THE IMPERIAL BUDGET.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 2628, 9 October 1909, Page 3

THE IMPERIAL BUDGET.

CONFLICTS BETWEEN LORDS AND COMMONS.

The last occasion on wlucli a mot on passed in the House of Lords has led to the resignation of the Government of the day was in 1832, when Lord Grey’s Government resigned after an actverso, vote on the Reform B 11. Hut the decrease in the power and influence of tho House of Lords clu ..es from the passing of that bill. Before that Act it was, in the words of Mr. Walter Bageliot, “if not a directing chamber at least a chamber of directors.” The Lords had for long years formed by far the majority of each cabinet. In tho Pelham Government Henry Pelham was the only Commoner in the Cabinet. The same thing obtained when Mr Pitt formed his first admin.stratum in 1783 and in his second Government Pitt liad only one Cabinet colleague in the House of Commons. In more recent times the principal secretaries of state are nearly always found in the Coin-

mons. . The House of Commons is now the real governing body of the countr3 r . It w;is the passing of the Reform Act in 1832 which finally broke very largely the power of the aristocracy, libeiated the House of Commons from the great and indirect influence of the Lords, and gave it the immediate control over the Government of the day. Ihe change which ultimately resulted in making the House of Commons the centre of authority dates really from the reign of William 111. Green, in his “Short History of the English People” says : “In outer seeming the revolution ci lotto had only transferred, the sovereignty over England from James to William and Mary. In actual fact it was transferring the sovereignty from the King to the House of Commons. From the moment when its sole right to tax the nation was established by the Bill ot Rights (1689), and when its own resolve settled the practice of granting none but annual supplies to the Crown, the House of Commons became the supreme power in the State.” Nevertheless, no matter how powerful was the will of the Commons, they had no proper means or method of bringing that will to bear directly upon the conduct of public business by min sters. At that period, and indeed, to a much later time, the Crown had a very real choice in the selection of ministeis. They were not only in name, but in fact", the servants of tin- monarch, and to him they looked for direction, and to him alone they held themselves responsible. William 111 tried to adopt the plan of selecting the ablest men from all parties to form his ministry, but the result was in no way successful, and in the end he was compelled to adopt the suggestion of the Earl of Sunderland, to select his ministry from amongst that party which were in a majority in the Pail.ament. At fiist j this method was slow and tentative, receiving scanty Support by the Commoners, and it was not until fen* Horace Walpole came into' power during the reign of Queen Anne that this method of forming a cabinet became in any wa\ a fixed method. The effect of the policy of Walpole, when he had finally carried it through, was to make the cabinet the scat and centre of executive government, and to transfer that power hitherto held by the Crown to the House of Commons. Ministers ceased, in aught but name, to Le the servants of the Sovereign and hence the source of their strength was no longer the favor of the Crown, but the confidence of the House of Commons. They became simply an executive c: mimtt; e, representing the will of the Commo: s, and remaining in power only so long as their party retained a majority. J lie cabinet now unites the law-making with the law-executing power, and, moreover, the Commons enjoy the undisputed prerogative ci mak ng taxation. The Appropriation Act of William HI. lias, without doubt, put an cud to the financial struggles of past days between Lords and Commons in the granting of supplies, and the present position of affairs b tween the two parties, Lords and Commons, must eventually result in a vic.t.ry for the lattei and "a still further curtailing of the powers of the former. The interference of the Lords in the past in the matter of national supplies has always roused a large amount of opposition in the Lower House. As far back as 1407 it was declared by Henry IV. that “supplies were granted by the Commons, and assented to by the Lords.” Lord Chatham expressed the same doctrine in later years when he said “the concurrence of the Peers and the Crown to a tax, the gift and grant of the Commons alone, is only -necessary to clothe it with the form of law.” Though the legal right of the Commons to have the sole right of taxation lias been distinctly recognised for over 300 years, the House of Lords was not always barred from exercising a power in these matters, such as the amending of bills of supply, but they had no direct power of veto. In 1671, however, the Commons declared “that in all aids given to the king by the Commons, the rate or tax may not be altered.” Seven years later the power of the Lords was still further limited, when in July, 1678, the Commons stated: “That all aids and supplies to his Majesty in Parliament are the sole gift of the Commons; and all bills fo r the granting ol any such aids and supplies are to begin with the Commons; and that it is the undoubted and sole right of the Commons to direct, limit, and appoint in such bills the ends, purposes, considerations, conditions, limitations, and qualifications of such grants, which ought not to be changed or altered by the House of Lords.” Since the year 1714 about 36 supply hills have been rejected by the Lords, and always the result has been a further limiting of their powers. The result of the present controversy between the two branches of British Government will lie awaited with eagerness throughout the Empire by all persons who make a study of politics, as whichever side eventually wins the etfeet will be far-reaching. Mr. Asquith and his colleagues are apparently determined to place the matter in the hands of the people, and they will probably go to the hustings eii the financial question alone. Should they win til© Lords must bow the head to nub.ic opinion, and it is almost a certainty that legislation will ho framed tuat will prevent any future controversy between the two Houses upon hills ol supply.