LORDS AMENDMENT. (Hansard, 20 December 1920)

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
I propose to put the Question down to "nineteen hundred and twenty-one," because I have an Amendment to propose to what follows—"His Majesty in Council may by order unless"; so that we shall get a clear decision on the two or three years in that form. I do not think I need say much on that point, because the noble Earl was good enough to indicate that that was not the point to which he attached the first importance. In these circumstances I shall move that the Commons Amendments be agreed to as far as the words "nineteen hundred and twenty-one."

§ THE EARL OF MIDLETON
On the three and a-half years, in deference to what has fallen from my noble friend Lord Crewe, though I myself think that the period is too long, I will not offer any objection. But when it comes to the question of merely asking that your Lordships may intervene if you please, as of course you may on any occasion, rather than a definite demand made by the Government to put this Act again in motion, perhaps in three years' time, that is a very different matter.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
In dealing with the next Amendment the words remain from the previous Amendment, "His Majesty in Council may by order unless." It will be necessary to amend that in order to leave out "by order unless a Resolution declaring that it is expedient so to do passed by both Houses of the Parliament of the United Kingdom," and make an insertion as follows: "Subject as hereinafter provided by order," and at the end of the subsection— Provided that before any Order in Council is made under this subsection a draft thereof shall be laid before each House of Parliament for a 601 period of not less than thirty days during a session of Parliament and if before the expiration of that period both Houses present an address to His Majesty against the draft, or any part thereof, no further proceedings shall be taken thereon, but without prejudice to the making of a new Draft Order. There is no object in inserting these words unless the Government scheme is adopted, and not the scheme of the noble Earl, and therefore the decision which your Lordships reach on the Amendment I now move will cover the points which the noble Earl desires to take. In other words, if my present proposal is rejected I should see in that a sign that your Lordships prefer the scheme of the noble Earl to the attempt which I am now making to amend the alternative proposal made by the House of Commons.
Let me make it clear. There are two proposals now under discussion. In the first place, there is the proposal which proceeded from your Lordships when the Bill went to another place, and that is that the Government is deprived of this power of holding an election in Ireland unless both Houses of Parliament affirmatively authorised them so to do. That was the proposal as it left this House. The House of Commons have inserted an alternative proposal to this effect, that an Irish Election can be held unless both Houses of Parliament pass a Resolution to the contrary. In the Commons Amendment they have provided for the contingency that the Government might make an Order without giving sufficient notice to both Houses of Parliament, so that the control of Parliament would be nugatory. The Amendment I am proposing now is only so far to amend the Commons proposal as to render that apprehension groundless; otherwise, the recommendation I am making now is to establish and recommend the proposal of the House of Commons. If the House should be opposed to the proposal which I am now making I shall see in that decision a decision which covers the later Amendments on the whole point.
Upon the merits I will make just a brief observation. I do not really think the complaint of the noble Earl that he and his friends were not sufficiently consulted is well founded. I do not mean beforchand and while the Bill was in preparation. If they were not consulted then they very obviously ought to have been, and I regret it. But the noble Earl and his 602 friends most assuredly have been considered and consulted at every stage of these discussions, and they have written their wishes on almost every important, page of the Bill. It has been profoundly altered by the Government in constant attempts to meet the wishes and apprehensions which he has expressed. I really think that on this last point the complaint made by the noble Earl is lacking in foundation.
He says that what Parliament is asked to do is to let this measure go free from all Parliamentary control. It is not so in the least. During the whole of these three-years there will be on the Table of this, House, and on the Table in another place notice that the Government intend by Order to summon an Irish Parliament. The noble Earl can always direct the attention of this House to that proposal, and if he can influence your Lordships he can obtain a Resolution. The same opportunity exists in another place. The noble Earl says that the majority of the Government elsewhere is something like, 450; and may I point out that the proposal of the noble Earl only met with twelve supporters in the House of Commons. I do not know whether Lord Midleton is a warm admirer of the present Government. He sometimes conceals his enthusiasm, as do others of your Lordships, but the warmest admirer of this Government will hardly expect that we shall return as a result of the next Election with a majority of 450. A sober view might be that we shall be fortunate if we obtain such a reasonable majority as will enable, the noble Earl to secure consideration in the new House of Commons.
It is at any rate not correct to say that we are removing this matter altogether from Parliament. We are doing nothing of the kind. If the two houses of Parliament take the view that the moment is inopportune and the experiment hazardous they can act together and render it impossible. If the noble Earl says "I do not want the House of Commons to be brought in at all; I want it to be in the power of the House of Lords alone to be able to frustrate the considered view of the Government," then it is the noble Earl who is making an unconstitutional proposal and not the Government. This Bill is, the result of discussion and decision by both Houses of Parliament; the representative Chamber and your Lordships' House. The proposal of the Government, 603 on which the Division will be taken, is that if these two Chambers, which are the parent of this Bill, are of opinion that the moment is not safe for an Irish election then the two acting together can render it impossible to hold that election. The noble Earl's proposal is that this House alone can frustrate it at any moment when the Government think it safe to carry it out.
The plain difference, and the real difference, between the two proposals is that it is the view of the House of Commons which is founded upon all constitutional precedent, that where the two Houses have concurred the matter shall only be frustrated if the two Houses change their mind. The noble Earl proposes that the matter can be so dealt with that either House can frustrate it. I hope that your Lordships will support the view of the House of Commons. The moment is a difficult one, as these late points of contact between the two Houses always are, and the consequence of a simple rejection of the proposal grows narrower and narrower to the crisis of destruction. The issue being so narrow, and the noble Earl having been so successful and, may I say, the Government so conciliatory in dealing with these proposals, I venture to hope that your Lordships will agree.

§ THE EARL OF MIDLETON
The issue is perfectly clear. The point is, Are the Government to have three and a half years carte blanche to move as they please with regard to this matter in Ireland? Can they go on offering this provision to any part of Ireland which refuses it; and is Parliament to give up all its control for three and a half years? There will be no Bill before us except such as a private Member may introduce. I submit that it is an extraordinary condition of affairs, and that we cannot entirely relieve ourselves of all control or relieve the Government from the modest demand that they should take a Resolution of Parliament before again offering to a people which refuses it a subordinate Parliament. I shall ask your Lordships to divide against the Amendment.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
The Question is whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
That makes it necessary for me to move that the following words be inserted at the end of the subsection— Provided that before any Order in Council is made under this subsection a draft thereof shall be laid before each House of Parliament for a period of not less than thirty days during the session of Parliament, and if before the expiration of that period both Houses present an Address to His Majesty against the draft or part thereof no further proceedings shall be taken thereon but without prejudice to the making of a new draft Order.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
I now have to move that your Lordships agree to the remainder of the Commons Amendment in lines 6, 7, and 10.

CONTENTS.
Wellington, D.	Wicklow, E.	Forester, L.
		Greville, L.
Lincolnshire, M. (L. Great Chamberlain.)	Bangor, V.	Holm Patrick, L.
	Gosehen, V.	Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)
Linlithgow, M.	Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)	Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl.)
Salisbury, M.
		Lamington, L.
Abingdon, E.	Askwith, L.	Lawrence, L.
Albemarle, E.	Avebury, L.	Methuen, L.
Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)	Balfour, L.	Monk Bretton, L.
	Barrymore, L.	Monteagle of Brandon, L.
Iveagh, E.	Bellew, L.	Muir Mackenzie, L.
Kimberley, E.	Cheylesmore, L.	Oranmore and Browne, L. [Teller.]
Lindsey, E.	Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)
Mayo, E. [Teller.]	Clifford of Chudleigh, L.	Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.)
Midleton, E.	Cloncurry, L.	Redesdale, L.
Russell, E.	Decies, L.	Sumner, L.
Selborne, E.	Denman, L.	Sydenham, L.
Westmeath, E.	Desart, L. (E. Desart.)	Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)
NOT-CONTENTS
Birkenhead, L. (L. Chancellor.)	Bradford, E.	Howe, E.
	Caithness, E.	Innes, E. (D. Roxburghe.)
Argyll, D.	Chesterfield, E.	Lucan, E.
Richmond and Gordon, D.	Chichester, E.	Lytton, E.
	Darnley, E.	Malmesbury, E.
Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)	Denbigh, E.	Mar and Kellie, E.
Bath, M.	Dundonald, E.	Pembroke and Montgomery, E.
Camden, M.	Fortescue, E.	Reading, E.
Dufferin and Ava, M.	Grey, E.	Sandwich, E.
Searbrough, E.	Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)	Meston, L.
Stanhope, E.	Clinton, L.	Moulton, L.
Strafford, E.	Clwyd, L.	Nunburnholme, L.
Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)	Colebrooke, L.	Queenborough, L.
	Cozens-Hardy, L.	Ranfurly, L. (E. Ranfurly.)
Sandhurst, V. (L. Chamberlain.)	Crawshaw, L.	Ranksborough, L.
Cave, V.	de Mauley, L.	Rathcreedan, L.
Chaplin, V.	Deramore, L.	Ribblesdale, L.
Chilston, V.	Desborough, L.	Ritchie of Dundee, L.
Finlay, V.	Dewar, L.	Romilly, L.
Haldane, V.	Donington, L.	Sackville, L.
Hampden, V.	Douglas, L. (E. Home.)	St. Levan, L.
Hood, V.	Ernle, L.	Savile, L.
Milner, V.	Erskine, L.	Someleyton, L. [Teller.]
Peel, V.	Hamilton of Dalzell, L.	Stanley of Alderley, L. (L. Sheffield.)
St. Davids, V.	Harris, L.
Abinger, L.	Hastings, L.	Stanmore, L. [Teller.]
Annesley, L. (V. Valentia.)	Hylton, L.	Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)
Atkinson, L.	Inverforth, L.
Bledisloe, L.	Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)	Stuart of Wortley, L.
Blythswood, L.	Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)	Sudeley, L.
Boston, L.	Knaresborough, L.	Tenterden, L.
Chalmers, L.	Lee of Farecham, L.	Wolverton, L.