Since 1911 there have been various attempts to reform the Lords, but none tackled the powers of the House except the Parliament Act 1949 which reduced the suspensory veto to two sessions and one year. By the time of the 1997 UK election there was still no consensus about a comprehensive reform of the upper chamber of Parliament.
|
|
The Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949This collective title is authorised by section 2(2) of the Parliament Act 1949 are two Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, which form part of the constitution of the United Kingdom. Section 2(2) of the Parliament Act 1949 provides that the two Acts are to be construed as one. The Parliament Act 1911 (1 & 2 Geo. 5. c. 13) asserted the supremacy of the House of Commons by limiting the legislation-blocking powers of the House of Lords (the suspensory veto).
|
|
Ernest Armstrong, who promoted the 1925 reforms. With the Assembly seemingly unable to abolish the Legislative Council without its permission, it eventually came to consider reforming the Council as a next-best alternative. The first serious reform proposal was considered in 1916, when the Assembly passed a reform bill based on the Imperial Parliament Act 1911, which limited the veto of the House of Lords. The bill would have changed the Council's absolute veto to a suspensory veto; if the Assembly passed a bill in three successive legislative sessions over two years, the bill would go into effect notwithstanding the lack of the Council's consent.
|
|
After the storming of the Bastille, he saw the power of the masses as possibly leading to political chaos, and wished to avoid this by saving the throne. He advocated the suspensory veto, and the establishment of trial by jury in civil causes, but voted with the Left against the system of two chambers. His conflict with Mirabeau on the question of assigning to the king the right to make peace or war (from 16 to 23 May 1790) was one of the main episodes of the Assembly's mandate. In August 1790, after a vehement debate, he fought a duel with Jacques Antoine Marie de Cazalès, in which the latter was slightly wounded.
|
|
On 2 November 1911 O'Brien proposed full Dominion status similar to that enjoyed by Canada, in an exchange of views with Asquith, as the only viable solution to the "Irish Question". Home Rule became technically assured after a new Home Rule bill was introduced in 1912 with the IPP holding the balance of power at Westminster. During the 1913–14 parliamentary debates on the Third Home Rule Bill, O'Brien, alarmed by Unionist resistance to the bill, opposed the IPP's coercive "Ulster must follow" policy, and published in the Cork Free Press end of January 1914 specific concession, including a suspensory veto right, which would enable Ulster join a Dublin Parliament "any price for an United Ireland, but never partition". William O'Brien resigned his seat as MP again for a fourth time in January and re-stood to test local support for his policies, after the All-for-Ireland League suffered heavy defeats in the Cork City municipal elections.
|
|
After the opening of parliament in February 1914 the threat of rebellion in Ulster gave O'Brien the opportunity to make an eloquent speech on the 24 February calling for generous concessions towards Ulster, but warning he would 'strenuously oppose exclusion'. When the Ulster Volunteers armed in April to resist likely "Rome Rule", Redmond's Irish Volunteers armed likewise to ensure enactment of all-Ireland self-government. During the final stages of the second reading and debate on the Third Home Rule Bill in the House of Commons, which was accompanied by Asquith's guarantee that it would never be enforced without an Amending Bill enacting the exclusion of the six Ulster counties with a Protestant majority, O'Brien made a powerful lengthy speech on 1 April 1914 reiterating at length his proposals to enable Ulster remain within an All-Ireland settlement, by means of a suspensory veto upon any bill passed by a Dublin Parliament, amongst other rights and protections. Stating "I condemn and abhor with all my heart the preparations of the Ulster Volunteers for even the possibility of slaughter between Irishmen and Irishmen".
|
|
During the final stages of the second reading and debate on the Third Home Rule Bill in the House of Commons, which was accompanied by Asquith's guarantee that it would never be enforced without an Amending Bill enacting the exclusion of the six Ulster counties with a Protestant majority, O'Brien made a powerful lengthy speech O'Brien's Commons proposals 1 April 1914 for an inclusive Ulster settlement on 1 April 1914 reiterating at length his proposals to enable Ulster remain within an All- Ireland settlement, by means of a suspensory veto upon any bill passed by a Dublin parliament, amongst other rights and protections.O’Donovan, John: The All-for-Ireland League and the Home Rule debate, 1910-14 Ch.7 p.157, in Doherty, Gabriel (Ed.): The Home Rule Crisis 1912-14 , Mercier Press Cork (2014) Stating "I condemn and abhor with all my heart the preparations of the Ulster Volunteers for even the possibility of slaughter between Irishmen and Irishmen". Otherwise Ireland once divided would remain divided and 'the line on which you are presently travelling will never bring you anything except division and disaster'.
|
|