|
The Parliament Act 1911 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It is constitutionally important and partly governs the relationship between the House of Commons and the House of Lords which make up the Houses of Parliament. This Act must be construed as one with the Parliament Act 1949. The two Acts may be cited together as the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949.〔The Parliament Act 1949, section 2(2). (Digitised copy ) from the UK Statute Law Database. Accessed on 2 December 2011.〕 Following the rejection of the 1909 "People's Budget", the House of Commons sought to establish its formal dominance over the House of Lords, who had broken convention in opposing the Bill. The budget was eventually passed by the Lords after the Commons' democratic mandate was confirmed by holding elections in January 1910. The following Parliament Act, which looked to prevent a recurrence of the budget problems, was also widely opposed in the Lords and cross-party discussion failed, particularly because of the proposed Act's applicability to passing an Irish home rule bill. After a second general election in December, the Act was passed with the support of the monarch, George V, who threatened to create sufficient Liberal peers to overcome the present Conservative majority. The Act effectively removed the right of the Lords to veto money bills completely, and replaced a right of veto over other public bills with a maximum delay of two years. It also reduced the maximum term of a parliament from seven years to five. ==Background== Until the Parliament Act 1911, there was no way to resolve contradictions between the two Houses of Parliament except through the creation of additional peers by the Monarch.〔Bradley, Ewing (2007). p. 203.〕 Queen Anne had created 12 Tory peers to vote through the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713.〔Magnus 1964, p540〕 The Reform Act 1832 was passed when the House of Lords dropped opposition—William IV had threatened to create 80 new peers by request of the Prime Minister, Earl Grey〔—creating an informal convention that the Lords would give way when the public was behind the House of Commons. For example, Irish Disestablishment, which had been a major bone of contention between the two main parties since the 1830s, was—following intervention by the Queen—passed by the Lords in 1869 after W.E. Gladstone won the 1868 Election on the issue. However, in practice, this gave the Lords a right to demand that such public support was present and to decide the timing of a General Election.〔 It was the prevailing wisdom that the House of Lords could not amend money bills, since only the House of Commons had the right to decide upon the resources the Monarch could call upon.〔 This did not, however, despite the apparent contradiction, prevent it from rejecting such bills outright.〔 In 1860, with the repeal of the paper duties, all money bills were consolidated into a single budget. This denied the Lords the ability to reject individual components and the prospect of voting down the entire budget was seemingly unpalatable. It was only in 1909 that this became a possibility.〔Keir (1938). p. 477.〕 Until the Act, the Lords had equal rights over legislation compared to the Commons, but did not utilise its right of veto over financial measures by convention.〔Barnett (2002). p. 535.〕 There had been an overwhelming Conservative-Unionist majority in the Lords since the Liberal split in 1886.〔 With the Liberal Party attempting to push through significant welfare reforms with considerable popular support, this seemed certain to cause problems in the relationship between the Houses.〔 Between 1906 and 1909, several important measures were being considerably watered down or rejected outright:〔Jackson, Leopold (2001). p. 168.〕 for example, Birrell introduced the Education Bill 1906, which was intended to address nonconformist grievances arising from the Education Act 1902, but which was amended by the Lords to such an extent that it was effectively a different bill, upon which the Commons dropped the bill.〔Havighurst, Alfred F., ''Britain in Transition: The Twentieth Century'', University of Chicago Press, 1985, pp. 89–90: see (Google Books )〕 This led to the 26 June 1907 resolution in the House of Commons declaring that the Lords' power should be curtailed, put forward by Liberal Prime Minister Henry Campbell-Bannerman.〔〔McKechnie, ''The reform of the House of Lords''〕 In 1909, hoping to force an election,〔Magnus 1964, p534〕 the Lords rejected the financial bill based on the government budget (the "People's Budget") put forward by David Lloyd George,〔 by 350 votes to 75.〔Ensor (1952). p. 417.〕 This, according to the Commons, was "a breach of the Constitution, and a usurpation of the rights of the Commons".〔 The Lords suggested that the Commons justify its position as representing the will of the people: it did this through the January 1910 general election. The Liberal government lost heavily, but remained in majority with the help of a significant number of Irish Nationalist and Labour MPs.〔 The Irish Nationalists saw the continued power of the Lords as detrimental to securing Irish Home Rule.〔 Following the election, the Lords relented on the budget (since reintroduced by the government〔), it passing the Lords on 28 April, a day after the Commons.〔Ensor (1952). p. 420.〕 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Parliament Act 1911」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|