RIGHTS OF COMMONS

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 624, 29 September 1909, Page 7

RIGHTS OF COMMONS

" » — CASE FOR THE LORDS. ! PEOPLE'S RIGHTS STILL HIGHER. • A GREATER EVIL. (By Telegraph.—Prcaj ABaoclnlton.— Cooyrlcht.l London, September 27. •"The Times," in an article.dealing with the constitutional rights of tho House of Lords with regard to tho Budget,, says:— "Far morb important than tho privileges of a changing Houso of Commons aro tho privileges of the nation at large.. These aro of such supretno importance that even an error'in the direotion of safeguarding the Commons' 'privileges is venial "ih comparison with an error in the^'.direction of failing to protect' the nation's rights. Tho issuo is thus widely different from that, proclaimed by tho Government.'' POWERS OF THE LORDS. It; is not yet clear . whether tho - Unioiist majority in the House of Lords will adopt the recently-advocatcd postponement, plan, and simply hold up Finonco' Bill till th 6_ Go-' vernment has secured, a ne*j popular mandate. This would force.a general election,' for which Mr. Chamberlain has appealed.. Tho other powers of tho Lords, in tho. direction of (1) amending, or (2) rejecting a 'money Bill,- aro tho subject of .tho following remarks in'tho "Daily Mnil"i— "Tacking." In the abstract the Lords have no right t'o amend a Financo Bill puro and simple. But they appear to : have' a; right; so, to deal with Bills whioh aro open to tho ohargo of "tacking,". ''Taekiiig" is tho technical term'anplled when Some, proposal which is not strictly'finam cinl is introduced into a Finance Bill. .It is expressly forbidden by a resolution : of. tne lords, passed in -1702, to. tho' effect that "tho annexing ■ any. olauso or clauses to a Bill of Snpply. tlia matter of which is foreign to and. dlftoretit from the mattoT of the saiu Bills.of old or supply, is unparliamentary and tends to .tho destruotiqti. oftho constitution of tho Government." : , '.. • In the eaSo of the present Budget tho land clauses ore not -required-for .financial reasons, and aro really alien-to tho Finance Bill, whilo tho provisions destroying, tho, subjects' right of .'appeal ■to tho. common law, and setting up a ~bureancracy:;of "referees," appointed by the Treasury, to do tho work of inures, are not required for, any financial' reason,'and are an infringement' of Majjua Cliartn. .' Tho clauses dealing with :tho licensed, trade are financial, but; they aro-open to all : tho objections urged against tho'Licensing Bill in that they are revengeful, punitive, partisan, unjust. Amending. : In tho past the Lords h.ivo generally dealt with". "taclcing"' by' rejecting' without amendment any Bill in whioh .it was a feature. But this. does. not deprive them of the right of amendment,, prnVided. that-.thcy,.wish to exerit. In support, of .this statement 110 lcjs a witness than Mr. Gladstone can ho produced. . Though .his Sympathies.' were.., qll . with.', tho Commons, ho said in ISGI:— . It is said on all hands, that' tho Houso of Lords do not claim the' power of[ amendment, That is commonly-stated, but., is not literally true. Tllo'Houso Of Lords has never given this upland I must say I.think they are perfectly in declining to record against themselves this limitation ot their privileges, because cases might arise in which,' from the illegitimate in..corporation of eleinents not finahoiarif;?o finan'cial measures; 'it: njight, ; bo Wise and: just, to Wl back on an assertion of the whole breadth of their priv.'legis.' .. ' . 1' ■ ,:■ > v .Littlo. doubt ;', dan .be: entertained'', that the present.l'manea Bill invoH-es:,"the iliogitiniato incorporation, of '.not finiinoial'-into financial measures,!'- arid, therefore,' on Mr. Gladstones view, the Lords , have the right to ateort tho, .whole • breadth of ' their privi* legos' and to. amend' tlio Dili; • \ /■" •: Tho Rejection of. 5 1860. 1 i Afe .to, theflight -of tho Lords to reieot a •Financo BjUi-tJbts is -described- by Blafikstono and the constitutional authorities as incontest. ablo,' though it-should be added that the riffht. has! not bton-exercised for the last, forty-niiio I .years.- Tho lost -'occasion"on 'wbitih a Pinanco i Bill, was in 18G0, when' tho Bill i Mpealing the paper duties was thrown out by I i h L e • the Cdmmbiis.' ■ lhe.Btll was-objectioriablo for-several reasons, t.one of which applies against : the : present I Butot-rtlj.ftt tho' Qovcrnmettf of that'day- was •niakinr. msafflqient provisioa• f6r.;.tho Armv and• Nary.•; •'