On this page

• Departments (1)
  • 
• Text (3)

  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.

  • 

    Untitled Article

  • 

    Untitled Article

  • 

    THE FIGHT WITH THE LORDS.

• 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.

    Untitled Article

    I T is an excellent rule in public discussion to assume the integrity of all parties concerned , and , it is with 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 Palme rston 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 . does not make out for the

    The Report , as presented , any case 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 advice of 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 secbnd 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 may be sa * id to have been practically established . The present foiin . of granting supplies represents them as the . gift of the Commons only ; but , so far from this having been first practically establishe ' 1628 , the' Committee themselves could not , upon consideration , venture to suppress the famous ^ Indemnity" -Act of l 407 , in which " -the very principle xvas asserted riot as something new , but as then : old and thoroughly established . The fact is , the Committee started with a false ^

    pretence when they limited theiif inqutiy to 1628 " and subsequent years , and no one can doubt that the object of such a course was W give as modern an '" aspect as possible to very ancient and time-konoured rights . In the Report , as it was proposed by the Tory chairman , Mr . Walpole , the circumstances wliich led , to the Indemnity of 1407 do not appear , and affixing them in a note of appendix would have much diminished the force of the whole story , and withdrawn attention from the important fact that the Commons had then an historical" ^ ig 1 lt ^^ 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 not 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 Palmerston , Col . W . Patten , Sir W . Heathcote , Mr . Bouverie , Sir H . Cairns , Mr . Bentinck , Mr . Sotiieron Estcouut , Sir J . Graham , Mr . Massey , Sir G . Grey , Sir J . Pakington , 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 us 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 any of the rejected bills the object of repealing " nny 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-tli «' - PttEMXJS » r-Mi :-J 3 ttio . ttT ,... lilr ^ BaU-YElUEr Mr . Collier , Sir G . G key , the Chan pelloR of the Exchequer ,

    vided by the Commons . " In this instance Ihe 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 were again among the honourable minority . Some other instances occurred , with similar results ; arid it is remarkable that Sir James Graham was always wrong-r—Mr . Massey , the pseudo-liberal member for Salford , never right , arid the Attobney-Cxeneral 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 suck 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 have 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 limch 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-infavour of one illegally supported by

    There are no legal arguments in favour of the Peers , but onl y paltry pettifogging quibbles in opposition to the manifest spirit and intention of constitutional law , as shown 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 cotnpromise will be a gross arid scandalous dereliction of duty , arid it is not at all creditable to Lord Palmerresolutions

    ston that he * has laid before the House of Commons of a weak , cowardly ; , and insufficient character , that do riot distinctly raise the question which is in dispute—whether or not the recent conduct of the Peers is an infringement of the pri-! vileges of the House of Commons , an issue which woTild be decided by affirming the motion of Mr . CoIH ^ KTrr- ^ Ycnnrrn 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 honestlymaintained , as they were by the Commons in the time of Henry IV ., and again when the patriotic earnestness of Pym gave u dignity to tho House of Commons it does not now possess . Lord Palmkrston ' S Resolutions are" 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 th e limitation of all such grants , as to the matter , mariner , measure and ti me , 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 exercise of that power b y thorn has not been frequent , and is justly regarded by this House with peculiar jealousy , as affecting the right of the Commons to grant the supplies , and to provide the ways and means for the scrvico of the year . . " 3 . " That to guard for the future ngainst an undue exercise of that power by the Lords , and to secure to the Commons their rightful control over taxation and supply , this Houso lms in its own hands the power so to impose and remit taxes , ancl to frameBiUF of ¦ "Supply ; tlmrTlie Tight of the Commons as to the matter , manner , measure , and time , may bo maintuincu

    inviolate . . ,, Worthy of the man and unworthy of the occasion as thosp resolutions are , they have riot cpnciliated tho Tory ,, opposition . Like all dishonest or half-hearted shuffling , they will lead to greater difficulties than would have awaited a bolder and more manly course . We know what tho Cabinet thinks of the present House of Commons j but the contempt they feel for its weakness

    And Lord John RussELL , but was objected to by the Tory members of the Committee and by Sir J . Ghaham , who constituted the majority of nine against seven . A similar attempt was made by Lord John Russell to obtain ihe insertion of a foot , 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 lfiSO the House of Lords had in any case rejected a bill materially affecting the quantum of ways and menus pro-

    Untitled Article

    JuiiY 7 , I 860 . ] The Saturday Analyst and Leader , 627

    The Fight With The Lords.

    THF , FIGHT WITH THE LORDS .

• Citation
  • Leader (1850-1860), July 7, 1860, page 627, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse-os.kdl.kcl.ac.uk/periodicals/l/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2355/page/3/