On this page
-
Text (2)
-
July 7, I860.] The Saturday Analyst and ...
-
THE EIGHT WITH THE LORDS. IT is an excel...
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
-
-
Transcript
-
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.
July 7, I860.] The Saturday Analyst And ...
July 7 , I 860 . ] The Saturday Analyst and Leader , 627
The Eight With The Lords. It Is An Excel...
THE EIGHT WITH THE LORDS . IT is an excellent rule in public discussion to assume the integrity of all parties concerned , and it is witli shame and regret that we find ourselves obliged to depart from it in considering the Report presented by the Committee on Tax -Bills , and the Resolutions proposed by Lord Palmerston to the House of Commons ; but it is impossible to read the proceedings of the Committee without being painfully impressed with the
erroneous and imperfect notions of public duty and moral responsibility under which the majority of its members appear to have acted . We can understand that , during the heat of a party quarrel , honourable men might straggle for victory by means that they would not deliberately adopt when sitting in a quiet conclave ; but we can only feel that there is a lamentable discrepancy between ordinary personal integrity and a conventional ¦ code of honour , when we witness members of a Committee appointed to make a faithful and impartial collection of facts , continually voting for the suppression of information bearing
upon the case . The Report , as presented , does not make out any case for the Lords , and contains affirmations concerning practice and fundamental principle which are diametrically opposed to their pretensions ; but it is a very incomplete and unworthy document , tinged all through with the malice of party desire , and destitute of that frank honesty upon which confidence can be reposed . By comparing the Report as agreed upon with the draft prepared by Mr . Walpole , and with that proposed by Mr .. Bright under the adviceof . an able constitutional lawyer-, it will be seen that a compromise was arrived at , in which , unfortunately , the abettors of suppression and misrepresentation obtained the greater power . In the second paragraph of the Report occurs a flagrant mis-statement in the interest of the Lords , in which we are told
* 'the year 1628 is the year in which the present form of granting the supplies maybe said to have been practically established . " The present form of . granting supplies represents them as the gift of the Commons , only ; but so _ far from this having been first practically established in 1628 , the Committee themselves -could not , upon consideration , venture to suppress the famous * ' Indemnity" Act of 1407 , in which the very principle was asserted-nbt as something new , but as then old arid thoroughly established . The fact iajthe . Committee started with a false pretence when they limited their inquiry to 1628 and subsequent years , and no one can doubt that the object of such a course was
to give as modern an aspect as possible to very ancient and time-honoured rights . In the Report , as it was proposed by the Tory chairman , Mr . Walpole , the circumstances which led to the Indemnity of 1407 do not appear , and affixing them in a note or appendix would have much diminished the force of the whole story , and withdrawn attention from the important fact that the Commons had then an historicainigh"t ^ to ~ nc ^ Jthirl 70 Td 5 ^ o order for presuming to recommend what supplies should be granted to the Crown . This feature makes the precedent of 1407 very closely applicable to the present matter in dispute , and the attempt to suppress it in the text of the Report could mot have been made without a motive at all " or with one that
the country can approve . The divisions that took place in the Committee will assist in deciding the trustworthiness of the several parties whose votes are recorded . Thus , when Mr . Bright proposed a report in every way superior to Mr . Walpole's , and the question was , ¦ which should be taken into consideration , the honourable member for Birmingham was only supported by Lord John Russell and Mr . Gladstone ; while the other side consisted of Lord PaljnERSTON , Col . W . Patten , Sir W . Heathcote , Mr . Bouverie , ¦ Sir H . Cairns , Mr . Bentixck , Mr . Sotheron Estcouht , Sir J . Graham , Mr . MasseY , Sir G . Grjey , Sir J . Pakinoton , Mr .
Henley , Lord . Hotham , and Mr . Disraeli . It will be observed that the Report gives scarcely any information as to the nature of the bills which the Lords are described as having amended , postponed , or rejected . To make the narrative of facts sufficiently complete to be of use , Mr . Gladstone proposed adding a clause , explaining that in none of the instances cited had « ny of the rejected bills the object of repealing " any tax constituting a large branch of the revenue , or imposing a burden of ( Considerable amount . " This simple and necessary piece of truth
had the support-of the Premier , Mi \ BitiOHTrMi % BouvEuiEr Mr ; Collier , Sir G . Grey , the Chancellor of the Exchequer , and Lord John RussELL , but was objected to by the Tory members of the Committee and by S . ir J . Graham , . who constituted the majority of niiie against seven : A similar attempt was made by Lord John Russell to obtain the insertion of a fact , and was defeated by the same parties . Mr . Bright gave the Committee another opportunity , by proposing a clause ,-that "it did not appear that before 1680 the House of Lords had in any case rejected a bill materially affecting the quantum of ways and means
provided by the Commons . " In this instance the Tory portion of the Committee obtained another victory , in which they were helped by Sir James Graham and by Lord Palmerstox . Mr . GLADSTONE and Lord John Russell vyere again among the honourable minority .- Some other instances occurred , with similar results ; arid it is remarkable that Sir James Graham was always wrong- ^ -Mr . Massey , the pseudo-liberal member for Salford , never right , and the Attorney-General usually absent . Mr . Collier seems , when present , always to have voted on the right side .
It will be seen that what we complain of , is not that the majority of the Committee declined to express the opinions we believe to be sound , but that from first to last they evinced a disposition to omit facts that there could be no valid reason for suppressing . If the Committee had been worthy of confidence , it would have exhibited the case of the Commons much more strongly , but it is some satisfaction to know that a body of men selected so as to give the abettors of the Lords a clear majority , have utterly failed in discovering any ground whatever for the sort of interference of which they have been guilty . In 1699 , the Commons , in a conference with the Lords , made an explicit declaration which sums up the whole question : "that all aids which are granted in Parliament are the sole and entire gift , grant , and
present of the Commons in Parliament , and that it is the undoubted right and privilege of the Commons that such aids are to be raised by such methods and with such provisions as the Commons only think proper . " It is absurd to say that the paper duties are now the " gift of the Commons , " when they have distinctly declined to give them , and kave provided a substitute . It is equally absurd to assert that the Lords have not violated principles which were historical so far back as 1407 , and which have never been abandoned , when they insist that a much larger quantum of taxation shall be levied than the Commons have declared needful , and have consented to give ; nor can there be any pretext for pretending that the taxation will be raised by _ " such methods as ; the Commons think proper , " if their method is rejected in favour of one illegally supported by
the Peers . There are no legal arguments in favour of . the Pe £ rs ^ but _ pnly paltry pettifogging quibbles in opposition to the manifest spirit and intention of constitutional law , as > ho } vn in a long .. series of precedents again and again affirmed by the Commons themselves , and more than once admitted by the Lords , Under these circumstances any compromise will be a gross and scandalous dereliction of duty ' and it is riot at all creditable to Lord
Palmer-^ ston that he ' has laid before the House of Commons resolutions of a weak , cowardly , and insufficient character , that do not distinctly raise the question which is in dispute— -whether or not the recent conduct of the Peers is an infringement of the pri'¦ yilpffpg nf >; hf . House of Commons , an issue which would be decided by affirming the motion of Mr . Collieu . luom a perusal of the Resolutions of Lord Palmerston , which we subjoin , it will be seen that they do affirm that the House of Commons can so frame a bill to remit taxation as to preserve its
privileges ; and it is possible that if these propositions were carried the rights of the people might be preserved by a surreptitious method , instead of being boldly and honestly maintained , as they were by the Commons in the time of Henky IV ., and again when the patriotic earnestness of Pym gave a dignity to the House of Commons it does not now possess . Lord Palmer- , ston ' s Resolutions a re" 1 . That the right of granting aids and supplies to the Crown is in the Commons alone , as an essential part of their Constitution , and the limitation of all such grants , as to the matter , manner , measure and time , is only in them .
" 2 . That although the Lords have exercised the power of rejecting bills of several descriptions relating to taxation by negativing the whole , yet the cjxerciso of that power by them has not been frequent , and is justly regarded by this House with peculiar jealousy , as affecting the right of tho Commons to grant the supplies , and to provide the ways and means for the service of the year . . " 3 . That to guard for the future against an undue exercise of that power by the Lords , and to secure to the Commons their rightful control over taxation and supply , this House has in-its own Jianda the . power so Jo impose ami . remit taxes , and to frame Bills of Supply , that the right of the Commons as to the matter , manner , measure , and time , may be maintained
inviolate . " ' Worthy of the man and unworthy of the occasion ¦ as these resolutions are , they huve not conciliated the Tory opposition . Like all dishonest " or half-hearted shuffling , they will lend to greater difficulties than would have awaited a bolder and more manlv course . We know what the Cabinet thinks of the present House of Commons ; but the contempt they fed for its weakness
-
-
Citation
-
Leader (1850-1860), July 7, 1860, page 3, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/l/issues/cld_07071860/page/3/
-