The Governments of Europe Part 8

CHAPTER V (p. 097)

PARLIAMENT: THE HOUSE OF LORDS

I. COMPOSITION

*101. Origins.*--With the possible exception of the Hungarian Table of Magnates, the British House of Lords is the most ancient second chamber among parliamentary bodies. It is, furthermore, among second chambers the largest and the most purely hereditary. Its descent can be traced directly from the Great Council of the Plantagenet period and, in the opinion of some scholars, from the witenagemot of Anglo-Saxon times.[138] To the Council belonged originally the n.o.bility, and the clergy, greater and lesser. Practically, the body was composed of the more influential churchmen and the more powerful tenants-in-chief of the crown. In the course of time the lesser clergy found it convenient to confine their attention to the proceedings of the ecclesiastical a.s.semblage known as Convocation; while the lesser n.o.bles, i.e., the poorer and more uninfluential ones, found it to their interest to cast in their lot, not as formerly with the great barons and earls, but with the well-to-do though non-n.o.ble knights of the shire. From the elements that remained--the higher clergy and the greater n.o.bles--developed directly the House of Lords. The lesser barons, the knights of the shire, and the burgesses, on the other hand, combined to form the House of Commons.

[Footnote 138: "The House of Lords not only springs out of, it actually is, the ancient Witenagemot. I can see no break between the two." Freeman, Growth of the English Const.i.tution, 62. Professor Freeman, it must be remembered, was p.r.o.ne to glorify Anglo-Saxon inst.i.tutions and to under-estimate the changes that were introduced in England through the agency of the Norman Conquest. For the most recent statement of the opposing view see Adams, Origin of the English Const.i.tution, Chaps. 1-4.]

*102. Princes of the Blood and Hereditary Peers.*--In respect to its fundamental const.i.tution the House of Lords has undergone but slight modification during the many centuries of its existence. In respect, however, to the composition and size of the body changes have been numerous and important. There are in the chamber to-day at least six distinct groups of members, sitting by various rights and possessing a status which is by no means identical. The first comprises (p. 098) princes of the royal blood who are of age. The number of these is variable, but of course never large. They take precedence of the other n.o.bility, but in point of fact seldom partic.i.p.ate in the proceedings of the Chamber. The second group is the most important of all. It comprises the peers with hereditary seats and is itself divided properly into three groups: the peers of England created before the union with Scotland in 1707, the peers of Great Britain created between the date mentioned and the union with Ireland in 1801, and the peers of the United Kingdom created since that date. Technically, peers are created by the crown; but in practice their creation is controlled largely by the premier; and the act may be performed for the purpose of honoring men of distinction in law, letters, science, or business, or for the more practical purpose of altering the political complexion of the upper chamber.[139] The power to create peerages is unlimited[140] and, this being the only means by which the membership of the body can be increased at discretion, the power is one which is not infrequently exercised. Originally the right to sit as a peer was conferred simply by an individual writ of summons, or by the fact that such a writ had been issued to one's ancestor, but this method has long since been replaced by a formal grant of letters patent, accompanied by bestowal of the requisite writ. With exceptions to be noted, peerages are hereditary, and the heir a.s.sumes his parliamentary seat at the age of twenty-one. Peers are of five ranks--dukes, marquises, earls, viscounts, and barons. The complicated rules governing the precedence of these cla.s.ses are of large social, but of minor political, interest.

[Footnote 139: The first peerage bestowed purely in recognition of literary distinction was that of Lord Tennyson in 1884, the peerages bestowed upon Macaulay and Bulwer Lytton having been determined upon in part under the influence of political considerations. The first professional artist to be honored with a peerage was Lord Leighton, in 1896.

Lord Kelvin and Lord Lister are among well-known men of science who have been so honored. Lord Goschen's viscountcy was conferred, with universal approval, as the fitting reward of a great business career. The earldom of General Roberts and the viscountcies of Generals Wolseley and Kitchener were bestowed in recognition of military distinction. With some aptness the House of Lords has been denominated "the Westminster Abbey of living celebrities."]

[Footnote 140: Except that, under existing law, the crown cannot (1) create a peer of Scotland, (2) create a peer of Ireland otherwise than as allowed by the Act of Union with Ireland, and (3) direct the devolution of a dignity otherwise than in accordance with limitations applying in the case of grants of real estate.]

*103. Representative Peers of Scotland and of Ireland.*--A third group of members comprises the representative peers of Scotland. Under provision of the Act of Union of 1707, when a new parliament is summoned the whole body of Scottish peers elects sixteen of their number to sit as their representatives at Westminster. By custom (p. 099) the election takes place at Holyrood Palace in the city of Edinburgh.[141] The act of 1707 made no provision for the creation of Scottish peers, with the consequence that, through the extinction of n.o.ble families and the occasional conferring of a peerage of the United Kingdom upon a Scottish peer, the total number of Scottish peerages has been reduced from 165 to 33.[142] The tenure of a Scottish representative peer at Westminster expires with the termination of a parliament. A fourth group of members is the Irish.

By the Act of Union of 1800 it was provided that not all of the peers of Ireland should be accorded seats in the House of Lords, but only twenty-eight of them, to be elected for life by the whole number of Irish peers. The number of Irish peerages was put in the course of gradual reduction and it is now under the prescribed maximum of one hundred.[143] Unlike the English and Scottish peers, Irish peers, if not elected to the House of Lords, may stand for election to the House of Commons, though they may not represent Irish const.i.tuencies.[144]

While members of the Commons, however, they may not be elected to the Lords, nor may they partic.i.p.ate in the choice of representative peers.

[Footnote 141: For a statement of the process of election see Anson, Law and Custom of the Const.i.tution (4th ed.), I., 219-229.]

[Footnote 142: In 1909. Lowell, Government of England, I., 395.]

[Footnote 143: The crown was authorized to create one Irish peerage only for every three such peerages that should become extinct. During the thirty years preceding the conferring of an Irish peerage upon Mr. Curzon, in 1898, the creation of Irish peerages was entirely suspended.]

[Footnote 144: Lord Palmerston, for example, was an Irish peer, but sat in the House of Commons.]

*104. The Lords of Appeal.*--A fifth group of members comprises the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, who differ from other peers created by the crown in that their seats are not hereditary. One of the functions of the House of Lords is to serve as the highest national court of appeal. It is but logical that there should be included within the membership of the body a certain number of the most eminent jurists of the realm, and, further, that the judicial business of the chamber should be transacted largely by this corps of experts. In 1876 an Appellate Jurisdiction Act was pa.s.sed authorizing the appointment of two (subsequently increased to four) "law lords" with the t.i.tle of baron, and by legislation of 1887 the tenure of these members, hitherto conditioned upon the continued exercise of judicial functions, was made perpetual for life. At the present day these four justices, presided over by the Lord Chancellor, comprise in reality the supreme tribunal of the kingdom. Three of them are sufficient to const.i.tute a quorum for the transaction of judicial business, and (p. 100) although other legal-minded members of the chamber may partic.i.p.ate, and technically every member has a right to do so, in most instances this inner circle discharges the judicial function quite alone.[145]

[Footnote 145: The recognized advisability of strengthening the judicial element in the Lords precipitated at one time a serious issue respecting the power of the crown to create life peerages. In 1856, upon the advice of her ministers, Queen Victoria conferred upon a distinguished judge, Sir James Parke, a patent as Baron Wensleydale for life. The purpose was to introduce into the chamber desirable legal talent without further augmenting the peerage. For the creation of life peerages there was some precedent, but none later than the reign of Henry VI., and the House of Lords, maintaining that the right had lapsed and that the peerage had become entirely hereditary, refused to admit Baron Wensleydale until his patent was so modified that his peerage was made hereditary.]

*105. The Lords Spiritual.*--Finally, there are the ecclesiastical members--not peers, but "lords spiritual." In the fifteenth century the lords spiritual outnumbered the lords temporal; but upon the dissolution of the monasteries in the reign of Henry VIII., resulting in the dropping out of the abbots, the spiritual contingent fell permanently into the minority. At the present day the quota of ecclesiastical members is restricted, under statutory regulation, to 26. Scotland, whose established church is the Presbyterian, has none.

Between 1801 and 1869 Ireland had four, but since the disestablishment of the Irish church in 1869 there have been none. In England five ecclesiastics, by statute, are ent.i.tled invariably to seats, i.e., the archbishops of Canterbury and York and the bishops of London, Durham, and Winchester. Among the remaining bishops the law allows seats to twenty-one, in the order of seniority. There are always, therefore, some English bishops--in 1909, ten--who are not members of the chamber.[146] All ecclesiastical members retain their seats during tenure of their several sees, but do not, of course, transmit their rights to their heirs, nor, necessarily, save in the case of the five mentioned, to their successors in office. Bishops and archbishops are elected, nominally, by the dean and chapter of the diocese; but when a vacancy arises the sovereign transmits a _conge d'elire_ containing the name of the person to be elected, so that, practically, appointment is made by the crown, acting under the advice of the prime minister. Bishoprics are created by act of Parliament.[147]

[Footnote 146: The Bishop of Sodor and Man is ent.i.tled to a seat, but not to take part in the chamber's proceedings. His status has been compared to that of a territorial delegate in the United States. Moran, The English Government, 170.]

[Footnote 147: On the composition of the House of Lords see Lowell, Government of England, I., Chap.

21; Anson, Law and Custom of the Const.i.tution, I., Chap. 5; May and Holland, Const.i.tutional History of England, I., Chap. 5; Moran, English Government, Chap. 10; Low, Governance of England, Chap. 12; Courtney, Working Const.i.tution of the United Kingdom, Chap. 11; Macy, English Const.i.tution, Chap. 4; Marriott, English Political Inst.i.tutions, Chaps. 6-7; and Walpole, The Electorate and the Legislature, Chap. 2. The subject is treated in greater detail in Pike, Const.i.tutional History of the House of Lords, especially Chap. 15.]

*106. Qualifications and Number of Members.*--A peer may be (p. 101) prevented from occupying a seat in the chamber by any one of several disqualifications. He must have attained the age of twenty-one; he must not be an alien; he must not be a bankrupt; he must not be under sentence for felony. On the other hand, a man who inherits a peerage cannot renounce the inheritance. Upon more than one occasion this rule has been a matter of political consequence, for its operation has sometimes meant that an able and ambitious commoner has been compelled to surrender his seat in the more important chamber and to a.s.sume a wholly undesired place in the upper house. In 1895 Mr. William W.

Palmer, later Lord Selbourne, inheriting a peerage but desiring to continue for a time in the Commons, put this rule to a definite test by neglecting to apply for a writ of summons as a peer. The decision of the Commons, however, was that he was obligated to accept membership in the upper chamber, and hence to yield the place which he occupied in the lower.

The House of Lords numbers to-day 620 members. In earlier periods of its history it was a very much smaller body, and, indeed, its most notable growth has taken place within the past one hundred and fifty years. During the reign of Henry VII. there were never more than eighty members, the majority of whom were ecclesiastics. To the first parliament of Charles II. there were summoned 139 persons. At the death of William III. the roll of the upper chamber comprised 192 names. At the death of Queen Anne the number was 209: at that of George I. it was 216; at that of George II., 229; at that of George III., 339; at that of George IV., 396; at that of William IV., 456.

Between 1830 and 1898 there were conferred 364 peerages--222 under Liberal ministries (covering, in the aggregate, forty years) and 142 under the Conservatives (covering twenty-seven years). More than one-half of the peerages of to-day have been created within the past fifty years, and of the remainder only an insignificant proportion can be termed ancient.

II. THE REFORM OF THE LORDS: THE QUESTION PRIOR TO 1909

*107. The Status of the Chamber.*--As a law-making body the House of Lords antedates the House of Commons. At the beginning of the fourteenth century the theory was that the magnates a.s.sented to legislation while the Commons merely pet.i.tioned for it. In a statute of 1322, however, the legislative character of Parliament as a (p. 102) whole was effectively recognized, and at the same time the legislative parity of the commons with the magnates. Thenceforth, until very nearly the present day, the two chambers were legally co-ordinate and every act of legislation required the a.s.sent of both. It is true that during the course of the nineteenth century there was a remarkable growth of legislative preponderance on the part of the House of Commons, until, indeed, the point was reached where all important measures were first presented in that chamber and the Lords were very certain not to thwart the ultimate adoption of any project of which the nation as represented in the popular branch unmistakably approved.

Yet upon numerous occasions bills, and sometimes--as in the case of Gladstone's Home Rule Bill in 1893--highly important ones, were defeated outright; and at all times the chamber imposed a check upon the lower house and exercised a powerful influence upon the actual course of legislative business. Under the provisions of the act of 1911, however, the status and the legislative functions of the House of Lords have been profoundly altered, and an adequate understanding of the workings of the British parliament to-day requires some review of the changes wrought by that remarkable piece of legislation.

Throughout upwards of a century the "mending or ending" of the Lords has been among the most widely discussed of public issues in the United Kingdom. The question has been princ.i.p.ally one of "mending,"

for the number of persons who have advocated seriously the total abolition of the chamber has been small and their influence has been slight. The utility of a second chamber, in a democratic no less than in an illiberal const.i.tutional system, is very generally admitted,[148] and no one supposes that the House of Lords will ever be swept completely out of existence to make room for the establishment of a new and entirely different parliamentary body. If it were to devolve upon the people of Great Britain to-day to adopt for themselves _de novo_ a complete governmental system, they might well not incorporate in that system an inst.i.tution of the nature of the present House of Lords; but since the chamber exists and is rooted in centuries of national usage and tradition, the perpetuation of it, in some form, may be taken to be a.s.sured.

[Footnote 148: There are, of course, Englishmen who concur in the dictum of Sieyes that "if a second chamber dissents from the first, it is mischievous; if it agrees, it is superfluous." An able exponent of this doctrine, within recent years, is Sir Charles Dilke.]

*108. The Breach Between the Lords and the Nation.*--The indictments which have been brought against the House of Lords have been sweeping and varied. They have been based upon the all but exclusively hereditary character of the membership, upon the meagerness of (p. 103) attendance at the sittings and the small interest displayed by a majority of the members, and upon the hurried and frequently perfunctory nature of the consideration which is accorded public measures. Fundamentally, however, the tremendous attack which has been levelled against the Lords has had as its impetus the conviction of large ma.s.ses of people that the chamber as const.i.tuted stands persistently and deliberately for interests which are not those of the nation at large. Prior to the parliamentary reforms of the nineteenth century the House of Commons was hardly more representative of the people than was the upper chamber. Both were controlled by the landed aristocracy, and between the two there was as a rule substantial accord. After 1832, however, the territorial interests, while yet powerful, were not dominant in the Commons, and a cleavage between the Lords, on the one hand, and the Commons, increasingly representative of the ma.s.s of the nation, on the other, became a serious factor in the politics and government of the realm. The reform measures of 1867 and 1884, establishing in substance a system of manhood suffrage in parliamentary elections, converted the House of Commons into an organ of thoroughgoing democracy. The development of the cabinet system brought the working executive, likewise, within the power of the people to control. But the House of Lords underwent no corresponding transformation. It remained, and still is, an inherently and necessarily conservative body, representative, in the main, of the interests of landed property, adverse to changes which seem to menace property and established order, and identified with all the forces that tend to perpetuate the n.o.bility and the Anglican Church as pillars of the state. By simply standing still while the remaining departments of the governmental system were undergoing democratization the second chamber became, in effect, a political anomaly.[149]

[Footnote 149: d.i.c.kinson, Development of Parliament during the Nineteenth Century, Chap. 3.]

*109. Earlier Projects of Reform.*--Projects for the reform of the Lords were not unknown before 1832, but it has been since that date, and, more particularly during the past half-century, that the reform question has been agitated most vigorously. Some of the notable proposals that have been made relate to the composition of the chamber, others to the powers and functions of it, and still others to both of these things. In respect to the composition of the body, the suggestions that have been brought forward have contemplated most commonly the reduction of the chamber's size, the dropping out of the ecclesiastical members, and the subst.i.tution, wholly or in part, of specially designated members in the stead of the members who at present sit by hereditary right. As early as 1834 it was advocated that (p. 104) the archbishops and bishops of the Established Church should "be relieved from their legislative and judicial duties," and this demand, arising princ.i.p.ally from the Non-conformists, has been voiced repeatedly in later years. In 1835 the opposition of the peers to measures pa.s.sed by the Commons incited a storm of popular disapproval of such proportions that more than one of the members of the chamber gloomily predicted the early demolition of the body, and throughout succeeding decades the idea took increasing hold, within the membership as well as without, that change was inevitable. In 1869 a bill of Lord Russell providing for the gradual infiltration of life peers was defeated on the third reading, and in the same year a project of Earl Grey, and in 1874 proposals of Lord Rosebery and Lord Inchiquin, came to naught. The rejection by the Lords of measures supported by Gladstone's government in 1881-1883 brought the chamber afresh into popular disfavor, and in 1884 Lord Rosebery introduced a motion "that a select committee be appointed to consider the best means of promoting the efficiency of this House," with the thought that there might be brought into the chamber representatives of the nation at large, and even of the laboring cla.s.ses. The motion was rejected overwhelmingly, but in 1888 it was renewed, and in that year the Salisbury government introduced two reform bills, one providing for the gradual creation of fifty life peerages, to be conferred upon men of attainment in law, diplomacy, and administrative service, and the other (popularly known as the "Black Sheep Bill") providing for the discontinuance of writs of summons to undesirable members of the peerage. The bills, however, were withdrawn after their second reading and an attempt on the part of Lord Carnarvon, in 1889, to revive the second of them failed.

*110. The Lords and the Liberal Government, 1906-1907.*--Thence-forward until 1907 the issue was largely quiescent. During a considerable portion of this period the Unionist party was in power, and between the upper chamber, four-fifths of whose members were Unionists, and the Unionist majority in the Commons substantial harmony was easily maintained. During the Liberal administration of 1893-1894 the Lords rejected Gladstone's second Home Rule Bill and mutilated and defeated other measures; but, although the Liberal leaders urged that the will of the people had been frustrated, the appeal for second chamber reform failed utterly to strike fire. With the establishment of the Campbell-Bannerman ministry, in December, 1905, the Liberals entered upon what has proved a prolonged tenure of power and the issue of the Lords was brought again inevitably into the forefront of public controversy. In consequence of the Lords' insistence upon an amendment of the fundamentals of the Government's Education Bill, late in (p. 105) 1906, and the openly manifested disposition of the Unionist upper chamber to obstruct the Liberal programme in a variety of directions,[150] the warfare between the houses once more a.s.sumed threatening proportions.

A resolution introduced by the premier June 24, 1907, was adopted in the Commons after a three days' debate by a vote of 385 to 100, as follows: "That, in order to give effect to the will of the people as expressed by elected representatives it is necessary that the power of the other House to alter or reject bills pa.s.sed by this House shall be so restricted by law as to secure that within the limits of a single parliament the final decision of the Commons shall prevail." It was announced that a bill carrying into effect the substance of this declaration would be introduced, and it was understood that the Government's plan contemplated a reduction of the maximum life of a parliament from seven years to five and the inst.i.tution of a system of conference committees whereby agreement might be effected upon occasion between the two houses, reserving the eventual right of the Commons, after a third rejection by the Lords, to enact a measure into law alone. Preoccupied, however, with projects of general legislation, the Government postponed and eventually abandoned the introduction of its bill.

[Footnote 150: Notably in respect to legislation abolishing the plural vote and regulating the liquor traffic. The Lords rejected a Plural Voting Bill and an Aliens Bill in 1906, a Land Values Bill in 1907, and a Licensing Bill in 1908. In the interest of accuracy it should be observed that during the first session of 1906 a total of 121 bills became law, that only four (including the Education Bill) pa.s.sed by the Commons were rejected by the Lords, and that fifteen pa.s.sed by the Lords were rejected in the Commons. The proportions at most sessions during the period under review were substantially similar. But, of course, measures rejected by the Lords were likely to be those in which the interest of the Liberal government was chiefly centered.]

In the upper chamber a measure introduced by Lord Newton, providing for (1) a reduction of the hereditary element by requiring that a peer by descent alone should have a right to sit only if he were elected (for a single parliament) as a representative peer or possessed other stipulated qualifications and (2) the appointment by the crown of a maximum of one hundred life peers, was discussed at some length. The bill was withdrawn, but it was decided to create a Select Committee on the House of Lords, under the chairmanship of Lord Rosebery, and in December, 1908, this committee reported a scheme of reform in accordance with which (1) a peerage alone should not ent.i.tle the holder to a seat in the chamber; (2) the hereditary peers, including those of Scotland and Ireland, should elect two hundred representatives to sit in the upper house for each parliament; (3) hereditary peers who had occupied certain posts of eminence in the government and the army and navy should be ent.i.tled to sit without election; (4) the (p. 106) bishops should elect eight representatives, while the archbishops should sit as of right; and (5) the crown should be empowered to summon four life peers annually, so long as the total did not exceed forty. This series of proposals failed utterly to meet the Liberal demand and no action was taken upon it. But it is to be noted that the Lords' Reconstruction Bill of 1911, to be described presently, was based in no small measure upon information and recommendations forthcoming from the Rosebery committee.[151]

[Footnote 151: May and Holland, Const.i.tutional History of England, III., 343-349. For references on the general subject of the reform of the Lords see pp. 115-116.]

III. THE QUESTION OF THE LORDS, 1909-1911

*111. The Lords and Money Bills.*--In November, 1909, the issue was reopened in an unexpected manner by the Lords' rejection of the Government's Finance Bill, in which were included far-reaching proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Lloyd-George, respecting the readjustment of national taxation. This act of the upper chamber, while not contrary to positive law, contravened in so serious a manner long established custom that it was declared by those who opposed it to be in effect revolutionary. Certainly the result was to precipitate an alteration of first-rate importance in the const.i.tution of the kingdom. The priority of the Commons within the domain of finance was established at an early period of parliamentary history; and priority, in time, was converted into thoroughgoing dominance. As early as 1407 Henry IV. recognized the principle that money grants should be initiated in the Commons, a.s.sented to by the Lords, and subsequently reported to the crown. This procedure was not always observed, but after the resumption by the two houses of their normal functions following the Restoration in 1660 the right of the commoners to take precedence in fiscal business was forcefully and continuously a.s.serted. In 1671 the Commons resolved "that in all aids given to the king by the Commons, the rate or tax ought not to be altered by the Lords," and a resolution of 1678 reaffirmed that all bills granting supplies "ought to begin with the Commons." At no time did the Lords admit formally the validity of these principles; but, by refusing to consider fiscal measures originated in the upper chamber and to accept financial amendments there proposed, the Commons successfully enforced observance of them.

The rules in this connection upon which the Commons insisted have been summarized as follows: (1) The Lords ought not to initiate any (p. 107) legislative proposal embodied in a public bill and imposing a charge on the people, whether by taxes, rates, or otherwise, or regulating the administration or application of money raised by such a charge, and (2) the Lords ought not to amend any such legislative proposal by altering the amount of a charge, or its incidence, duration, mode of a.s.sessment, levy or collection, or the administration or application of money raised by such a charge.[152] These rules, although not embodied in any law or standing order, were through centuries so generally observed in the usage of the two houses that they became for all practical purposes, a part of the const.i.tutional system--conventional, it is true, but none the less binding. From their observance it resulted (1) that the upper chamber was never consulted about the annual estimates, about the amounts of money to be raised, or about the purposes to which those amounts should be appropriated; (2) that proposals of taxation came before it only in matured form and under circ.u.mstances which discouraged criticism; and (3) that, since the policy of the executive is controlled largely through the medium of the power of the purse, the upper house lost entirely the means of exercising such control. In 1860 the Lords, as has been mentioned, made bold to reject a bill for the repeal of the duties on paper; but the occasion was seized by the Commons to pa.s.s a resolution reaffirming vigorously the subordination of the second chamber in finance, and the next year the repeal of the paper duties was incorporated in the annual budget and forced through. Thereafter it became the invariable practice to give place to all proposals of taxation in the one grand Finance Bill of the year, with the effect, of course, of depriving the Lords of the opportunity to defeat a proposal of the kind save by rejecting the whole of the measure of which it formed a part.[153]

[Footnote 152: Ilbert, Parliament, 205.]

[Footnote 153: It was in pursuance of this policy that Sir William Vernon-Harcourt incorporated in the Finance Bill of 1894, extensive changes in the death duties and Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, in 1899, included proposals for altering the permanent provisions made for the reduction of the national debt.]

*112. The Finance Bill of 1909 and the Asquith Resolutions.*--The rejection of the Finance Bill in 1909,[154] following as it did the rejection of other important measures which the Liberal majority in the Commons had approved, raised in an acute form the question of the power of the Lords over money bills and precipitated a crisis in (p. 108) the relations between the two houses. On the one hand the House of Commons adopted, by a vote of 349 to 134, a memorable resolution to the effect that "the action of the House of Lords in refusing to pa.s.s into law the provision made by the House of Commons for the finances of the year is a breach of the const.i.tution, and a usurpation of the privileges of the House of Commons"; and, on the other, the Asquith ministry came instantly to the decision that the situation demanded an appeal to the country. In January, 1910, a general election took place, with the result that the Government was continued in power, though with a reduced majority; and at the convening of the new parliament, in February, the Speech from the Throne promised that proposals should speedily be submitted "to define the relations between the houses of Parliament, so as to secure the undivided authority of the House of Commons over finance, and its predominance in legislation." The Finance Bill of the year was reintroduced and this time successfully carried through; but in advance of its reappearance the premier laid before the House of Commons a series of resolutions to the following effect:[155] (1) that the House of Lords should be disabled by law from rejecting or amending a money bill; (2) that the power of the chamber to veto other bills should be restricted by law; and (3) that the duration of a parliament should be limited to a maximum period of five years. During the course of the debate upon these resolutions it was made clear that the Government did not desire the abolition of the Lords, but wished merely to have the legislative competence of the house confined to consultation, revision, and, subject to proper safeguards, delay. April 14, 1910, the resolutions were adopted in the Commons by substantial majorities,[156] and with them as a basis the Government proceeded with the framing of its bill upon the subject.

[Footnote 154: Strictly, the Lords declined to a.s.sent to the Budget until it should have been submitted to the judgment of the people. On the nature of the Government's finance proposals see May and Holland, Const.i.tutional History of England, III., 350-355; G. L. Fox, The British Budget of 1909, in _Yale Review_, Feb., 1910; and D.

Lloyd-George, The People's Budget (London, 1909), containing extracts from the Chancellor's speeches on the subject.]

[Footnote 155: The Finance Bill pa.s.sed its third reading in the House of Commons April 27, was pa.s.sed in the Lords April 28, without division, and received the royal a.s.sent April 29.]

[Footnote 156: The votes on the three resolutions were, respectively, 339 to 237, 351 to 246, and 334 to 236.]

Meanwhile, March 14, there had been introduced in the House of Lords by Lord Rosebery an independent series of resolutions, as follows: (1) that a strong and efficient second chamber is not merely a part of the British const.i.tution but is necessary to the well-being of the state and the balance of Parliament; (2) that such a chamber may best be obtained by the reform and reconst.i.tution of the House of Lords; and (3) that a necessary preliminary to such a reform and reconst.i.tution is the acceptance of the principle that the possession of a peerage should no longer of itself involve the right to sit and vote in (p. 109) the House. The first two of these resolutions were agreed to without division; the third, although vigorously opposed, was carried eventually by a vote of 175 to 17.

*113. The Unionists and the Referendum.*--The death of the king, May 6, halted consideration of the subject, and through the succeeding summer hope was centered in a "const.i.tutional conference" partic.i.p.ated in by eight representatives of the two houses and of the two princ.i.p.al parties. A total of twenty-one meetings were held, but all effort to reach an agreement proved futile and at the rea.s.sembling of Parliament, November 15, the problem was thrown back for solution upon the houses and the country. November 17 there was carried in the Lords, without division, a new resolution introduced by Lord Rosebery to the effect that in future the House of Lords should consist of Lords of Parliament in part chosen by the whole body of hereditary peers from among themselves and by nomination of the crown, in part sitting by virtue of offices held and qualifications possessed, and in part designated from outside the ranks of the peerage. A few days subsequently, the Government's Parliament Bill having been presented in the second chamber (November 21), Lord Lansdowne, leader of the Opposition in that chamber, came forward with a fresh series of resolutions designed to clarify the Unionist position in antic.i.p.ation of the elections which were announced for the ensuing month. With respect to money bills it was declared that the Lords were "prepared to forego their const.i.tutional right to reject or amend money bills which are purely financial in character," provided that adequate provision should be made against tacking, that questions as to whether a bill or any provision thereof were purely financial should be referred to a joint committee of the two houses (the Speaker of the Commons presiding and possessing a casting vote), and that a bill decided by such a committee to be not purely financial should be dealt with in a joint sitting of the two houses. With respect to all measures other than those thus provided for the resolutions declared that "if a difference arises between the two houses with regard to any bill other than a money bill in two successive sessions, and with an interval of not less than one year, and such difference cannot be adjusted by any other means, it shall be settled in a joint sitting composed of members of the two houses; provided that if the difference relates to a matter which is of great gravity, and has not been adequately submitted for the judgment of the people, it shall not be referred to the joint sitting, but shall be submitted for decision to the electors by referendum." It will be observed that these resolutions were hardly less drastic than were those carried through the (p. 110) Commons by the ministry. Their adoption involved the abolition of the absolute veto of the second chamber and might well involve the intrusting of interests which the peers held dear to the hazards of a nation-wide referendum.[157] None the less, the resolutions were agreed to without division, and, both parties having in effect p.r.o.nounced the existing legislative system unsatisfactory, the electorate was asked to choose between the two elaborate subst.i.tutes thus proposed.

[Footnote 157: For the growth of the idea of the referendum see H. W. Horwill, The Referendum in Great Britain, in _Political Science Quarterly_, Sept., 1911.]