• ruuturial.
The Council of the Lancashire Reformers' Union held a meeting at Manchester on Tuesday to discuss the constitutional question raised by the House of Lords. Mr. Bright, present, by chance, as he stated, made a long speech, expressive of the very decisive views he holds :—
"It is not a question of Parliamentary reform, because when we talk of Parliamentary reform, we are proposing to extend the liberties of the coun- try; but at this moment we are not asking that the frontiers of the ancient realm of English freedom should be pushed forward, but we are driven to the most unusual proceeding of making a fight for liberties which our fathers gained, and which we in our simplicity thought so firmly esta- blished, that nobody in the country would for a single moment threaten to assail them. (Cheers.) It has been said with great truth that from our childhood, as soon as we know anything of English history and English constitutional maxims, we associate representation and taxation in our minds, and in fact are taught that they are inseparably and indissolubly con- nected. That is quite true ; for the House of Commons, I believe, has its origin, almost, if not entirely, in the necessity of some provision for the service of the State ; and its objects and functions were not so much originally, to make laws as to provide aids and supplies for the service of the Crown. If the Crown were to attempt to maintain a tax, probably, every- body would ask whether that was constitutional, and everybody would an- swer that it certainly was not ; because most people would recollect that about 200 years ago *monarch of thieeo un try came to a very unpleasant end, for the simplereason (for that was theorigin of the dispute) that heproposed to levy taxation withouttheconsentofParliament. Wehavenothad,atanytimethatI can remember, a sovereign in this emmtry who has undertaken to veto or reject
any Act of Parliamenteither imposing or remitting taxes; if any such step
were taken now by the Crown we should all know exactly to think of it, what to say about it, and many people would be considering what they ought to do with it. ("Hear," and laughter.) The Crown, as we all know, has exactly the same legal and technical right of vetoing and rejecting a Bill as the House of Lords has ; and it is no more clear the House of Lords could reject this bill which is now so much discussed than it is clear that, if the Crown chose to run the risk of doing it no technical or legal objection could be made to it. But we feel that to be subject to a taxation by a Sovereign would be little better than tyranny, and if we come to consider what it would be to be taxed by 400 gentlemen, sitting by hereditary right in their chamber, we shall find that it is not only a tyranny but a humiliation much greater, and a danger much greater also, than it would be to be taxed by the Sovereign, because a Sovereign levying taxes is one and indivisible, and the responsibility rests with him alone ; but if 400 men representing 400 families throughout the country have the power of taxing, the responet- bility is divided among all of them, and they dare to do things collectively which not one of them, nor any Sovereign who has existed in later times, would dare to do with the taxation of the people. (Cheers.) . . . . The Lords have never been consulted on questions of supply. I suppose that men exhibit rashness generally in things with which they are least accus- tomed to deal, and in this case the Lords have done the most perilous of ac- tions which has been committed for a very long period, precisely in that line' or in that department where their ignorance is not only most obvious but most secured, because they have no means officially of knowing anything about the matter upon which they are taking so serious a step. We have been told that the Queen in her Speeoh says nothing to the House of Lords about supplies, but addresses the House of Commous ; and to the same gen- tlemen, at the end of the session, she expresses her gratitude—and it cannot be too much for the supplies which have been granted. The estimates are presented to the House of Commons only, and the House spends a great many nights every session, often most fruitlessly, in considering and pretend- ing to check them. But there is more than that. The House of Lords fre- quently sends down to the Commons for copies of reports, evidence, des- patches, and various other papers which have been laid before the Commons and which somebody in the Lords has moved for, and wishes to have pre- sented to that House. These things are always, of course sent up for the benefit of the Members of the House of Lords. But it furs several times happened that the Lords have sent down for copies of the estimates ; yet I believe there is no instance on record in which the House of Commons has ever consented, by its authority, to send, to the House of Lords an paper or document in the shape of an estimate The mode, I believe, in which the most able lawyers would state the case is this :—That the House of Commons has the sole right of granting to the Crown what the Crown re- quires. If there was an inex,haustible chest under the floor of the House, from which money could be drawn and handed to the Crown, without the necessity of an Act of Parliament taking it from the people, the House of Commons could vote that money and hand it to the Crown ; but the reason why a bill goes up to the Lords is, that you want what is called statutory machinery to establish the mode by which the sums granted by the Com- mons can be raised from the people. But the soul of the matter is in the grant of the Commons. No other power than the Commons can grant ; no other power than the Crown can accept or apply ; and the Lords, being one of the three estates of the realm, give their assent to the machinery pro- vided in the various clauses for the purpose of raising the necessary funds. In the The case, the whole of this principle is entirely overturned. . . . . The Lords have, to my mind, enacted something like a fraud upon the House of Commons and upon the country, because the House of Com- mons passed two bills—one for the increase of a tax not generally con- sidered a pleasant one—the Income-tax; and the other abolishing a tax which was most odious—the Paper-duty. . . . . I am one of those who be- lieve that nothing has been said or done so hostile to the future permanence of the House of Lords as it now exists as that which was done the other night by Lord Derby and hiafriends. (Cheers.) Majorities have great in- fluence; and you might influence a man of either of these classes, and find that during the next session he had done something to carry out your views. But, if this new plan be adopted, you will have another body who are almost as far removed from you as if they were in another planet. (Laughter.) You cannot get at them. They don't come upon hustings ; they don't care whether the newspaper of a town writes for or against them —it will not affect their election. (Laughter.) They soap their fingers at your public meetings and demonstrations of opinion upon these subjects ; they walk into their House by hereditary right; and being there, they vote as they have voted now, anything they please, without reference to the opinions even of the Home of Commons' or the country itself, and checked only by this, which has checked every tyranny that ever existed—a con- sciousness of danger to its own existence. (Cheers.) Bear in mind that, if the Cabinet finds the House of Commons ever unreasonable, and that it will not pass measures which the Cabinet thinks necessary for the country, and sometimes which even the country itself might think necessary, the Ca- binet and the Crown have this remedy—they can dissolve the House of Commons and send its members back to have every man his opinion tested with the opinions agitated by the constituency to whom he has to appeal. But there is no dissolution for the House of Lords. (A Toice—" .There's one coming.") Ifs peer dies, there is no measurable instant of time between the death of him who dies today and hirn who votes tomorrow. The spirit does not pass from the body into space with greater rapidity, or with a more unseen motion than pa pear passes the legislative power from the dead pr to the living one. The only things that do not die are the prejudices, the alarms, the self-interests, the determination tc, combine for the interest of their body, which necessarily, in all countries and in all ages, have acted upon irresponsible powers like that which our House of Lords is now assuming to become. Not alone is there no dissolution for the Mouse of Lords. Swamp- ing it with new peers—if the Crown should ever be unwise enough, or reso- lute enough to do it—is only adding to the disease, because the commoner of todaywho rises a peer tomorrow morning, immutably becomes infected with.all'those sentiments which are inseparable from a privileged body like this, and being inseparable ftom it, require to be guarded by an elective House, and especially to be guarded by a vigilant and resolute people. Henceforth, you can have no reduction of expenditure, no change or re- moval of taxes, no adjustment of burdens, but by the pleasure of the House of Lords. Bear in mind, further, that in that House men vote who are a thousand miles away—men have voted, their proxies have been used, when they themselves have ceased to live; and, what is more, that in that House, I believe, three members form a quorum, so that if the Lord Chancellor be on the woolsack, and Lord A moves anything, and Lord B seconds it, it is put to the vote, and declared that the "Ayes" have it ; or if the question be the repeal of a tax, that the 'Noes' have it. It is a question worth asking, whether we. are . to submit to this new order of things. The House of Commons is composed at this moment of two parties very equally divided ; but the minority is in partnership with the majority in the House of Lords. Now, without any special hostility on the part of many of thorn to the repeal of the -Excise duty on paper, they were, of course, glad to worry the Government, especially glad to worry the • Chancellor of the Exchequer, and to damage a Government Which- they do not for the moment absolutely expect to supplant. The House being divided in that manner, you observe, further, that a number of 'men on our side, and who are generally considered of the Whig party, have also voted with the minority. They made that minority large, and our majority smaller ; and they gave some confidence to their confederates in the House of Lords in the course they were taking. This being the state of things, a large party in the House of Commons, although doubtful as to the wisdom of the course taken by the Lords, still are not anxious to step forward likeour forefathers would have done, and protest against this gross assumption of power ; but still I believe—I speak merely from observations made in the House—that many men on the other side disapprove of what has been done, and will support the Government in any course which may be deemed requisite for the restoration- and consolidation—for restoration would be eonsolidaticn—of the power which the House of Commons has hitherto possessed. The Government, I presume—like all other Govern- ments—contains some men more zealous and anxioas about matters of this kind, and some men who wish things. to -go smoothly in their time,—' give us peace in our time,'—and desire that .nothing should come in and break up the beautiful combination under which -theyfulfil their duties as
her Majesty's Ministers. At the same :tim ' e, I believe that the Govern-
ment are fairly willing and anxious to contestthis grist question. I won't say if they receive, but receiving, the support which they deserve to receive from the people. Observing his conduet, during eession, I undertake to say that there never has been a time—and I don't exclude the year 1846—when the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer has been held, or when its duties have been performed, ender a greater sense of what is due from it to a great people whose interests- are in its charge. All the measures of the Chan- cellor of the Ekehequer have been with reference to the great industrial interests of the country, and I believe tend most eseentially to give power to the people and power to the Government of the country, because vast re- sources among the people . and abundant wealth at the disposal of the Go- vernment, all these- are sources- of power which I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer has done nothing to impair eluting the present session. . . . . The history or 1860 will be written- by somebody to conic ; and what darker, what more pitiable page could there be in that history that that we should the names of the present Cabinet.—from Lord Palmerston, the oldest statesman, down to out friends Charles Villiers and Milner Gibson, who are the last admitted—set down as those of a Cabinet who held office under the reign of Queen Victoria, and resigned 'without a struggle into the hands of the House of Lords the right which our forefathers had contended for even to the sacrifice of their lives, and which they :believed to be, and truly be- lieved to be, the very foundation of the liberties of the people of England? (loud cheers). Our taxes are drawn frontthe capital of the country, from the skill of its population, from the toil of all those who work, as no other people in the world perhaps do work; mid I say that we shall have reason for ever to be ashamed of ourselves.—that our children- will have to be ashamed that they came from: us—if we do not new resiet every attempt to take from the House of Common that which- the Constitution has given to them, and which ve find to be easential to our security and our freedom— namely, the absolute, the irreversible and uncontrolled management of the taxation and the finances of thiergretandkingdom." (Loud cheers.) Committees, it was stated at the Meeting, have been formed in several towns to consider this -question Alpert from all others, and Mr. Bright suggested that Manchester should ollow the same course.
. . On Vecineasday Mr. Bright attended a Town meeting at Birminghinn. The 'principal business of the meeting, , hpwever, was to pass resolutions touching the Reform Bill, and not to hear Mr. Bright spea.k. Never- theless he drew a large house. .The Mayor presided; the chief speakers were Alderman Baldwin, Alderman Hawkes, and Mr. Lord. The reso- lutions adopted were these-- " That, inasmuch as the Government Reform Bill will considerably ex- tend the privileges of voting among the working classes, this meeting, while asserting the right to a more comprehensive measure, and especially re- gretting that it does not provide a lodger franchise is of opinion that the bill is entitled to the candid support of all friends of Parliamentary reform. "That this meeting, having observed' with apprehension and disappoint-
ment, the various obstacles raised by some nominal supporters, as well as by avowed opponents to hinder the-progress of the Reform Bill in order to in- sure its defeat, earnestly urges upon Parliament to proceed with the same with all possible despatch, "That this meeting records its emphatic, protest against the disparaging
terms employed withreference to the industrial population by Members of both Houses of Parliament in the course of the recent debates on the Re- form Bill, i and this meeting declares thaksuch aspersions are in the highest degree unjust and Undeserved, and demand the severest condemnation." The meeting also declared its confidene,e hi Mr. Scholefield and Mr. Bright, and denounced all persons who assail the latter gentleman. Mr. Bright, in his speech, treated of the Refbrm Bill and the Budget, both of which he supported, and of the vote of the Lords and the conduct of the Mines; both of which he denounced in Unmeasured terms.
Mr. Leathern, brother-in-law of Mr. Bright, has thought proper to give notice to the public through the Times, that though be is a brother-in-law of Mr. Bright, he has never professed to hold Mr. Bright's opinions.
Samuel Dudeney, a small farmer, near Brighton, fell into difficulties. His wife became insane, her father-in-law, the landlord of his house, pro- ceeded against him for arrears of rent, 50/., and it was arranged what he should seize in satisfaction, the cows from the farm among other things. Dudeney was to give up the cottage and retire to another, the rent of which, Wells, the father-in-law, promised to pay as long as his daughter lived. But, when Wells and Rowland a neighbour, went to drive off the cows, Dudeney shot Rowland dead, and afterwards tried to kill himself by hanging. He was cut down, and arrested.
A Mr. Fowler died at Chatham from the effects of an overdose of opium, as it seemed, and a sort of charge of poisoning through negligence was pre- leered against his medical attendant, Dr. Burton. Before a coroner's jury, however, the real facts came out. Mr. Fowler was suffering from rheuma- tic fever, and Dr. Burton gave him small doses of opium, less than ordinary doses, to relieve him of pain. But the opium accumulated in his system, and lie died. The medical testimony gave great credit to Dr. Burton, and the jury returned a verdict endorsing that testimony. Mr. Fowlers funeral was attended, says the Chatham News, by the local companies of Volun'emv.
Previous page
