Document Information

Date: 1933-12-20
By: UK (House of Commons)
Citation: UK, HC, “Clause 1.—(Power to issue Letters Patent providing for the administration of Newfoundland, and provision as to revocation and amendment thereof)“, vol 284 (1933), cols 1447-1449.
Other formats: Click here to view the original document (Hansard UK — External Site).

Clause 1.—(Power to issue Letters Patent providing for the administration of Newfoundland, and provision as to revocation and amendment thereof.)

•        (1447)

Lords Amendment: In page 1, line 17, leave out “revoke the,” and insert “make provision for the suspension of the operation of the existing.”

The Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald)  I beg to move, “That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.”

•        (1448)

Hon. Members Speak up !

Mr. Buchanan We want to hear about the Newfoundland Bill as much as any other hon. Members.

Mr. MacDonald The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) has been a very faithful follower of the Debate, and he will be glad that we have been able to accept some of the Amendments which he joined in appealing to us to accept. I am very grateful for what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for the Rothwell Division (Mr. Lunn). As the House will appreciate, these Amendments are in fulfilment of a pledge given by my right hon. Friend that we would introduce into the Bill in another place proposals which would ensure that the Letters Patent should not be revoked but that the operation of them should be suspended. My right hon. Friend made that promise in response to appeals from all quarters of the House. Therefore, I’ need say no more other than that the first Amendment covers the principle, and the other Amendments are secondary to it.

Mr. Albery  On a point of Order. May I draw your attention to the fact that on inquiry at the Vote Office, no copy of the Amendments was available?

Mr. Speaker That, no doubt, is because they have not been printed. They have just been received.

Mr. Albery Is it in order that Amendments should be carried, if hon. Members have not an opportunity of seeing them?

•        (1449)

Mr. Speaker That is a common practice at this period of the Session and it is done by general agreement of the House.

Mr. Charles Williams I agree that it is a common practice, but this is an important constitutional Bill and I regret that hon. Members have not had an opportunity of seeing them in proper form. I realise that it could not be otherwise but some protest is necessary against such a proceeding.

Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.