PAPERS AND DISCUSSIONS

THE PROPOSED CHANGES IN THE BRITISH HOUSE OF

LORDS

BY PROFESSOR T. F. MORAN

Purdue University

The antagonism between the Lords and the Commons is not a matter of recent origin. It is practically as old as the Lower House itself, and may be said to have existed at intervals, at least in one form or another, since the days of Simon de Montfort. It was inevitable that it should be so. When a legislature is composed of two Houses, legally coördinate, the one on an hereditary basis and the other upon an elective, an opposition of views, interests, and purposes is sure to follow with the advance of the democratic spirit.

The conflict in its present form, however, is a matter of comparatively recent origin. It may be dated from a time, shortly after the General Election of 1906, when the Lords defeated or "mangled" a series of important Liberal measures sent up from the House of Commons; or, in its more intense form, the movement against the Lords may be said to have begun when the Upper Chamber declined, on November 30, 1909, to approve the Lloyd-George Budget until it had been submitted to the judgment of the country. Since that date the relations of the two Houses have been the dominant theme in British politics. Men have talked of Home Rule and Tariff Reform and many other mooted questions, but for the last thirteen months the "Constitutional Question" has been regarded in Great Britain as being the one of most far-reaching and fundamental importance. For about twenty years prior to 1906 the question of the Lords was not in the foreground of British politics. The Conservative party was in power continuously from August 3, 1886 to December 5, 1905, with the exception of a brief period of less than three years, extending from August 18, 1892 to June 29, 1895, when the Liberals

were in the ascendancy. During this long period of Conservative control, the question of the reform of the House of Lords was, for obvious reasons, held in abeyance, Early in 1906, however, a marked change took place. The new House of Commons which assembled on February 13, of that year was made up as follows: Liberals, 375; Labor Representatives, 55; Irish Nationalists, 83; and Unionists, 157. Inasmuch as the Prime Minister had the support of the Labor Representatives and the Irish Nationalists, as well as of the Liberals, the Government of the day had a majority of 356. As a result of this tremendous Liberal majority, the question of the Lords took on a new form. The conflict between the two Houses became more intense and the issues more clearly defined.

The new Liberal Government set about their work vigorously, and sent up to the Lords bills relating to plural voting, the regulation of the liquor traffic, and education. These bills were either rejected by the Upper Chamber or amended past recognition. The effect was to crystallize the opposition to the Lords. This opposition soon found expression. There was more general interest, perhaps, in the Education Bill than in any other part of the Liberal programme. This measure was introduced into the House of Commons in April, 1906, by Mr. Birrell, then President of the Board of Education. Mr. Birrell explained and defended his measure with great force and skill. His argument, especially during the closing days of the debate, was very effective. Even the Times spoke of his charming manner and remarked that he "lit up the occasion with a speech of remarkable eloquence and power." In December (1906) his bill passed the Commons by a large majority, but when it went to the Lords it was roughly handled. It was amended beyond recognition. In the language of Mr. Birrell, it was most miserably mangled and twisted. When it was returned to the Commons its acceptance by that body was out of the question. The scene was a remarkable one. The attendance, both on the floor and in the galleries, was unusually large when Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman delivered his funeral oration over the bill, and announced that it died from an overdose of sectarianism. Mr. Birrell had but little to say. "Silence," he remarked "best befits the death chamber."

The defeat of the Education Bill by the Lords drew the fire of the Commons. A resolution, introduced by the Prime Minister, was passed to the effect that, "the power of the other House to alter or reject bills passed by this house, should be so restricted by law as to

secure that, within the limits of a single parliament, the final decision of the House of Commons shall prevail." The Premier evidently meant to serve notice upon the Lords that the Government intended to take action looking to this end at some future time. A blow, apparently, was to be struck, at the powers rather than at the composition of the House of Lords. The legislative authority was to be placed more definitely and exclusively than ever in the hands of the popular chamber, while the membership of the Lords' chamber, for the time being at least, was to remain unchanged.

Immediately after the defeat of the Education Bill the Lords also took up the matter of the reform of the Upper Chamber. A friendly scheme was presented by Lord Newton, a Conservative, in February, 1907. This plan, like all others emanating from the Peers' Chamber, contemplated a change in the membership, but not in the powers of the Upper House. Lord Newton's Bill was never put upon its passage, but in May (1907) there was substituted for it a resolution providing for "a Select Committee to consider the suggestions which have from time to time been made for increasing the efficiency of the House of Lords in matters affecting legislation." The Committee thus constituted made its report through its Chairman, Lord Rosebery, late in 1908. This report, which was evidently based upon the provisions of the Newton Bill, recommended that the reformed House of Lords be made up of three classes of members as follows:

1. Hereditary peers who had previously held certain high public offices.

2. Two hundred representative peers, elected from the whole body of the peerage, not for life, but for a single parliament.

3. Ten Lords Spiritual, the two archbishops, and eight Bishops to be elected from the whole number.

The Committee also recommended that the self-governing colonies should be represented in the House of Lords, and that a service of twenty years in the House of Commons on the part of an Irish peer should entitle him to a seat in the Upper Chamber. It was thought that the adoption of this plan would reduce the membership of the House of Lords to about 350. No action, apparently, was taken upon the report at this time.

While the discussion upon the proposals of Lords Newton and Rosebery was still in progress, Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman resigned the premiership on the 5th of April, 1908, and died seventeen days

later. Under his successor, Mr. Asquith, the Liberal policy was carried forward without interruption. Parliament convened on the 16th of February, 1909, and on the 29th of April following, the Chancellor of the Exchequer presented his now famous Budget. Mr. LloydGeorge felt, apparently, that his Budget was an unusual one, and in introducing it to the House he made a speech several hours in length. Owing to unusual expenditures for old age pensions and national defense, the Chancellor found himself facing a deficit of 15,762,000 pounds which had to be made up from new sources of revenue. In order to obatin this additional amount the Chancellor recommended an increase in the income tax, the estates duty, the liquor license tax, the automobile tax, and the duties on spirits and tobacco. These proposals aroused a storm of protest. Landowners and wealthy men generally were up in arms against them. The Budget was denounced by the use of such terms as "confiscatory," "socialistic," and the like. On the morning after its introduction the Times editorially spoke as follows:

One general impression will be very widely made by the complicated and portentous Budget which Mr. Lloyd-George expounded at enormous length yesterday. That is that the large deficit of nearly sixteen millions is to be raised almost exclusively at the cost of the wealthy and the fairly well-to-do. They are struck in all sorts of ways; through the income tax, the legacy duties, the estate duties; the stamps upon their investments; their land; their royalties; their brewery investments; and their motor cars.

At a later time Lord Rosebery expressed his opposition to the Budget as follows: "I am against the Socialism which I, in common with Socialists, recognize as inherent in the Budget." (The Times, January 7, 1910).

Notwithstanding these protests, however, the Finance Bill passed the House of Commons on November 4, 1909, by a vote of 379 to 149. In due time it went to the House of Lords where it found but few friends. It has not, of course, been customary for many generations for the House of Lords to amend or reject finance bills coming up from the Commons, but the Budget of 1909 with its so-called. "Socialistic implications" tacked on seemed to many to warrant a departure from this rule. Hence the Lords began the attack, and Lord Lansdowne, the Opposition Leader, moved (November 22, 1909) the adoption of the following resolution; "That this House is not justified in giving its consent to this Bill until it has been sub

mitted to the judgment of the country." The resolution was rather skilfully phrased so as not to reject the Bill outright.

There was a vigorous debate upon this resolution lasting for eight days, in the course of which Lord Rosebery, speaking from the "crossbenches," counselled moderation. "You should think once," he said, "you should think twice and thrice, before you give a vote which may involve such enormous constitutional consequences." Lord Morley, "calm and thoughtful," also spoke words of admonition. The Lord Chancellor also took part in the debate. After reviewing the fate of recent important Liberal measures, he spoke as follows; "It is, in my opinion, impossible that any Liberal Government should ever again bear the heavy burden of office unless it is secured against a repetition of treatment such as our measures have had to undergo for the last four years.'

The Archbishop of York, also, contrary to the usual custom of the spiritual peers in regard to political questions, remonstrated against Lord Lansdowne's motion. It was carried, however, just before midnight, on the 30th of November, 1909, by a vote of 350 to 75-a larger House probably than any peer present had ever seen before.

Three days later a response came from the House of Commons. On December 3, 1909, Mr. Asquith introduced the following declaration and moved its adoption: "That the action of the House of Lords in refusing to pass into law the financial provisions made by this House for the service of this year is a breach of the Constitution and a usurpation of the rights of the Commons." While speaking to his motion Mr. Asquith characterized the action of the Lords as "the greatest indignity," and "the most arrogant usurpation to which for more than two centuries the House of Commons has been asked to submit."

As a result of this open rupture between the two Houses of Parliament was dissolved on January 10, 1910, and the newly elected Parliament assembled for the first time on February 15. The result of the election was unsatisfactory. It did not render a clear mandate from the electorate on any particular issue. In the course of the campaign four important questions were discussed: the Budget, Home Rule, Tariff Reform, and the question of the reform of the House of Lords. The complications were such that many an elector must have been sorely puzzled in the casting of his vote. The Liberal majority was greatly reduced and the Government could continue to exist only with the support of the minor parties. The Government was compelled to speak, if it spoke at all, "with divers tongues."