HL Deb 15 September 1914 vol 17 cc689-93


Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.


My Lords, I move that this Bill be now read a second time.

inflicting upon it, it might at least be said that although you were carrying out Dismemberment and Disendowment you were endeavouring to do so in a way which would be least hurtful to the Church in Wales.

On Question, That the further debate be adjourned?—

Their Lordship; divided: Contents, 89; Not-Contents, 27.

Canterbury, L. Abp. Verulam, E. Braucepeth, L. (V. Boyne.)
Waldegrave, E. Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)
Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.) Cheylesmore, L.
Bedford, D. Canterbury, V. Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.)
Devonshire, D. [Teller.] Chilston, V. Desart, L. (E. Desart.)
Richmond and Gordon, D. Churchill, V. [Teller.] Dinevor, L.
Rutland, D. Colville of Culross, V. Ellenborough, L.
Somerset, D. Esher, V. Erskine, L.
Falkland, V. Farquhar, L.
Cholmondeley, M. Falmouth, V. Grenfell, L.
Lansdowne, M Hill, V. Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)
Abingdon, E. Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.) Hawke, L.
Amherst, E. Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)
Camperdown, E. Iveagh, V. Lawrence, L.
St. Aldwyn, V. Leconfield, E.
Cathcart, E. Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)
Coventry, E. Bangor, L. Bp. Monk Bretton, L.
Dartmouth, E. Ely, L. Bp. Monkswell, L.
Dartrey, E. St. Asaph, L. Bp. Monson, L.
Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.) St. David's, L. Bp. Parmoor, L.
Wakefield, L. Bp. Penrhyn, L.
Eldon, E. Winchester, L. Bp. Powerscourt, L. (V. Powerscourt.)
Ferrers, E.
Grey, E. Aberdare, L.
Haddington, E. Addington, L. Rathdonnell, L.
Halsbury, E. Aldenham, L. Rathmore, L.
Howe, E. Allerton, L. Redesdale, L.
Lauderdale, E. Atkinson, L. Sanderson, L.
Manvers, E. Balfour, L. Sudeley, L.
Mayo, E. Barrymore, L. Sydenham, L.
Powis, E. Biddulph, L. Waleran, L.
Selborne, E. Bolton, L. Wolverton, L.
Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.) Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.) Worlingham, L. (E. Gosford.)
Haldane, V. (L. Chancellor.) Aberconway, L. Glenconner, L.
Crewe, M. (L. Privy Seal.) Ashby St. Ledgers, L. Haversham, L.
Charnwood, L. Herschell, L. [Teller.]
Lincolnshire, M. Colebrooke, L. Islington, L.
Cowdray, L. Lucas, L.
Chesterfield, E. (L. Steward.) D' Abernon, L. Pirrie, L.
Beauchamp, E. Denman, L. Rotherham, L.
Craven, E. [Teller.] Emmott, L. St. Davids, L.
Eversley, L. Saye and Sele, L.
Allendale, V. Farrer, L. Stanmore, L.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(The Marquess of Lansdowne.)


My Lords, before the noble Marquess the Leader of the House speaks upon this Bill, I desire to intervene for a moment. I had put down an Amendment to be discussed in Committee—namely, Clause 1, page 1, line 15, at the end of the clause insert ("and shall notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1) of section 2 of the Parliament Act, 1911, be presented to His Majesty for Royal Assent on the conclusion of peace.") But certain technical defects in my Amendment—not unnatural, perhaps, in an Amendment hastily drafted by a layman—have been explained to me, and I therefore do not propose to move the Amendment. This will save the House the trouble of going into Committee on the Bill. I hope, however, that I may be allowed to explain briefly the object I had in view in putting down the Amendment. I wished to put in a concrete form the proposal which I made last night—namely, that combined with the moratorium which Lord Lansdowne's Bill sets up there should be automatic Royal Assent at the end of the moratorium. It is admitted in every quarter that the object we all desire is to maintain the status quo, but it does not seem to me that either the proposal of the Government or the proposal in Lord Lansdowne's Bill succeeds in bringing that about. It appears to me to require, in order to put both Parties practically in the same position that they now occupy, that the Royal Assent should take place automatically at the end of the moratorium. But recognising that there are technical difficulties in the way of doing that, I do not wish to detain the House in arguing my Amendment. But I feel bound to add that, to my very great regret, in the circumstances I cannot support the Second' Reading of Lord Lansdowne's Bill, as it seems to me that without some such provision as I have described it does not fairly meet the case.


My Lords, I do not rise to discuss the provisions of the noble Marquess's Bill but merely to explain that although, as is quite clear, we cannot assent to the Bill, I do not propose to put your Lordships to the trouble of a Division at any stage. When the Question is put we shall say "Not Content," but we shall not put the House to the trouble of walking through the Lobbies. The House is aware that we have a proposal for delay coming up from another place which differs materially—as I ventured to say yesterday, the difference is a deep though not a wide one—from the proposal of the noble Marquess, and that Bill will come before your Lordships' House in due course. The respective effects of the two proposals are quite familiar to the House from what was said yesterday, and at this particular stage and at this hour it would be idle to attempt to re, discuss the matter. I would merely say one word with regard to what fell from the noble Lord who has just spoken from the Cross Benches. It seems to me that if his proposal had been moved in the form of an Amendment it would have been difficult for the noble Marquess opposite to assent to it, because it apparently must have involved the assent of noble Lords opposite to the Second Reading and also to the Third Reading of the Government of Ireland Bill, which we could hardly have expected noble Lords opposite to give. Equally from our point of view it would not have been possible to accept the proposal of the noble Lord, but as he has withdrawn it there is no need to develop that argument further. I will say no more, but merely repeat that although we cannot assent to the proposal of the noble Marquess we will not put your Lordships to the trouble of a Division.


My Lords, I shall follow the example of the noble Marquess and avoid any repetition of arguments which have already been used with regard to this Bill. I may, perhaps, mention particularly to the noble Marquess that in consequence of a criticism which he offered last night I have altered the terms of the draft which he had before him on that occasion and have put in words making it absolutely clear that the procedure under the Parliament Act may be applied to the Government of Ireland Bill and to the Established Church (Wales) Bill in the first session of Parliament after the war. I certainly was under the impression that the measure as originally drafted already provided for that, but as a doubt has arisen I agree that the point ought to be cleared up, and we have endeavoured to do so in the words which have been added to the first clause. With regard to the Amendment standing in the name of Lord Monteagle, as he has left the House it is, perhaps, unnecessary that I should explain the reasons for which I could not have accepted his Amendment. It does not really fit in with the scheme of the Bill, for one reason, amongst others, that the noble Lord's object was that the Royal Assent should be given immediately on the conclusion of peace, but he left out of account the fact that Parliament might not be sitting at that time and also the fact that these Bills have not been rejected by the House and that the discussion of them has been adjourned. They therefore do not come in exactly under Section 2 subsection (2) of the Parliament Act to which my noble friend referred. I am therefore very glad that he decided not to move his Amendment.

On Question, Bill read 2ª.

Committee negatived: Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) Bill read 3ª, and passed, and sent to the Commons.