The Parliament Act of 1911—II

1912 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 386-408
Author(s):  
Alfred L. P. Dennis

A previous article attempted a summary of the contents of the Parliament Act of 1911 and a mention of its immediate ancestry. There followed notice of some historical alleviatory suggestions regarding the composition of the House of Lords and an analysis both of the actual provisions of the Act and of proposals alternative to them with respect to the powers of the Upper House in the matter of “money bills.”This second article, continuing the method of the first, includes at the outset the question of the powers of the House of Lords as to “general legislation,” i. e. public bills other than money bills. There follows reference to historical ancestry in these matters. Thus the consideration of the means by which the Act became law, that potential resort to the use of the royal prerogative by the temporary executive, may clear the way for speculation as to the significance of the Parliament Act as a whole.Briefly the Act provides for a final reduction of the powers of the House of Lords as to general legislation to a suspensive veto operative against House of Commons measures only in two successive sessions; after a lapse of two years after the first introduction of the measure in the Lower House and on its third passage there the bill can become law on the royal assent being given, the Lords notwithstanding.

Author(s):  
Emma Crewe ◽  
Paul Evans

This chapter examines the significance of rituals in the UK Parliament, focusing on the centrality of rules in such rituals, how parliamentary debates are ritualized, and how ceremonies order relationships between different groups in our political world. It first explains the purpose of parliamentary rituals and how they are regulated, showing that the value attached to the way Parliament ritualizes its interaction is strongly contested between Members of Parliament (MPs) and by outside commentators. In particular, it considers Standing Orders, rules made by either the House of Commons or the House of Lords to set out the way certain aspects of House procedures operate. The chapter also discusses how rituals result in conflict and conciliation and as markers of power, hierarchy, and identity in Parliament.


UK Politics ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 69-93
Author(s):  
Andrew Blick

This chapter looks specifically at the UK Parliament as this is the central institution of the UK political system. It describes the people in Parliament, its internal makeup, and the way in which it is changing. The chapter examines the roles of members of the House of Commons and House of Lords. It considers the four basic functions of Parliament: providing a basis of government, holding government to account, producing legislation, and interacting with the wider public. The chapter describes three practical examples to help illustrate some of its themes. These are the following: the 2010–15 coalition government’s attempts to reform the House of Lords; the 2009 Wright Committee proposals for parliamentary reform and their implementation; and the practice of pre-appointed hearings conducted by parliamentary committees.


Author(s):  
Sarah Petit ◽  
Ben Yong

This chapter discusses the administrative organization and governance of the UK Parliament — that is, the way in which the two Houses of Parliament are directed, managed, and led. More specifically, it deals with the administration or governance of services to Members of Parliament (MPs), and how that is organized. The discussion begins with an overview of the peculiar nature of Parliament as a public institution, highlighting five features which make governance and reform of governance difficult. The chapter then considers the basic structure of governance in the House of Commons and in the House of Lords, taking into account the statutory House of Commons Commission and the non-statutory House of Lords Commission, before describing contemporary developments in both Houses. It also looks at two future developments that may affect parliamentary governance and administration: the restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster, and the issue of shared parliamentary services.


2001 ◽  
Vol 32 (127) ◽  
pp. 343-364 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Wheatley

In early August 1910 readers of Reynolds’s Newspaper, a radical weekly journal noted as much for its detailed coverage of divorce court proceedings as for its political radicalism (and in 1911 one of the ‘immoral’ English Sunday papers targeted by Irish ‘vigilance committees’), may have perused the weekly political column written by T.P. O’Connor. ‘T.P.’, the M.P. for Liverpool Scotland, was anything but a disinterested columnist, and with John Redmond, John Dillon and Joseph Devlin formed the inner leadership of the Irish Parliamentary Party and Ireland’s nationalist movement.Throughout the political crisis of early 1910 O’Connor had been the main London-based conduit for communications between the Irish Party and Asquith’s cabinet, and in particular Lloyd George and the Liberal chief whip, the Master of Elibank. The outcome of the January 1910 general election, which had given the balance of power in the House of Commons to the Irish nationalists, and John Redmond’s use of that power to force Asquith to act to end the veto powers of the House of Lords over parliamentary legislation, had enhanced both Redmond’s status in Ireland and the importance of home rule as an issue that had to be resolved.


2002 ◽  
Vol 45 (4) ◽  
pp. 727-754 ◽  
Author(s):  
SEAN KELSEY

By the winter of 1648–9, demands for retributive justice on Charles I and his supporters had built to a crescendo. But regicide was generally regarded as an extremely bad idea, and the king's trial was contrived as a final bid for peaceful settlement, not a prelude to king-killing. In return for a place at the heart of a new constitutional order, Charles I was required to abdicate his negative voice by pleading to charges brought on the sole authority of the House of Commons. This was a high-risk strategy inspired and justified by the weakening of opposition to the trial in the House of Lords, the city of London and at Edinburgh, and by some of the encouraging signals emanating from deep within the royalist camp itself. However, in their anxiety to avoid having their ultimate sanction forced upon them, the commissioners of the high court of justice gave the king rather more opportunities to plead to the charges against him than was consistent with the maintenance of their own authority. Rather than persuading him to give in, they encouraged him to stand firm, with fatal consequences. Far from being a providential act of vengeance, or indeed the inexorable fate of a man predestined to martyrdom, the execution of Charles I was a highly adventitious occurrence – predictable, perhaps, yet contingent on a wide range of unpredictable circumstances.


2011 ◽  
Vol 29 (3) ◽  
pp. 657-701
Author(s):  
Neil L. York

So contended Edmund Burke in the House of Commons, during a May 1770 speech that ridiculed the government's American policy. It was not the first time Burke raised the subject of this 1543 statute. He had asked—rhetorically—during debates two weeks before, “The Act of Henry VIII. Did you mean to execute that?” He then answered his own question, the scorn beneath it probably apparent to all. “You showed your ill will to America, at the same time you dared not execute it.” Burke hoped that by shaming the ministry he might be able to push through a set of resolutions condemning its policies, which could open the way for a new approach to imperial management. He failed, but that did not mean he had been wrong about the futility of threatening to resurrect an old statute to intimidate protesting Americans.


Polar Record ◽  
1996 ◽  
Vol 32 (182) ◽  
pp. 209-216 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ian R. Stone

ABSTRACTThe record of Parliamentary proceedings relating to the Franklin search covers the period 1848–1863. The main subject of discussion was the need for the government to mount search expeditions, while topics such as rewards for successful expeditions and the question of the provision of monuments to Sir John Franklin also occupied Parliamentary time. Interest in the matter among Members of Parliament crossed party boundaries. Most of the activity was in the House of Commons rather than in the House of Lords, because the former House had control of expenditure. A further reason was that the government was more exposed to questioning in the House of Commons, because, for most of the period, the First Lord of the Admiralty was a member of that House. Lady Franklin also had a wider range of acquaintance in the House of Commons and was able to conduct a lobbying campaign using it as a medium.


2021 ◽  
pp. 54-80
Author(s):  
Colin Faragher

Each Concentrate revision guide is packed with essential information, key cases, revision tips, exam Q&As, and more. Concentrates show you what to expect in a law exam, what examiners are looking for, and how to achieve extra marks. This chapter first describes the UK legislature. The legislature of the UK is the Queen in Parliament. Parliament is bicameral, meaning that, apart from the Queen, there are two legislative chambers called the House of Lords and the House of Commons. The House of Lords—composed of life peers, senior bishops, and some hereditary peers—is guardian of the constitution through the work of the House of Lords Constitution Committee and protects the constitution and initiates and revises legislation. The House of Commons—composed of constituency representatives organized on party lines under the whip system—is the principal legislative chamber and plays a significant role in scrutinizing the executive. The discussion then turns to the legislative process, covering electoral law, alternative voting systems, and the devolution of the legislative function including the Wales Act 2017.


2021 ◽  
pp. 193-213
Author(s):  
Christopher Cochrane ◽  
Jean-François Godbout ◽  
Jason Vandenbeukel

Canada is a federal parliamentary democracy with a bicameral legislature at the national level. Members of the upper House, styled the Senate, are appointed by the prime minister, and members of the lower House, the House of Commons, are elected in single-member plurality electoral districts. In practice, the House of Commons is by far the more important of the two chambers. This chapter, therefore, investigates access to the floor in the Canadian House of Commons. We find that the age, gender, and experience of MPs have little independent effect on access to the floor. Consistent with the dominant role of parties in Canadian political life, we find that an MP’s role within a party has by far the most significant impact on their access to the floor. Intriguingly, backbenchers in the government party have the least access of all.


Author(s):  
Richard Clements

The Q&A series offers the best preparation for tackling exam questions. Each chapter includes typical questions; diagram problem and essay answer plans, suggested answers, notes of caution, tips on obtaining extra marks, the key debates on each topic and suggestions on further reading. This chapter presents information relating to Parliament. It looks at all aspects of how both the House of Commons and House of Lords work and how they might be reformed. The questions the chapter looks at deal with issues such as the reform of procedures and operation of the House of Commons; how newly elected MPs can influence government policy; the role of departmental select committees; parliamentary privilege; and House of Lords reform.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document