England's Case Against Home Rule eBook

A. V. Dicey
This eBook from the Gutenberg Project consists of approximately 289 pages of information about England's Case Against Home Rule.

England's Case Against Home Rule eBook

A. V. Dicey
This eBook from the Gutenberg Project consists of approximately 289 pages of information about England's Case Against Home Rule.

The so-called Imperial Parliament nearly corresponds with the Parliament of the United Kingdom in constitution, but differs from it in function and authority.

[67] In reference to the legal effect of the Government of Ireland Bill on the sovereignty of Parliament, see on the one side the speeches of Sir Henry James of 13th May, 1886, ‘The Times Parliamentary Debates,’ p. 468; of Mr. Finlay, 21st May, 1886, ’The Times Parliamentary Debates,’ p. 614; and an article by Sir William Anson on the Government of Ireland Bill and the Sovereignty of Parliament in the Law Quarterly Review for October, 1886.  See on the other side Mr. Gladstone’s speeches in Parliament of 8th April, 1886, ’The Times Parliamentary Debates,’ p. 125; of 13th April, 1886, ibid. 255; of 10th May, 1886, ibid. 404; and of 7th June, 1886, ibid. p. 861; of Mr. Parnell of 7th June, ibid. p. 847; and ‘The Government of Ireland Bill,’ being a speech delivered by Mr. James Bryce, M.P., on 17th May, 1886, and published as a pamphlet.  My disagreement with Mr. Bryce’s conclusions makes me anxious to express my great admiration for his speech, which is by far the best statement I have read of the view undoubtedly held by Mr. Gladstone and his followers, that the Bill did not affect the sovereignty of Parliament.  The reader should notice that the question throughout between the late Government and its opponents was as to the effect of the Bill on the sovereignty of what I have called the “British Parliament,” i.e. the body, by whatever name it be called, which consists of the representatives of England and Scotland only, and does not include representatives of Ireland.

[68] As to the sovereignty of Parliament, see Dicey, ’Law of the Constitution,’ pp. 35-79.

[69] Government of Ireland Bill, clause 39.

[70] I do not, of course, deny for a moment that an Act could be so drawn as to give Ireland an Irish Parliament, to remove the Irish members from the Parliament of the United Kingdom, and at the same time to reserve to the residue of the United Parliament, or Rump, the full sovereignty now possessed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom.  What I do insist upon is, that it is open to question whether the Government of Ireland Bill was so drawn as to achieve these results.  Nor is the question unimportant.  The fundamental ambiguity of the Bill obviously arose from the fact that its authors, whilst wishing to promise in appearance to Ireland that the new Irish constitution should not be changed by a body in which Ireland had no representatives, also wished to soothe the apprehensions of England by tacitly reserving to the British Parliament the power of altering or repealing the Irish constitution without recalling the representatives of Ireland.  The consequence is that the Bill proclaims in so many words that its provisions shall be altered in one way only, but by implication, as its authors suppose, provides that its provisions may be altered in another and quite different way.  If this is the intended effect of the Bill it ought to have been made patent on its face.  In constitutional matters, as indeed in all the serious concerns of life, ambiguity and uncertainty of expression is the source both of misunderstanding and of danger.

Copyrights
Project Gutenberg
England's Case Against Home Rule from Project Gutenberg. Public domain.