OCR Text |
Show THE BRITISH PARLIAMENT. England today stands face to face with the gravest political crisis in its history since 1S32, when the Lords rejected the Reform bill sent up by the House of Commons. This bill aimed at the disfranchisement dis-franchisement of constituencies popularly known as "pocket boroughs," and was entitled an "Act to amend the representation of the people in England and Wales." This bill was carried, March 23, 1832, in the House of Commons by a majority of 116, and sent up for approval to the Lords, who rejected it by a majority of thirty-five. On May 9 the ministry resigned. Great public indignation, culminating in serious rioting in Bristol, England, and to allay public excitement the King prevailed upon the ministry min-istry to resume office on the promise of granting them full power to secure majorities by the creation crea-tion of new Peers. The Bill of Reform finally passed in the House of Lords and received the royal assent June 7, 1S32. For five hundred years, that is, from the reign of Edward III, the legislative power of England has rested with the King, the Lords and the Commons, Com-mons, the three estates of the realm. Xo law can be passed in England except by the consent of these three entities, the King, the Lords and the members of the House of Commons, which compose the Parliament Par-liament of Great Britain. There is between tbem perfect equality; they have as much power, the ono as the other, except in the matters of finance, where it has long been recognized, at all events the Commons Com-mons have long claimed that they have the initiative initia-tive power that the Lords have no right whatever to change or to amend the budget, but must reject or approve its measures just as they are, and that they can go no further. The rejection of the bill lately sent to the upper house is without precedent in the past one hundred years, and promises to have far-reaching effects even to altering the constitution. con-stitution. Until now the Peers have exercised their right to kill off any legislation of the lower house which imperiled their interests or threatened their privileges. Sixteen years ago when Mr. Gladstone carried through the House of Commons the Home Rule bill giving the Irish a parliament" of their own, the Lords rejected the bill on the ground of inopportuneness. In view of the reassembling of Parliament it is well to have an understanding of the complexion and form of British legislation. It is a mistake to assume, as do some of our eastern exchanges, that the people have always had a voice in selecting their representatives in Parliament. Parlia-ment. The English members of the House of Lords inherit their seats with their titles. The Irish Peers are elected for life, and the twelve or fourteen representatives rep-resentatives of Scotland are elected for each Parliament. Par-liament. The word Parliament as used and understood in England today did not appear in law till its mention in the statute of Westminster in 1272. The first clear account we have of the- representatives of the people forming a House of Commons was in 1258, when it was settled by the statutes of Oxford that twelve persons should be chosen to represent the common poonle hence the word Commons or House of Commons in the bodies chosen to legislate legis-late for the people of England. This was the beginning: be-ginning: of tho British Parliament, The general i representation by knights, citizens and burgesses took place in 1265. The powers and jurisdiction of the British Parliament are so transcendent and absolute, ab-solute, that the Parliament cannot be confined either for causes or persons, within any prescribed bounds. It has sovereign and uncontrollable authority au-thority in making and repealing laws. It can regulate or new-model the succession to the crown, which it did in the case of Henry VIII and William Wil-liam III. It can alter and establish the religion of the country, as was done in the reigns of Henry VIII, Edward VI, Queens Mary and Elizabeth. The King himself must obey its behests. When the objectionable ob-jectionable Coronation Oath was tendered to the present King Edward, he was compelled to take the oath reluctantly, or resign. He had no alternative. alterna-tive. Until that shameful oath against the Catholic Cath-olic religion is altered, or removed from the statutes stat-utes of Parliament, every successor to the throne must swear to what he does not believe. Should the House of Lords once more reject the budget, Mr. Lloyd-George, Chancellor of the Exchequer, says that the bill will be sent straight to the throne. And if the King signs it, over the heads of the Lords, "there will be wigs on the green." The times are ominous for all true Britons, for even that political patriarch, the astute Sir Charles Tup-per, Tup-per, declared on the eve of the elections that if Lloyd-George is upheld, "there will be an end tf the monarchical system in England within twenty-five twenty-five years, and this will mean the disintegration of the Empire." |