The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1910-05-01

aaAAAAAHAA@AaA
IspO 20 1904 Ho died In his fine home al
New London In the summer Of 1901.
The nFitisA Constitutional Question.
The apology for tho timelinsss Of Mr.
J. A. r. MARRIOTT's second Chambers tths
Clarendon Press Oxford; Henry Provide,
New York; is due TO the authors fear
that Il may be taken for hasty or partisan
work. In tho essential part IL il really
a condensation OF portions Of a book with
which he has bSen busted for some time,
The reader will soon perceive that In -
far az il deals with tho past IL IL wholly
Trustworthy. the only fault to be found
with IL being that tho view Of foreign
countries Is rather too cursOry. II pro-
vides all tho Information needed 70 I'M
derstand the present condition Of matters
In the British Parliament clearly. wildly
and m extremely convenient foTC.
] Declining 70 discuss the academic ques-
tions Of tho relative merits Of bioameFal
and unicamsral legislatures, Mr.. Marriott
shows that In spite Of Mr.. Goodwin Smith q
structures and the Abbe Si4yes's dilemma
that -ig a second chamber dlssents from
tbs first Il Ia misChievous; II Il agrees with
/ II Il is supsrfiuous,' tho historical fact
/ h that tho civilized world has almost
unanimously decided in favor Of two
houses. France throughout tho nine
teenth century, under every stable gov
srnment. has refused 10 repeat tho expert
nsnts OF tho first and second republics;
the unitaTy States Of Europe have, with
the exception Of Greece. followed the Eng
lish model the federal States. Germany
and Switzerland use tho second chamber
90 snbOdy tho federal idea, and the Eng
lish speaking communities outside ot
Europe have all adopted that system
/ Though It's origin may have been acct
dental. there must b. solid reasons OF
history. eKpsrisnce and fact for its uni
vcrsal employment.
/ In a brilliant sketch Of the history of
the House Of Lords Mr. Marriott reminds
us that in tho beginning the English Par
! lament was a convOcation of the three
estates. the mobiles. the clergy and the
commons. like tho States General in
France and the Cortea in tho Spanish
/ kingdoms. and that very soon II assumed
| the shape In which IL was 20 continue
| throughout history. owing 10 the acci-
dents that the lower clergy seeded, be-
cause II preferred 70 vote money grants
in il purely clerical assemblies. the Con-
vocations Of Canterbury and York. and
that the Knights Of the Shires made
common cause with the representatives
II the Boroughs and Cities instead Of with
'hs Barons. That gave Parliament its
strength. a. II prevented the Crown from
playing the estates against eanh other
az was done in France and in spain.
The Constitution Of the present House
Of Lords Ia analysed by Mr. Marriott. and
some Of his statements are Of immediate
interest. Out Of 627 members. there are
including princes Of the blood royal $50
temporal peers. % spiritual. ~ represent
alive peers Of Scotland and ireland and
Law LordA He draws the distinction
between hereditary peeTs and Lords Of
Parliament. and demonstrates that sev-
enty-four members Of the upper house
do not owe their position directly or solely
20 the accident Of birth. He might have
enlarged the number II he had chosen TO
inquire into the qualifications Of the hsred.
itary peers. for a respectable proportion
among thom has received tho honor for
the first time a. a reward FOR eminent
public service. cfFil or military. and for
the present at least is not the result Of
heredity.
The account Of the privileges and ths
functions Of tho Lords IL very satisfactory.
Much that Mr. Marriott tells IL doubtless
commonplace for historical students,
but even they will DO glad 70 have tho
information put as compactly and clearly
a. hs does The general reader. on thu
other hand Ia spared a great deal ~
hunting around in books for specific
statements. which ara not easy o. hnd
when very modern history Ia involved
What will b appreciated most IL that Mr.
Marriott gives summaries n all the lead
ing CASES instead Of merely referring %
them. Tho roforn 81 the legal side n
tho Lords may bo passed over For the
moment interest u concentrated on thu
friction betwe.n the two houaes in legis-
lativs and particularly IN financial
measirss The principle on which Eng
land has procoeded IL that communicated
in tho resolution Of tho Lords In 1878.
under which while their right of con-
currencs In TAXATION WIS not questioned.
they cannot legally impose q charge
upon the people; hence they cannot alter
or amend a tax proposed by tho Com
mons. though thcy may refuse - concur
in it, imposition. and therefore may
rsject il IN the course Of time con-
fusion has ARISEN betwe--n a tax or grant
and tho aggregation Of taxes contained
in a modern finance bill. and IL IL nov
common 90 contend that thu Lords have
lost tho power To amend tho genern
schene u taxation embodied in a monsv
bill The confusion and difficulty have
besn increased by tho ingenious but
somewhat vindictive device invsnted
by Mr.. Gladstone In 1901 Mr. Marriott
relates tho events Of is0O and 1891, the
rejection 81 the bill repealing the paper
duty by the Lords. which pleased Lord
Palmerston. though he was obliged 20
stand by his Chancellor Of thu EKchoqusr,
and Mr. GladstOnes inclusion Of the re-
jscted bill In his budget at tho next
session.
The parliamentary experiences and
experiments Of Oliver Cromwells time
are related concisely in the u ght Of modern
research. Too much importance 10 at
tached 20 them. perhaps. by Mr. Marriott.
for they we're nipped IN the bud and never
fairly tried. owing 90 Cromwells death.
They have been quoted freely. however.
by speakers on either side in the recent