The debate on Monday in the House of Lords with
respect to the capacity of the Upper House to propose amendments to the Education Bill raised a question of considerable moment. Lord Spencer asked the Govern- ment whether they intended to adhere to the view ex- pressed by the present Lord Chancellor on April 2nd, 1897. On that occasion Lord Salsbury stated that had he the power he would have decided that a certain group of amend. ments to the Voluntary Schools Bill was out of order as being inconsistent with the Resolutions of the House of Commons of 1671 and 1678 relating to Money Bills. As he had not the power, he asked the House whether it was possible to say that the amendments were in order. Lord Herschell replied that he considered the matter doubtful, and pointed out that if amendments could not be moved, there was something wrong in a method of procedure that on a great educational question rendered the House of Lords impotent to take part in deciding it. The same difficulty clearly exists with respect to the Bill now before the House of Lords; but it can be avoided, as Lord Halsbuty explained on Monday, by the House of Commons consenting to consider amendments sent down by the House of Lords. Despite the fact that Lord Davey thought that if the amendments of 1897 were contrary to the Constitutional rule, the amendments of 1902 could not be distinguished from them, it would appear to be the practice for the House of Commons to waive their rights. It is almost a Constitutional rule, where non-con- sideration of amendments from the Upper House would exclude the House of Lords from the practical consideration of an important Bill, for the House of Commons to consider such amendments.
Previous page
