The Sun.
London, England, 1860-06-30 00:00:00

never depart. They have, therefore, thought them-
selves obliged to assert it upon this occasion. But,
considering that a difference between the two Houses

upon this -Bill may create such delays in the pass-
ing of it as would be of the most fatal consequence
in the _present conjuncture, the Lords have not
thought convenient at this time to insist upon their
provisoes." _

- It would be needless to quote to quote all the pre-
cedents where the Lords have interfered by amend-
ing Supply or Tax Bills. The year 1678 furnishes,
as shown by the Journals of the House of Commons,
a memorable resolution of the House on the " Rights
of the Commons in granting money." It is a re-
port of a committee appointed from the members
who had managed the Conference on a " Supply
Bill for Disbanding the Forces," and which had
been returned with some amendments. They were
ordered to prepare and draw up a " State of the
Rights of the Commons in granting of money."
This resolution, thus prepared, was agreed to by
the House, and is as follows :—" That all aids and
supplies to his Majesty are the sole gift of the Com-
mons ; and all Bills for the granting of any such
aids and supplies ought to begin with the Com-
mons ; and it is the undoubted and sole right of tie
Commons to direct, limit, and appoint in such Bills
the ends, purposes, considerations, conditions, limi-
tations, and qualifications of such grants, which
ought not to be changed or altered by the House of
Lords." (For other precedents enforcing this rule
see App. No. 34, 35, 41, 44, 45.)
IX. The Commons have so steadily adhered to
this rule that even in those cases where they have
allowed amendments for the mere correction of
clerical errors, or in furtherance of the object and
intent of the Bill, they have usually directed spe-
cial entries to be made 'in the Journals recording
the character and purpose of such amendments.
Thus, on the 25th of January, 1693, the Lords
amended a Bill for granting an aid of 4s. in the
pound by altering the word " receipt" into " pre-
cept," and by inserting the word " to," 'which
had been unintentionally omitted, and by
leaving out the word. " any," which was a mere
redundancy through mistake of the clerk. The
Commons agreed to the amendments, but they or-
dered that " the said amendments be particularly
entered in the Journals, to the end that the nature
of the said amendments may appear." So, where
the words " Great Britain" were inserted by mis-
take for the word "England" the Lords' amend-
ments were agreed to, " it appearing that the word
' England' was originally in the Bill when pre-
sented to this House, and that the same had not
been altered in any of the subsequent proceedings
of the House in respect to the Bill." So, too, like-
wise where the title had been altered the Lords'
amendment was agreed to, "it appearing that the
said amendments were only for the purpose of
making the title agree with the context of the
Bill."

X. Where the Lords have altered a Bill of
Supply, the former practice of the Commons- was
either to disagree to the amendments, and so give
the Lords the opportunity of waiving such amend-
ments, or else to lay the Bill aside. Thus on the
Bth of April, 1700, when amendments were made
in the Land-tax and Irish Forfeiture Bill, although
those amendments, as stated by the Lords, did not
relate to " aids and supplies granted to his Majesty
in Parliament," the Commons state the following
reasons for insisting on their right and their mode
of enforcing it :
" For that all aids and supplies granted to his
Majesty in Parliament are the sole and entire gift
of the Commons, and as all Bills for the granting
such aids and supplies begin with the Commons, so
it is the undoubted and sole right of the Commons
to direct, limit, and appoint in such Bills the ends
and purposes, considerations, limitations, and quali-
fications of such grants, which ought not to be
changed or altered by your Lordships.
" This is well known to be such a fundamental
right of the Commons that to give .reasons for it
has been esteemed by our ancestors to be a weaken-
ing of that right.
" The Commons, therefore, leave the Bills and
the amendments with your Lordships, together
with the ill consequences that attend the not
passing this Bill."
The last proceeding in this matter was a free
conference on the 11th of April, and a prorogation
of Parliament took place on the same day.
In some cases where a similar controversy arose
the difference terminated either in the prorogation
of Parliament or in no further proceedings being
taken on the Bills. On other occasions the Lords
have frequently given way, and so the difficulties
which might have arisen have been avoided. Thus
on the 11th April, 1677, the Lords made amend-
ments to a Supply Bill, which the Commons disa-
greed to ; a free conference was held, and after such
conference it was ordered that such members as did
manage it " do search the journals for precedents
touching adhering to bills." In the afternoon of the
same day the question being put, to agree to the
amendments sent from the Lords, it passed in the
negative. But two days afterwards a message came
from the Lords, stating that they agreed to leave
out their amendments ; and so the Bill was carried.
XI. In later times, instead of disagreeing with
the Lords' amendments, the usual course has been
to postpone the consideration of them, or to lay the
Bill aside, or to reject it at once. This course was
sometimes taken in the earlier periods of our his-
tory. On the 24th March, 1670-1, when amend-
ments came from the Lords to a Bill for laying a
duty on brandy, it is recorded in the journals that
these amendments "being for laying an imposition
on the people is a breach of the privilege of this
House, where all impositions on the people ought
to begin ; therefore the House did think fit to lay
the said Bill and amendments aside." On the 3d of
June, 1772, when a message came from the Lords
returning a Bill, entitled, " An Act to regulate the
Importation and Exportation of Corn," with an
amendment made in the Lords, that no bounty
should be paid on exported corn, it was " resolved,
nemine contradjeente, that the said Bill with the
amendment be rejected." (For other cases in which
a similar course has been pursued, see appendix,
No. 47, 50, 994'58, 59, 60, 61, 63, 65.)
X 11. Although such Bills, when amended by the
Lords, are usually laid aside by the Commons, it
does not follow that the object of them has been
lost. Where the Commons have desired to concur
in the substance of the amendments made by the
Lords, they have asserted their privilege by laying
aside the amended Bill, and have sent to the
Lords a new Bill, containing the amendment made
by the Lords. (See pars. XVII. and XX.)
BILLS OF SUPPLY AND TAX BILLS:
Practice of the Commons where the Lords do not
pass the Bill.
XIII. By a resolution of the House of Commons
passed in the reign of Elizabeth, it was laid down.
that, " according to the ancient liberties and privi-
leges of this House, a conference is to be required
by the Court, which at the time of the conference
demanded, shall be possessed of the Bill." When
the Lords, therefore, do not return the Bill the Com-
mons have lost all power over it, and have no direct
means, by conference or otherwise, of coming to any
agreement upon it. According to the search that
has been made in the journals there is no instance
of. any Supply Bill having been actually rejected or
postponed by the Lords prior to the reign of Queen
Anne. Before that time amendments were made
and conferences held, which usually terminated as
above pointed out. The first instance in which a
Supply or Tax Bill was rejected by the Lords occurred
in the year 1708. The Bill in that case was entitled
" An Act for Laying a further Duty on Woollen
and Worsted Yarn imported into this Kingdom.'
It was a B;11 founded on the resolution of a Com-
mittee of Ways and Means on the 25th of February,
1707 (0.5.), and it was passed by the Commons
towards raising the supply granted to his Majesty.
This Bill was sent to the Lords, and it was ordered
by them that the said Bill shall be and is hereby
rejected.
On the 21st of January, 1752, Mr. Charlton re-
ported from a Committee of- the whole House, to
whom it it was referred to consider further of Ways
and MeansTfhoartria.roisming antdhaeftseurptphley2g9trhanotfedseptotehmis.
Majesty for a license ken
The
edo
hßa
ibnl eld
wg
otaoas
dk
ses,
bMearj,els7tYs2,‘the sum of 40s. shall be paid to his
committedot the
eaßills
broker,offrMdteohareitian2F4i Mortality."
h2O newntithotuiont
yearly for every person exercising the trade
the House of Lords, read there a second time, and
after debate, it was resolved,fMa March ;h
abtu
the
hoen
Hthe u
s2elbs te,
put in committee on the bill on that day fortnight."
The bill was consequently lost, as Parliament was -
prorogued on the 26th.
On the 20th of April, 1790, a bill, entitled "An •
Act for Granting to his Majesty a Certain Sum
°f Money, to be raised by a lott€ry," was brought
into the Commons, and a resolution of a Committee
of Supply. On the 20th of May it was sent to
the • Lords The Lords amended it, and on the
3d of June it was ordered by them that the report
of the amendments be taken into consideration
on that day three months. A new bill was after-
wards brought up from the Commons and passed.
On the 12th of June, 1827, a bill, entitled
" An Act for granting Duties of Customs on Corn "
Which had passed the House of Commons, was
ordPled by the Lords to be read a third time on
the 15th of June, The bill was abandoned by
the Government in the House of Lords, in conse-
quence of an amendment which had been made in

committee, and affirmed on this report. The amend-
ment was to the effect that no foreign grain in bond
should be taken out of bond until the average price
of wheat should have reached 665. a quarter. On
tha 19th of June, a second Bill was brought in by
tho Commons upon a resolution, "that all corn
and grain, &c., now in warehouse, or which may