Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

The Topic.

WAS THE HOUSE OF LORDS JUSTIFIED IN PREVENTING THE REPEAL OF THE PAPER DUTY?

AFFIRMATIVE.

The chief powers vested in the House of Commons are those of imposing taxes and voting money for the public service. Bills for these purposes can only originate in that house, and the Lords may not make any alterations in them, but they have the undoubted right of veto by that ancient and fundamental clause in our constitution which ordains that nothing shall become law unless it first has the sanction of the three estates of the realm. And the popular twaddle recently got up about the aggression of the Lords (?) is so much ignorant nonsense, for why send a Bill up at all, if the Lords had not the power to reject it?-RHOS.

The unseemly wrangle now agitating the country is merely a party dodge. The Cabinet receives a very justifiable snub, and immediately the outsiders set up a clamour that we are no longer taxed by our representatives in the Commons, but by those hereditary noodles, the Lords. This is simply absurd. How stands the case? A tax exists on paper. An inglorious but too clever budgetmonger says, "I'll have it off." The Lords say, "Don't be in a hurry, we'll see if we can spare it;" and the result is, they reject the Bill for its repeal. They don't thereby impose a fresh tax upon the people, but only withhold their consent from a Bill which seeks to release the people from a light and equitable tax, which has hitherto been paid without a murmur.-A.

Mr. Editor,-I appeal to you to defend the Lords on this question, because of the analogous position which they hold to your own as editor of this Magazine. An article is sent to you; you think it will not answer, and reject

it. A bill is sent to the Lords, and for the same reason they do likewise. Would any right-minded man attempt to get up a scandalous agitation amongst the contributors against the editor? I am happy to say, they all know better. And I maintain that the only point of difference in my analogy consists in the fact, that you have the power to alter or amend an article, which the Lords have not. I trust, therefore, you will not place a "thorn in your editorial cushion" by subscribing to any such revolutionary nonsense under the guise of popular reform.-U. V.

Much after-dinner claptrap has lately been volunteered by used up anti-rifle corps ranters, who, forsooth, imagine they will intimidate the tyrannical Lords, and themselves repeal the paper duty. A very Bright idea, truly. Let all such remember-before they quote the men who delivered our country from the second Stuart-that a tyrannical House of Commons is not altogether unheard of in history, and that any attempt to knock up the House of Lords must fail, so long as they act in a constitutional manner. Such men dishonour the constitution they affect to defend, and would make it out that the House of Lords is a gigantic bugbear, having certainly "a local habitation and a name," but as to power, powerless.— TOWYN.

In the opinion of superficial observers, the House of Lords has lately, by its repeal of the paper duty, placed itself in rather an anomalous position; but, if we consider the case more attentively, we shall find that it has acted not only constitutionally, but (perhaps unwittingly) with great foresight. It has acted constitutionally, in so far as it is

convened for the very purpose of approving or passing its veto upon any bill which may have received the sanction of the Commons; and if it generally allows bills approved by the Commons to pass, it is not thereby debarred from exercising its prerogative.

We are told by the agitators for the repeal that this is a tax upon knowledge, and, therefore, ought at once to be abolished; and we are treated to a large amount of statistical information, which goes principally to prove that Government derives a considerable portion of the public revenue through this tax. Now, even if this tax were so grievous to be borne, is this the time to diminish the revenue, when our expenditure is very great, and is daily increasing? But do we in reality feel this tax to be a burden? The public, at least, we think, may answer that it is not, and would much rather continue to buy its books at the present low prices, than submit to the infliction of an increased income-tax.-TOUJOURS PRET.

Any bill to become law must receive the sanction of the three estates of the realm, "the Commons, the Lords, and the Crown," and each of these have the power to refuse their assent to any bill whatsoever; it being one of the laws of our constitution that there is no power in this country without check or control. Although the Lords have not the right to originate or amend money bills, yet they have the power to reject them. It was in accordance with this law that they refused to repeal the paper duty; and if in their opinion the present was an unsuitable time for taking off that duty, they were perfectly justified in not giving such a bill their sanction.ARISTOCRAT.

The House of Lords have the power to reject money bills, though powerless to originate or even amend them. If not, why send them up to receive their lordships' assent? Do they not form part of the constitution? and is not their sanction necessary before any bill can become law? Therefore, with

holding it is not a breach of constitutional usage; and in the face of a large deficit in the revenue this year, they very properly refused their assent to repeal the paper duty. Forming as they do the Upper House of Legislation, and acting as a check on the Commons, they only exercised a right which they possessed, by the course they took on this question.-TRUE BLUE.

Little, very little is required by the mere partisan debater to enable him to vindicate his own party, and vilify all who oppose it; one plausible argument, a single fact, which, when isolated presents an imposing appearance, is sufficient for the construction of a defence eked out by means of flashy rhetoric, and frothy declamation. Thus every demagogue, great or small, whether addressing the honourable members of St. Stephen's, or haranguing some illustrious coterie of St. Giles', points with an air of triumph to the fact that it is the undoubted and sole right of the Commons to grant all supplies and regulate the purposes to which they must be applied; and then, shutting his eyes to the fact, equally undoubted and wellknown, that the Peers possess the power of assenting to or rejecting every bill submitted to them, denounces them, for simply exercising this right, as gigantic innovators, underminers of the constitution, and invaders of the people's liberty. Yet, we make bold to say, that if an aggressive spirit has been exhibited by either House, it has been by the Lower one. Fusty, musty records, extending for centuries back, have been over hauled and scrutinized, that some precedent might be discovered which should establish its supremacy in financial matters, and declare its power to dictate to the Lords; but nowhere could such precedent be found; everywhere did the same rebuke meet those who wished to overstep their bounds, "thus far and no further." On the principles we have mentioned, the defence of each house respectively rests. They appear to clash, and may cause some to suspend

judgment on the question, but a little reflection will dispel any doubts that exist regarding the propriety of the Lords possessing such a privilege.

Though the history of the House of Commons does not illustrate the truth of the adage, that knowledge is power, it certainly affords a strong proof of the potency of wealth. The necessities of the first Edward gave to it its present form, and the requirements of succeed. ing monarchs confirmed and extended its rights. Its influence being thus entirely attributable to the power it possessed over supplies, it was only in keeping with what may be termed constitutional practice that it should have afterwards secured to itself the right of originating all money bills; by this means it could not be coerced into conceding grants, if it respected and adhered to its privileges; and though the King and Lords united in passing a money bill, when it came to the Commons it was rejected, on the simple ground that it did not begin with themselves. Their power was thus effectually secured, without giving to them an undue influence in the State; and their privilege, so far from being anomalous or singular, as some people think, corresponds to the power belonging to the Upper House, that bills affecting the rights of the peerage must originate in the Lords, and cannot be altered by the Commons. Again, every one who regards the constitution of this country must be struck by the system of checks pervading it; maintaining a perfect equilibrium throughout the varied and complex machinery; rendering every single part dependent upon some other; and restraining all from the abusive exercise of the powers entrusted to them. Grant, however, to the Commons the right of levying taxes by their own vote exclusively, or compel the Lords to give an unvarying assent to all money bills submitted to them, and you destroy this harmonious order, rendering the Lower House not one of three equal estates, but the dictatorate of the country. The first object of a

VOL. IV.

[ocr errors]

ministry would be to conciliate them, knowing that, possessed of their favour, the second estate of the realm might be ignored. The executive then could levy war, and the Commons raise the needful supplies, despite the utmost effort of the Lords to the contrary. As it is, the constitutional aspect of this question we have treated as far as space permits, but it must be remembered that the desirability of the repeal of the paper duty is acknowledged on all sides, though its opportuneness is at present open to doubt.-OLIVIER.

The mere question of the repeal of the paper duty becomes one of minor importance when compared with the vital principle involved in its rejection by the House of Lords, namely, the power of that house to reject money bills. Their constitutional power to reject such bills was so conclusively established by the venerable Lord Lyndhurst, in his memorable speech during the important debate on the second reading of the bill, by the long list of precedents he brought forward, extending over a period of 200 years, and embracing all kinds of money bills, some for the repeal of excise duties, and others for imposing fresh taxes, that it would be presumptuous on my part to attempt to add anything to his conclusive arguments; suffice it to say, that shortly after the bill was rejected by the House of Lords, a committee was appointed to examine the journals of the House of Lords for precedents where money bills had been rejected by that house. That committee has completed its labours, and drawn up and presented its report, which confirms the opinion of the noble Lord just mentioned, and acknowledges the power of the House of Lords to reject money bills. That the House of Lords has not the power to originate or alter a money bill is distinctly stated in a resolution passed in the House of Commons in 1678; but at the same time it also acknowledges that they have the power to reject a money bill, as will be seen from the latter part of the last

L

clause.-"That as kings and queens must receive all or leave all such aids, gifts, or grants, so must the House of Lords reject all or pass all." The mere fact of sending the bill up to the House of Lords to obtain their sanction, indirectly confirms their power to reject it. If they are compelled to pass all kinds of money bills in obedience to the command of the Commons, they no longer remain an independent and responsible branch of the constitution, but mere dependents on the Lower House to sanction and approve its policy, and carry out its whims and fancies, which would for ever destroy that independent action and wholesome check which both houses, according to the constitution, are empowered to exercise over the transactions of each other. But our opponents tell us that the exercise of this power by the House of Lords would be indirectly imposing a tax on the people, independent of the consent of the House of Commons: such an inference is unwarrantable and erroneous, as the tax in question was originally imposed by the Lower House, and the only question involved in its rejection of the bill for its repeal by the House of Lords is the time when it will be expedient and politic to abolish it. If, as our opponents affirm, the rejection of this bill by the House of Lords is virtually taxing the people, then by the same parity of reasoning the passing of it would have been to remit taxation. The fallacy of such reasoning must be apparent to all. Having proved that the House of Lords has the constitutional right to reject this bill, the question naturally arises,-did they, in the exercise of that power, act prudently and judiciously? After calm deliberation of the whole of the circumstances, we must confess we think they did. It will be remembered that the bill was not opposed because the repeal was not desirable that was readily acknowledged, but because it was premature. Mr. Gladstone, in repealing it, would have us believe he was acting on the great principles of the financial policy of

Sir Robert Peel (nothing could be more erroneous). When Sir R. Peel reduced taxation, it was upon articles the lowering of the price of which tended greatly to increase their consumption, so that the burden of taxation might press less heavily on the toiling masses of this country, without impoverishing the exchequer ; and when he repealed taxation, it was when he had a surplus to dispose of and not a deficit to meet. The income-tax was this year to be reduced, if not abolished; and the war duties on tea and sugar were to be taken off; but the sacred promises given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer have been broken, to enable him to repeal the tax on paper, which, we are told, is burdensome and oppressive; and so, no doubt, are all taxes, according to those who have to pay them. -PEN AND INK.

NEGATIVE.

I maintain that the House of Lords has overstepped proper bounds in the course it has pursued. The resolutions passed by the House of Commons on Friday evening, 6th July, can, I think, be regarded as nothing more than patching up the dispute for the sake of peace. I dissent from the views of Mr. Bright upon most parliamentary matters; still, we can occasionally catch a thought worth noticing from the sayings of those with whom we usually disagree. On the present topic I have done so, by adopting a sentiment expressed by Mr. Bright, in his speech in the House of Commons, on the evening referred to. “Above all (he observes), I implore the House never to abate one jot or tittle of their just privileges, whether assailed by the House of Lords, or any other power; ever bearing in mind that the maintenance of those privileges is the best and only safeguard for the liberties of the nation." England's glory, and England's happiness, consists in the fact that we have a House of Lords and a House of Commons. It would be the downfall of our glory if the House of Lords ceased to exist. Both have rights

and privileges which must be watched and maintained; and one house must not intrude upon the other.-TNEJBOR.

The desirability of repealing the paper duty even the Lords themselves will admit. They allege, however, that the present state of the exchequer will not permit it: but how can that be? The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in order to meet the deficiency caused by its repeal, levied an extra income-tax. Their only ground, therefore, is their very questionable right to continue a tax in defiance of the representatives of the people, and so take u pon themselves the responsibility of taxing the nation. -J. S. F.

It is, we think, the duty of our legislators to do all in their power to promote the welfare of the nation, socially and morally, by removing all obstacles to free trade. It is their duty, also, to encourage the progress of a healthy literature, unfettered and unbound, which will do more to promote the moral welfare of the people than years of legislation. This duty, we think, the House of Lords has disregarded, in preventing the repeal of the paper duty; and our reasons are manifold. In the first place, leaving literature for the moment out of the question, the tax hinders trade, and prevents the growth of a manufacture which would give remunerative employment to thousands. Everything of a fibrous nature, we are told, might and would be used in the manufacture of paper, if it were not for the obstructions placed upon it by law; and it appears, from a statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that there are sixty-nine trades into which paper enters largely as an article of manufacture.

To encourage this manufacture, the duty should have been repealed. But again, it appears that the tax operates in an oppressive manner upon the publications read by the middle and

lower classes particularly. "The paper duty," says the Chancellor, "is not only bad in its effects, but it is untenable." It is bad in its effects, by preventing trade, and encumbering the

circulation of our bibles, tracts, periodicals, newspapers, &c. Its repeal would be a great stimulus to the spread of gospel truth, and to the dissemination of cheap, wholesome literature among the working classes. For the same reason, it is untenable. It has been urged, that the repeal of the taxes on knowledge would entail a loss to the revenue of £1,000,000 per annum; but, granting this, are there are no other commodities that might be taxed, to make up the deficiency ?-J. S.

The House of Lords can no more be justified in refusing to repeal the paper duty, than can Louis Napoleon be justified in occupying Rome with French troops, against the general wish of its inhabitants. The second estate of the country has degenerated into a mere sham; the day of its greatness is past. Of far greater moment to them is the triumph of party, or the perpetuation of the obsolete rights of their order, than cheap paper and the blessings of extended commerce. It is only by obstructive acts that the country is favoured with their legislation at all. In general, the spirit of their deliberation partakes more of the middle ages, when peers were everything, and the people their slaves and ser vants, than of the enlightenment of the nineteenth century. The extorting of Magna Charta from King John by the ancestors of our present House of Lords has been extolled as a measure conferring and recognizing the rights and liberties of the people; but it was for their ain haun they fought," while the mass of the people were as little cared for as the cattle they herded. If any act of theirs can be justified, it must be on the ground of self-interest; their last crowning one, in relation to the paper duty, must stand in the same category.-M. W.

46

Justified in taxing the means of education, restricting the diffusion of knowledge and intelligence, and continuing a restrictive and depressing impost, which weighs heavily upon many branches of trade and manufacture?

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »