History of the British Parliament

The history of parliament, as an institution, centres in this later period round two points, (A) the friction between Lords and Commons, resulting in proposals for the remodelling of the upper house, and (B) the changes in procedure within the House of Commons, necessitated by new conditions of work and the desire to make it a more business-like assembly.

A. House of Lords Question.

The parliament which met at Westminster in Aug. 1892 was more democratic in its tendencies than any of its predecessors. At the beginning of the session of 1893, in the course of which the Home Rule Bill was passed by the House of Commons, Government bills were introduced for quinquennial parliaments, for the amendment of registration, and for the limitation of each elector to a single vote. But the re jection of the Home Rule Bill by the House of Lords, with the apparent acquiescence of the country, combined with the retire Gladstone to weaken the influence of this House of Com mons, and small importance was attached to its abstract resolu tions. In the ensuing session of 1894 an amendment to the Address condemning the hereditary principle was moved by Labouchere, and carried by 147 to 145. The Government, how ever, holding that this was not the way in which a great question should be raised, withdrew the Address, and carried another without the insertion. In his last public utterance Gladstone directed the attention of his party to the reform of the House of Lords, and Lord Rosebery endeavoured to concentrate on such a policy the energies of his supporters at the general election. But the result of the dissolution of 1895, showing, as it did, that on the chief political issue of the day the electorate had agreed with the House of Lords and had disagreed with the House of Commons, greatly strengthened the upper house, and after that date the subject was but little discussed until the Liberal party again came into power ten years later. The House of Lords claimed the right to resist changes made by the House of Com mons until the will of the people had been definitely declared, and its defenders contended that its ultimate dependence on the electorate, now generally acknowledged, rendered the freedom from ministerial control secured to it by its constitution a national safeguard.

In 1907, under the Radical Government of Sir H. Campbell Bannerman (q.v.), the conflict between the Commons and the Lords again became more acute. And the prime minister in May obtained a large majority in the lower house for a resolution, on which a bill was to be founded, involving a complicated method of overriding the will of the Lords when the Commons had three times passed a bill. But no further immediate step was taken.

In 1908 a strong committee of the House of Lords with Lord Rosebery as chairman, which had been appointed in consequence of the introduction by Lord Newton of a bill for reforming the constitution of the upper house, presented an interesting report in favour of largely restricting the hereditary element and adopt ing a method of selection.

So the question stood when in 1909 matters came to a head through the introduction of Lloyd George's budget. It had always been accepted as the constitutional right of the House of Lords to reject a financial measure sent up by the Commons but not to amend it, but the rejection of the budget (which was, in point of form, referred to the judgment of the electorate) now precipi tated a struggle with the Liberal party, who had persistently de nied any right on the part of the upper house to force a dissolu tion. The Liberal leaders contended that, even if constitutional, the claim of the House of Lords to reject a budget was practically obsolete, and having been revived must now be formally abolished; and they went to the country for a mandate to carry their view into law. The elections of Jan. 1910 gave an unsatis factory answer, since the two principal parties, the Liberals and the Unionists, returned practically equal; but the Liberal Govern ment had also on their side the Irish Nationalist and the Labour parties, which gave them a majority in the House of Commons if they could concentrate the combined forces on the House of Lords question. This Asquith contrived to do; and having intro duced and carried through the House of Commons a series of resolutions defining his proposals, he had also tabled a bill which was to be sent up to the House of Lords, when the death of the king suddenly interrupted the course of the constitutional conflict, and gave a breathing-space for both sides to consider the possi bility of coming to terms. In June Asquith took the initiative in inviting the leaders of the Opposition to a conference with closed doors, and a series of meetings between four representatives of each side were begun. The Government were represented by As quith, Lloyd George, Birrell and Lord Crewe. The Unionists were represented by Balfour, Lord Lansdowne, Austen Chamberlain and Lord Cawdor.