Page:William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (3rd ed, 1768, vol I).djvu/186

This page has been validated.
170
The Rights
Book I.

they will not permit the leaſt alteration or amendment to be made by the lords to the mode of taxing the people by a money bill; under which appellation are included all bills, by which money is directed to be raiſed upon the ſubject, for any purpoſe or in any ſhape whatſoever; either for the exigencies of government, and collected from the kingdom in general, as the land tax; or for private benefit, and collected in any particular diſtrict, as by turnpikes, pariſh rates, and the like. Yet ſir Matthew Hale[1] mentions one caſe, founded on the practice of parliament in the reign of Henry VI[2], wherein he thinks the lords may alter a money bill; and that is, if the commons grant a tax, as that of tonnage and poundage, for four years; and the lords alter it to a leſs time, as for two years; here, he ſays, the bill need not be ſent back to the commons for their concurrence, but may receive the royal aſſent without farther ceremony; for the alteration of the lords is conſiſtent with the grant of the commons. But ſuch an experiment will hardly be repeated by the lords, under the preſent improved idea of the privilege of the houſe of commons: and, in any caſe where a money bill is remanded to the commons, all amendments in the mode of taxation are ſure to be rejected.

Next, with regard to the elections of knights, citizens, and burgeſſes; we may obſerve, that herein conſiſts the exerciſe of the democratical part of our conſtitution: for in a democracy there can be no exerciſe of ſovereignty but by ſuffrage, which is the declaration of the people’s will. In all democracies therefore it is of the utmoſt importance to regulate by whom, and in what manner, the ſuffrages are to be given. And the Athenians were ſo juſtly jealous of this prerogative, that a ſtranger, who interfered in the aſſemblies of the people, was puniſhed by their laws with death: becauſe ſuch a man was eſteemed guilty of high treaſon, by uſurping thoſe rights of ſovereignty, to which he had no title. In England, where the people do not debate in a collective body but by repreſentation, the exerciſe of this ſovereignty

  1. on parliaments. 65, 66.
  2. Year book, 33 Hen. VI. 17. But ſee the anſwer to this caſe by ſir Heneage Finch, Com. Journ. 22 Apr. 1671.
conſiſts