is to be found in Shakespeare's "Hamlet," the officer in command of the guard proposed to attack the ghost with a partisan, whatever a partisan is, but I suppose it must be something different from a parricidal pick-axe. But the Prime Minister was not content to leave the matter there. He charged my noble friend and your Lordships' House with doing what he called applying a thin coat of democratic varnish to the "ghost." I must say that any attempt to varnish a ghost would require a considerable amount of ingenuity.

The Resolutions which, before our proceedings terminate this evening, I shall venture to lay before the House will, then, have reference not to the question of the constitution of this House, but to the manner in which deadlocks between the two Houses, persistent differences of opinion, might be dealt with. And let me add this observation. We on this side have always been in favour of making some change in our procedure for the purpose of meeting that particular difficulty. I say that because the noble Earl opposite told us the other evening that he had never heard, that he had not the faintest idea, that that was a part of the case we were interested in. I looked up the speech which I delivered in this House, I think, in March of this year, and I find I then stated as clearly as I possibly could that in our view both questions demanded attention on the one hand, the constitution of this House; on the other, the procedure to be resorted to in case of differences between the two Houses. .

Extract 79

GOVERNMENT HASTE AGAINST THE HOUSE OF LORDS

(The Earl of Rosebery, Lords, November 21, 1910)

THE EARL OF ROSEBERY1: . . . You do not seem to realise what you are doing. You bring in a Bill of this kind with the trivial elegance with which you might introduce a turnpike Act or the mysterious local government measures which are moved by the

1 Parliamentary Debates, Lords, Fifth Series, vol. 6, col. 800 sqq.

dozen by some lower official of the Government. What you are attempting to do is none of these things. You are attempting to do away with one estate of the realm without substituting anything in its place. You have the face to tell us that we are acting in an unprecedented manner when in the last four, five, or six dying days of the session you bring forward this Motion without any option to us but to say Yes or No to any of the provisions of the Bill.

The noble Marquess behind me quoted a phrase from the remarkable, I might almost say extraordinary, speech delivered by my right hon. friend the Prime Minister at the National Liberal Club on Saturday. I make every allowance for the exuberance of a speech made under the hospitable auspices of the National Liberal Club, where I have so often enjoyed myself in past days. But I am a little shocked that the noble Marquess did not mark the most significant part of that speech, which was accentuated by my noble friend who spoke last. The Prime Minister quoted Dr. Johnson as saying that nothing concentrates a man's mind so much as the knowledge that he is going to be hanged, and he applied the remark to your Lordships' House. My noble friend opposite spoke of a deathbed repentance. This is the spirit apparently in which this great Government approaches this vast Constitutional question. They regard the House of Lords as simply a culprit to be hanged without shrift and without repentance, and only with the rather trite consolations of my noble friend opposite to cheer its last hour. I have always understood that when a man is going to be hanged he has, besides the opportunity of concentration of mind, some little mercy shown to him in the disposal of his last moments. He is admitted to certain indulgences. My noble friends opposite, having put on the black cap, are not inclined to any such leniency. We claim that we shall employ the few hours which we have to live to the best purpose that, in our judgment, we can, and we will not allow any other necessities to override that which dictates to this ancient Assembly the right to present its own case to the country without being gagged by an ultra-Liberal Government,

Extract 80

FUTILITY OF REFORMING THE HOUSE OF LORDS
FROM WITHIN

(Lord Loreburn, Lord Chancellor, Lords, November 21, 1910)

LORD LOREBURN1: My Lords, the question before your Lordships' House at this moment is that this debate be now adjourned. I will only say a very few words on what I call the fringe which the noble Lord added to the point under discussion. He has spoken of our precipitancy and desire to avoid discussion. Let me remind your Lordships what is the history of the question of the reform of the House of Lords and the adjustment of the relations between the two Houses.

The noble Earl has been, I admit, a pioneer, a protagonist in this business all his life. He dropped it, I suppose, as an impossible task during the period of twenty years of Conservative ascendancy preceding 1905. In 1905 when a Liberal Government came in the noble Earl took no step. The year 1906 passed. In 1907 Lord Newton brought the matter forward and the Committee which was appointed reported in December, 1908. Why was nothing said about all these proposals for reform during the year 1909? Lord Newton put down a motion relating to the subject, but only to one side of it, — namely, the constitution of the House, and it constantly disappeared from the Paper. It seemed always to vanish. If I were not aware of his want of reverence for the Whips, I should have supposed that the Whips had exercised some influence upon him not to bring the matter forward in the year 1909. Your Lordships will remember that at that time a raid was contemplated upon the Budget, and that might not be a convenient time to draw attention to the supposed shortcomings of your Lordships' House; you do not go to confessional just at the time when you are about to stop a mail-coach. . . .

1 Parliamentary Debates, Lords, Fifth Series, vol. 6, col. 801 sqq.

Extract 81

CONSERVATIVE SUBSTITUTE FOR THE PARLIAMENT BILL

(The Marquess of Lansdowne, Lords, November 23, 1910)

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE1 rose to move

That this House do resolve itself into Committee in order to consider the following resolutions upon the relations between the two Houses of Parliament:

That in the opinion of this House it is desirable that provision should be made for settling differences which may arise between the House of Commons and this House, reconstituted and reduced in numbers in accordance with the recent Resolutions of this House. That as to Bills other than Money Bills, such provision should be upon the following lines:

If a difference arises between the two Houses with regard to any Bill other than a Money Bill in two successive Sessions, and with an interval of not less than one year, and such difference cannot be adjusted by any other means, it shall be settled in a Joint Sitting composed of members of the two Houses.

Provided that if the difference relates to a matter which is of great gravity, and has not been adequately submitted for the judgment of the people, it shall not be referred to the Joint Sitting, but shall be submitted for decision to the electors by Referendum.

That as to Money Bills, such provision should be upon the following lines:

The Lords are prepared to forego their constitutional right to reject or amend Money Bills which are purely financial in character.

Provided that effectual provision is made against tacking; and

Provided that, if any question arises as to whether a Bill or any provisions thereof are purely financial in character, that question be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses, with the Speaker of the House of Commons as Chairman, who shall have a casting vote only.

If the Committee hold that the Bill or provisions in question are not purely financial in character, they shall be dealt with forthwith in a Joint Sitting of the two Houses.

1 Parliamentary Debates, Lords, Fifth Series, vol. 6, col. 838.

Extract 82

SUPPORT OF THE LANSDOWNE RESOLUTIONS

(Lord Ribblesdale, Lords, November 23, 1910)

LORD RIBBLESDALE1: My Lords, I think I shall follow the advice of my noble friend below me and not make a dash into the referendum, which the noble Lord [Ellenborough] who has just sat down explained to us much more clearly than I have ever heard it explained before. Neither do I propose to follow the noble Lord into Lough Swilly or the deeply indented coast of Ireland in a gunboat or in any other way. What he said about our being surrounded by Jacobins and Girondists would have made me feel thoroughly uncomfortable were it not for the extremely pleasant smile with which he accompanied this disagreeable piece of news.

I was very sorry that the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, towards the end of his interesting speech, when he got to closer quarters with the Resolutions before us to-night, complained of suffering from a feeling of want of reality. To my mind these Resolutions of the noble Marquess and their full discussion by this House at the present moment are as real a thing on as real an issue for us all in this country as we have had before us since the Home Rule Bill of 1892 or 1893.

Whatever may be the measure of consent, or quasi consent, or qualified consent on the two sides of the House, I think we may all agree that we are getting on wonderfully pleasantly with this debate. It is evidently possible, as Mr. Carlyle once said, to agree very tolerably except in opinion. I do not suppose that the two sides of the House to-night are agreed in opinion, but even if noble Lords below me are right in saying that it is quite impossible that this great Constitutional difficulty in which we now find ourselves can be settled by consent, it is quite clear that in this House,

1 Parliamentary Debates, Lords, Fifth Series, vol. 6, col. 895 sqq.