FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   175   176   177   178   179   180   181   182   183   184   185   186   187   188   189   190   191   192   193   194   195   196   197   198   199  
200   201   202   203   204   205   206   207   208   209   210   211   212   213   214   >>  
er 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. The question of the sovereignty of the British Parliament might, it should be noted, arise in another and more perplexing form, which received, unless I am mistaken, no attention during the debates on the Irish Government Bill. Admit for the sake of argument that the British Parliament can legislate for Ireland; is it equally certain that the Imperial Parliament (i.e. the British Parliament with the addition of Irish representatives) cannot claim to legislate for England or for the whole British Empire? No doubt the Gladstonian Constitution proposes that the Imperial Parliament should be convened only for a limited definite purpose; but is it certain that the Imperial Parliament, which would in its constituent parts
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   175   176   177   178   179   180   181   182   183   184   185   186   187   188   189   190   191   192   193   194   195   196   197   198   199  
200   201   202   203   204   205   206   207   208   209   210   211   212   213   214   >>  



Top keywords:

Parliament

 
Ireland
 

representatives

 
British
 
question
 

Imperial

 

Government

 

United

 
sovereignty
 
England

Kingdom
 

legislate

 

ambiguity

 

constitution

 

authors

 

Constitution

 

provisions

 

altered

 
uncertainty
 
matters

constitutional

 

source

 

implication

 

concerns

 

expression

 

effect

 
intended
 
suppose
 

patent

 
misunderstanding

perplexing

 
Empire
 

addition

 
Gladstonian
 
constituent
 

purpose

 
definite
 

proposes

 

convened

 
limited

received

 

mistaken

 

argument

 

equally

 

attention

 

debates

 
danger
 

residue

 

reserve

 

include