THE HOUSE OF LORDS

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 763, 11 March 1910, Page 4

THE HOUSE OF LORDS

- 9— ITS FINANCIAL POWERS. ;, THREE IMPOUTANT,CLAIMS -.;"•:.,;. CONSIDERED. "- The' : following interesting article by Arthur H. Johnwn, Fellow of. All Souls, Oxford. (»-short extract from which has ' air^ady,been.-quoted.-in. Tim Dominion), appears .in the. January number of "Tho Commonwealth":— -'.'.-■ W:h<ra dealing .with the history.of the ; financial. Powers of .tho House of;£ords ;it is necessary to distinguish bctw.coh' . three claims "made by them at various times: (l),Th« claim' to amend a money Bill;,- (2) to resist "tacking" by tho Couijaoaa;.: $) to reject : a money -Bill without •mending: it. ;•..;■ ■- ~:- -',-•" .1-'.Their;claim to-, amend was fiTst. de T ■&?$% -disputed., by': -tho'-'Houso of .ComInons in- the . year . 1001, when-they' declined to-accept the amendments of tho Lords-to. a.-Bill for 'paving Westminster' and for' raising '.the necessary money, and, ■ 'ps, -the Lords refused to give way, ,the BiU.was.l6st. -Ten .years later (1671) another. Bill imposing additional duties'-on . foreign' goods wa* --abandoned for the same reason. In 1877.the Houss of Lords a Bill., for- bniMine thirty ships ol : Tho Commons refaeod to accept th'ess amendments, and the.Upper House; in view-of tho national danger which ..would ensue;if the Bill was,lost, (since we .were,then-at war. with ITranee, waived their;, amendments/.'.while they asserted their.right. : -In-the follo-ning r year,- 1678, a-rote of supplies for -disbanding theforces now.that the Peic.e/Nkneguen hadr, been, signed was- again, amendedicby- the'-Lords,.-and the date of disbandineat .was' oy them postponed, which involved ;extra: pay, ■ On. thßt !,ocoa«on the -Commons :pas»ed -their famous resolution!,"That-.it-is, the undoubted and 6ole right, of the. Commons, net only-Jo introduce, butVto' direct, limit,, and appoint the ends, purposes, considerations,' and qualifications of such grants." ;-~ i.The Lords,., however, to their amendments, 'and as; the \renewed.-.-out-break/of war was imminent, the' Bill was dropped. .Finally, in. 1689, on; the Lords amending a Poll 1 Bill,, thoCorarhons 're^, newed-their resolution. .The\vLords. gave I way/'and since then have technically ac- | quiescedin this claim of' the- Commons, i and though eften introducing amendments, hare not pressed them. Nevertheless the Commons, .while nominally insisting pn, their sole right to amend-money Bills, have, under various subterfuges, - frequently .. adopted-' their mere 7 especially When : the "amendments .- have':' 1 corrected' positive: blunders ?in drafting, by'throwln'g' out the Bill as' corrected, and then introducing the amended Bill "as a "new' one;, sometimes.by adapting the,.'ainend.ments,' watch,. after being written, in. redink, have been cancelled.by a:'black lino drawn through them at; the order of 'the House of Lords, so that they may appear to "be introduced by. the Honso of Commons itself. These and other subterfuges .aro'at least important as showing the deference-paid to the Lords' criticisms.

3. Having thus formally, secured their sole , right' to, amend money Bills, the .Lower House-: next. attempted :to force : measures" unacceptable to' tho,' Lords by "tacking" them to money Bills, although 'sometimes. the .money; grants, had no cori-' :nectie'n.. : irith ;the .measures 'tacke'd 'to them:.; .This: method' of ;procednre had ,acthaßy. : been! condemned .. by,-'-Sir,. ' Ql member of-tho House'of "Cpm-. : aons,"in 1070..and had:in that/instance'been: dropped. During the later years'of Williaim 111, however, the Lower House thrice renewed the practice.. In the first instance, (1698) .the authorisation to raise money from subscribers; to tho New East India.: Company tt«s no doubt, a'.n'eces-Sary-pdrt-oMtheßill^which.created the. CoaipMiy,''and Jm';, Lords gave, rttyt though with* protest, on tho part.of the miharity.*' In 'the/tw'tj-. other cases (1599-; 1709);' both' of which''referred to the resumption of William Ill's grants to his Dutch favourites in'lreland, the money Bills to which these measures were taeksd, had..nq connection with them. The Lords',, aware of tho unpopularity., of these grants^.acquiesced' 'in''this notable encroachment; 1 but' two .years -later (1702) .they .declared:.';' "That the annexing' of any'clause" or clauses to a' of aid' oi supply, - the matter 'of : which is. foreign to, and 'different from, the said Bill

v. . '.' . ■ it- unparliamentary and tends .to the destruction of-the constitution of the Government." '.. : : ,Tb.is;resolution;' has never been. challenged/by, the Lower, Houiie,' hor'/have they.; ever; except" by.''inadvertence;' tack-, i'd;.measures to i money ,Bills,'-unless the' money.Bill was necessary for -tho.'carrying.putfof : thb:measur6,itjelf,' ; \;'-...,-, K/./ .'. vj'3;,;The' right pf-} the .'Lords '-to Vojecf >money. Bills; without. ;.'amendment.- had meanwhile:.'never-•;,been' ' disputed,: and when-, in' .1860 -they- threw, out -,Mr. Gladr. ■ stone's' Bill'.- for the repeal of tho : paperduties, that great advocate-of the.powers and'-privileges of. the Commons was -too - good-a'constitutionalist: to. jght; them on : .tho.;direct'.issue. Determined,, however, to gain' his end,'/he- developed';an;exceeds ; ingly.-cleyer- flank attack.-' Hitherto, but , for-' an isolated - instance in 1787,' each: tax had been authorised by a separate -Bill. Now, Mr. Gladstone, declaring that the . repeal of .the *; paper duties was/an, essential part.of his-financial scheme for -the. year, united all the separate "taxes -in one-Budget Bill. .'"Thereby the Lords. wero ';placed ' in<an; awkward /dilemma. They -had" either/;to' reassert their -right to- amend -or, reject the whole Budget. The. right to-amend had-'been too long abandoned for them to insist upon: it, at nil events in this, instance, and had they exercised their undoubted right to .reject.it they would have been'held re-. /Sponsible, not only for. rejecting a. popular;" Budget, but: also for-upsetting..the '■ft.hole. of ...tho financial; arrangements.for the .year.'/The-.objections to '.'thoi/repeal-. of'the, paper duties 'were ..not ' serious efiough .to justify..such a course,.',their.ac; .tioh, would hare. met with little! support/ ahd'.'they accordingly.v'garo ■way.'/,: The., precedent set;bT-Mr v Gladstone, hoi'.been .followed .by' subsequent, Chancellors,'.of jthe Exchequer,-with tho. re's jit..that, tho -lords have M.vef ".till to-day..-:declined ..to .pass,.,* ,Budjet...... .- : ..;•-.,•-.-,'■!-

:' ■", From-a consideration of' this, brief- his.torical -statement the following: coh'clusions may be deduced:-. /'■,"''-'■'■ c^/ - : ] V(lj It' 'is to*bo' observed'/that'.'the."en- , croachments hayp" ( ,',been; : mado~:..Ky .\t.hV Lower House and not by. the Uppdr.'as: is often imagined. .""••; (2)-The respective rights- of 'the' "Houses .are not based on any law, but 1 -upon constitutional custom. .Neither Houso.can .by its resolutions..,riiakd;■ a' law,-That'can only'be of .Parliament which., has, passed.-.bc-tlr /Houses, a'hd,received the. assent:'-ofc-tho l ■Crown. "'■;.'.'-..- J ■".' ' '.'.■:■'■,.,'..:.- ''-i"^,' '. (8); A'.'constitutiorial custom have! 'the same binding force'as-a law/'"Based' ,as it. is on precedent,' it'is'impossible to'.say exactly, when it.has'gaili'cd'sufficient authority to be finally established, and it may. be,'unmade,'by precedent, aa it has been niade; although a violent departure', from this »ustom would, except' ii'an: exceptional, case, be.- certainly •■con-sidered-unwarrantable.., V"', ■'.;.•.-:■-;•-:.. : .-'(4) The two questions.as to tacking'and >s - to • the;"right of amendment were;-di>-' cided on grounds of public policy arid- not of'xpnstitutioiiar precedent. The''attempt ,pf- the-Commons'to tack' after sue-', cessful -oh three -consecutive occasions Was nevertheless subsequently abandoned, because it became, evident that it was a claim which, if persisted in, would have placed ,the country under the unoontrol-, Jed'tyranny of .a single Chamber. Onthe.other.hand, the instances in which the Lords, have given way have been those' in which to .have, insisted wpnld have earned them merited unpopularity. or have cnused gran incpnvenience. ;•; (5) As with, these previous questions,: so. it is with tho right of tho Lords to:reject a money Bill or even a Budget. That this is really the case is. shown by the way in -which responsible statesmen of ;ioth partiee-have made.coritradiefpry assertions, ok the constitutional- question,. ;as.tho needs of the moment'demanded.:. -.-: The.-, electors to-day. will therefore be wiae'^if ; they neglect', the arguments-m to .constitutional precedent, -ind -devote' themselves .to the wider a»ia graver issue •involved... It is true that since'. ISGO the House - of Lords have never thrown a Budget, and that they have never before

adopted tho method'of hanging it up till tho constituencies have declared their opinion. But tho matters for us to decide aro, firstly, whether tho present Budget does or does not introduce innovations in tho character of taxation, which, whothor desirable or no, aro so novel that they should not bo enforced without a mandato from the country. Secondly, whether it can bo said that there is any "tacking" in tho Bill. Thirdly, whether tho inconvenience." caused by tho action of the lords is so great as to condemn their conduct on ■ tho ground of public polioy. Lastly, 'and .above-" all, 'what the result of.a victory'of either Houso would be. •;■■;.■ ' " ;•'..■ '"' ■'■-'■'' ■;,-. Tho' first two ''question's each man must decide toy himself; 'On the last- two, a few .may not. be out of place. It must be acknowledged that the action of . the . House of Lords has," and will causo. somo financial confusion. Yet it should be remembered' that-.'exactly the same result would havo ensued' had tho Budget, been rejected on its- third reading in the .House, of.Commons,, and..that .expedients. havo already been found for mitigating that confusion: ■ Tho last" point, is; 'however, the most .crucial of.;all: It■ cannot be..denied that if■•■ the constituencies..support: tho Lord 3 to-day,., the power, of.the second. Houso will bo enhanced, and" that by .the means of-'this' power it. would in tho future bo able-to force on a general-election. But if at that election tho country declared against it, the Lords.would have, to give ivay,. ,nnd if .tlicy,: exercised, their power without' duo "occasion' they';'would assuredly loso'tho I 'support of public opinion;- -without whi'ch^they-.could not act. : .On!: the; other.; hand;: win. .to-day,'..the -second ..Chamber -will cease to have any control oyer oven tho .wildest/of financial measures' which may pass tho Lower House, even'if the Common's do not attempt to renew the practice of - tacking.-: It is-often; argued .that the. Lords .should : take. no part-in the voting.of..taxes, because. „they.are not an electedrAssejmblyi.'.Vdiid-.; .only'.-; represent themselves, but pif,on»?.the <othcr hand, the "House "of Commons*, secure,, the sole tad absolute right of tax&tion,;the-.Lords •will then bo taxed ■ without, having any voice or representation themselves.-, ; . ■ : The' issue finally becomes!-.-; narrowed down to the question as-.to-i-the desirability of a Second Chamber :at-all. That tho House of. Lords;, as; at present constituted; 'is -. not ■ satisfactory .-.most < would acknowledge".'. .'.'Yet -unless,'{contrary to the ■ experlence-'-of -most-"civilised nations, we 1 '• declare a for a'.' - Single-* -Chamber, tho ipWper jjiath -of progress "would: seem to iie-"-ln the." direction of a> reform' of that House* rather than.'towards an;attempt to destroy'its' powers-, altoge'ther.v.