Because this Bill appears to me calculated to introduce unnecessarily into the Constitution of the House of Commons an increase of democratical influence, not called for by any increase of influence in the other branches of the Legislature. ... ... Because having observed the great anxiety with which the laws and customs of the realm have for ages held sacred the rights of property and other vested rights, I cannot agree to the unqualified and unconditional destruction by this Bill of such rights. (Signed by Lord Eldon and thirty-one Peers.) Because the elective franchise is by this Bill unequal, and unjustly distributed. ... Because by this Bill the influence of the landed interest is destroyed, by its giving a majority of the members taken from those boroughs which usually supported that interest, to the great towns, and by its depriving it of the county representation, by allowing the inhabitants of represented towns to vote for knights of the shire for estates within such towns. Because, although the preamble to the Bill states that one of its objects is to prevent abuses at elections, no provision is made for the prevention of any one abuse. ... (Signed by Lords Wynford and Kenyon.) Because the Bill, changing the constituency of every county, city and borough, disfranchising with injustice, in many cases enfranchising with impolicy or partiality, leaving or creating as many incongruities as it attempts to correct, opening many new questions and settling none, contains within itself the elements of further change, and thus tends to continue an agitation destructive of the comfort of society, and fatal to the prosperity of the country. (Signed by Lord Ellenborough and sixteen Peers.) Because we object to the shameful mode by which a majority was obtained for the second reading and subsequent stages of the Bill; the most scandalous arts of seduction and menace having been resorted to in order to effect the purpose. .. Because, by the proceedings enumerated, the royal authority has been extended for purposes not contemplated by law, and the King has been advised and induced to control and to coerce the free deliberations of the House of Lords, whereby the dignity and character of the House have been grievously impaired, and its rights, privileges, and independence have been alarmingly outraged, and most unconstitutionally violated. . . . ... (Signed by the Duke of Newcastle, Lords Kenyon and Abingdon.) Because the principles of this Bill are carried to an extent that will give an undue preponderance to the popular branch of the Legislature, and by thereby endangering the privileges of this House, and the legitimate power and prerogatives of the Crown, may in the end destroy that balance, on the maintenance of which depend the existence of the Constitution and of the settled institutions of the country. (Signed by Lord Melros and fourteen Peers.) We protest against the doctrine that any individual or corporate body can be justly deprived of any rights which have been legally enjoyed. . . either delinquency must have been proved, or compensation must have been given, before the sacrifice was exacted; upon this principle Parliament proceeded in approving the purchase of the heritable jurisdictions in Scotland, and in a more recent and analogous instance, compensation was given to individuals and to corporate bodies in Ireland, for the deprivation of their right of returning members. (Signed by Lord Mansfield and twenty-four Peers.) Because by the ancient laws and constitution of this realm the House of Peers is entitled to exercise a free and uncontrolled judgment in framing, altering and amending Bills in Parliament, before they can attain the validity of law, and because the said privilege has been invaded and rendered of none effect by the unconstitutional advice given to his Majesty (advice which is not denied by his servants) to create peers in sufficient numbers to control the decision of this House, and consequently to secure an unconstitutional majority in favour of this measure. (Signed by Lord Salisbury and twenty-seven Peers.) Because some of the enactments of this Bill are to be carried into execution by calling for aid (and that in not a few cases largely) on that fund which, under the denomination of poor rates, is levied for the maintenance and support of the aged, the infirm and the needy ... and in all instances, must females, and those otherwise disqualified, be thus exposed to a partial and arbitrary tax on the property that they occupy or possess. (Signed by Lord Malmesbury and ten Peers.) (Lords Journals, June 4, 1832; Rogers, P.L. iii. 84–107.) XLVIII THE PREROGATIVE OF MERCY 7 Will. IV. and 1 Vict. Cap. 77, 1837. "Whereas it is expedient to assimilate the Practice of the Central Criminal Court to other Courts of Criminal Judicature within the Kingdom of England and Wales with respect to offenders liable to the punishment of Death": Be it therefore enacted by the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, That from and after the passing of this Act it shall not be necessary that any Report should be made to Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, in the Case of any Prisoner convicted before the said Central Criminal Court, and now under Sentence of Death, or who may be hereafter convicted before such court and sentenced to the like Punishment, previously to such sentence being carried into execution: any Law, Usage, or Custom to the contrary notwithstanding. . . . VI. Provided always, and be it enacted, That nothing in this Act contained shall affect Her Majesty's Royal Prerogative of Mercy. . . . II CASES I SKINNER v. THE EAST INDIA COMPANY 18 Charles II., 1666. [This case, like that of Shirley v. Fagg (see p. 230), raised important issues as to the royal prerogative, parliamentary privilege, and the jurisdiction of the House of Lords, and caused a violent quarrel between the two Houses of Parliament. The facts are clearly explained in Hallam, C.H. iii. 21. Significant points are: (1) the reference of the Petition of Thomas Skinner for redress by the King in Council to the House of Lords; (2) the determination of the Lords to act on the reference and to exercise an original jurisdiction in a civil case; (3) the opposition of the Commons to this claim, the counter-assertion of their privilege, and their championship of the cause of the East India Company. The sharp quarrel between the two Houses lasted from November, 1666, to February 22, 1688; and when it threatened to block all business, was only ended by the intervention of the King, who persuaded both Houses to drop the quarrel and erase all records of it from their respective journals. It is noticeable that in the printed journals those of the Commons give the King's Speech and the resolution adopted, whereas those of the Lords show a blank. Further, owing to the completeness with which the Lords obliterated the records, their printed journals invariably represent all references to the dispute by a row of asterisks. But with the help of the MS. Minute Book and other papers, these have now been deciphered, and are printed in H.M.C.R. viii. App. pp. 107, 165-174, which should be consulted by all who desire full information. Though the Lords technically refused to waive their original claim as a fact, they ceased henceforward to claim or exercise an original jurisdiction in civil cases where the parties were Commoners. See generally Hallam, op. cit.; Pike, H.L. 272-307; Hargrave, H.J.L. (Preface); S.T. vi. 710-770; Hatsell, Precedents, iii.; Hunter, H.B.D. ii.; Macqueen, A.J.L. 1-17, 81-90. Brief notes of the debates will be found in Grey's Debates, vol. i.] |