The Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1860-05-15 00:00:00

Commons say they shall not." .Suthat, ac:ording
to this, the Lords have, no real legislative •fune-
tions whatever. .The Legislature of the country
consists of two distinct bodies; hilt ,With only one
of theta—and that the least stable and safe of the
two—does the ilegislative poNter rtsidei---: the
right practical ; the other only being the right
thew-erical. Such, we say, is: the latest and most
improved Radical reading of the British Consti-
tution—a reading of it that is specially adapted
to this age of enlightenment and progress'
And yet these same learned exponents of our •
legislative system have actually, and most incon-
sistently, taken the trouble to show, that even the
House of Commons have on several occasions
recognised the practical rights of the House of
Lords, and prepared, from time to time, and
obtained their Lordship's acquiescence in, resolu-
tions defining and 'regulating them in practice.
For instance, they have, by searching our Parlia-
mentary history, ascertained that in 1671, the
Commons resolved, " That in all aids given to the
KUNG by the Commons, the rate or tax ought not
to be altered,"—and that hi 1678 they further
resolved, " That all aids and supplies, and aids
to his MAJESTY in Parliament, are the sole gift
of the Commons; and all bills for the granting
of any such aids and supplies ought 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, consi-
derations, conditions, limitations, and qualifica-
tions of such grants : which ought not to be
changed or altered by the House of Lords." Now
it were quite unnecessary to adduce these evi-
deuces of what has never for a moment been
disputed. They have no bearing whatever upon
the intention, the intimation of which has created
such a terrible commotion in the Radical camp,
to move that the Bill in question shall not be
further proceeded with at present. They certainly
do show that the House of Lords may not alter
the rate or tax in any Bill imposing it that may
be submitted to them—that they may not even
originate any such Bill of taxation, any more
than they may change or alter when they have
them under consideration.' But none of this is it
proposed to do. No member of the House of
Lords, we may be well assured, ever thinks for a
moment of disputing, let alone of violating, one
iota of these restrictions on their privileges—or
rather these exclusive rights of the Commons
themselves. It is never called in question, that
" all aids to her MAJESTY in Parliament"—that
is, all supplies from taxation—" are the sole gift
of the Commons," or that "all such aids and
supplies ought to begin with the Commons,"—
and that they " ought not to be changed or
altered by the House of Lords." All this, we
say, is never disputed, whether in theory or
in practice. Nor is there any infringe-
ment of it, in the slightest degree, in the
intention referred to not of changing or
altering the Bill, to which they are asked to
assent, for repealing the paper duty, but only of
refusing to assent to it, as being a measure which,
in their judgment, ought not to be passed into a
law. There are probably a large majority of
the members of the Upper House who concur
in the opinion of Lord DER/3Y, that " the finan-
cial statement of the Government, not only for the
present year, but still further for the nett, is of a
character calculated to create the deepest anxiety
in the mind of every man who gives the slightest
consideration to the progress of public affairs, and
the financial and international policy of the
Government of this country,"—and that, there-
fore, " when her Majesty's Government were
calling on this country to make a wholly useless
and dangerous sacrifice in the form of a perma-
nent revenue of not less than £l,soo,ooo—by
the sacrifice of the paper duties—it is their
bounden duty to reject the bill for that purpose,
and thereby save to her Majesty's Government f,
larere ac -- mcne.y and a item in
the revenue." It is under this conviction that
the intention alluded to has been announced by
Lord MONTEAGLE, and that Lord DERBY himself
has declared his readiness to support it. And that
such a course is a ,constitutional, as well as
patriotic and a dutiful one, is as clear as the sun
at noon day.
The very sophistry by which the Radical
journals are absurdly endeavouring to maintain
their revolutionary view of the case, signally
exposes its hollowness, as well as its mischievous-
ness. "It is because the Lords do not rule," they
tell us, " they are permitted to reign. They are
allowed, and cheerfully allowed, to possess the
largest portion of the pomp of legislation, on the
understanding that they do not attempt to grasp
at its power. Their coronets and robes, their
gilded chamber and precedence in ceremonial, are
accorded to them as symbols of historic dignity
and of a certain present utility, but. not of para-
mount or even equal authority. They are the
Upper House, as the capital is the upper part of
the column ; not in any sense as supreme in
power or importance." Now a sophistical state-
ment like this would never be had recourse to if
their case 'could be upheld by any rational argu-
ment. The Lords do not claim either to " rule"
or to " reign. put tuey uo claim to
they do assert their right, and continually exercise
it too, as the nation knows and feels to its incal-
culable advantage,—to exercise their rights and
privileges as a co-ordinate branch of the Imperial
Parliament, its Upper House, and the second
estate of the realm.

"As each of the two Houses," observes DE
LOLME, on the Constitution of England, " has a
negative on the propositions made by the other,
and there is, consequently, no danger of their
encroaching on each other's rights,'Or, on those
of the King, who has likewise his negative upon
them both, any question judged by them con•
ducive to the public good, without exception, may
be made the subject of their respective deliber-
ations. Such are, for instance, new limitations,
or extensions, to be given to the authority of the
King ; the establishing of new laws, or making
changes in those already in being. Lastly, the
different kinds of public provisions, or establish-
ments,—the various abuses of administration, and
their remedies,—become, in every session, the
objects of the attention of Parliament." Such
is the invariable and invaluable practice under
the British Constitution. And this " attention of
Parliament," is the attention of the House of
of Lords, co-ordinately and equally with that of
the House of Commons,—and an attention
which their lordships are determined to bestow,
as they have not only the constitutional right,
but are in duty bound to do, upon the Bill for
sacrificing, at a most inopportune moment, a
a million-and-a-half of the urgently needed re-
venue of the country.

THE REV. MR. HATCH.

VERDICT OF THE JURY.

EUGENIE PLUMMER FOUND GUILTY.

Mr. Baron Channel', commenced summing up the
evidence at a quarter past ten this morning, and con-
cluded at a quarter to six. He said he could not eee
any motive on the part of Mr. and Mrs. Plummer to
Prefer a false charge ; and, although it was most im-
probable that anyone in the position of Mr. Hatch
would have committed the act imputed to him on the
very first night the child was taken to his house, yet
the annals of courts of justice presented many instances
where persons of high position and, apparently, irre-
proachable character had been guilty .of most afrOcious
crimes. He made this remark in order that the jury
might not be induced to give too much effect to the
circumstance of the extreme improbability of the charge,
and be induced thereby to come to too hasty a conclu-
sion. The jury then retired to consider their verdict.
On the return of the jury the foreman stated that
they had found Eugenie Plummer guilty of perjury.
The sentence is deferred.