OUR HISTORIC HOUSE OF
LORDS MUST REMAIN – TO PREVENT TYRANNY
Whatever
each of us feels about the Reform of the House of Lords most would agree that
any reform must still retain links with the past. The question of changes to
this Unique Institution, which had developed
from the earliest meetings of the King’s Council in the early years of the
birth of our Nation, has been considered on a number of occasions over the last
three hundred and fifty years. From the time of Oliver Cromwell to debates in
the House in the 19th century which led later to the Parliament Act
of 1911(1)
The Act of 1911 was seen
at the time as an effective means to reduce the power of the House of Lords to
act as a check on the Commons. Events over the ensuing years have confirmed
this to be a fact and that the authority of the Lords is now derived from the
deliberately expressed will of the electorate. The later Parliament Acts of
1914, and that of 1949(2) reflected at the time was accepted as a different
body from that of the previous half-century.
It is stated that its debates attained a high level. Its members, many
of whom were widely experienced in a great variety of affairs, share
effectively, and for the most part dispassionately, in the legislative process.
Further, as a practical point, the Government of 1945-50 in its haste to get
legislation on to the Statute book found that the additional time and
facilities available in the Lords constantly useful.
In
recent years with a Government impatience for Reform (written in 1966 – but is
it not even more so today- November 2003) and in no mood to discuss even great
Constitutional changes with those other parts of our ancient and revered
Institutions, and certainly not with the People who have been put in their place with the
most grotesque understatement ‘that they are only embarked on a tidying-up
exercise’?
They
had almost destroyed a great Office of State the ‘Lord Chancellorship’ until they were informed
that it was not quite so easy to do so, because they later learned that it
required full consultation and a formal procedure in order to abolish this
Historic landmark of our Constitution. Sensible change is one thing –but brutal
and arrogant dismissal of an Office of State of such Renown, which required
Respect and Consideration, will remain an example among many, of the rise of an Absolute
Power, in the future Annals of our history in the opening years of the 21st
century.
It
was stated back in 1966, that the further changes to the Parliament Act of
1911, in the year 1949 had made it harder for a reactionary Upper House to
hamstring a radical government, and indicated that the Peers had learned their
place. But almost forty years later we have the opposite terror of a Despotic Parliamentary
Executive,
which has no
interest in Democracy. This was once again foreseen in the late sixties when it was stated
that apart from the Deliberative and Judicial function of the Lords it was also
involved in matters of Constitutional significance:
In
practice, the existence of an Upper Chamber helps the Prime Minister. It
enables him to secure a position in parliament for a person whom he wishes to
include in his Government, and it affords him a gracious way of dropping from
his Cabinet a minister who has outlived his usefulness. In addition, it provides
a place of semi-retirement for elderly statesmen no longer able to withstand
the full rigours of political life in the Commons, and permits the introduction
into the legislature of people who, while not desirous of participating in
party politics, are yet prepared to offer the country the benefit of their wisdom,
experience or expert knowledge from time to time.
Bearing
the above remarks in mind we are astonished the Mr Blair should consider the expulsion
of the remaining 92 Hereditary Peers when one considers the manner in which
they were selected by the hundreds of their fellow Peers many whose descendents
contributed to the achievement of our Greatness, and as their representatives
of the combined Wisdom of the hereditary presence in the House of Lords. To destroy this special and
not inconsiderable experience is the action of a Destroyer of his Nation who
has put no limits to the demolition of our Constitution with his dream of a Utopian
European Super State.
It should be noted that The Bryce
Conference of 1918 suggested that the House of Lords should consist of 327
members, 81
of whom should be selected from the hereditary peers by a committee of both
Houses of Parliament, and 246 elected for twelve years by thirteen regional
bodies composed of MP’s from those areas.
Returning to the findings of 1966 in regard to the
Constitutional aspects of the Lords it has been stated that the existence of
the House of Lords has a deeper constitutional significance: it helps to balance the increasing weight of
the Government. The necessity for this is outlined by:
(a)
The Government’s dominance over the House of Commons through
the party system;
(b)
Parliament’s power to
alter the Constitution by the ordinary processes of legislation;
(c)
The single
straight-voting system, which may produce a Government with an Absolute majority on a Minority vote.
All
three may occur together, and then it is possible for a minority radical
government to extend its powers to an unforeseen extent entirely by legal
means.
It has been said that the House of Lords cannot guarantee
that this will never happen, but its existence is one of the safeguards against
it. By its
criticism of bills, it can act as a check on the ‘rash, hasty and undigested
legislation of the House of Commons. Through the publicity given
to its debates, it can ensure that all aspects of Government policy are brought
to the notice of the public. By its power to delay a bill for a year, it can
concentrate attention on Fundamental Issues and insist on time for further
reflection on the desirability of particular legislation, which, at its best,
may only be the result of temporary democratic fervour and, at the worst, may represent an attempt by
the Government to seize Absolute Authority.
The link between our Sovereign Lady, Queen Elizabeth 11,
and the historical connection of the House of Lords must never be broken. In
maintaining the Integrity and Independence of the Lords House will ensure the
safety of our Unique and Democratic Constitution.
The People have it within their power to take back their
Constitution and veto the forthcoming New European Constitution: -
by Signing the Petition to
HM the Queen and Parliament –
details on our Bulletin
Board.
* * *
THE PROVISIONS OF THE
PARLIAMENT ACT, 1911. (1)
(1)
A
Money Bill became law within one month of being sent up to the House of Lords,
with or without their agreement. It was left to the discretion of the Speaker
to certify what was a ‘Money Bill’, but it must be one the main object of
which is financial.
(2)
Other
Public Bills could receive the Royal Assent without the agreement of the Lords. Such a Bill must have
passed by the Commons in three consecutive sessions (whether of the same
Parliament or not), and two years must have elapsed between the date of the
second reading in the House of Commons in the first session and the third
reading in the third session. This provision did not, however, apply to a Bill
extending the maximum duration of Parliament beyond five years or to a
Provisional Order Confirmation Bill. It should be noted that it did not include
private bills
(3)
The maximum duration of Parliament was reduced from
seven to five years, the idea being that a Commons which was over three
years old, and thus possibly out of touch with the wishes of the electorate
should not be able to pass a bill in defiance of the Lords.
* *
THE PARLIAMENT ACT OF 1949, (2) SIMPLY REDUCED THE
PERIOD OF DELAY TO ONE YEAR SPREAD OVER TWO SESSIONS FROM THE SECOND READING IN
THE FIRST SESSION TO THE THIRD READING IN THE SECOND.
* * *
