The Sun.
London, England, 1860-06-21 00:00:00

THE LATE VOTE OF THE ROUSE OF

LORDS.

A public meeting to protest, as set forth by the
notice, against " the aggression of the House of
Lords upon the constitutional rights of the people,"
was held last evening at the Whittington Club,
Arundel-street, Strand, the Hon. F. H. F. Berke-
ley, M.P., in the chair. A large number of gentle-
men interested in the question were present on the
platform, and the attendance in the body of the
hall was very numerous.
The Secretary read a letter from General Sir De
Lacy Evans, M.P., regretting his inability to at-
tend, and trusting that no one would be more zea-
lous than himself to give practical support to the
maintenance of the rights of the Commons, which
he said had certainly been dangerously infringed.
A letter was also read from Sir J. V. Shelley,
MY., apologizing for his absence, partly on the
grounds of his heavy Parliamentary duties, and
partly because he felt it would be premature to
express any opinion on the conduct of the House of
Lords until the Committee on Precedents had made
its report.

The CHAIRMAN, in opening the proceedings, said,
since it had been their pleasure to call him to the
chair, it was his duty to state the business that
had called them together. They were blessed with
a glorious constitution, which resembled in many
respects that engine to which England owed so
much of her material prosperity—the steam engine.
If every part was not perfect and in good order, so
that the.whole might work well, it must be a failure.
If the three estates of the realm did not work well
together, then there must be a failure. Of these
three estates, the Crown stood for little. The
Queen could do no wrong, but her advisers could do
wrong. The Queen could refuse her assent to any
measure sanctioned by the other estates, but God
forbid that ever this should be the case, for if
ever this was done, then we stood on the brink
of a revolution. The Lords were never per-
mitted to make bills having a money tendency.
Having explained the position of the House
of Commons as compared with the House
of Lords, and shown the course usually taken
with regard to money bills, the chairman went on to
say there was great and imminent danger if the
Lords ever interfered with finances. Now, in this
case the Chancellor of the Exchequer goes to the
House of Lords with a certain money bill, to which
the assent of the people's representatives has been
given, and the House of Lords say, "We will re-
ject that bill." This state of things demanded the
consideration of all Englishmen. They did not in-
terfere with the power or the dignity of the House
of Lords, but it was necessary that they should en-
force the opinion that none must interfere with their
business. They did not put the question as to whe-
ther the Chancellor of the Exchequer had done
right or wrong. As regarded the paper duties, they
kept that out of sight, as it had nothing to do with
the question. But the question was, had the House
of Lords a right to say that he (Mr. Gladstone) is
wrong, and not only say so, but make him so? There
was one great argument he (Mr. Berkeley) had ven-
tured to address, not so much to the House of Com.
mons as to the people of England—" You have a
House of Commons that upon any emergency will
be very likely to truckle to the House of Lords, and
a great portion of that house is returned by the
House of Lords." If there was any slackness about
them it was to be attributed to their formation.
For instance, there was Viscount Redbeard sitting
in the House of Commons for a rotten borough or
slavish constituency, influenced by his father, the
Earl of Wigtown. In due course of nature the vis-
count, by reason of his descent, stepped into the
House of Lords. Now, would they be told that there
would not be an influence exerted by the House of
Lords over the House of Commons that was not
contemplated by the constitution ? If this evil were
reformed more would be done to assist the people
in what he must call a great emergency. Their
members might do their utmost, but it was the
people out of doors that must do the work. The
voice of meetings such as the present must speak
in tones of thunder to the House of Lords.
Throughout England there was a strong feeling
on the question, and in the north many gentlemen
had expressed themselves ready to lay down any
sum for the purpose of defending the people's rights.
(Cheers.)
Mr. BEALE moved the first resolution—
" That the continuance of any tax by a vote of the House
of Lords, after its repeal by the House of Commons, with
the sanction of the Crown, is a breach of the ancient and
well-established maxim of the English constitution, that
the people shall be taxed only with their own consent, given
by their representatives in Parliament, and is an abuse of
the functions of the House of Lords. And this meeting
calls upon the House of Commons to vindicate its ancient
privilege of exercising the supreme control over all matters
of taxation, and to maintain the rights of the people unim-
paired from the infringements of the House of Lords."
Ile said it was for the people to give expression to
their sentiments upon the present question, in order
to impress them upon the House of Lerds. He
urged them to give their support to such members
of the Cabinet as were known to be favourable to
their views, to support Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Gibson,
and Lord J. Russell. (Cheers.) (A Voice—" John
Bright.") No doubt, out of the Cabinet, they must
rely- on John Bright. (Great cheering.) He wanted
the Government to know that their existence as a
Ministry depended on the course they took on this
question.
Mr. WHITEIIunsT, in secondinr, the motion, said
that Englishmen had theoretically assented to the
principle that there should be no taxation without
representation. Who were the parties to this con-
troversy ? On the one hand the House of Com-
mons, and on the other the House of Lords. Now,
what was the House of Commons? The present
Lord Chancellor had said " the House of Commons
was composed of men of the people of all degrees
and orders, and exclusive of the individuals who
formed the other House of Parliament." What was
the House of Lords ? The House of Lords was ir-
responsible if Parliament was dissolved. The House
of Lords met again " having learnt nothing and
forgotten nothing." The House of Commons were
looking for precedents. He himself, however, be-
lieved that they would find them, in the words of
Lord John Russell, "conspicuous by absence," The
House of Lords were utterly unsympathetic with
the great mass of the people, and when a noble lord
got up in that house to make a motion relative to
universal suffrage and the ballot he was received
with what the Times called " icy politeness." If'
they allowed the Lords to pursue the course they
had adopted on this question, then a long farewell
to all our greatness. They would impose taxation
excessive in amount, andlevied on principles ini-
mical to the prosperity of trade and manufactures,
on which the prosperity of the country depended.
(Cheers.)
Mr. CONINGHAM, M.P. supported the motion.
He appeared there not only as a resident of West-
minster, but as a member of the House of Commons.
The House of Lords was opposed to all reforms,
and only acted upon precedents. Ife was not
opposed to precedents, as there were good ones as
well as had; but he believed that there was no
precedent for the conduct of the House of Lords.
The question was one of the utmost importance as
affecting the prosperity, the rights, and the privi-
leges of the people of England, which had been
audaciously violated -Would they allow the privi-
lege of holding the I nrse strings which they had so
long held to be seized by an irresponsible body it
Representative bodies were not to be trusted when
great principles were at stake—after a certain lapse
of time it was necessary that they should go back
to their constituents. Would they submit to have
their privileges wrested from them by a wretched
minority ? In a free country like this an heredi-
tary and irresponsible power, such as the House of
Lords, was an anomaly. The question was whether
they were prepared to give up the privileges they
possessed and sell their birthright not even for a
mess of pottage. Was it not their birthright to
tax themselves; and were they to go back to the
feudal system ? Had not these lords enough power
and riches already ? They must compel them to
take back this bill and not allow a sacred principle
to be rendered null and void by an assembly that
called. itself the defenders of our liberties, but was
always foremost in resisting every reform and every
truth. (Cheers.)
Mr. DICKEY endeavoured to move an amendment
opposed to the motion, but amid evident marks of
disapprobation was compelled to desist, the meeting
declined to listen to him, and on being put from the
Chair, the resolution was carried with one or two
dissentients.
Mr. PASSMORE EnwAnDs moved the second reso-
lcuottniomn,_thatthe following petition to the House of
's be adopted :
"That the continuance of any tax by a vote of the House
of Lords, after its the sanction of repeal by the House of Commons, with
tioners, a breach of tChe ancient
in the opinion of your peti-
t the English constlle ancient and well-established maxim
itnntion, that the people shall be taxed
only with their own
in Parliament, and is aa8:111)% given by their representatives
and
your
petitiLleiof the functions of the House
of Lords,
house to vindicate Your neTntearn9stly pray your hon.
imattprivilege of exercising
the supreme Control over
rtefr
ftrioonni,
tahledinto.
maintaia_ the rights of the people ugisaio)tf-ti
frit] gements of the House of Lords.
He said that, although many important
had been held on the subject in different meetings
tquarters of
the town, the Times had never given any report of
them.
llr, MALLISON seconded the motion, which was
supported by Mr. Murragh, and, after a few words
from Mr. Wharton in opposition, was agreed to.
On the motion of Mr. WHALLEY, M.P., a vote of
thanks Was passed to the chairman, and the proceed-
ings, which had been protracted to a late hour, ter-
minated.