Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

Certainly not. And under whatever light the conduct of the Lords is viewed, it is evident that they were actuated by the most injudicious, narrow-minded, and unjustifiable motives; for instead of assenting to one of the most liberal, enlightened, and progressive measures of the session, they checked and obstructed its course in such a manner as proved they were influenced more with a spirit of peevishness than a desire for the true interests of the country. But, with ostensible regard for the financial necessities of the Government (of which they have no official knowledge, as they are never consulted, and, therefore, are not responsible for providing), they resolved to continue the obnoxious tax, without the consent of the House of Commons or the Crown,-nay, in direct opposition to the intention and vote of the Commons, who alone have absolute power to determine the mode and amount of the taxation which shall be imposed upon the people. It will be generally admitted, we believe, that the House of Lords has a constitutional power of rejecting money bills; but has the Commons ever succumbed to that power, and allowed a great tax to be levied without the sanction of their authority? Never, in any instance. The House of Commons has always resumed the consideration of bills thus rejected by the Lords, pronounced anew its own independent decision, and either sent back, for the assent of the Lords, the rejected bill in its original or in some modified form; for it is plain that if the Lords cannot begin a tax, if they cannot increase or abate one, yet if they may prolong a tax, by refusing their assent to its repeal, when the Commons have voted that repeal, and provided a substitute, then the "fundamental and inherent right" of the Commons to an absolute control over taxation and supply is destroyed, and an innovation and encroachment without precedent initiated, which it is the duty of the House of Commons to repel by an immediate and energetic assertion and

vindication of its rights and privileges. -J. M.

Deriving my arguments from the report of the debate in the House of Commons upon this important subject, I have no hesitation in asserting that the House of Lords was not justified in preventing the repeal of the paper duty. The House of Commons alone possesses the right to impose and repeal taxes upon the people, and has on previous occasions successfully resisted the attempted innovations of the Upper House upon its rights in amending money bills passed through it. It is nearly five centuries since the Lords last attempted to usurp the constitutional privileges of the Commons in a manner somewhat resembling the present attempt; and if the talented and noble Chancellor of the Exchequer pursues the course he has declared he will take, then the present unjustifiable and obnoxious interposition of the Lords will be as triumphantly defeated. To conclude, if the Lords were justified in preventing the Commons from repealing or imposing taxes, it would be a complete overthrow of the constitution of the country.-J. C.

The repeal of the paper duty could not but be beneficial to the majority of the British public. The only means of knowledge a working man can command are those of self-education. Self-education can only be gained by books, coupled with observation. The cheaper books are, the wider will be its spread; and cheap books can only be had by taking away the duty from the manufacture of paper. The tax is a tax upon education, and as such its repeal ought not to be hindered; for this reason alone, the Lords are not justified in the course they have taken. In the report of the committee of the House of Commons appointed to investigate the legality of the Lords' proceedings, we find that, although they searched for precedents as far back as the year 1628, there has not been a single instance of the Commons introducing a bill, either for the taxation of the nation or for the repeal

of any tax, which the Lords have opposed, but it has eventually passed in spite of opposition. In 1640, the Lords requested the Commons to confer with them as to granting supplies to the king; but the Commons felt insulted at such a suggestion; they thought it a breach of their privileges, and indignantly refused to confer; and in 1689, the Lords amended a bill as to the duty on tea, coffee, &c., but the Commons refused to agree to their amendment, saying, "That they had always taken it as their undoubted right that in all aids given to the king by the Commons, the Lords ought not in any way to interfere in altering the same." The Commons carried the day.

The Lords sometimes suggested amendments in the seventeenth century, to which the Commons consented, but not to any alteration of a substantial character. The rule generally has been, that when the Lords amend, the Commons either postpone the consideration of the bill, or disagree, and by so doing invite the reconsideration of the Lords; or they lay aside the bill without further notice, and bring in a fresh bill. The same principles apply equally to the repeal as to the imposition of a tax.

The Commons allow no alteration, except as to errors resulting from oversight.-F. S. M.

The recent decision of the House of Lords on the paper duty was neither justified by constitutional usage, nor by a wish, on their part, to save the country from a deficiency of the revenue. It was a virtual defiance of the representatives of the nation-an undue interference with the privileges of the House of Commons. The Lords formed their decision on the possible deficiency of the revenue, and claim for themselves, by their adverse vote, the merit of having saved the country from pecuniary diffi culties. It has been truly said, that they are a "House of Incurables;" every measure, having for its aim the extension of the liberty of the subject, by throwing down the barriers to progress, has received from them the most determined opposition. The jus

tification of an act must, to a great extent, depend on the necessity for it. In the debate in the House of Lords on the paper duty, it never was clearly shown whether the necessities of the revenue warranted them in retaining the tax; while it has been demonstrated, and even admitted by its opponents, that the tax was a disgrace, and ought no longer to limit, by its action, the extension of knowledge among the people. The Commons, in their lukewarinness, have been mainly instrumental in giving the Lords encouragement to take the course they have done. If the House of Commons had done their duty, had they shown one spark of spirit, the Lords would never have attempted the unjustifiable deed. So long as the Lords can get a chance, they will not lose their opportunity of throwing every impediment in the way of justifiable reform, and retarding by every means in their power all measures tending to raise the condition or to improve the intellect of the great mass of the people. No measure embodying those principles but has on each occasion been forced from them by a stormy and almost general agitation. The three great measures of this century, Catholic Emancipation, the Reform Bill, and the Repeal of the Corn Laws, were wrung from them only when the country was standing on the verge of a revolution. They have succeeded in the present case in defeating the best measure of the session; and though the effect of the defeat may be slightly apparent, still it is another proof of the obstructive character and unjustifiable hindrance of the House of Lords in all that tends to our progress, both in a commercial and a political point of view. The breaking down of these privileges, which to a great extent have been usurped by them since the days of barbarism, may not be far distant; the day may soon arrive when the anomaly of a House of Lords, retarding the growth and stifling the life-current of a nation, from a too rigid adherence to the forms and usages of the past, will be numbered with the things that were.

If they wish to preserve their present privileges intact, let them legislate in a large spirit, commensurate with the requirements of the age, and their name will shine to latest posterity, honoured and respected, and the "last of the Barons" will not be extinct till the "crack of doom."-D. R. R.

The jea

The question of privilege that has arisen between the two branches of the legislative body of Great Britain would have produced other consequences, had the reins of government been in other hands than Palmerston's. The examination of the journals of the House of Lords clearly testifies that their act was countenanced by precedent, so far back as the retrospective examination has reached. Although in the constitutional rights of Parliament the lords possess no power to originate measures calculated to impose taxes on the people, yet their veto is clearly recognized on constitutional grounds. lousy with which the Commons have invariably watched over the jurisdiction of the Upper House has been great on all occasions, as manifested by the Committee's report thereon. The Commons have their seats from the people, and they have, in our estimation, the -right to impose, alter, amend, or repeal such acts and statutes as may appear offensive to the people, their constituents, who are the replenishers of the royal treasury, and the authors of England's greatness. But to set aside entirely the baronial jurisdiction would be too flagrant an invasion upon the sacred rights of freedom. The different expression given to sentiment in both houses seems to perplex us to such a degree, that we must confess ourselves `in a dilemma; nevertheless, we will take the course pointed out by our own judgment. Although we award to the Lords the right of veto in bills of this description, yet under such circumstances as attended the one recently rejected, they were not justified in the course they adopted. It must be borne in mind that the bill in question was a portion of the scheme which provides the supply for the year; and a

substitute had been passed by the Lords, consequently the sacrifice of a million and a half of revenue would not have been a dead loss to the Crown. The additional penny in the income-tax had been previously discussed and passed, and the subsequent opposition and defeat of the paper duty repeal bill gave the reproach of inconsistency to the Lords' decision. The governing power of the Lower House is of great consequence to the public, and is founded on constitutional and political bases. But to enter into minute detail would extend the limits of our article beyond the allowed bounds; consequently we must direct the attention of our inquisitive readers to the parliamentary reports, particularly to the oration delivered by the Premier on the 5th of July.

In giving a summary of our synopsis, we will emphatically pronounce against the decision of the House of Lords in arresting the progress of the paper duty repeal bill, and say that such opposition to the measure was not justifiable on political grounds.-S. F. T.

Never was a more practical and important question asked of a self-govern ing nation than the present one. It is impossible to perceive that importance and significance, unless the constitution of the House of Lords is borne in mind. The chief characteristic of that body appears to me to be irresponsi bility. Were they the elected of the people, what earthly objection could there be to their decision being taken upon money bills, as it would be but the voice of the people speaking through its representatives (if elected by a free people)? But the contrary being the case, their interference can only be interpreted to be the vilest of all despotism, which, if persisted in, must produce the rapid destruction of the House of Lords. Legally, they had a right to say no, but constitutionally, or customarily, they possessed not the right, paradoxical as it appears. Such unfortunate anomalies too often come under the notice of a student of the English constitution. The Queen herself can create peers from chimney sweeps; but would not

the Lords themselves inform her erring Majesty that such conduct was unusual and unconstitutional? Again, Her Ma.. jesty has the full power of refusing her assent to all bills sent from either house of legislation; but such conduct would be regarded by her loyal subjects as an innovation and a breach of the constitution. Should the Lords not revise their decision, they will be the tax imposers to the extent of a million and a quarter this year. The House of Commons have repealed the paper duty, and, practically, the non-elective Lords have re-imposed it. What schoolboy is there in England that has not been taught, even by the most conservative of schoolmasters, that the power of imposing taxes was the exclusive right of the Commons? and a reference to the books of our school days will prove that till 1860 such was the universal opinion. But apart from the constitutional view, there were abundant reasons why the paper duty repeal bill should not be rejected. Its universal oppression, its difficulty of collection, its financial unsoundness, its condemnation by the House of Commons (expressed in Milner Gibson's resolution), its injuri ous effects upon beneficial knowledge, were sufficient reasons why such a beneficial measure should become the law of the land. When you remember, that from childhood to old age, man is constantly using the article, you see the desirability of it being free. When we think that every boy, whose neglected education has been caused by its expense, can throw a share of responsibility upon the shoulders of the Governinent, for taxing his instruction and copy books: when we find that a self-governing people have declared their unwillingness to have a gag put upon their intelligence and knowledge: spontaneous and universal must be the verdict, that the House of Lords was not justified in preventing the repeal of the paper duties.-R. B. S.

The committee appointed by the House of Commons to search into precedents have proved beyond doubt that

the House of Lords had no previous precedent to justify their vote against the repeal of the paper duty; and that for the last five hundred years it has been the right of the Commons to control everything relating to the finances of this country, it being one of the fundamental principles on which the constitution of England is founded, that all Englishmen do (through their representatives) tax themselves, holding them responsible for all acts committed in the Commons House of Parliament; for representation and taxation belong to the people, and are inseparable. Lord Chatham says, "The taxes are a voluntary gift and grant of the Commons alone. In legislation the three estates of the realm are alike concerned; but the concurrence of the Peers and the Crown to a tax is only necessary to clothe it with the form of a law." Therefore, the House of Lords, being an irresponsible body, have no right, not so much as to meddle with matters of supply, which properly belong to the Commons, and which Mr. Pym declared in 1640 had been "not shaken by one precedent for 300 years," and this privilege has ever been firmly held by the representatives of the people against any encroachment on this power by the Lords. In times past they have been worthy of the confidence reposed in them, and have made many noble and magnanimous efforts to maintain this principle inviolate. By their vote the Lords committed a breach of the constitutional usage of England, and encroached on the proper functions of the Commons. Shall we, then, allow them in 1860 to make a precedent which, at some future time, will most assuredly be turned to the detriment of this great country, and the true interests of its inhabitants? If so, we prove ourselves unworthy children of great and noble ancestors, who would have sacrificed all things rather than give up this privilege, which is the vital element of our constitution, and, by the law of our land, the just and inherent right of the people.-S. T. W.

144

LITERARY NOTES.

Jules Gerard, the famous lion hunter, whose story acquired such a success lately, has been put at the head of an authorized National Rifle Association in France.

The "Encyclopédie du XIX. Siècle," a record of contemporaneous events, has reached its 55th vol.

M. Horn's " Annuaire International du Crédit Public," containing the statistics of the world in 1859, has just been issued.

Mr. T. D. Hardy, of the Record Office, is preparing a pamphlet on the CollierShakespere question.

The Day is the title of a newly projected liberal conservative London penny paper.

[ocr errors]

The Shakespere Committee of Stratford-on-Avon appeal to the public for aid to relieve them from the liabilities incurred in the restoration, &c., of Shakespere's house, in the belief that Mr. John Shakespere's bequest and annuity would be forthcoming for their liquidation.

The Northumbrian poet, Robert Story, expired on the 7th ult., at Battersea, near London, aged 63.

The late Professor Austin's "Province of Jurisprudence" is to be edited by his widow.

The Ashmolean collection of MSS. has been removed to the Bodleian Library.

Robert Brough, dramatic author, and comic littérateur, died 26th of June, aged 32.

It is

A monument to the memory of James Hogg, the Ettrick Shepherd, was inaugurated by Henry Glassford Bell, Esq., a poet of some repute, and one of the sheriffs of Lanarkshire. situated upon a knoll of ground on the banks" of lone St. Mary's silent Lake," by a roadside which Wordsworth, and Hogg, and Scott traversed in company.

Routledge is to issue a new vol. of "Gerald Massey's Poems."

G. H. Von Schubert, the natural philosopher, and schellingist, died on

July 1st, at Lanfzorn, near Munich, aged 60 He has written an autobiography.

Some Irish scholars are engaged in compiling a Dictionary of the old native Irish language.

The Messrs. Blackwood are just publishing the late Sir William Hamilton's long-expected lectures on Metaphysics, edited by Mansel and Veitch.

Messrs. Fullerton and Co., of Edinburgh, propose to issue by subscription, in a series of eight volumes, the posthumous works of the Rev. Ralph Wardlaw, the late well-known congregational minister, of Glasgow, to be edited by his son, the Rev. J. S. Wardlaw.

"Lectures, chiefly on Subjects relating to the Use and Management of Literary, Scientific, and Mechanics' Institutes," is the interesting title of a work about to be published by Messrs. Bosworth and Harrison.

The Messrs. Longman are on the point of publishing the new and some time expected contribution to the Collier Controversy, "Collier, Coleridge, and Shakespeare: a Review," by the author of "Literary Cookery," who, we need scarcely tell the initiated, is Dr. Ingleby, of Birmingham. The mention of Coleridge in the title, marks the aim of a section of Dr. Ingleby's review.

Mr. John Camden Hotten, of Piccadilly, appears not only as a publisher, but as editor, furnishing an introduction and notes to the first English translation of "The Book of Vagabonds and Beggars, with a Vocabulary of their Language," said to have been "edited by Martin Luther, in the year 1528." Is this latter sentence quite correct? The great Reformer was a voluminous writer, but we never heard before of this somewhat anomalous exercise of his pen.

The scattered metrical effusions of the late lamented Mr. R. B. Brough, are, it is said, to be collected for publication by his friend, Mr. John Hollingshead.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »