A Christian Parliamentarian speaks on Tax Bills, Foreign policy, Peace, and Power of House of Lords.

 

 

Part 3

 

[John Bright]. -That which I complain of in the proceedings of the committee, I also complain of in respect to the manner in which some hon. Members have discussed this question.  Half of the committee appeared to me to go into that committee as much advocates of the House of Lords as of the House of Commons, and I find that some Members of this House are of the same character.

 

Speeches have been delivered here that very few Members of the House of Lords would make on this question, and I will undertake to say that not one member of that House, who is known to the public by his political influence, legal knowledge, high character, or extensive learning, would dare to make a speech that has been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stroud.

 

I went into the committee with the utmost frankness in order That I might ascertain, not altogether in what manner the Lords had asserted their privileges, but what our Predecessors had done with regard to theirs.  We have no right to let go one single particle of the privileges and powers which the House of Commons have gained in past times; [Take notice past and present Members of our House of Commons since 1972.]

And I took for granted that if I examined for some centuries back the course which the House of Commons had pursued- if I read their Resolutions, If I read the reasons adduced at their conferences, If I observed the Acts which they passed, and the result of the discussions between the two Houses- we should be justified in concluding that we have rights to maintain for which our predecessors have contended. [Take note: Mr Blair and your give away team of destroyers of our Constitution.]

 

Now, several Members, following the example of the committee, have taken the House back for a long period of time.  I will not go into those precedents with the view of contending whether they do or do not refer to this particular case; but the House will permit me to mention two or three facts which I brought out of the Journals, and which convinced me that we should not take a sufficiently bold or decided course if we merely agree to the Resolutions of the noble Viscount.

 

I will first refer to that very case which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge and myself fixed upon as the starting-point of our precedents- the precedents of the year 1407; and I Trust every hon. Member has read it, either in the translation, or in the old Norman-French.  It is worth reading, for it is a very curious case, and there is no other so like the recent action of the House of Lords as that which took place 453 years ago; [spoken in the House on July 6, 1860.]  

For the House of Lords then [1407] proposed to continue a tax to which the Commons had not assented, and the House of Commons were greatly disturbed at the House of Lords prolonging a tax which the House of Commons had not given its assent.

 

We have made a great leap, and from the year 1407 came down to the year 1628. We then found the House of Commons insisting upon the initiation of Bills of Supply.  They would not permit the name of the Lords to be inserted in the preamble of a Bill of Supply, neither would they agree to the compromise that neither the Lords nor the Commons should be introduced, but that the High Court of Parliament should be mentioned.

 

The House of Commons refused to pass the Bill in that shape, and submitted that the Commons should be named alone in the grant.  This was done, and that has been the practice ever since in the preamble of Supply Bills.

[If Tony Blair and his Cronies get their way this great Right of our Commons of England first recorded in the year 1407 will come to an end with our financial affairs being directed by the New European Government in Brussels. –Don’t let it happen.]

Then we come to 1640, when the House of Lords were much more modest than they ought to have been, according to the right hon. Gentleman, who maintains that they ought to check, alter amend, improve and if necessary overthrow, all the financial arrangements of the year that this House may agree to.  The Declaration of 1640 set forth that the Lords stated at the Conference that-

 

‘My Lords would not meddle with matters of subsidy, which belong naturally and properly to you [House of Commons] –no, not to give you advice therein, but have utterly declined it.’

Then the House of Lords in 1640, we are asked to suppose, knew nothing of their constitutional rights, and the House of Commons of that day were less able than at present to judge of what is necessary for the performance of their proper functions in the State, and for the liberties of those whom they represent. Mr Pym told their Lordships that they had not only meddled with matters of Supply, but that they had

 

‘Both concluded the matter and order of proceedings, which the House of Commons takes to be a breach of their privilege, for which I was commanded to desire reparations from your Lordships.’

 

The Lords made reparation by declaring that they did not know they were breaking a right of the Commons in merely suggesting that Supply should have precedence over the consideration of grievances.  I am not sure that even now, not withstanding what has been said, the House of Lords have ever admitted by any Resolution that they have not power to originate Supplies.

 

They have not the power of course, to carry such a Bill, because if it came to this House it would fall down dead, unless that unhappy time should come when the theories of the right hon. Gentleman the member for Stroud are carried out.

 

Click Here for Part 4