among others, one to strike out the clause which granted
bounties. But when the bill thus amended came
back to the Commons, even those who disliked the principle
of bounties resented this act of the Lords in meddling
with that question, which they regarded as a violation
of their peculiar and most cherished privilege, the
exclusive right of dealing with questions of taxation.
Governor Pownall, who had charge of the bill, declared
that the Lords had forgotten their duty when they
interfered in raising money by the insertion of a
clause that “no bounty should be paid upon exported
corn.” And on this ground he moved the rejection
of the bill.[31] In the last chapter of this volume,
a more fitting occasion for examining the rights and
usages of the House of Lords with respect to money-bills
will be furnished by a series of resolutions on the
subject, moved by the Prime-minister of the day.
It is sufficient here to say that the power of rejection
is manifestly so different from that of originating
grants—which is admitted to belong exclusively
to the Commons—and that there were so many
precedents for the Lords having exerted this power
of rejection in the course of the preceding century,
that they probably never conceived that in so doing
now they were committing any encroachment on the constitutional
rights and privileges of the Lower House. But
on this occasion the ill-feeling previously existing
between the two Houses may be thought to have predisposed
the Commons to seek opportunity for a quarrel.
And there never was a case in which both parties in
the House were more unanimous. Governor Pownall
called the rejection of the clause by the Lords “a
flagrant encroachment upon the privileges of the House,”
and affirmed that the Lords had “forgotten their
duty.” Burke termed it “a proof that
the Lords did not understand the principles of the
constitution, an invasion of a known and avowed right
inherent in the House as the representatives of the
people,” and expressed a hope that “they
were not yet so infamous and abandoned as to relinquish
this essential right,” or to submit to “the
annihilation of all their authority.” Others
called it “an affront which the House was bound
to resent, and the more imperatively in consequence
of the absence of a good understanding between the
two Houses.” And the Speaker, Sir John
Cust, went beyond all his brother members in violence,
declaring that “he would do his part in the business,
and toss the bill over the table.” The
bill was rejected nem. con., and the Speaker
tossed it over the table, several of the members on
both sides of the question kicking it as they went
out;[32] and to such a pitch of exasperation had they
worked themselves up, that “the Game Bill, in
which the Lords had made alterations, was served in
a similar manner,” though those alterations
only referred to the penalties to be imposed for violations
of the Game-law, and could by no stretch of ingenuity
be connected with any question of taxation.