Clearfield Republican. [volume] (Clearfield, Pa.) 1851-1937, 1879-04-30

: and the King grew out of efforts oil
! his part to obtain supplies Tor the wa
for recovering the palatinate from
Spain without concessions of any par
Of what he regarded as his preroga
tives, and ON the part of the Commons
TO make the supplies the conditions o
concessions in favor OF civil liberty
Now l take from English history thu
following:
The Commons House of Parliament
in the year 1911 (third year Of Henry
VIII Of sanguinary memory tackee
several acts Of attainder as "amend
ments" to simple bills. These, Of fcourse
were levcled at certain Lords. The
Commons never knew any limitation
in that regard except such as they de
liberately passed upon in their owr
right, and these assertions of the peti
ton Of right were mere enforcement
Of their ancient privileges.
Charles |. levied ship money because
Parliament included in "money bills
the guarantee OF political rights
Everybody knows that the resistance
OF the hing was not against the asso
ciation oi the items The puerility OF
separation oil the items was moi
thought of-even by Stuart 1t was
great cardinal principles upon which
the Commons stood, and II was these
the hing resisted. lie was compelled
TO yield, and his subsequent fatuity
lost him his head.
William Ill, soon after his acces-
sion, made large grants TO his favor
ties. These were under the law, and
made with the consent of the council.
In Parliament they were deemed ex-
orbitant and prejudicial to the public
good. Hence the House of Lords made
the mater subject of mild official re-
buke by resolution in the year 1900,
but the Commons went further and
tackled to "moncy bill" (for the sup.
port of the army and navy) an
amendment called the presumption
act" which annulled all tho grants,
knowing at the time that some oil them
had been sold by the grantees. The
Lords resisted long; the King at first
resolved to stand by them, but he final.
ly yielded, and the "money bill" pass
ed with the unpalatable amendment.
Yet the Commons of that day were
nart,cularlv scrunulous in regard 10
aamendmentsp and precedents' In the
year 1902 the Commons passed an act
of attainder AGAINST the Pretender
| inst then recocnized bv Louis XIVO
when was war Imminent arising out Of
the Spanish succession. The Lords put
on an siamondment'' including the name
of The pretender's mother MARY of
Este widow of James II who had re.
Gently died after declaring Mary as re-.
qentl but the Commons Would not al.
low L declaring that any amendment
was irnproper on bin Of sucb import.
ance. They were reminded of prece.
dents in the time of Henry VIIi but
the Commons would not Weld
Az tho riobt ot the Commons IA nut
amendments on ,tmopev billsp was nm.
onast;onable tho Jords would also nv.
erciso their rigbt so a short time he.
fore the death Of the King the Lords
p...,..s N...r - ,,n .,n
tackled that vas foreign to the body Of The bin.
This is the case to which the Sepa.
tor from Massachusetts [Mr. Hoar1 re.
ferred in b,s argument of the 20th of
March, in reference to legislation on
appropriation bills. But see the re-
suit. Only a few months earlier for
eigncrs had been disqualified by act of
Parliament from holding high office.
William III. died Anne succeeded,
and in the same year, 1909, the Tory
Commons voted her an annual allow.
ance of 100000, that is, tacking to
the bill an amendment" providing for
the retention of Prince George of Den.
mark, (the Queens husband } in his
Office lord Admiral and Generalissmo
of the forces, the actual commander
being Marlborough. The Lords--they
were Tories too-made stand, but in
the end gave way, notwithstanding
their solemn "resolve" which was
hardly six months old, and that seems
to have been the last attempt to limit
the Commons in shaping bills. .i
Mr.. HOAR. Will the Senator from
Pennsylvania state what he means by
the Commons OF England making an
amendment to money bill
Mr.. WALLACE. They placed upon
that bill q provision that was foreign
to the body of the bill and which had
nothing whatever to do with it. 1t
was an amendment relating to success
sion on money bill for the support OF
the Army and Navy. The Lords re-
sisted It for time, but finally gave
way. This is in fact the law Of tho
realm to-day The Commons are alb.
solutely masters Of every subject OF
this kind. In their character as the
representatives of the people they have
enforced this and other great rights at
the expense even of the blood OF kings
and the forfeiture Of their thrones. The
safety Of the civil liberties OF the peo-
pie is above all price. No lesser mo.
tive should cause or ever has caused
them to use this great power, nor
should nor does any lesser one prompt
us TO use II now.
But il is asserted that this Is revolu.
tionary and coercive. The first an
swer to the argument upon this subject
is that we have no right to assume in
regard to this bill that any feature In
this bill will meet disapproval any,
where. Why should such an assertion
be made 2 Coercion is not asserted in
the bill itself 1t is not asserted by the
committee and why should the legis.
lative branch of the Government, the
immediate representatives of tho peo,