A Christian Parliamentarian speaks on Tax Bills, Foreign
policy, Peace, and Power of House of Lords.
Part 1
Tax Bills and Power of the House of Lords
A Speech
By
Parliamentarian John Bright
Town Hall, Birmingham
Oct 29,1858.
[One
would consider John Bright as the 19th century John
Hampden (1594 –1643) the similarity between two great men is clear for all to see who admire Integrity and
Honest dealing in Politics.]
Mr
Gladstone’s Budget of 1860 provided for the repeal of the Paper-duty. The House
of Lords rejected this portion of the Budget. Subsequently, a Committee of the
House of Lords was appointed to inquire for precedents as to the power of the
Lords to deal with Money Bills. Mr
Bright served on that Committee, and drew up a report. The following speech was spoken on the
Resolutions, which were submitted to the House in pursuance of the report
ultimately adopted by the Committee.
[The
following speeches will illustrate that in all ages there are those Members who
faithfully guard and adhere to the well fought for Usages Tradition and Custom
of the House]
‘I cannot help being struck with an inconsistency in the
right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Horsman) who has just resumed his seat. I am surprised that he has not concluded by
moving that certain words in the first Resolution should be omitted, and in
point of fact that the declaration which the House is about to make should be
reversed.
That would be in accordance with the speech if the right
hon. Gentleman, and with the sentiments which many Members opposite have most
vociferously cheered.
I confess I do not know what a number of hon. Gentleman
opposite thought of the statements of the right hon. Gentleman about the
headlong, precipitate, and reckless Budget of the Chancellor of the Exchequer [Gladstone],
because I think there were some fifty of them who were more enthusiastic
supporters of that Budget than a great number of the Members on this side of
the House.
I shall not follow the right hon. Gentleman in his
endeavours to support his theories with regard to the extreme value of the
House of Lords, nor shall I attempt to controvert them, because in reality,
that is not the question which is before the House.
But, if the House will permit me, I will endeavour to keep
as close to the question as I can, and I will state the grounds on which I am
satisfied with the course which this House is invited to take.
I will not attack The Resolutions of the noble Lord, and I
will not defend them, for I am not responsible for them. They appear to me unworthy of the occasion,
posterity will hardly fail to pronounce them the Resolutions of a somewhat
degenerate House of Commons.
That first Resolution is a very good one, but it is very
old. It is none the worse for that; and
I am glad the noble Viscount [Palmerston] did not think it necessary to
endeavour to amend it.
The other two Resolutions are, to my mind somewhat
ambiguous and feeble, and are not in their expression of what I believe is
constitutional usage, any more than as examples of composition in the English
language, to be compared to the first and oldest.
Last night we has two speeches from that side of the House
after a long silence-speeches which, I confess, I heard with some surprise and
with some pain. They appeared to me
marked-to use a favourite phrase of the right hon. Gentleman below me- by great
recklessness, and, if I may say so speak, with great levity.
Whatever may be the opinion of hon. Members on this
question, it is not one to be treated in that manner. It
is a serious question- whether the powers of this House have been infringed or
not, and shall hereafter exercise powers which it has never heretofore
exercised.
I
confess I was compelled to think of the truth we learn from history, that there
is no greater sign of the decadence of a people than when we find the leaders
of parties and eminent statesmen treating great questions as If they were not great and
solemn realities as if they were not real at all.
[Has
this not been true over the past 40 years in our House of Commons and when we
remind ourselves of the attempt of the Executive to remove Trial by Jury and
the thousand-year office of Lord Chancellor of England. All so that we can more
closely adhere to the Continental system of ‘Guilty until proved Innocent’]
Click
Here for Part 2