No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 September 2013
The Parliament Act of 1911 received the royal assent on August 18. By the terms of its important preamble further legislation is promised, which will define both the composition and powers of a new second chamber “constituted on a popular instead of hereditary basis;” although “such substitution cannot be immediately brought into operation,” the positive provisions of the measure restrict the “existing powers of the House of Lords.” This law, therefore, is intentionally temporary, the first probably of several enactments embodying further constitutional changes.
In the mean time and briefly what does this law now provide? (1) A public bill passed by the House of Commons and certified by the Speaker of the House of Commons to be a “money bill” within the terms of the act shall, “unless the Commons direct to the contrary,” “become an Act of Parliament on the Royal assent being signified, notwithstanding that the House of Lords have not consented to the Bill,” within one month after it has been “sent up to that House.”
1 9 H. L. Deb. 5s. c. 1165
2 Section 1, subsections 1 and 2. The exact definition of a “money bill” in subsection 2 reads as follows: “A Money Bill means a Public Bill which in the opinion of the Speaker of the House of Commons contains only provisions dealing with all or any of the following subjects, namely, the imposition, repeal, remission, alteration or regulation of taxation; the imposition for the payment of debt or other financial purposes of charges on the Consolidated Fund, or on money provided by Parliament, or the variation or repeal of any such charges; supply; the appropriation, receipt, custody, issue or audit of accounts of public money; the raising or guarantee of any loan or the repayment thereof; or subordinate matters incidental to those subjects or any of them. In this subsection the expressions ‘taxation’ ‘public money’ and ‘loan’ respectively do not include any taxation, money, or loan raised by local authorities or bodies for local purposes.”
3 Such a bill is for the purpose of confirming by statute the order of a government department acting under a statutory delegation of legislative powers.
4 Section 2, subsection 1; and section 5.
5 Section 2, subsections 1 and 2.
6 Section 2, subsections 3 and 4.
7 Section 3.
8 Section 4.
9 Section 6.
10 Section 7.
11 176 Hansard, 4s. c. 909. In the course of the ensuing debate a scheme was outlined for conferences between the two houses in case of disagreement.
12 The story of these months has been told in many places and only a bare recital of the chief stages is needed here. Cf. inter alia for preliminary comment on this whole matter Impressions of British Party Politics, 1909–1911 in Am. Pol. Sci. Rev. V, pp. 509–534Google Scholar.
13 Between March 29 and April 5 debates took place on the proposal to go into committee “to consider the relations between the two Houses of Parliament and the question of the duration of Parliament” (15 H. C. Deb. 5s. c. 1162). The debates on the three resolutions dealing with money bills, other public bills, and the duration of Parliament, which took place between April 6 and 14 were finally ended by the agreement of the House with committee shown by votes on the three resolutions of 340 to 241, 346 to 243, and 347 to 244 respectively. (16 H. C. Deb. 5s. cc. 1531–1547.)
14 16 H. C. Deb. 5s. c. 1547. This was a purely formal presentation of a “dummy” bill; the text not being given out till some days later.
15 Contrary to the statement in that useful handbook—Ilbert: Parliament, p. 218; the omission of all mention of the resolutions of 1910 is misleading, Later in the house of Lords, at the invitation of the opposition, Lord Crewe proposed the first reading of the parliament Bill on November 16th (6 H. L. Deb. 5s. c. 706); but in those urgent days of what Lord Rosebery called “rather slippery work” (c. 697), with the closure of dissolution impending the debate on the second reading was adjourned by the opposition on November 21 (c. 809).
16 The legislative history of the bill in the Parliament of 1911 may be summarized as follows: In the House of Commons on February 21 and 22 after presentation the first reading debate was voted 351 to 227 (21 H. C. Deb. 5s. cc. 2035–40). On February 27, 28, March 1 and 2 came the second reading debate and opposition amendment favoring reform of “the composition of the House of Lords, whilst maintaining its independence as a second chamber” and declining to proceed with a measure practically involving single chamber legislation, which may be “contrary to the will of the people” (22 Ibid., 5s. c. 45), the amendment being defeated 365 to 244 (Ibid., cc. 677–682). On April 3, 4, 5, 10, 11, 18, 20, 24, 25, 26, May 1, 2, and 3 the House was in committee, during which amendments were accepted (a) further defining money bills, (b) requiring the Speaker's certificate to a money bill on its presentation to the Lords instead of only on its presentation for the royal assent, (c) defining more clearly the lapse of two years required in section 2, subsection 1, of the act, (d) requiring for bills other than money bills a certificate from the Speaker on presentation to the Crown of a bill three times rejected by the Lords. Report stage was reached on May 9 and 10, when on government amendments some verbal changes were made and words in section 2, subsection 4, were added to enable the Commons more easily to accept late amendments by the Lords. On May 15 the bill passed the third reading, 362–241 (25 Ibid., 5s. c. 1784).
In the House of Lords the first reading was on May 16 (8 H. L. Deb. 5s. c. 486). Debate followed on May 23, 24, 25, and 29 on the second reading which took place without division (Ibid., c. 967). On June 28, 29, July 3, 4, 5 and 6 the House was in committee, when amendments were inserted as follows: (a) In place of the Speaker a joint committee was substituted to determine a money bill, whose purpose as well as content were to be tested; (b) a proposal to extend Parliament beyond five years was not to pass under the provisions of this act; (c) a reference to the electors was to be required on all bills affecting the existence of the Crown and the Protestant succession, establishing local parliaments within the United Kingdom, or raising new issues of great gravity in the opinion of the joint committee. On a test vote affecting these proposals the government was beaten 253–46 (9 Ibid., 5s. cc. 277–80). On report made July 13 a further definition of money bills was inserted and enacting words for bills which did not pass the Lords were provided. The third reading was taken without division July 20 (Ibid., c. 619) and the same day prior to the passage of the bill an amendment to define a public bill was agreed to. Again in the Commons on August 8, resuming the debate adjourned by the Speaker on July 24 under Standing order 21 because of “grave disorder” (28 H. C. Deb. 5s. cc. 1495–96), the House disagreed with the Lords' amendments except as to (a) exclusion from the scope of this act of a bill to extend the duration of Parliament beyond five years; (b) the insertion of enacting words for bills which become laws without the consent of the Lords; (c) a further technical definition of a public bill other than a money bill. The House also agreed to a new provision for a House of Commons committee of two with whom the Speaker might consult before giving his certificate on a money bill. On the test division as to disagreement with the Lords' amendments the vote was 321–215 in support of the government (291 Ibid., 5s. cc. 1109–1114). Thus the bill as amended was returned to the Lords where on August 9 and 10 the question of consideration of the Commons' reasons for disagreement with the Lords' amendments was debated (9 H. L. Deb. 5s. cc. 1045–46); at last on the motion that the House “do not insist” on the amendment requiring a reference to the electors in the case of certain bills a vote of 131–114 insured the safety of the bill (Ibid. cc. 1073–77). In both houses debates on the address, on resolutions of censure directed against the government, questions, and discussion regarding the conduct of business had afforded additional opportunity for consideration of the constitutional and political questions connected with the act. In such a compact record amendments proposed and rejected in either house obviously cannot find place.
17 Scobell, : Collection of Acts and Ordinances (London, 1658), II. p. 8.Google Scholar
18 5 H. L. Deb. 5s. c. 140 (March 14).
19 Ibid., cc. 491–94 (March 22). However, at this time the Duke of Norfolk advised the supporters of these resolutions not to attach to them a “fictitious importance” (c. 483).
21 6 H. L. Deb. 5s. cc. 757–58. The second resolution read: “That the term of tenure for all Lords of Parliament shall be the same, except in the case of those who sit ex-officio, who would sit so long as they held the office for which they sit” (Ibid., c. 714).
22 Ibid., c. 741 (Lord Newton).
23 H. L. Bills, 1911, No. 75. Lord Rosebery objected to procedure by bill instead of resolution (8 H. L. Deb. 5s. cc. 527–28).
24 15 H. C. Deb. 5s. c. 1187.
25 H. L. Rep. 1908, No. 234. In the appendix to this report there is a useful summary of previous bills and resolutions, though no references are given. Cf. Pike, : Constitutional History of the House of Lords, (London. 1894) ch. XV.Google Scholar
26 174 Hansard, 4s. c. 42; and 175 Ibid., 4s. c. 1556. On Lord Cawdor's motion for the select committee on May 7 Lord Crewe had unsuccessfully moved an amendment that “it is not expedient to proceed with the discussion of various proposals for reforming the constitution of this House until provision has been made for an effective method of settling differences which may arise between this House and the other House of Parliament.” (174 Ibid., 4s. cc. 43–44.)
27 H. L. Bills, 1907, No. 4.
28 Ibid., clauses 1–5.
29 H. L. Bills, 1889, No. 18; introduced March 11(333 Hansard, 3s. c. 1345); second reading, March 19 (334 Ibid., 3s. c. 333); beaten 73 to 14 (c. 364).
30 H. L. Bills, 1888, No. 162; introduced June 18; withdrawn without debate July 10 (328 Hansard 3s. c. 871).
31 333 Ibid 3s. c. 552.
32 H. L. Bills, 1888, No. 161; introduced June 18 (327 Hansard, 3s. c. 387).
33 328 Ibid., 3s. c. 871; cf. for Mr. Gladstone's real attitude toward the bill at this time, c. 911.
34 H. L. Bills, 1888, No. 51; first reading March 23; second reading debate, April 26 (325 Hansard, 3s. cc. 518 et seq.); withdrawn (c. 562).
35 Introduced March 19 (323 Ibid., 3s. c. 1548); defeated 97 to 50 (c. 1605); in the course of this debate reference was made (c. 1561) to Lord Salisbury's famous speech at Oxford on Nov. 23, 1887, in which he called on the Lords to reject “objectionable bills” from a “bad sort of House of Commons.” Cf. the situation at this time in the Commons as shown in the debate on Mr. Labouchere's motion of March 9 against “right of birth” as a qualification for legislators (c. 763).
36 June 20 (289 Ibid., 3s. c. 937); defeated 77–39 (c. 974).
37 Reid: Forster, pp. 454, 593; Jeyes, : Chamberlain, pp. 177–203Google Scholar; Churchill, : Lord Randolph Churchill, I. p. 360Google Scholar; Morley, : Gladstone, II. p. 248Google Scholar, III. pp. 49, 126–139, 173, 225, 409; Selborne, : Memorials, Personal, II. pp. 117–27, 358Google Scholar; Lee, : Queen Victoria, p. 470.Google Scholar
38 219 Hansard, 3s. c. 1489; this was buried in the committee (220 Ibid., 3s. c. 141)
39 219 Ibid., 3s. cc. 1476 et seq. (June 12); withdrawn (c. 1488).
40 H. L. Bills, 1869, No. 50; 195 Hansard, 3s. cc. 473, 1679; sent to a committee (c. 1693).
41 H. L. Bills, 1869, No. 49; second reading debate, April 27 (195 Hansard, 3s. cc. 1648 et seq.); beaten (197 Ibid., 3s. c. 1401). Cf. Malmesbury, : Memoirs of an Ex-Minister, II. pp. 393, 400, 402Google Scholar; Martin, : Sherbrooke, II. p. 353Google Scholar; Morley, : Gladstone, II. pp. 428–29Google Scholar; Hamilton, : Gladstone, p. 97Google Scholar; Walpole, : Russell, II. p. 438.Google Scholar
42 This year saw the exclusion of four Irish Spiritual Lords on the disestablishment of the Irish Church, 32 and 33 Vict, c. 42, sec. 13.
43 39 and 40 Vict. c. 59.
44 50 and 51 Vict. c. 70.
45 34 and 35 Vict. c. 50, sec. 8.
46 46 and 47 Vict. c. 52.
47 Standing Order XXXIIa; 191 Hansard, 3s. c. 571.
48 Martin, : Lyndhurst, p. 462Google Scholar; Malmesbury, : Memoirs, II. pp. 41, 43Google Scholar; Peerages for Life, in Blackwoods, LXXIX, pp. 362–69 and Wensleydale Creation in same pp. 369–78 (March, 1856). The debates cover many pages in 140 Hansard, 3s.
49 Cf. on the Epicurean aspects of conservatism, Churchill, : Lord Randolph Churchill, I. p. 81.Google Scholar
50 Parl. Hist. VII.cc. 589–594, 606 et seq. Coxe, : Walpole, I. pp. 201–217.Google ScholarAitken, : Steele, II. pp. 210–220.Google ScholarHist. Mss. Comm. Rep. Portland Mss, V. pp. 578 et seq. The changes made by the Scotch and Irish Unions do not require mention here.
51 8 H. L. Deb. 5s. c. 371–72.
52 What is the House of Lords? in National Rev. XI, p. 123.
53 Ibid., p. 118.
54 13 H. C. Deb. 5s. c. 546.
55 4 H. L. Deb. 5s. c. 1039 (Nov. 25). By “a reference to the people in matters of finance” the House of Lords “would spoil and destroy the control of the other House of Parliament over the Government.”
56 Speech at Dumfries: Times, Oct. 7. “It is the House of Commons, not the House of Lords which settles uncontrolled our financial policy.”
57 The House of Lords “cannot touch those money Bills which if it could deal with, no doubt, it could bring the whole executive machinery of the country to a standstill.” 176 Hansard, 4s. cc. 929–930 (June 24).
58 Speech at Manchester: Manchester Guardian, Oct. 23. “The House of Lords, as you all know, does not interfere with the general financial policy of the country.”
59 The House of Lords, “by custom, takes no share whatever in the votes by which governments are displaced or inaugurated and it takes no share whatever in that which is the most important part of the annual, constant business of every legislative body”—finance. 35 Hansard, 4s. c. 263 (July 6).
60 159 Hansard 3s. cc. 1384, 1602, 1604, 1606. These resolutions had been presented after a valuable report as to precedents had been made by the Select Committee on Tax Bills. (H. C. Rep. 1860, No. 414.) For an interesting account by an auditor of the famous debate of July 5, 1860, cf. A field night in the House of Commons in Atlantic Monthly, VIII. pp. 663–78. On some of the personal and political aspects of the question cf. Morley, : Gladstone, II. pp. 25, 31–40, 238–39, 636Google Scholar; Martin, : Lyndhurst, p. 494Google Scholar; Dasent, : Delane, II. p. 21Google Scholar; Martin, : Prince Consort, V. pp. 99–100, 132–33Google Scholar; Letters of Queen Victoria, III. pp. 512–514; Laughton, : Reeve, II. p. 45.Google Scholar
61 Commons Journals, IX, p. 509 (July 3, 1678).
62 Commons Journals, IX, p. 235 (April 13, 1671).
63 Ibid., I. pp. 910, 914, 919. Cf. Lords Journals, III. pp. 858, 860, 879.
64 Order No. XXV; Lords Journals, XVII, p. 185 (Dec. 9, 1702).
65 Cf. Appendix to H. C. Rep. 1860, No. 414.
66 For a clear analysis and classification of these precedents cf. speech by Mr. Collier on July 5, 1860, 159 Hansard, 3s. cc. 1386–1418
67 H. C. Rep. 1860, No. 414, p. xi.
68 6 H. L. Deb. 5s. c. 838 (Nov. 23).
69 8 Ibid., c. 1047.
70 H. L. Deb. 1049.
71 Ibid., c. 1090.
72 Ibid., c. 1164.
73 Ibid., c. 1135.
74 24 H. C. Deb. 5s. c. 259.
75 9 H. L. Deb. 5s. c. 458.
76 The italics are my own, indicating the important changes from the amendment of June 29.
77 Cf. footnote 2 of this article. At this stage of the bill the Speaker alone was the supreme authority on this point. Later in the House of Commons on August 8 the government supported an amendment which directed the Speaker “to consult, if practicable, two members to be appointed from the Chairman's Panel at the beginning of each Session by the Committee of Selection” of the House of Commons. This was finally part of the bill. (29 H. C. Deb. 5s. cc. 1055, 1090, 1091.)
78 9 H. L. Deb. 5s c. 459.
79 Ibid., c. 468.
80 9 H. L. Deb. 5s. c. 468.
82 The decision of the Speaker is noticed in the Times, Dec. 15, 1911; and Lord Morley in the House of Lords, though he naturally had not inquired as to the speaker's reasons, indicated certain clauses dealing with the Post Office as the probable source of difficulty (Times, Dec. 16). In this connection cf. the interesting rulings of the Speaker as to the privileges of the Commons in connection with amendments by the Lords to the Old Age Pensions Bill, July 31, 1908 (193 Hansard, 4s. cc. 1970, 1974, 1980. 1995).
Comments
No Comments have been published for this article.