UK Houses of Parliament

Table of contents

Approximate read time: 10 minutes

The debate took place on 25 March 1925, months after the Conservative Party returned to power following the collapse of the first Labour government. Chris Ballinger, an academic at the University of Oxford, notes, however, that “Lords reform was mentioned in the Conservative manifesto for the October 1924 general election and did not feature significantly in the election campaign”. The Conservatives’ 223-seat majority in the House of Commons had though:

[…] encouraged Lords reform advocates within the party to believe that they had a window of opportunity within which to reform the Lords.[1]

1. “One of the most complicated and difficult questions of modern times”

The Duke of Sutherland (Conservative) opened the debate. He remarked that Lords reform was a “problem that bristles with difficulties and has proved itself to be one of the most complicated and difficult questions of modern times”.[2] He added: “Many of your Lordships who have considered it have given it up in despair”. The duke felt that previous schemes had been unsuccessful because of their variety but said he would set out where he felt there was agreement among most peers. First, he said, “nearly all of us feel that the number of peers should not exceed from 350 to 400”. Second, he thought “very few of us believe that the speaker should be sole judge of what is and what is not a money bill”. Third was that “peers who no longer remain members of this House after it is reformed should be eligible to stand for another place”. Fourth, he felt “ministers of the crown should be allowed to speak in both Houses” but said he did “not know whether you also agree that they should be allowed to vote in both Houses”. Finally, he believed there was broad agreement that “the Parliament Act must not be used to alter the constitution or weaken the powers of this House as they at present exist”.[3]

The Duke of Sutherland thought that “how this reform is to be carried out must be a matter for the government to arrange”. He argued:

Whatever powers the reformed House is given your Lordships will agree with me, I think, that it must never be a serious rival, and must never expect to be a serious rival, to the other House. It must be strong enough to act as a buffer between the state and revolutionary legislation of a spasmodic and fugitive character that is not really desired by the country.[4]

He concluded by expressing fear that “an unreformed hereditary House on present lines would not be endured for six months by a real Labour government with a clear majority and full powers; it would be abolished altogether by means of the Parliament Act”.

From the opposition Labour front bench, Viscount Haldane used his opening comments to survey the recent history of reform attempts, referring also to concerns about money bills and the need to create a mechanism to resolve conflict between the two Houses.[5] He explained his view was that:

A body like [the current House] […] can only be dealt with in one of two ways. You may sweep it away; you may put a second chamber in its place which is in the nature of a senate. It is very difficult to construct a senate, but it can be constructed in one way.[6]

The other way, he explained, was based around the “unwritten constitution, and because it is an unwritten constitution it is a constitution which develops and varies as decade succeeds decade”. He pointed out that the “position of the House of Lords today is not the same as the position of the House of Lords 50 years ago. It is no longer a body that is irresponsive to public opinion”. He concluded by suggesting that “rather than attempt any rash thing, [we] remain as we are, carefully watching and accommodating ourselves to the opinion of the time”.[7]

2. “The Parliament Act had an ulterior purpose”

The Earl of Oxford and Asquith (Liberal) followed Viscount Haldane. The former prime minister had only taken his seat the previous month,[8] making his maiden speech early in March.[9] He opened his remarks on the motion by reminding the House he was “not, as your Lordships are aware, wholly without experience in this matter”.[10] He told the House that the Parliament Act 1911 “had two objects: one immediate and the other, I will not say secondary, but ulterior”. He explained the first was to give “statutory force to the constitutional usage under which the House of Commons is the supreme and ultimate authority in matters of finance”. It also provided a mechanism for the House of Commons to pass any bill without Lords assent after two years. The second object, he added, was that “the Parliament Act had an ulterior purpose, expressed in its preamble […] the second chamber in this country should be reconstituted upon a popular and not an hereditary basis”. He explained his views remained the same on Lords reform: “I hold now as strongly as I did then, that a second chamber is a useful and indeed an indispensable part of a really democratic constitution”. He added this was subject to two conditions: “that the second chamber is properly composed and properly empowered”.[11] Therefore, he argued, the second chamber “should have, the freest and fullest powers of revision, of consultation, and, within reasonable limits, of delay”. He concluded that the government should take the initiative:

The responsibility of suggesting the form and character of that instrument must rest with the government of the day and not with irresponsible persons, however intelligent and however inventive—and there is no field of unlicensed conjecture in which the freedom of suggestion and of hypothesis finds a freer road.[12]

The lord chancellor, Viscount Cave, intervened to set out the government’s position.[13] He said it considered the subject of Lords reform “as one of real importance, but as one which calls for consideration and, in due course, for action”. He said the government was “not disposed to pass it by, either as a subject not deserving serious attention, or as one too thorny for them to embark upon”.[14] He explained that the government, however, needed time to investigate all proposals. Referring to points of agreement, Lord Cave remarked “few would deny that some reduction in our numbers is desirable”. He added a note of caution:

[…] assuming that to be so, it appears to me that the rights of members of this House exist and are established, and unless they are fairly recognised any reform will meet with difficulties which may prove almost insuperable.[15]

The lord chancellor concluded: “the prime minister proposes to appoint a committee of the cabinet which shall fully examine the problem in all its aspects”.[16]

3. “Haste of the age”

Following the lord chancellor, the Earl of Midleton spoke.[17] Lord Midleton, a former Conservative, and later Irish Unionist MP, opened his contribution with a focus on money bills. He thought “the present system” was “indefensible”. He told the House “surely [there] is an argument which must convince the government that has a majority in both Houses, that they should deal without delay with a subject which has really become a reproach to us as a legislature”.[18] Speaking more broadly about the role of the House, Lord Midleton contended that “the haste of the age, the enormous rapidity with which measures of first-class magnitude have to be pressed forward, makes the review of a second chamber, on which Lord Oxford insisted, more important than it was at the time when the Parliament Act was passed”.[19] He believed that the post-1911 act settlement presented “real danger”. He warned: “So long as you leave it in the power of the House of Commons to abolish this House […] you leave a real danger in case a socialist majority should ever obtain power in this country”.[20]

Lord Templemore (Conservative) thought there was “a very large thinking section of the electorate which is very interested in this question”. He believed that group would be “looking anxiously to see whether this House and the government are in earnest on the question”.[21] He was followed by Viscount Younger of Leckie, who had sat as a Unionist MP until 1922. He echoed Lord Midleton’s concerns about the power of the House of Commons. In reference to the Parliament Act 1911 and responding to the Earl of Oxford and Asquith’s comments, he thought the former prime minister “might have gone on and said that he had provided constitutional means for carrying the most revolutionary proposals”.[22] Lord Younger then expanded on his concerns about the powers of the House of Commons. He argued that “some provision ought to be made so that some government with revolutionary ideas would not be able to exercise the full power which the Parliament Act gives them”.[23] Lord Banbury of Southam (Conservative) spoke next. He argued it was “absolutely necessary that some steps should be taken to give increased power to this House”.[24] He echoed fears that a radical government with intent on abolishing the Lords would succeed. He said: “What would be easier than for them to pass a bill abolishing this House and establishing single chamber government?”. He welcomed Lord Cave’s announcement there would be a cabinet committee but added “I find that as a rule the appointment of a committee means that nothing is done. I hope that will not be the case now”.[25]

Lord Lamington (Conservative) said he was “convinced that if we are to safeguard our constitution and our country it would be absolutely necessary to go in for a purely elective House”. He explained:

If anything approaching a senate was set up it would have the advantage of being able to deal with money matters in the same way as the senate in France or in the United States is able to do. Without such powers I confess that I would rather see your Lordships’ House remain as it is.[26]

The debate was closed by Lord Danesfort (Conservative), who welcomed the motion, stating “the reform which he advocates is essential, not indeed in the interests of this House or of any party in this country, but of the nation as a whole”.[27] He added: “The House of Commons, under the Parliament Act, can do anything. Therefore […] there should be a second chamber armed with adequate powers which would give the people time to think”.[28]

Later in 1925, a cabinet committee was created and resolutions that may have become the basis of a bill were approved by the cabinet. However, these proved unpopular among both the Labour and Liberal parties and 80 Conservative MPs. The reforms were “quietly dropped” and garnered no mention in the Conservative Party’s 1929 manifesto.[29]

Cover image by Linda Gerbec on Unsplash.

References

  1. Chris Ballinger, ‘The House of Lords 1911–2011: A Century of Non-reform’, 2012, p 43. Return to text
  2. HL Hansard, 25 March 1925, col 685. Return to text
  3. HL Hansard, 25 March 1925, cols 687–8. Return to text
  4. HL Hansard, 25 March 1925, col 690. Return to text
  5. HL Hansard, 25 March 1925, cols 692–8. Return to text
  6. HL Hansard, 25 March 1925, col 698. Return to text
  7. HL Hansard, 25 March 1925, col 700. Return to text
  8. HL Hansard, 17 February 1925, col 217. Return to text
  9. HL Hansard, 3 March 1925, cols 349–55. Return to text
  10. HL Hansard, 25 March 1925, col 701. Return to text
  11. HL Hansard, 25 March 1925, col 702. Return to text
  12. HL Hansard, 25 March 1925, cols 703–4. Return to text
  13. HL Hansard, 25 March 1925, cols 704–9. Return to text
  14. HL Hansard, 25 March 1925, col 705. Return to text
  15. HL Hansard, 25 March 1925, col 708. Return to text
  16. HL Hansard, 25 March 1925, col 709. Return to text
  17. HL Hansard, 25 March 1925, cols 709–14. Return to text
  18. HL Hansard, 25 March 1925, cols 709–10. Return to text
  19. HL Hansard, 25 March 1925, cols 710–11. Return to text
  20. HL Hansard, 25 March 1925, col 713. Return to text
  21. HL Hansard, 25 March 1925, col 717. Return to text
  22. HL Hansard, 25 March 1925, col 719. Return to text
  23. HL Hansard, 25 March 1925, cols 719–20. Return to text
  24. HL Hansard, 25 March 1925, col 720. Return to text
  25. HL Hansard, 25 March 1925, col 722. Return to text
  26. HL Hansard, 25 March 1925, col 723. Return to text
  27. HL Hansard, 25 March 1925, cols 724–7. Return to text
  28. HL Hansard, 25 March 1925, col 723. Return to text
  29. Chris Ballinger, ‘The House of Lords 1911–2011: A Century of Non-reform’, 2012, pp 43–5. Return to text