Page 195 - DPOL202_COMPARATIVE_POLITICS_AND_GOVERNMENT_ENGLISH

Comparative Politics and Government

Notes The first important event took place in 1918 when a committee of 30 members chosen equally from
both the Houses was set up under the chairmanship of Lord Bryce. It recommended that the total
membership of the House be reduced to 327 out of whom 3/4 be elected by the members of the House
of Commons by the method of proportional representation, the rest of the members be selected from
amongst the peers by a joint Standing Committee of the two Houses. It was also provided that the
members be elected for a period of 12 years out of whom 1/3 would retire after every fourth year.
Then, it proposed that a joint committee of the two Houses would decide whether a bill was money
bill or not, and if there was any disagreement between the two, the matter be settled by a joint committee
of 60 members, 30 from each chamber.
This scheme had the same fate. In 1922 the House of Lords debated and adopted a resolution declaring
that it would welcome a reasonable measure limiting and defining the membership and dealing with
defects inherent in the Parliament Act of 1911. In 1925 there was a discussion of a plan brought to the
House of Lords by Birkenhead. In 1928 Lord Clarendon suggested that the House of Lords should
consist of 150 members elected by the body of peers and 150 nominated by the Crown according to
the strength of various parties in the House of Commons. In 1932 Lord Salisbury proposed a House
of Lords consisting of 300 members — 150 to be elected by the peers for 12 years and 150 to be
nominated by the Crown for the same period. It also desired that the power of deciding whether a
bill was money bill or not should be transferred from the Speaker to a joint body of both the Houses.
As already visualised, the Labour Party has been highly critical of the anachronistic character of the
House of Lords. When the Labour Government came into being in 1964, the way was opened. The
Government presented a White Paper on November, 1,1968 highlighting: (i) Right to vote in the
upper chamber to be restricted to about 230 created peers, (ii) Selection of some members on the basis
of special knowledge, experience and interest in the problems of Scotland, Wales, North Ireland and
other regions of the United Kingdom, (iii) Right of participation in the debates of the House of Lords
to all hereditary peers and retention of their membership till the end of their life; (iv) Permission to
the peers for taking part in parliamentary elections, (v) Number of ecclesiastical peers to be reduced
from 26 to 16; (vi) Delay of public bills by the House of Lords for a period of not more than 6 months
from the date of disagreement between the two houses; (vii) Increase in the number of ministers from
the House of Lords; (viii) Review of the procedure and functions of the House of Lords after the
implementation of these proposals. A bill based on these points was moved in the House of Commons
and, despite its crossing the stage of second reading, was withdrawn by the Prime Minister in April
1969 in the face of strong opposition in the committee by some Labour back-benchers.
Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949: What has given a great blow to the powers and prestige of the
upper and older chamber of the British Parliament is not the movement for its reform in the direction
of its democratisation as desired by so many leading politicians but the acts of the Parliament passed
by the obstinate House of Commons over the head of ’reductant’ but helpless House of Lords. The
first legislative measure of 1911, as well shall see, definitely reduced the Lords to a subordinate
position and the amended act of 1949 put a further check on its rump authority in non-financial
matters. However, the effect of both these acts has been to demonstrate that the upper house of the
English Parliament is no longer a co-ordinate authority with the lower one and even its usefulness as
a revising chamber is quite doubtful.
The Lords could not read the writing on the wall and they chose a wrong wicket by rejecting the
budget of the Liberal ministry in 1909. Prime Minister Asquith sought the verdict of the people on
this issue and when the same party could be returned to power, it became clear that the people were
with the government of the Liberal party. In this triumphant situation the monarch agreed with the
proposal of the Prime Minister to swamp the House of Lords with newly created peers. The threat of
the Prime Minister worked and in the absence of a hostile opposition from the side of the Lords the
bill was rushed through both the Houses and became the Parliament Act of 1911 after receiving royal
assent.
The Parliament Act of 1911 has important provisions. First, it makes the House of Lords powerless in
matter of money bills by specifying that such a bill must be passed by this House within a period of
one month. That is, a delaying power of one month is sanctioned so that the House of Lords must
adopt it despite its reluctance, otherwise it would go to the monarch for his assent. Any change in the

190 LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY