§ Amendments reported (according to Order).
§ Clause 1:
§ Definitions.
§ 1. In this Act—
- (1)"The National Assembly of the Church of England" (hereinafter called "the Church Assembly") means the Assembly constituted in accordance with the constitution set forth in the Appendix to the Addresses presented to His Majesty by the Convocations of Canterbury and York on the tenth day of May, nineteen hundred and nineteen, and laid before both Houses of Parliament by His Majesty's command;
- (2) "The Constitution" means the Constitution of the Church Assembly set forth in the Appendix to the Addresses presented by the Convocations of Canterbury and York to His Majesty as aforesaid;
- (3) "The Legislative Committee" means the Legislative Committee of the Church Assembly appointed in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution;
- (4) "The Ecclesiastical Committee" means the Committee of His Majesty's Privy Council established as provided in section two of this Act;
- (5) "Measure" means a legislative measure intended to receive the Royal Assent and to have effect as an Act of Parliament in accordance with the provisions of this Act.
§ LORD MUIR MACKENZIE had on the Paper a number of Amendments, of which the first was to omit from subsection (2) the words "to the Addresses presented by the Convocations of Canterbury and York to His Majesty as." The noble Lord said: I have put down several Amendments for this stage of the Bill, but, so far as I ant concerned, it will not take your Lordships much time to dispose of them. I have taken a great, deal of interest in the Bill, and the whole intention of one and all of my Amendments is to improve it. If the most rev. Primate does not think they improve the Bill, I have no desire to occupy the time of the House by pressing them. The first Amendment is of no importance whatsoever. It is merely verbal. These words are the same as in the previous subsection, and I would suggest that they are quite unnecessary and had better be left out.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYIt seems to me that we want these words here unless the changes suggested by the noble Lord's further Amendments are made.
§ LORD MUIR MACKENZIEThey do not affect this Amendment.
§ THE EARL OF SELBORNEWith deference to my noble friend, I should have thought it better to leave the words as they are. There may be a repetition involved, but they make the thing quite clear.
§ LORD MUIR MACKENZIEThen I do not move the first Amendment.
§ LORD MUIR MACKENZIE moved after "aforesaid," at the end of subsection (2), to insert "and sufficiently described for the purposes of this Act in the Schedule hereto." The noble Lord said: This, my second Amendment, is an attempt made in absolute good faith—as I am sure the Archbishop would recognise—to try to get over part of the very great difficulty that arises upon this portion of the Bill. It 566 is not my desire in any way to attempt to get round the decision that the House came to upon the point of including the constitution of the Church Assembly as a Schedule to the Bill. As I read my own language, it does not do that. What I hope that it does, and what I desire that it should do, is to get over or at any rate minimise the very great objection that has been acknowledged by everybody as to legislation by reference that exists in the Bill as it stands. By stating that this is a mere description of the constitution it seems to me that you could not touch it in any way. You could not amend it; you could not discuss it; it is a mere statement of fact that that is the constitution which has been made by the Church.
§ I quite understand that the Church desires to make its own constitution without interference from any other powers, and, as I read the proposed words, it seems to me that there is no power for anybody to touch it. If the most rev. Primate thinks that by any construction of these words you can in any way enable either House of Parliament to debate any point in the constitution, then my object is defeated. If anybody thinks so, I do not wish to press this Amendment. Eat I think that if one could arrive at some way of getting over that very great objection, and so make it clear as a statement of fact that these powers are to be granted to a certain Assembly whose constitution is not open to discussion but is wholly decided, you do make the Bill clearer and easier. And that is my object. If the House or the most rev. Primate thinks that there is any doubt about the question, I do not desire to pursue it. In the meantime I beg to move the Amendment.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 11, after ("aforesaid") insert ("and sufficiently described for the purposes of this Act in the Schedule hereto").—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYI appreciate to the full the noble Lord's wish, and I entirely accept his assurance, as is indeed evident, that he wants to help us in every way to make the Bill as good as it can be made. The proposal he now makes, however, seems to me to interfere a good deal with the working of the Bill as we had intended it, because it does undoubtedly lay the Schedule open to have each part of it 567 discussed in detail in either House of Parliament. Further than that, as I read the words—though I imagine the noble and learned Lord interprets them differently—part of the Schedule on the Paper in the name of the noble Lord would go a great deal further than anything I. should think of asking for, because it would say—
The House of Laity shall consist of representatives of the Laity of the Provinces of Canterbury and York elected in accordance with rules made by the Assembly—So that the rules might at any time take a form which would make the House of Laymen a much narrower body than has been proposed in the constitution laid before Parliament. I should have thought that this goes further than anything we have asked for, though that is not, I believe, the interpretation which the noble Lord puts on his words. Anyhow, I must say that I do not think we should help matters by inserting a Schedule that would rather defeat the purpose which the noble Lord says he has in view—that it should not be discussed in the Houses of Parliament.
§ LORD MUIR MACKENZIENo.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause 4:
§ Procedure on measures reported on by the Ecclesiastical Committee.
§ 4. When the Ecclesiastical Committee shall have reported to His Majesty on any measure presented by the Legislative Committee, the report together with the text of such measure, shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament within fourteen days, if Parliament be then sitting, or, if not, then within fourteen days after the next meeting of Parliament., and thereupon, on an Address from each House of Parliament asking that such measure should be presented to His Majesty; such measure shall be presented to His Majesty, and shall have the force and effect of an Act of Parliament on the Royal Assent being signified thereto.
§ LORD MUIR MACKENZIE moved to leave out "presented" where that word first occurs, and to insert "submitted." The noble Lord said: This is merely a verbal Amendment. I am sure the House will forgive me for having entered so minutely into the Bill.
§
Amendment moved—
Clause 4, page 3, line 25, leave out ("presented") and insert ("submitted").—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD MUIR MACKENZIE moved, after "measure" where that word secondly occurs, to insert "in the usual form of an Act of Parliament." The noble Lord said: It seems to me, reading this clause as carefully as T could, that in one or two points it was not complete and required some words to make this novel procedure clear and plain. I think it is almost certain that any measure agreed to by the Church Assembly, and after having gone through the other stages that are provided for, would be drawn up in the form of an Act of Parliament. It could not be in a casual form like a Resolution on paper. It is intended to have all the effect, force, and character of an Act of Parliament, and I think it is pretty certain it would be drawn up in that form. There is, however, no provision anywhere for making rules as to how these things are to be carried out, and it would be better that it should appear in the clause.
§
Amendment moved—
Clause 4, page 3, line 20, after ("measure") insert ("in the usual form of an Act of Parliament").—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYOn this point I leave myself in the hands of the legal and Parliamentary authorities who are experts in the drafting of Bills. From my own point of view, I see no objection to the Amendment. It does not affect the Church in any way whatever.
§ VISCOUNT FINLAYI think it would be better not to put these words in. It is merely a provision that the Report and text of the measure should be submitted, and it is now proposed that they should be drawn up in the usual form of an Act of Parliament. That involves some one drawing it up in the usual form. I think it much better that the Report and the measure should be presented to Parliament as they come from the Church Assembly. The point raised, however, deserves consideration. The proposal here is really open to objection.
§ VISCOUNT HALDANEI think there is a good deal in what the noble and learned 569 Viscount has said. It may be well, in order to get the form, that a little time should be taken. It will be possible as the words stand to draw this up somehow. A perfect form may take a little time to evolve, and to say that it should be in the usual form of an Act of Parliament may be a little difficult to carry out. Though I entirely agree with the purpose of the noble Lord, it may be well to take the slower course suggested by Lord Finlay and wait a little time before settling on the exact form.
§ LORD MUIR MACKENZIEI do not think that what has fallen from the noble and learned Lords at all diminishes the importance of my suggestion. It may be that my words are not the best, but I venture to ask the noble and learned Viscount to allow me to discuss the matter privately with him so as to see whether we could not get some words before the next stage of the Bill to carry it out.
§ VISCOUNT FINLAYIf the noble Lord refers to me, I shall be delighted.
§ LORD MUIR MACKENZIEIn those circumstances I withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§
LORD SHEFFIELD moved, after "shall" where that word secondly occurs, to insert "if His Majesty be so advised." The noble Lord said: I support this Amendment by appealing to what was said in Committee—namely, that the Home Secretary, who acts for the Government, must necessarily advise the Crown before the thing is laid before Parliament. The noble Earl, Lord Selborne, said [I am quoting from the OFFICIAL REPORT]—
Where the responsibility of the Secretary of State comes in is this, in advising Parliament what line they should take on the proposal of the Church Assembly, and no one can deprive him of that function.
I do not suppose the noble Earl meant that he must get up in his place in the House of Commons and advise then to pass it or not. Again, the most rev. Primate said—
There are enough safeguards. We must trust first to the Representative Church Assembly, then to the Privy Council, then to the Secretary of State and to Parliament.
The most rev. Primate interposed the Secretary of State between the Privy Council and Parliament. I agree with
570
what Viscount Haldane said, that as the Bill was first drafted you gave this Ecclesiastical Committee of the Privy Council the new function of advising the Crown, because they were to report to and advise the Crown that it should have the Royal Assent. That has been whittled down and altered so that now this new Committee of the Privy Council is merely to draw up a Report. The thing is then left in the air and the scheme, which is ultimately to become an enactment and have the force of an Act of Parliament, is to find its own way without any godfather or godmother on to the Table of either House of Parliament. I think it is essential that there should be some person responsible for saying, not that it should pass, but that it is a fit matter for Parliament to consider. I therefore move the insertion of these words.
§
Amendment moved—
Clause 4, page 3, line 27, after ("shall") insert ("if His Majesty be so advised").—(Lord Sheffield.)
§ THE EARL OF SELBORNEI am afraid I am very stupid. I entirely failed to make my noble friend understand what I meant by my observation on this subject the other day. He has quite correctly quoted from the OFFICIAL REPORT, but my words bear exactly the contrary interpretation to that which he puts upon them. If he also quoted from another passage he would find that I said most specifically that the last thing we propose was to ask the Government to make itself responsible for every measure sent before Parliament by the Church Assembly. That is what I would ask your Lordships on no account to do—and that is really the proposal of the noble Lord. He says that unless the Government of the day is prepared to make itself responsible for every one of these measures they ought not to be considered by the House of Commons or the House of Lords.
LORD SHEFFIELDI did not say that. I said that it was not the duty of the Home Secretary to recommend the House to pass it, but that it was the duty of the Home Secretary to see that it came up for discussion.
§ THE EARL OF SELBORNEThat may be a good or a bad plan, but no plan could be more distinct from the proposals of those who are responsible for bringing the scheme before your Lordships' House. 571 Our proposal is that every one of these measures and the Report of the Ecclesiastical Committee of the Privy Council should be submitted to both Houses of Parliament for their judgment. That is our proposal. What I said about the Secretary of State was this, that if the Secretary of State thinks a measure of sufficient importance for the Government to give a lead on the subject, no doubt the Secretary or State for the Home Department will give that lead. In very many cases the measures will be of such a purely routine character that he will not think it necessary to make any observations on the subject at all; but in the case of a measure of importance, no doubt in the exercise of his undoubted right he will give a lead to the House and say, "So far as the Government are concerned we see no objection to the Bill, but on the contrary think it a good proposal." Or he will say, "The Government are of opinion that this measure ought not to pass, and we are going to put on the Government tellers to prevent its being passed, if necessary." That is all I meant.
§ VISCOUNT HALDANEI think the speech of the noble Earl who has just addressed the House raises rather a grave matter. I certainly was under the impression, when the House accepted the Amendment of the noble and learned Viscount (Lord Finlay), that it had been agreed that the Ecclesiastical Committee was simply to give information to His Majesty and not to recommend that the Bill or measure should proceed, or receive the Royal Assent. Now it follows obviously from that that somebody must be responsible for the procedure. Originally, as the Bill stood, the procedure was that the Ecclesiastical Committee advised His Majesty that the matter was one proper for his Royal Assent, in which case the Bill ipso facto went on the Table of the House; but that was only on the hypothesis that the duty of advising the Sovereign was taken out of the hands of the ordinary advisers of the Crown.
Now that is not so. The matter has got down to this, that it is mere information about effect and constitutional rights. It is obvious that there. must be somebody responsible for saying whether the short cut procedure is proper to be adopted in the case, or whether it is not; for, after all, it is a great departure from the procedure of Parliament which the Bill 572 initiates. Who is to be responsible? Not the Ecclesiastical Committee any more. Is this procedure to be optional without any discretion at all being exercised? Certainly it is not the discretion of the Sovereign, who never acts without advice. He is not to act on the advice of the Ecclesiastical Committee. Then on whose advice is he to act? Obviously that of a Minister of the Crown, who is the proper person to advise.
That is simply what Lord Sheffield says by his Amendment. And now we learn that, notwithstanding the impression which we have all been under during the last few days, they never meant anything approaching assent to this view. For my part I think we stand in an awkward position, because the Amendment of Lord Finlay was accepted by many under the impression that they had got something very different from what the noble Earl now says they have got.
§ VISCOUNT FINLAYI cannot think that it would be proper or desirable in any way that the Secretary of State should intervene at this stage. I do not believe that my noble and learned friend quite appreciated the scope of the Amendment which I proposed to the third subsection. As it now stands it runs: "After considering the measure, the Ecclesiastical Committee shall draft a report thereon to His Majesty, stating the nature and legal effect of the measure and their views as to its expediency especially with relation to the constitutional rights of all His Majesty's subjects." That is to be laid on the Table of Parliament and if both Houses pass Addresses in its favour it will receive the Royal Assent. Why should we introduce at this stage the Secretary of State, like a Cerberus, to say that although it has been provided that the Ecclesiastical Committee may propose measures in this way and report as to their expediency to His Majesty, this recommendation of the Committee shall not be considered by Parliament until the Secretary of State gives his approval. I submit that that is an erroneous proposal altogether. It is for Parliament to decide upon the Report of the Ecclesiastical Committee, and what better can be done than that it should be considered by Parliament, and if the two Houses report in its favour and address His Majesty to that effect, then it will go before His Majesty for assent.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWESurely, my Lords, this is an entirely new proposal from the point of view of precedent and of practice generally. As I understand, the Report of the Ecclesiastical Committee is to be laid on the Table in the same manner as the Report of a Royal Commission might be, and must then be considered by the House, nobody in the House being in a position to make himself responsible for it. Then, as the noble Earl behind me has said, if His Majesty's Government having a majority do not like it, they can put a stop to all further proceedings; but it seems to me that the novelty of this suggestion consists in the fact that all reports or papers that now are laid on the Table of the House are laid in conformity with some terms of reference by somebody. The Ecclesiastical Committee and the Assembly act on their own volition, and not in pursuance of any instructions from anybody. Is it not entirely unprecendented that a Report of that kind should be laid on the Table of either House without some responsible person empowered to advise the Crown in either House being in any way responsible for its being so laid? I should have thought that it was entirely a fresh constitutional departure, so placing the Ecclesiastical Committee in a position different from, and in a sense superior to, that of any other body which exists.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYI feel, of course, that as compared with other noble Lords I am unfamiliar with the procedure of the Privy Council, but I imagine that the Lord President of the Council has again and again laid before Parliament the decisions of the Privy Council and not left it to a Minister of the Crown to settle whether or not some procedure of the Privy Council should come before Parliament.
I gather that it is suggested that a Minister of the Crown, whether the Secretary of State or the President of the Council or whoever it is, is to have the power of saying whether a proposal has to come before Parliament. I never intended that that should be so. When the noble Lord (Lord Sheffield) quotes me as having spoken that way, he has forgotten to refer to the report of my own explanation on the subject three minutes later when I told him what I had meant. It corresponded with what Lord Selborne said a few moments ago. I cannot charge myself in the least with having misled the House in 574 that matter, because I explained it at once. I am in the hands of the House in this matter. I think it would be a much more arbitrary innovation to enact that a Minister of the Crown should have the right to say that a proposal after passing the Privy Council should or should not be laid before Parliament. If the Act says it should be laid before Parliament, I should think that that would be an answer.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWEBy leave of the House, may I say that my impression is that no subject which had passed the Privy Council in the manner suggested by the most rev. Primate can so pass except by an act of His Majesty, through the Government of the day.
§ LORD WITTENHAMI wish to say only one word on this matter. Having had a great deal to do with Privy Council practice in my life, I think the difficulty arises from the fact that in this Bill we are mixing up Privy Council practice with the practice of Parliament. It has been said, I think by the noble Earl who has just spoken, that the way in which the matter gets before the Ecclesiastical Committee is irregular. The Privy Council practice is this. The Sovereign refers a matter either to a Committee of the Privy Council or to the Judicial Committee. Here there is no reference from the Sovereign at all. That is a very grave departure indeed. It may be good or it may be bad. It may be a short cut, but at any rate it is an extraordinarily novel practice, as any one who is cognisant of the practice of the Privy Council must at once admit. That is the first difficulty.
Another difficulty arises out of or is connected with the Amendment of Lord Sheffield. Here the Ecclesiastical Committee report. According to the practice of the Privy Council they must report to the Sovereign in Council. A report cannot remain in mid air; it must go on. It has been referred by an Order in Council of the Sovereign, and constitutionally therefore cannot stop. They report to the Sovereign in Council, and the Sovereign in Council, must by the practice of the constitution, make an Order thereon. Here there is nothing of the kind. It may be good or it may be bad to alter the practice fundamentally, but let us be sure that we realise exactly what we are doing. Here it says, "The report shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament." Hitherto "the 575 report must be laid." The practice to-day is that the report must be laid before His Majesty in Council. Does not this land us into a difficulty unless you say boldly that you are altering the whole Privy Council practice and that the Committee of the Privy Council shall report straight to the Houses of Parliament? If you are prepared to do that, well and good, but do not let us imagine that we are doing other than making a great change. You are interfering in a way with the prerogative of the Crown.
Let me follow the matter to its conclusion. We must imagine that the Ecclesiastical Committee make a report to the Sovereign, and that when the matter gets before the Houses of Parliament the Houses of Parliament disagree with the report—in other words they will not have the measure. Then His Majesty is seen in a dual capacity. He has made an Order in Council—or he ought to have made it—accepting the Committee's report, but he rejects the Act of Parliament because the Houses of Parliament have rejected it. His Majesty would do, therefore, two contrary things. These are only difficulties that occur to me. There may be nothing in them. My knowledge I dare say has become very rusty, hut I do feel that a great departure is being made. It may be a beneficent departure and the other method may be cumbrous, but let us realise that we are making a departure.
§ VISCOUNT FINLAYBy leave of the House, may I say one word on this matter in the hope of relieving the uneasiness which my noble friend feels? There is really no infringement of the prerogative of the Crown, because the third subsection provides
§ that after considering the measure the Ecclesiastical Committee shall draft a report thereon to His Majesty, stating the nature and legal effect of the measure, and their views as to its expediency, especially with relation to the constitutional rights of all His Majesty's subjects. Then the fourth clause says that when the Ecclesiastical Committee shall have reported to His Majesty on any measure presented by the Legislative Committee, the report, together with the text of such measure, shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament. It has, therefore, been presented to His Majesty before it goes before the Houses of Parliament. I submit with all deference to my noble friends that it would be a very extraordinary thing to give a Minister of the Crown the power of saying whether or not a measure shall be considered by Parliament. The proposal is that the Secretary of State shall have power to prevent the matter coining before Parliament. The noble Lord talks about interfering with the prerogative of the Crown, but I maintain that there is no interference whatever with such prerogative.
§ LORD WITTENHAMAll I intended to point out was that, according to the practice of the Privy Council, when a Report is made the Sovereign in Council makes an Order thereon. Here you skip that altogether. With the greatest humility, I submit that the noble and learned Viscount has not met that point.
§ On Question, whether the words proposed to be inserted shall stand part of the clause?
§ Their Lordships divided: Contents, 17; Not-Contents, 67.
577| CONTENTS. | ||
| Crewe, M. | Atkinson, L. | Gainford, L. |
| Lincolnshire, M. | Buckmaster, L. | Marchamley, L. |
| Charnwood, L. | Pontypridd, L. | |
| Kimberley, E. | Clwyd, L. | Stanley of Alderley, L. (L. Sheffield.) |
| Denman, L. [Teller.] | ||
| Devonport, V. | Elgin, L. (K. Elgin and Kincardine.) [Teller.] | Wittenham, L. |
| Haldane, V. | ||
| Wimborne, V. | ||
| NOT-CONTENTS. | ||
| Canterbury, L. Abp. | Linlithgow, M, | Eldon, E. |
| Birkenhead, L. (L. Chancellor.) | Salisbury, M. | Halsbury, E. |
| Argyll, D. | Brassey, E. | Harrowby, E. |
| Northumberland, D | Chichester, E. | Lindsey, E. |
| Somerset, D. | Coventry, E. | Morton, E. |
| Wellington, D. | Dartrey, E. | Northbrook, E |
| Selborne, E. | Annesley, L. | Islington, L. |
| Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.) | Avebury, L. | Lambourne, L. |
| Waldegrave, E. [Teller.] | Balfour, L. | Lawrence, L. |
| Yarborough, E. | Barrymore, L. | Loch, L. |
| Blyth, L. | Methuen, L. | |
| Cave, V. | Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.) | Middleton, L. |
| Chaplin, V. | Carnock, L. | Montagu of Beaulieu, L. |
| Esher, V. | Channing of Wellingborough, L. | Monteagle, L. (M. Sligo.) |
| Finlay, V. | Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.) | Northbourne, L. |
| Hood, V. | Clinton, L. | Oranmore and Browne, L. |
| Knutsford, V. | Digby, L. | Phillimore, L. |
| Erskine, L. [Teller.] | Rathmore, L. | |
| Bangor, L. Bp. | Glenarthur, L. | Revelstoke, L. |
| Ely, L. Bp. | Grenfell, L. | Somerleyton, L. |
| London, L. Bp. | Hare, L. (E. Listowel.) | Stuart of Wortley, L. |
| Rochester, L. Bp. | Harris, L. | Sydenham, L. |
| St. Albans, L. Bp. | Inchiquin, L. | Wyfold, L. |
On Question, Motion agreed to.
§ Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
§ LORD MUIR MACKENZIE moved to leave out "within fourteen days" where those words first occur, and to insert "forthwith." The noble Lord said: This Amendment and the one following are practically the same thing. I suggest that the limit of fourteen days during which the measure may be laid on the Table of the Home may be very inconvenient. Supposing the fourteen days elapsed, what then happens? If the measure has not been laid does it thereby become defunct? I should have thought it was better to do what I think is usually done in these cases—namely, to say it should be read forthwith, or as soon as may be, or some indefinite words of that kind. I suggest that in both these cases the "fourteen days" should come out and the word "forthwith" stand in its place.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 3, lines 27 and 28, leave out ("within fourteen days") and insert ("forthwith").—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYI am quite willing to accept the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 3, lines 28 and 29, leave out ("within fourteen days") and insert ("immediately").—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
§ LORD MUIR MACKENZIE moved, after "thereupon," to insert "after the expiration of twenty days." The noble 578 Lord said: This Amendment is of more importance. When Clause 4 was in its original state, when it came before the Committee, there was a period laid down of forty days during which it was to lie on the Table of the House, and that period was to be used for any one to take an objection. But the very material alteration has been made that there is to be a positive Resolution by way of Address. I suggest that there ought to be a period during which the measure will lie before the Address is moved, in order to give reasonable opportunity to people to see what the measure is. I think it would be in conformity with proposals of a similar kind made in other Bills. I do not think it is necessary to have a long period like forty days, and I suggest that the words "after the expiration of twenty days" should be inserted.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 30, after ("thereupon") insert ("after the expiration of twenty days").—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
§ VISCOUNT FINLAYI sympathise with the object of my noble and learned friend in moving this Amendment. I would, however, suggest to him to leave the matter' at large. Each House of Parliament may be relied upon to see that adequate time is given for considering ally measure of this kind before he votes upon it one way or the other. If you put it in the hard and fast way now suggested it might possibly cause inconvenience. There may be some comparatively small administrative matter urgently wanted but which, owing to the accident of business, might not come up before the end of the Session was impending, the effect of which might be to throw that 579 matter over the year altogether and have to come up again. Purely as a question of convenience in the administration of the Act, I would suggest to my noble and learned friend that it would be better to leave it to each House to say at what period it would embark on a consideration of the Report on the matter submitted to them.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ LORD MUIR MACKENZIE moved after "measure" where that word thirdly occurs, to insert "with or without amendments." The noble Lord said: My next Amendment is one of very great importance. On the Committee stage, when the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Haldane, proposed a Clause 4 in substitution for the Clause 4 that was in the Bill, he made provision, if I recollect rightly, for amendments being made. I also tried my hand at a Clause 4 (which I did not move in the events that happened) and thought it would be advisable to give the opportunity for amendment. I do not propose to argue the question at length. I think something has been said about it at different stages of the Bill but it has never been definitely before the House as a proposition, and I think it is well worthy of consideration whether the measure that is put before the House must always be in the position that you must take it or leave it—the whole of it; and that you may lose by that means a valuable Act of which every one approves except that there may be a mistake or some proposal in it to which objection is taken, and as to which there would be no difficulty in taking it away and letting the measure pass with that amendment. In the form in which the Bill stands at present you have no means of dealing with a case of that sort. You must take the whole measure exactly as it is or, if there is strong objection to the point, you have to throw out the whole measure. If the Amendment is not acceptable to the most rev. Primate, as with the other amendments I have moved. I shall not press it; but I think it is a thing which requires consideration and which will most certainly have consideration in another place.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 31, after ("measure") insert ("with or without amendments").—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
THE MARQUESS OF CREWEMay I intervene for a moment before the most 580 rev. Primate replies? This no doubt is a point of very great importance, and, as my noble and learned friend has said, it was mentioned in some detail in the discussion on the Second Reading although no definite proposition was ever made about it. I can quite understand that the promoters of the Bill are afraid that if discussion is allowed at all, the whole process may be, or conceivably might be, rendered nugatory by as much discussion taking place when the measure of the Ecclesiastical Committee is laid before Parliament and in as much detail as though it were the subject of ordinary Parliamentary procedure.
But, on the other hand, there is the objection which has just been mentioned by my noble and learned friend—namely, that however composite the measure may be which comes up from the Ecclesiastical Committee, the House is confronted with the choice of "take it or leave it." It by no means follows that it would be the ordinary practice of the Ecclesiastical Committee to submit measures singly, without crediting them with any debased desires; they would be only doing what is very often done by various Parties in Parliament—by all Parties at different times—in trying to help a possibly unpopular clause through by allying it with others upon which there would be general agreement. There is nothing contrary to ordinary Parliamentary practice, and many would hold that there is nothing contrary to the best Parliamentary behaviour, in so doing—that the lame dog has to be helped over the style by being coupled with a sound one.
While recognising the strength of the objection which no doubt would be made—that if the details of the measure are to be subjected to detailed Parliamentary discussion; a great part of the value of this Bill will be lost—one is tempted to ask, even if the proposal cannot be accepted by the House precisely in the form in which my noble and learned friend suggested, whether there is not some possibility of devising means (I confess they have not occurred to me) by which the alternative difficulty—that of considering the measure and passing it en bloc, or refusing to pass it at all—can be avoided.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYI am afraid I could not say on behalf of the promoters of the Bill 581 that we accept the Amendment, because it seems to run counter to the very principles which have been underlying our action throughout. I recognise the motive in the mind of the noble and learned Lord who moved it and his desire to avoid a difficulty which may certainly arise in connection with the acceptance or rejection of the Bill en bloc. That is a risk we must run. If rejection should happen we are responsible for having brought the Bill forward in this form, and we must take the consequences. I believe the danger that we should run in that way would be infinitely less than the danger of defeating practically the whole object of our Bill if we were to allow the proposals which we make, and for which we ask endorsement, to be open to discussion in detail in Parliament. It is a choice of evils, and I have no hesitation in choosing the thing as it stands and not the Amendment.
§ VISCOUNT HALDANEI only wish to say that I think it will give an unfortunate impression that it is not desired, under this procedure, to discuss these matters adequately in the House of Commons. It is obvious that without the power of amendment measures cannot be discussed and shaped, and the attitude towards this Amendment certainly does give the impression that it is desired to withdraw, as far as possible, from the cognisance of Parliament, the proceedings which are to take place and which are afterwards to be brought before Parliament for an approval which is cut down to the narrowest limits.
§ VISCOUNT FINLAYI cannot think that any person of ordinary intelligence who has followed these debates could ever get the impression to which my noble and learned friend has referred. The object of the Bill, of course, is that the Ecclesiastical Committee should most thoroughly consider any measure and present it in the form in which it appears right to them it should receive the Royal Assent. It has been suggested that even a body like the Ecclesiastical Committee might fall into the sin of "tacking"—which describes exactly the process to which the noble Marquess referred—some different provision to a Bill which everyone desires. I think the Bill, as it stands, is certain to prevent this, even if it were thought such a body as the Ecclesiastical Committee would do any such thing. If they "tack" some doubtful or objectionable clause to an 582 otherwise good measure they imperil the whole of the measure, which might be rejected. This fact ensures better than anything else can, that nothing will be presented which is not regarded, after the most mature consideration, as worthy of being put upon the Statute Book. I do not think any precaution against "tacking" by a body like the Ecclesiastical Committee is really necessary, but if you wish to make asurance doubly sure you have done so effectively by providing that the measure must go through as a whole or not at all.
§ LORD MUIR MACKENZIEI am very sorry that the most rev. Primate does not see his way to accept this Amendment. I am not in the least convinced by anything that was said, even by so high an authority as the noble Viscount, against this Amendment. I think a great difficulty will arise, and I am rather inclined to agree with my noble and learned friend opposite as to the impression that will be created by refusing to accept this in any form. But I said at the beginning of the evening that I was not going to try to amend this Bill against the proposals of the most rev. Primate who makes himself responsible for it. I, therefore, though with great regret, shall not press this Amendment.
§ LORD STUART OF WORTLEYIf there is anything going to be said about producing a bad impression in another place, I cannot allow the debate to conclude without pointing out that the noble Lord who moved the Amendment has entirely forgotten that at this stage of the proceedings the power to withdraw the Bill has been lost. Therefore, it would be possible for Parliament to force upon the Church a condition for the passing of its measure which might be most distasteful to it and to do, that would be to place the Church, of England in a worse position than the promoters of any kind of Bill before either House of Parliament.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ LORD MUIR MACKENZIE moved, at the end of the clause, after "thereto," to insert "in the same manner as to Acts of Parliament." The noble Lord said: With regard to the observations made in this House by the noble Viscount when he spoke of a measure of this kind coming on the Statute Book, a former Amendment 583 that I presented about a measure being in the form of an Act of Parliament and the Amendment which I now venture to move, that the Royal Assent should be given in the same manner as it is given to Acts of Parliament, seem to me to bear upon what he then said. I understand the intention is that after going through the processes laid down under the Bill, the measure shall become an Act of Parliament, and it certainly ought to be on the Statute Book like any other Act of Parliament. It ought to be numbered, given its date and so forth, as is done with any other Act, and I should have said that you must make some provision at any rate as to the formal giving of the Royal Assent by the Sovereign and for a record of it. I should have thought it ought to have received the Royal Assent in the same form and at the same time as other Acts of Parliament. I think it is quite possible for the most rev. Primate to accept the principle of my Amendment although it may not possibly be in the happiest form of language. If that is so perhaps the noble and learned Viscount would be kind enough, as he was before, to consult with me before the next stage in regard to the form.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 34, after ("thereto'') insert "in the same manner as to Acts of Parliament").—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYI accept the Amendment, subject to the noble Lord consulting with the noble and learned Viscount as to its exact terms.
§ THE EARL OF SELBORNEI was going to suggest that as the noble Viscount has undertaken to go into this matter with the noble Lord (as he promised to do on a previous Amendment) before the next stage, it would be more convenient if these two Amendments could be considered together. I thought that proposal was agreed to, and did not know that we were to be asked to accept the Amendment now.