The Lords' Debate On Hanging July 1956: Interpretation and Comment

Philosophy ◽  
1957 ◽  
Vol 32 (121) ◽  
pp. 132-147
Author(s):  
W. B. Gallie
Keyword(s):  
Death Penalty ◽  
Legal History ◽  
Moral Thinking ◽  
Moral Conflicts ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Current Thinking ◽  
The Commons

The House of Lords debate of July last on the Death Penalty Abolition Bill1 may prove to have been a landmark in British constitutional and legal history; certainly it was of the greatest interest as a specimen of current moral thinking and moral conflicts on the death penalty; and it is in this latter light that I shall discuss it here. Socialists and radicals might of course complain that a predominantly Conservative House of Lords could not be representative of current thinking; and they might contrast the voting for the second reading of Mr. Silverman's Bill in the Lords—Contents 95, Non-contents 238—with the votes that had previously been recorded in the Commons.

THE LABOUR PARTY AND THE PARLIAMENTARY CAMPAIGN TO ABOLISH THE MILITARY DEATH PENALTY, 1919–1930

1999 ◽  
Vol 42 (1) ◽  
pp. 233-249 ◽  
Author(s):  
JOHN McHUGH
Keyword(s):  
Small Group ◽  
Death Penalty ◽  
Labour Party ◽  
Military Establishment ◽  
Labour Government ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
The Face ◽  
The Commons ◽  
The Military

This is a study of a successful parliamentary campaign led throughout the 1920s by a small group of backbench Labour MPs aimed at abolishing the military death penalty for the offences of cowardice and desertion. It was sustained in the face of opposition from the military establishment, the Conservatives, and finally the House of Lords. The campaigners used the opportunity afforded by the requirement on government to pass, annually, an Army Bill, to challenge the military establishment's insistence that a capital penalty was essential to the maintenance of army discipline. Despite the unwillingness of the 1924 Labour government to confront the military on this issue, the reformers persevered, securing some minor, incremental reform before the coming of the second Labour government in 1929. The new government was prevailed upon by backbench pressure to authorize a free vote in the Commons which approved the abolition of the capital penalty for cowardice and desertion in the Army Act of 1930.

The Basis of the Lord's Decision in the Trial of Strafford: Contravention of the Two-Witness Rule

1976 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 311-319
Author(s):  
John H. Timmis
Keyword(s):  
Legal History ◽  
Historical Data ◽  
Common Law ◽  
The Other ◽  
Constitutional Theory ◽  
Official Record ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
The Commons ◽  
Charles Ii

“Resolved by the majority that the Bill of Attainder against the Earl of Strafford should pass as a law.” Thus, on May 7, 1641, the House of Lords enacted that Thomas, Earl of Strafford, should “undergo the pains and forfeitures of high treason by law.”The passage of the Bill of Attainder against Strafford has subsequently engendered one of the perennial controversies of English political and legal history. On one side of the issue, it is claimed that the answer of the judges and the decision of the Lords were warranted by generally-accepted doctrines of law and constitutional theory. The other side claims that the charges against Strafford had no basis in statute or common law, that the abandonment of the impeachment proves the weakness of the case against the accused, and that in going by way of the Bill, the Commons “slaughtered a man they could not convict.”Resolution of the controversy over Strafford's case has been hampered by a lack of historical data because at the restoration Charles II ordered all proceedings of the trial to be stricken from the Journals of the House of Lords. The Journal Manuscripts were rendered almost totally unreadable and, as a result, the official record of the trial has been missing for over three hundred years. Until recently, Rushworth has been the main source for histories of the Strafford trial. However, the usefulness of Rushworth has been marred by many lapses and errors, the most significant being that he was absent for several days at the climax of the trial. Consequently, the conclusion of the trial, the proceedings of which would help to resolve the legal controversy, has been reconstructed from fragmentary sources.

The myth of weakness: legislative management

2018 ◽  
pp. 69-102
Author(s):  
Timothy Noël Peacock
Keyword(s):  
Electronic Voting ◽  
Institutional Reforms ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
The Commons

This chapter reconsiders the challenges of legislative management and parliamentary defeats faced by the leadership and Whips of both Government and Opposition. It is shown how often-forgotten conflicts in Parliament were fundamental in shaping the 1970s Minority Governments, including a confrontation over the Queen’s Speech in 1974 and the dispute over the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Bill in 1976. Investigation of both parties’ approaches to potential institutional reforms highlight the multifaceted nature of their strategic discourses: the prospect of proxy or electronic voting in the Commons; the use of pre-legislative referenda to pass Devolution Bills; the handling of potential rebels through such means as the judicious use of confidence votes; and the methods employed to deal with defeats inflicted on Labour by the House of Lords. More radical strategies considered include the paradox of Governments deliberately seeking to engineer their own defeat on legislation in Parliament.

Pragmatism in ethics

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
J.E. Tiles
Keyword(s):  
Human Nature ◽  
Scientific Inquiry ◽  
Moral Judgments ◽  
Raw Material ◽  
Moral Thinking ◽  
Moral Conflicts ◽  
Ethical Philosophy ◽  
Moral Problems ◽  
Classical Mode

Two components of the pragmatist outlook shape its ethical philosophy. It rejects certainty as a legitimate intellectual goal; this generates a nondogmatic attitude to moral precepts and principles. It holds, secondly, that thought (even that exercised in scientific inquiry) is essentially goal-directed in a way that makes the refinement of the control we exercise over how we act (for example, in drawing conclusions) integral to achieving any cognitive goal such as that of truth. This makes it possible to treat scientific inquiry as a model of how we might respond to moral problems and the reasonableness and impartiality required of a scientific inquirer as a paradigm of what may be expected in reaching moral judgments. This view of the nature of thought also inclines pragmatists to assess proposed solutions to moral conflicts in terms of consequences. But although human desires are taken as the raw material with which moral thinking must deal, it is not assumed that people’s desires (what they take pleasure in) are fixed and can be used as a standard by which to assess consequences. Pragmatism is thus free to revert to a classical mode of thought (such as Aristotelianism) in which claims about human nature function as norms – a use which is made, for example, of the claim that humans are essentially social creatures.

15. Case Study: Constitutionally Contested Legislation

Public Law ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. 443-482
Author(s):  
Andrew Le Sueur ◽  
Maurice Sunkin ◽  
Jo Eric Khushal Murkens
Keyword(s):  
Wild Animals ◽  
House Of Commons ◽  
Labour Government ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
The Commons ◽  
Constitutional Conventions ◽  
Set Up ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Relationship

This chapter looks at the circumstances surrounding two events. The first is the 2005 decision of the UK Parliament to set up a committee to examine whether the constitutional conventions governing the relationship between the House of Lords and the House of Commons should be codified. The second is the decision of the Commons (and the Labour government) to press ahead and present the Hunting Bill 2004 for royal assent despite the opposition of the Lords to the policy of a total ban on hunting wild animals with dogs; the Lords preferred a policy of licensed hunting.

Home rule and the liberal party, 1899–1906

1963 ◽  
Vol 13 (52) ◽  
pp. 316-348 ◽  
Author(s):  
H.W. McCready
Keyword(s):  
Party Politics ◽  
Home Rule ◽  
House Of Commons ◽  
Liberal Party ◽  
Financial Measures ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
History Of ◽  
Liberal Reform ◽  
The Commons ◽  
Pros And Cons

Gladstone’s dramatic commitment of the liberal party to a policy of home rule for Ireland in 1886 was followed by the Grand Old Man’s two attempts at turning his policy into legislation. The first home rule bill, that of 1886, was defeated in the house of commons and then in a general election: the second, that of 1893, was overwhelmed in the house of lords and then dropped by Gladstone’s fourth government. Though the Gladstonian commitment remained and the liberal party continued to be a home rule party — and though the pros and cons of the union of 1800 remained the major structural feature of British party politics — it was not until 1912 that the liberals did anything further about their major Irish policy. For most of the period 1893-1912 they were, of course, impotent in opposition and consequently in no position to take the initiative on home rule. In 1906, however, they won a landslide victory over their unionist opponents and it is striking that this electoral victory and the great impulse it gave to one of the most dynamic governments in the whole history of British liberalism was not followed, as had the last two liberal victories under Gladstone, by the introduction of a third home rule bill. Had the liberal landslide of 1906 been put behind another home rule measure the whole history of the matter would certainly have been radically different. The house of lords would have been easily overwhelmed; the great advance in constitutional reform for Ireland would have been carried in a spirit of liberal reform rather than of political surrender; the development of Sinn Fein would have been frustrated or at least diverted. But the liberal victory of 1906 was not so used. Home rule was postponed and sidetracked and was taken up again only when the liberal party once more desperately needed Irish votes in the budget election which followed the rejection of Lloyd George’s financial measures by the lords in November 1909. The home rule banner was hoisted afresh by Asquith, the prime minister, in his Albert Hall speechof 10 December 1909 and the third home rule bill appeared in due course in 1912 in direct — and significant — succession to the budget and the parliament act for both of which the Asquith government needed Irish support in the commons.

The Irish Church and the Reform Ministries

1964 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 120-142 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mary D. Condon
Keyword(s):  
Point Of View ◽  
Foreign Affairs ◽  
Whig Party ◽  
Reformed Church ◽  
Lower House ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Church Of Ireland ◽  
Parliamentary Reform ◽  
The Commons ◽  
The One

The Whig ministries of 1830-34 were faced with problems in regard to foreign affairs and parliamentary reform that were almost certain to reveal differences of philosophy within the Cabinets, yet it was on the Irish issues, more particularly that of the Episcopal Reformed Church of Ireland, that the ministries divided and broke. It is generally known that questions concerning the revenues of the Irish Church drove Stanley, the future Conservative Prime Minister, out of the Whig Party, enabled the House of Lords to rally after the Reform Bill and block measures passed by the Commons, and gave William IV an opportunity to dismiss a ministry which still retained the confidence of the lower house and replace it by a Government of his own choice. There is less knowledge, however, of the specific issues behind these events, and of the peculiarities of the Irish Church which hampered an easy solution of its problems. A study of both will serve to illuminate the conflict of parties and of personalities in the first five years of the reform age.From the utilitarian point of view, the temporalities of the Church were absurdly large. Containing only 852,064 members — less than there were in the see of Durham alone — it had a total of twenty-two bishops, including four archbishops. Many holders of benefices had no religious duties, nor, indeed, even a church in which to perform the one service required by their appointment; where parish duties were necessary, they were frequently discharged by a curate who received only a small fraction of the income of the incumbent.

The London ‘Insurrection’ of December 1792: Fact, Fiction, or Fantasy?

1978 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 66-86 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clive Emsley
Keyword(s):  
Saturday Morning ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
The Commons ◽  
The Law ◽  
Law Courts ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Times ◽  
Made In

As the likelihood of war with revolutionary France grew at the end of 1792 and beginning of 1793, the pro-government press in England reported that a serious plan for an insurrection, scheduled for the first weekend in December 1792, had been nipped in the bud by the authorities. On December 3 The Times stated that, as it had not wished to create alarm, it had not previously mentioned the full facts of the seditious attempts being made in the country. These attempts, the newspaper maintained, had prompted almost daily meetings of the Cabinet climaxing in a meeting at Lord Grenville's house which had lasted until one a.m. on the preceding Saturday morning (December 1). It was from this meeting that the Cabinet had issued the royal proclamation which embodied part of the militia and which deplored the ineffectiveness of the May 1792 proclamation against seditious meetings and writings. Three weeks later, beneath the headline “Revolution Plans,” the World reported that two parties were involved in the projected insurrection: the “moderates” who sought first the destruction of the House of Lords, the Herald's Office, and the Horse Guards, and then the enlarging of the Commons; and those whose plans were “more extensive” and who would have gone on to destroy St. James's Palace, the Bank, the law courts, the prisons, the customs house, and excise office. A month later, under the headline “Project of an Insurrection,” the London Chronicle gave similar details of a plot “to overturn the government and the constitution of this country.”

The Role of Select Committees

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Meg Russell ◽  
Daniel Gover
Keyword(s):  
Smoking Ban ◽  
Legislative Process ◽  
House Of Commons ◽  
Select Committee ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
The Commons ◽  
The Government ◽  
Government Legislation

This chapter explores the various means by which specialist select committees in both the House of Commons and House of Lords interact with and influence government legislation. The development of select committees is widely seen as important at Westminster, having encouraged greater expertise and specialization among members, and cross-party work. Yet the select committees have only a limited formal role in the legislative process, because the ‘committee stage’ occurs elsewhere. Nonetheless, this chapter shows extensive select committee influence on the 12 case study bills. The committees can be important to setting the policy agenda, informing members, influencing debate, encouraging amendments, and—potentially—supporting the government. This particularly applies to the constitutional committees in the House of Lords, and select committees conducting pre-legislative scrutiny of draft bills. However, other committees can also be important, as demonstrated by the Commons Health Committee’s intervention over the smoking ban in the Health Bill (2005–06).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document