No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Parliament Act of 1911—II
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 September 2013
Extract
A previous article attempted a summary of the contents of the Parliament Act of 1911 and a mention of its immediate ancestry. There followed notice of some historical alleviatory suggestions regarding the composition of the House of Lords and an analysis both of the actual provisions of the Act and of proposals alternative to them with respect to the powers of the Upper House in the matter of “money bills.”
This second article, continuing the method of the first, includes at the outset the question of the powers of the House of Lords as to “general legislation,” i. e. public bills other than money bills. There follows reference to historical ancestry in these matters. Thus the consideration of the means by which the Act became law, that potential resort to the use of the royal prerogative by the temporary executive, may clear the way for speculation as to the significance of the Parliament Act as a whole.
Briefly the Act provides for a final reduction of the powers of the House of Lords as to general legislation to a suspensive veto operative against House of Commons measures only in two successive sessions; after a lapse of two years after the first introduction of the measure in the Lower House and on its third passage there the bill can become law on the royal assent being given, the Lords notwithstanding.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Political Science Association 1912
References
1 American Political Science Review, VI. pp. 194–215Google Scholar.
2 For a fuller statement cf. Ibid, pp. 195–196.
3 On the political situation cf. Ibid. V. pp. 525 et seq. and VI. p. 197.
4 6 House of Lords Debates, 5 series, c. 838.
5 Ibid.
6 H. L. Bills, 1911. No. 26. Cf. 7 H. L. Deb. 5s. cc. 253 et seq.
7 Ibid. c. 760.
8 9 Ibid. c. 415 (July 13) Unfortunately lack of space prevents at this time any explanation or discussion of the Reference to the People Bill.
9 Ibid. cc. 6, 12. On Lord Avebury's motion accepted by the government and the House of Commons on August 8 (29 H. C. Deb. 5s. c. 1094).
10 9 H. L. Deb. 5s. c. 100.
11 H. L. Deb. 5s. c. 276.
12 H. L. Deb. 5s c. 488.
13 Spalding, T. A.: The House of Lords, (London, 1894) p. 231.Google Scholar
14 At Bingley Hall meeting, Birmingham, August 4 (Times, August 5, 1884). He believed that by the operation of the suspensive veto the attendance of the Lords would naturally be reduced to about 100, a number corresponding to the number of peers efficient in public service. He therefore opposed reform of composition; and supported his plan as to powers as “the most complete remedy with the least amount of disturbance.” The Times leader of August 5, commented on the proposal as “a political event of no ordinary significance” for the “question is rapidly coming within the range of practical politics; and Mr. Bright's suggestions for the reform of the House of Lords are not very subversive if the question is once regarded as an open one;” nevertheless in view of existing circumstances “we are compelled to regard his scheme rather as interesting in theory than as feasible in practice.” A week later another aspect of the matter was touched by Sir Wilfrid Lawson who declared that a “hereditary legislative chamber is a legislative anomaly, a political deformity, and a public enemy.” (Times, August 11.)
15 London Review, Jan. 1836. Later republished in Roebuck, : Pamphlets for the People, II.Google Scholar
16 Bain, : James Mill, p. 401.Google Scholar Cf. also Bowring, , Works of Bentham IV, pp. 420Google Scholaret seg.
17 Roebuck, : The Conduct of the Ministers, London 1835, p. 11.Google Scholar This was included in volume II of Pamphlets for the People; Cf. also in the same series, Roebuck, : Of What Use is the House of Lords (1835)Google Scholar; which was reviewed in Westminster Review (Jan. 1836) XXIV, pp. 24–41, and H. S. Chapman in a review of motions regarding the Lords included in Roebuck, : Parties in the House of Commons (1835).Google Scholar
18 Midlothian speech, August 30, reported in Times, Sept. 1, 1884.
19 Times, Sept. 1, 1884. Cf. Morley, : Gladstone, III, p. 130Google Scholar for important correspondence with the Queen.
20 21 Hansard, 4s. cc. 1150–51.
21 8 H. L. Deb. 5s. c. 557.
22 Lord Lansdowne's phrase on July 20.
23 Clarke, W.: The House of Lords in Contemporary Review, LXXVI, pp. 333–346.Google Scholar
24 152 Hansard, 4s. c. 462. Cf. Holland, : Duke of Devonshire (London, 1911) II. pp. 394Google Scholaret seq.
25 At Plymouth, Jan. 8, 1910 (Times, Jan. 10).
26 At Denbigh, Oct. 20, 1884 (Times, Oct. 21).
27 At Swansea, Feb. 1, 1883 (Times, Feb. 2).
28 Rogers, : Addresses of John Bright, p. 193.Google Scholar
29 At Trowbridge, Nov. 24, 1909. The Lord's Revolution p. 10. (Authorized edition published by Liberal Publication Department. London, 1910.)
30 Three Capital Issues, p. 10 (Authorized edition of Albert Hall Speech publ. by L. P. D. London, 1910).
31 14 H. C. Deb., 5s. cc. 55–56.
32 16 H. C. Deb., 5s. c. 1548.
33 Ibid. c. 1551.
34 29 H. C. Deb. 5s. cc. 810–11. Unfortunately that night the official reporter misquoted the letter of the Cabinet as read by Mr. Asquith; and Sir William Anson in the last edition of Law and Custom, 4th ed., reissue revised, October, 1911. I. p. 288b, follows that mistake, making it appear that the Cabinet had referred to the possible creation of peers in order that “effect shall be given to the desire of the Government” instead of to the “decision of the country.” The speech and letter had been correctly reported in the Times of Aug. 8, and the matter also came up on a question by Mr. Butcher on Aug. 9 (29 H. C. Deb. 5s. c. 1147) when the correction was noted and made in the official report. In view of this it may be desirable to reconsider implications built on this misquotation in Anson, pp. 289–90.
35 29 H. C. Deb. 5s. c. 811. Hints have also been given of a conversation between the late King and Mr. Asquith directly after the rejection of the Budget in 1909 in which the Prime Minister said: “It is impossible for this state of things to go on unless we have redress.” Lord Haldane at Aberdeen, Oct. 9, 1911 (Westminster Gazette, Oct. 10).
36 20 H. C. Deb. 5s. c. 135.
37 Times, July 22, 1911.
38 29 H. C. Deb. 5s. c. 812.
39 9 H. C. Deb. 5s. c. 999.
40 Cf. however, Anson: op. cit. I. p. 290 “It cannot be said that the passing of the Parliament Act has put an end to the possibility of a further employment of this prerogative.” Prof. Dicey apparently takes an opposite view. (Times, Aug. 21, 1911.)
41 Cf. the circumstances connected with the dissolution and general election of 1857. Prof.Dicey, (Times, Sept. 2, 1911)Google Scholar believes that the Parliament Act places a “formidable obstacle” in the way of a minister who though popular in the country is unpopular in the House of Commons. He will not be able to dissolve Parliament as often or as promptly. But if this is so does it not imply that the Parliament Act and the payment of a salary to the members of the House of Commons do not strengthen the authority of the Cabinet?
42 Cf. the correspondence in Davidson, and Benham, : Tait, II.Google ScholarPubMed ch. XIX.
43 Holland, : Devonshire, II. p. 327.Google Scholar
44 9 H. L. Deb. 5s. c. 1003. The circumstances of 1834 (Sanders: Melbourne, pp 219 et seq.) and of 1839 when the youth and female prejudices of the Queen gave an unfortunate twist to this question ought not to serve as precedents (Letters of Queen Victoria, I. pp. 207 et seq.). Unfortunately Sidney Lee's biographical article on Edward VII in the supplement to the Dictionary of National Biography was not available for this paper.
45 Unfortunately lack of space prevents an analysis of the opposition arguments. The speeches of Mr. Balfour and of Mr. F. E. Smith in the Commons on August 7, and in the House of Lords on August 10, of Lord Lansdowne and Lord Selbourne are among the best. Lord Halsbury is interesting; Lord Willoughby de Broke amusing.
45a Pitt, , Speeches, I. p. 138.Google Scholar Cf. the important article by Morgan, J. H., The Creation of Peers, in Westminster Gazette, July 17, 1911.Google Scholar
46 Monypenny, : Disraeli, I. p. 324.Google Scholar Disraeli's opinions on the House of Lords, 1834–36 are worth reading (pp. 226, 308–11, 324–26); and in this connection both the differences and the analogies between the periods, 1832–36 and 1906–10 are interesting.
47 Bagehot, : The English Constitution, p. 27.Google Scholar (Introduction to second edition. New York, revised edition, 1901.)
48 This was the possible situation which Mr. Chamberlain indicated as reason for the maintenance of the powers of the House of Lords in 1894. Speech at Liverpool, Sept. 5. (Times, Sept. 6.)
49 Cf. Anson, : Law and Custom of the Constitution, Parliament. I. p. 267.Google Scholar
50 Op. cit. I. p. 12. The recent decisions of the Court of Appeal in Dyson v. the Att. Gen. and in Burghes v. the Att. Gen. (reported in the Times, Nov. 18, 1911) as to the validity of Forms IV and VII under the Finance Act, 1910, reveal the tendency of administrative departments to go beyond even their statutory powers.
51 ProfessorDicey, holds another view (Times, Sept. 2, 1911).Google Scholar In this connection we may note that he believes that the prerogative of dissolution will be practically destroyed. Whether this will be so or not an amendment to the Parliament Act reducing the maximum life of a Parliament to three years might meet many of the objections of the opposition; the government might thus find a partial substitute for the referendum; and the influence on the Cabinet might be important. Mr. Disraeli once favored this restoration of triennial Parliaments which the Whigs threw overboard in the squall of 1715. (Monypenny, : Disraeli, I. p. 283Google Scholar). Undoubtedly there are many serious objections to it; but none so serious as have been brought against many of the provisions of the Act and of the opposition program.
52 Cf. the late Lord Salisbury's speech at Edingburgh, Oct. 30, 1894, and comment in Blackwoods, CLVI, pp. 889–90.
53 Cf. ProfessorDicey, in the Times, Oct. 3, 1911.Google Scholar
54 This has been denied. The posters issued by Unionist headquarters on Mr. John Redmond as the “dollar dictator” justify the above statement; and an abundance of further evidence is open to anyone who reads newspapers. Cf. the House of Commons debate reported in the Times, Feb. 20 and 21, 1912.
55 Cf. Mr. Asquith at Hull, Nov. 25, 1910, Lords' Reform of the House of Lords, pp. 10, 12 (authorized edition publ. by L. P. D. London, 1910).
56 Moulton, J. F.: The Lords in Contemporary Rev. LXVII, pp. 153–67Google Scholar and The Commons in Ibid, pp. 305–16.
57 The Liberal party “has concentrated its attention entirely upon the question of the powers of the House of Lords. On our side (Conservative) it would, perhaps, not be incorrect to say that we have concentrated out attention, if not entirely, mainly at any rate upon the other branch of the subject—I mean the composition of this House. We in this House feel strongly that it is impossible to deal adequately with the question of the powers of the House of Lords until we know what sort of a House of Lords it is that we are talking about.” (Lord Lansdowne on Nov. 16, 1910. 6 H. L. Deb. 5s. c. 686.)
58 174 Hansard, 4s. cc. 43–44.
59 Cf. Mr.Belfast, Winston Churchill's speech (Times, Feb. 9, 1912).Google Scholar In this connection we note Mr. Gladstone's speech at Aberdeen, Sept. 27, 1871. (Times, Sept. 28.) and the change suggested in 1894 in Selborne, : Memorials, Personal and Political, II, p. 394Google Scholar: “We may expect under Rosebery an attempt to solve both the Home Rule and Second Chamber question together by a complete Federal Scheme of a new constitution for all parts of the United Kingdom—England and Scotland, as well as Ireland. We know already that Asquith was for such a scheme …”
Comments
No Comments have been published for this article.