IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/apsrev/v27y1933i02p243-249_02.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Report on House of Lords Reform in Great Britain1

Author

Listed:
  • Rudlin, W. A.

Abstract

The recommendations embodied in this report are not sufficiently unlike the Curzon proposals to have any strong claim to novelty. All the arguments against upper houses in general and the 1922 Resolutions in particular are equally applicable to these proposals. They differ from previous Tory reports mainly in their livelier apprehension of the implications of a Labor majority in the Commons. Since the Labor party first came within sight of power, every large Tory majority has produced its demand for reform of the House of Lords. “Reform from the Right” has hitherto been urged as the safeguard against “dangerous innovations,” a term which has widened in significance as the Labor party has increased in strength. The Cave proposals were content to save the constitution of the reformed House of Lords from further attack by the Commons and to render the Parliament Act immune from alterations without the consent of the Lords.

Suggested Citation

  • Rudlin, W. A., 1933. "Report on House of Lords Reform in Great Britain1," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 27(2), pages 243-249, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:apsrev:v:27:y:1933:i:02:p:243-249_02
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0003055400028409/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:apsrev:v:27:y:1933:i:02:p:243-249_02. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/psr .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.