how did the liberals able to overcome House of Lords in 1911

H. Asquith's government had proposed a budget in 1909, which the House of Lords decided to veto--it was a very popular measure and was known as the People's Budget. Traditionally, for quite a while by then, the government, long lead by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which office became the office of the Prime Minister, had had the right to ask the King (or Queen) for a creation of peers to overcome a veto in the House of Lords. At the time of the veto of the budget in the House of Lords, Lloyd George was the Chancellor of the Exchequer who had written the budget--and he would succeed Asquite as Prime Minister in 1916.

More importantly, money bills (budgets and appropriations--appropriations bills in the House of Commons are usually referred to as "voting supplies") can only originate in the House of Commons, and although the House of Lords might negotiate changes, they had never vetoed a budget. This was a crucial constitutional crisis, then, as the House of Lords was not only exercising the right of veto, but were vetoing a money bill. When a Prime Mininster asks for a creation of peers, it means that he asks the King to create new members of the aristocracy, whose titles are hereditary, and who will sit in the House of Lords. It was always understood that anyone raised to peerage at the request of the Prime Minister would vote for the government in the House of Lords. Most famously, Lord Grey had asked King William IV to create 80 new peers to pass the Reform Act in 1832--and the House of Lords backed down, passing the bill to avoid being flooded with new, liberal peers.

So Asquith decided to take a different tack when his government's budget was defeated in the House of Lords. He called a new election, and in 1910, the Liberals took power in a landslide that buried the Tories (conservatives) in the House of Commons, and he put the House of Lords on notice that he would ask for a creation of peers if they attempted to veto any more money bills. In 1911, the Parliament Act was passed, and the House of Lords assented to it, to avoid a creation of peers, which by that point would have required more than 100 new peerages to be created to pass the government's legislation. The House of Lords was then still an hereditary, conservative club, and they didn't want a lot of new, liberal members. The Parliament Act of 1911 took the veto away from the House of Lords, and held that they could only delay legislation for three sessions or two calendar years. In 1949, that was reduced to two sessions or one calendar year.

There has been other reform legislation since then. There are continuing calls (mostly from Labour) for the complete abolition of the House of Lords. Their most important function in the contemporary world is their judicial function, acting much as the Supreme Court does in the United States, in its function as an appellate court. There are major and important differences, though, and it would be advisable to carefully study the judicial functions of the House of Lords.

I just went to Wikipedia to check on the judicial functions of the House of Lords. YOu can read about the judicial functions of the House of Lords here.

Apparently, new legislation passed last year will take away the judicial functions of the House of Lords, and create a Supreme Court for the British government.

Very good summary, Set, as usually!

May I add that it started with "We want eight and we won't wait" back in 1903 (I think it was) and later again in 1909? :wink: