. (Halifax) | Daggar, G. |
| Albu, A. H. | Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell) | Dalton, Rt. Hon. H. |
| Allen, A. C. (Bosworth) | Brown, T. J. (Ince) | Davies. Edward (Burslem) |
| Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) | Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. | Davies, Harold (Leek) |
| Alpass, J. H. | Bruce, Maj. D. W. T. | Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton) |
| Amory, D. Heathcoat | Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. | Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) |
| Anderson, A. (Motherwell) | Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.) | Deer, G. |
| Anderson, F. (Whitehaven) | Callaghan, James | de Freitas, Geoffrey |
| Attewell, H. C. | Castle, Mrs. B. A. | Delargy, H. J. |
| Bacon, Miss A. | Champion, A J. | Diamond, J. |
| Balfour, A. | Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G. | Digby, S. W. |
| Barstow, P. G. | Cobb, F. A. | Dobbie, W, |
| Barton, C. | Cocks, F. S. | Dodds, N. N. |
| Battley, J. R. | Collick, P. | Dodds-Parker, A. D |
| Bechervaise, A. E. | Collins, V. J. | Donner, P. W. |
| Benson, G. | Colman, Miss G. M. | Donovan, T. |
| Berry, H. | Conanl, Maj. R. J. E | Dumpleton, C. W. |
| Binns, J. | Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.) | Edwards, John (Blackburn) |
| Blyton, W. R. | Corlett, Dr. J. | Evans, E. (Lowestoft) |
| Bowden, Flg. Offr. H. W. | Cove, W. G. | Evan, John (Ogmore) |
| Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl. Exch'ge) | Crawley A. | Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury) |
| Fairhurst, F. | Logan, D. G. | Richards, R. |
| Farthing, W. J. | Lyne, A. W, | Ridealgh, Mrs. M. |
| Fernyhough, E. | McAdam, W. | Robens, A, |
| Follick, M. | McAllister, G. | Roberts, P. G. (Ecclesall) |
| Forman, J. C. | McEntee, V. La T. | Robertson, J. J. (Berwick) |
| Fraser, T. (Hamilton) | McFarlane, C. S. | Robinson, Roland |
| Gailskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N. | MoGhee, H. G. | Ross, William (Kilmarnock) |
| Ganley, Mrs. C. S. | Mack, J. D. | Sargood, R. |
| Gibbins, J. | MoKay, J. (Wallsend) | Scollan, T. |
| Gibson, C. W. | Mackeson, Brig. H. R. | Sharp, Granville |
| Gilzean, A. | MoKinlay, A. S. | Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens) |
| Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield) | Maclean, F. H. R. (Lancaster) | Silverman, J. (Erdington) |
| Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood) | McLeavy, F. | Simmons, C. J. |
| Grey, C. F. | MaoMillan, M. K. (Western Isles) | Skeffington, A. M. |
| Grierson, E. | MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling) | Skinnard, F. W. |
| Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley) | Mainwaring, W. H. | Smith, Ellis (Stoke) |
| Gunter, R. J. | Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) | Smith, S. H. (Hull, S W.) |
| Haire, John E. (Wyoombe) | Mann, Mrs. J. | Sorensen, R. W. |
| Hale, Leslie | Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping) | Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank |
| Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil | Mathers, Rt. Hon. George | Steele, T. |
| Hamilton, Lieut-Col. R. | Melilsh, R. J. | Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.) |
| Hannan, W. (Maryhill) | Mellor, Sir J. | Stross, Dr. B. |
| Hardy, E. A. | Messer, F. | Studholme, H. G |
| Hastings, Dr. Somerville | Middleton, Mrs. L. | Sutcliffe, H |
| Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C. | Mitchison, G. R. | Swingler, S |
| Henderson, John (Cathcart) | Moody, A. S. | Sylvester, G. O. |
| Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick) | Morgan, Dr. H. B. | Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth) |
| Herbison, Miss M. | Morley, R. | Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet) |
| Hobson, C. R. | Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.) | Thomas, D. E. (Abendare) |
| Holman, P. | Morris, P. (Swansea, W.) | Thurtle, Ernest |
| Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth) | Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.) | Tiffany, S. |
| Hoy, J. | Mort, D. L. | Timmons, J. |
| Hubbard, T. | Nally, W. | Titterington, M. F |
| Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.) | Naylor, T. E. | Tollley, L. |
| Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr) | Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.) | Ungoed-Thomas, L |
| Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) | Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. (Derby) | Viant, S. P. |
| Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme) | O'Brien, T. | Warbey, W. N |
| Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe) | Odey, G. W. | Watkins, T. E. |
| Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool) | Oldfield, W. H. | Webb, M. (Bradford, C.) |
| Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.) | Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth) | Weitzman, D. |
| Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A. | Paling, W. T. (Dewsbury) | Wells, P. L. (Faversham) |
| Jenkins, R. H. | Palmer, A. M. f. | Wells, W. T. (Walsall) |
| Jennings, R. | Parker, J | Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinb'gh, E.) |
| Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley) | Parkin, B. T. | Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.) |
| Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool) | Paton, J. (Norwich) | White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E,) |
| Keenan, W. | Peart, T. F. | White, J. B. (Canterbury) |
| Kenyon, C. | Ponsonby, Col. C. E. | Whiteley, Rt. Hon W. |
| Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E. | Poole, Cecil (Lichfield) | Wilkins, W. A. |
| Kinley, J. | Popplewell, E. | Williams, D. J. (Neath) |
| Kirby, B. V. | Porter, E. (Warrington) | Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove) |
| Lang, G. | Porter, G. (Leeds) | Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley) |
| Langford-Holt, J. | Price-White, Lt.-Col. D. | Willis, E. |
| Lavers, S. | Proctor, W. T. | Wills, Mrs. E. A |
| Lee, F. (Hulme) | Pryde, D. J. | Woods, G. S. |
| Leslie, J. R. | Randall, H. E. | Yates, V. F. |
| Levy, B. W. | Ranger, J. | Younger, Hon. Kenneth |
| Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton) | Rankin, J. | Zilliacus, K. |
| Lewis, T. (Southampton) | Reeves, J. | |
| Lindgren, G. S. | Rhodes, H. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Mr. Snow and Mr. Pearson. |
Bill read the Third time, and passed.
§ Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
§ Clauses 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
§ Schedule and Preamble agreed to.
§ Bill reported, without Amendment, to the House.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."—[Mr. P. Noel-Baker.]
§ 8.53 p.m.
§ Sir A. HerbertI do not wish to delay the House long, but I do think the House will do me the justice of letting me say one or two words in reply to the attack made upon me by the Secretary of State.
§ I am certainly not going to say that everything I have done in this business has been right. On the contrary, long ago in "The Times" and elsewhere I have confessed that like all of us in this affair, I may have made some mistakes. However, I would remind the right hon. Gentleman what I did recommend in the Report. I would first tell him that when I wrote my Report, on which was founded that speech of mine which he has quoted, I was not in a great office with the Statute of Westminster before me but in a small sailing boat off the coast of Labrador, and I was eating seagulls and salt cod, and was fogbound for nine days. A very uncomfortable time it was.
1289§ Mr. Scollan (Renfrew, Western)Not more uncomfortable than the time the hon. Gentleman has had tonight.
§ Sir A. HerbertI had not got the Statute of Westminster with me or the British North America Act, 1867. Indeed, I do not think I had heard of the British North America Act, 1867, at that time. If I had, I should certainly have thought twice about making some of the recommendations I did—although I think they were practically pretty sensible all the same. The House must realise this, that at that time the political machinery was dead, and that it had been dead for 10 years, and one great thing was to get that machinery going again—to get a council of citizens together to discuss their future. That was the idea of the Convention. Another idea was the Referendum. That was also recommended by Lord Ammon. It was thought that they might well wish to allow a short time to go by after the war—a couple of years perhaps—to see how the Newfoundlanders stood, and to see how their future might shape: and for such a short period stay under Commission of Government, perhaps in a modified form. That was constitutionally the only justifiable aim and purpose of the Referendum. I think it was useful and gave a general idea of the feelings of the people. But I did not think that anyone said that the Referendum ought to be allowed to exclude the proper constitutional operations.
However, I sympathise with the Secretary of State, and I am sure that he is as glad as I am that this Bill is leaving this House for good or ill. When hon. Members opposite say that we are trying to delay something which is going to be for the good and glory of the people of Newfoundland, I would ask them to remember that these terms were signed, according to this Bill, by the Government of Newfoundland, by seven people appointed by the Crown, four of whom are Englishmen; and, therefore, we have a right and a duty to look at this Bill most carefully before we send it to the House of Lords and say "Go ahead."
I have said before on the authority of a firm of Canadian chartered accountants—not a bold politician like me—who have studied these terms that they thought there is going to be a deficit every year in the provinces of Canada of 4,000,000 or 5,000,000 dollars. 1290 I hope that they are wrong; I hope that I am wrong. But there it is.
I must congratulate the office over which the Secretary of State presides upon having done something which I did not think they would do five years ago. Before I went to Newfoundland, I asked a distinguished Canadian official, "Do you want Newfoundland" and he said "No." I said, "Do you want Labrador" and he said "Yes." Some time later, when I came back, I put those questions to him, and he answered to both "Yes." As to what caused that change I am not going to speculate because it would be more delicate and discreet not to. I remember Lord Ammon saying, and I think we were all agreed at that time, that confederation was only on the fringe of practical politics. Lord Ammon said it was impracticable, though he was rather in favour of it, because it was completely out of sympathy with the bulk of the people's wishes——
§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Bowles)I think that the hon. Gentleman is going rather wide on the Third Reading of the Bill, and I must ask him to confine himself to what is in the Bill.
§ Sir A. HerbertI was congratulating the right hon. Gentleman's Office on having caused a very great change indeed from those days. May I mention one point which the Parliamentary Secretary asked me to make, because the other day he questioned the observation of the hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers), about the forbidding of the use of the wireless by those who were organising the petition, and I thought that he was questioning something which I said. The Parliamentary Secretary very handsomely said that I was perfectly right. When these people were organising the petition——
§ Mr. Deputy-SpeakerThe hon. Gentleman cannot go into all the activities that led up to the Referendum being taken. He must confine himself to the agreement in the Bill and the provisions of the Bill as they now are.
§ Sir A. HerbertI apologise again. All I can say is that I hope we can finish in a mild air of that harmony for which the right hon. Gentleman appeals. Doubtful and sad though I am, I should be foolish and boorish, if I did not say 1291 what I do say with all my heart and soul: I hope that this affair will go much better than I feel and fear and that this union which has been so queerly and somewhat unhappily solemnised may be consummated more smoothly and satisfactorily, and that this fine couple will live happily for ever after. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on many of the things that he has done.
§ 9.0 p.m.
§ Sir T. MooreI will not detain the House for many minutes. When I spoke on Second Reading concerning this, as I honestly believe, shameful Bill, I said I thought that it was probably too late to alter the course of events. That thought has proved true. I admit that the voting tonight and on Second Reading was impressive; but I wonder just how much hon. Members who trooped into these Lobbies knew exactly what they were voting about and what they were voting for.
§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Bowles)The hon. Gentleman cannot reflect on hon. Members and how they vote. Secondly, that has nothing to do with what is in the Bill at the present moment.
§ Sir T. MooreI was not reflecting on anyone. I was merely submitting a query. However, I will follow your guidance, Mr. Deputy-Speaker and will only ask, once again—because neither the Secretary of State nor the Attorney-General answered the query before—why are we in such a hurry? Is it the fear that public opinion will be aroused in this country, as it was aroused in Canada and in Newfoundland? Is it the fear of an even greater force of nationalism arising in Newfoundland? Or do they fear that other parts of the Commonwealth may suddenly see their future in jeopardy? Whatever the reason, I believe the result will go down to posterity as something both unconstitutional and unethical on our part.
I feel very strongly about this. I do not know why. I have no justifiable reason to offer. I have never been to Newfoundland, although I have met a number of Newfoundlanders; but I feel in my conscience that I cannot support this Bill. I feel it to be wrong. Possibly other hon. Members have taken the same line on other Measures, because of their consciences and their judgments. There- 1292 fore, I must say what I am saying. [Laughter.] That may amuse some hon. Members, but that does not worry me. All I can say in conclusion is that it is possible, and no doubt probable, that when this Bill. becomes an Act the future of Newfoundland will be more secure. more tranquil and more prosperous under the wing of Canada. But we are denying her the possibly dangerous but at any rate adventurous right of shaping her own destiny, of moulding her own future, and of deciding her own fate. Feeling that way, as I do, I can only hope—although not on the same lines as my hon. Friend the junior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir A. Herbert)—that when this Bill goes to another and wiser place, the mistake, the tragic mistake, that we are making tonight will be rectified.
§ 9.4 p.m.
§ Sir P. HannonAs I intend voting against the Third Reading of this Bill, I ought to say a word or two in justification of my proposed action. As I said previously, I feel very strongly that the Bill has been too hurriedly carried through Parliament at the instance of His Majesty's Government. Whatever may be the result or the ultimate destiny of the Bill when it becomes an Act, I hope that no ill-feeling will prevail in Newfoundland between the different sections of the people themselves. My reason for voting against the Bill is that there is a deep-seated feeling among a large section of the Newfoundland people that they have not been justly treated by His Majesty's Administration in this country. I think it a very sad reflection that any action taken by this House of Commons should create a feeling of that kind in the oldest Dominion, and among people in that part of the Commonwealth who are of our own blood and sinews.
I have the greatest admiration for the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General. No one could have listened to his full and cogent speech this evening without feeling that he had given a great deal of time and thought and mature consideration to the provision in this Bill. At the same time, I do not think he impressed the House with the fourth consideration with which he dealt, namely, the relationship which will arise between the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council——
§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Bowles)I am afraid that is not in the Bill.
§ Sir P. HannonI apologise, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I am opposed to the Bill because I feel that injustice has been done to a large section of people in Newfoundland. I have had letters from these splendid people referring in generous terms to the Commission which did such admirable work in the adminstration of the Colony. I feel strongly that this House ought not, in a Measure of this kind, to be a party to any means by which a feeling of rankling injustice will be felt by any of our people in any part of the world.
At the same time, I hope that when the Bill leaves this House no misunderstanding will be created either in Canada or Newfoundland. We all have the greatest admiration for the Dominion of Canada. Its contribution to the vitality, progress and strength of the Commonwealth is beyond question. At the same time we are grateful to the people of Newfoundland, who sent us a magnificent contingent of fighting men during the war. When these matters are adjusted, one can hope that peace will prevail and that the ultimate results will be to the complete and outstanding advantage of the people of both Canada and Newfoundland.
§ 9.7 p.m.
§ Professor SavoryTo confine myself to what is in the Bill, I would draw the attention of the House to this important Clause 1, about which I ventured to put a question to the Attorney-General, namely, that this Bill:
shall have the force of law notwithstanding anything in the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1946.I have not been satisfied on that point. I feel that the only constitutional course even now at this late stage, is to carry out the Act of 1867 by reconstituting the Legislative Assembly and the Legislative Council of Newfoundland and allowing them to vote on this question. In spite of the eloquence and clearness of the Attorney-General and his endeavour to put the case, as he did, from an objective point of view, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has not convinced me that by inserting this Clause we are not prejudicing the appeal that these people have made to the Judicial Committee of the 1294 Privy Council, to which they are surely entitled.
§ Mr. Deputy-SpeakerI have already indicated to the House that no reference can now be made to the Judicial Committee.
§ Professor SavoryI beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I am sure you will allow me to say that I look forward to the future. I prophesy that an attempt will be made to use this Bill as a precedent for forcing Ulster into a union with Eire.
§ 9.9 p.m.
§ Mr. McKinlay (Dunbartonshire)In case there should be any misunderstanding about the silence of hon. Members on this side of the House, may I say that it is exactly 40 years last month since I landed for the first time in Newfoundland. In wishing Godspeed to the new regime, I want to say that if half the slop we have heard from the Opposition tonight had been converted into real effort to do something for our oldest Dominion in the intervening 40 years, this Bill would not have been necessary. When I visited the place I was almost frozen to death on two occasions, but I was impressed first by the character of the inhabitants of Newfoundland and, secondly, by the outward signs of the neglect of Newfoundland by the great British Commonwealth. I hope that in becoming a component part or province of Canada—that is the hope, I am sure, at least of everybody on this side of the House—they will go from strength to strength and, instead of being a bad debt to the British Dominions, will become an asset of which we shall all be proud.
§ 9.10 p.m.
§ Mr. P. Noel-BakerI should like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. McKinlay) for what he has just said and to endorse his words. I am grateful also for the words spoken by the junior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir A. Herbert) and by the hon. Member for Moseley (Sir P. Hannon). In reply to the hon. Member for Queen's University of Belfast (Professor Savory), I would ask him to read in HANSARD tomorrow what was said by the Attorney-General and what I said on Second Reading a week ago. To the junior Burgess for Oxford University 1295 I say that I never attacked him. I should never do any such thing. I only quoted what he had said. When he said it he was not on a small sailing boat in the North Atlantic—he may have been fog-bound, but I do not think so—but he was here, in the House, and he had the Statute of Westminster at his disposal.
I have risen only because the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore) used the word "shameful." He said that the haste which we had shown was shameful. Our predecessors, the Coalition Government of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill), and ourselves have been engaged on this question for five and a quarter years, on a consistent plan which has been known to everybody for all that time. We had the support of every party and of the junior Burgess until the end of July last year. Governments cannot carry forward a policy for five years and then switch at the last moment when the thing is nearly through. We had to go on, of course, but I hope that now everybody will re-echo the words of the junior Burgess and of my hon. Friend that all bitterness will be forgotten and that this may end in good.