MR.COBDEN, M.P., ON THE LORDS AND THE CONSTITUTION.

Colonist, Volume III, Issue 301, 7 September 1860, Page 4

MR.COBDEN, M.P., ON THE LORDS AND THE CONSTITUTION.

The'following address from Mr. Cobdlen wa9 received in Roohdale:— TO ME. ALDERMAN HEALBY OP THE CONSTITUTIONAL DEFENCE ASSOCIATION, EOCHDALE. Paris, June 4, 1860. Sib—-I regret to be unable to accept the invitation to the public meeting of the inhabitants of Rochdale; but feeling that my constituents have a right to know my sentiments upon the recent proceedings of the House of Lords, Which are, I understand, to be brought under their"" consideration, I beg leave to trouble you with this communication. Stripped of all mystification, the question on which the meeting will be called to pass a judgment appears to me to be this:—Shall we submit to be taxed by an irresponsible body, or shall we hold fast to the constitutional maxim of our fathers, which declared that taxation and representation should be inseparable ? We need not stop to enquire for technical precedents; the broad and simple maxim that to the Commons alone belongs the power of imposing or retaining taxes is an all-sufficient guide for us on the present occasion. Is it to be supposed that our forefathers, two centuries ago, rose in defence of J their fortunes against the exactions of an arbitrary "monarch merely to place the national purse strings in the hands of upwards of 400 irre- ] sponsible rulers ? On the contrary, I do not believe they would have sanctioned an hereditary branch of the legislature, without that constitutional reservation which denied to it the functions of taxation. The course pursued by the peers on the present occasion in respect to the paper duty will, if tolerated, be established as a precedent, and be repeated with future budgets. Let us see what their course has been. It is now more than ten years since an assooiation was formed for advocating the repeal of those taxes which impeded the diffusion of knowledge-—foremost among which was the paper duty. The usual mode of appealing to public opinion in England was resorted to—that mode which alone makes great reforms possible, without a resort to violence. Meetings were called, speeches were delivered, the co-operation of the public press was invoked, and at the time of general elections the question was brought under the notice for candidates for Parliament Gradually, by means of petitions, an enlightened public opinion was reflected in the House of Commons, where motions for the repeal of these taxes were repeatedly made by Mr, Milner Gibson, which led to important discussions, and investigations before committees; and at length the paper duty, having the year previous underdergone the process of a vote of condemnation, was in the present session abolished by the House of Commons.' Bear in mind that during all this time not( one syllable or thought wa3 bestowed on the House of Lords; not a petition reached it. No Committee set to inquire iuto the subject; not a breath of discussion was raised within its walls. And why was this ? Because no rational being ever imagined that if the House of Commons, with the consent of the Crown, decreed the abolition of the tax, the lords would assert the right to perpetuate it. Yet, suddenly, and after one evening's debate only, their lordships have reversed a decision founded on ten years discussion and investigation, and they have;defended their rash proceeding with'" arguments which I am sorry to be obliged, to characterise as at once arrogant and insulting to the House of Commons. They who never hear the voice of a Chancellor of the Exchequer, they with whom the Sovereign holds no communication upon the subject of taxation—-for she averts her countenance from the peers, and in express terms avoids even to recognise them as a portion of her audience, when addressing the Houses of Parliament on financial questions— they have made themselves responsible for the stability of our finances, and have assumed that the House of Commons is incompetent to deal with the contingency of a deficit in the revenue, should it arise, though the powers possessed by that house for such a purpose are in a national sense omnipotent. It is difficult to believe that one individual member of the House of Commons will be found to support this invasion of its rights, privileges, and duties. Surely the counties which in former struggles did so much to put down arbitrary power, but which have lately shown so little signs of political vatality, will remind their representatives that they, as well as the boroughs, have an interest in preserving the constitutional franchises bequeathed to them by their ancestors. There is at least one great party, comprising a majority of the house, wh:ch the members of the Government at its head, to which the country will not look in vain on the present occasion. To that party and its chief belongs, by their antecedents, peculiarly the houor of vindicating the rights and liberties of the people. If these high motives were wanting, others might be found in the instinct of self-preservation, for it is evident that, the so-called popular party in the House of Commons could not exist if the power to control its financial measures were oonceded to the Peers. It is notorious that that party is always in a minority in the House , of Lords. We feel it in the weariness of our task whilst passing year after year through the lower house such measures as the Church-rates Bill, with the consciousness that so long as the liberal party is in power thp3e measures will be systematically rejected by. the Peers. It i 3 difficult for a political party to hold together, 'and to know that much of its parliamentary labors are in vain. But we have at least had" the consolation of believing that on the vital question of taxation and expenditure, including not only the power of imposing, but of removing and adjusting our fiscal burdens, a majority of the House of Commons,possessed an uncontrollable authority. Let. that principle of our Constitution bo invaded, open the door to the House of Peers to revise and reject our Budgets, and what man possessing any self-respect would remain in the ranks of a party which was im* potent to .parry its measures in any one department of the Government ? If such a state of things were to arise, it would only remain for the people out of doors to find a remedy for, the evil. These are broadly and briefly my views on the question at issue. Viewing the matter calmly from a distance, it appears to me that there is a more important principle at stake than has arisen during the political contests of pur time. lam amazed that the Peers, yielding to a haughty, rash, and reckless guidance, should have selected the present moment for an attack on the most /cherished rights of the Commons—a moment when even absolute rulers are ostentatiously professing allegiance to the principle of popular sovereignty. Must we

regard it a 8 one more proof that personal qualities,.howeyer gaeat and. good, can never protect a body of men from the deteriorating influences of irresponsible power ? Let me, in conclusion, assura you how gladly I would have presented myself at your meeting. Nothing could have prevented me from obeying your summons but the important work in which lam engaged here, and which, it is my un« abated convictionvinvolves the highest interests of the two countries.—l remain, Sir, your obedient servant, R. Cobden.