Kansas. University.

Seminary notes published by the Seminary of historical and political science online

. (page 55 of 62)
Online LibraryKansas. UniversitySeminary notes published by the Seminary of historical and political science → online text (page 55 of 62)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook

well learned the student comes to the University
prepared for the higher scientific study of history
and its kindred topics. He is then ready for
investigation, comjiarison and analysis. He
then takes up the real investigation of tiie phil-
osophy of institutions and of national develop-
ment. He is then ready for the science of
Sociology, Institutional History, Political Econ-
omy, the Science of Government, Statistics or
Political Economy. Students who enter the
University without this preparation find it
necessary to make up for it as best they can by
the perusal of books, such as those mentioned
abo\ e.




Every student iu the University should lay the foundation of a good working library. Such libraries are
not "made to order" at some given time, under specially favorable financial conditions— but are the result of
considerable sacrifice, and are of slow growth. The wise expenditure of even ten dollars in each term will
bi'ing together books which if thoroughly mastered will b3 of great assistance in all later life. Room-mates,
or members of the same fraternity, by combining their libraries and avoiding the purchase of duplicates, can
soon be in possession of a most valuable collection of authors. Assistance in selecting and in purchasing will
be given upon application.

The prices named below are the list prices of the publishers.

Stiiilent>i are required to jmrchase hooks marked ii'ifh air asterisk.
American Book Company, Chicago.

Manual of the Constitiitiou, Andrews _ * l.OU

Analysis of Civil Government, Townsend 1.00

Civil Government, Peterman SO

History of England. Thalheimer 1.00

Mediasval and Modern History. Thalheimer l.tiO

Outlines of History, Fisher 2.40

General History of the "World, Barnes 1.60

Political Economy, Gregory ]-'~0

Licssons in Political Economy, Champlin iiO

Ginn & Co., Boston and Chicago.

Ancient History. Myers & Allen f? l.r)0

Mediaeval and Modern History, Myers l.f)0

Political Science and Comparative Law, Burgess, 5.(KJ

Macy's Our Government '•'>

*General History, Myers l.iiO

Leading facts in English History, Montgomery .. 1.12

Philosophy of Wealth, Clark .. ... .. 1.00

Political Science Quarterly, Yearly 3.00

"Washington and His Country, Fiske 1.00

Harpers, New York.

*History of Germany, Lewis 1.50

"*International Law, Davis 2.00

♦Political History of Modern Times. Mueller 2.00

*Short English Historj', Green 1.20

Civil Policy of Amei'ica. Draper 2.00

History of English People, Green, i vols 10.00

History of United States, Hildreth. 6 vols 12.00

The Constitution. Story ■;. .90

Holt & Co., Ne"W York.

*American Polities, .Johnston % 1.00

American Colonies, Doyle, 3 vols 9.00

American Currency, Sumner 2.50

History of Modern Europs, Fyffe, 3 vols 7.50

Political Economy, "Walker 2.35

Houghton, Mifiain & Co., Boston.

Discovery of America. Fiske, 2 vols •? 4.00

American Commonwealths, 14 vols., each 1.25

American Statesmen, 24 vols., each 1.25

American Revolution, Fiske, 2vols..' 4.00

Critical Period of American History. Fiske 2.00

Epitome ol History, Ploetz 3.00

Christopher Columbus, "Wiusor 4.00

Appleton, New York.

Dynamic Sociology, Ward, 2 vols $5.00

History of Civilization, Guizot 1.25

Political Economy, Mill, 2 vols .. _ ... 0.00

Cranston & Stowe, Chicago.

^Political Economy, Ely * 1.0(1

Macmillan,' New York.

(Constitutional Hist(n-y, Engla.nd, Stubbs, 3 vols.Jf 7.S(J
Principles of Economics, Marshall, vol. I 3,00

Armstrong, Ne"w York.
^'■•Democracy in Europe, May, 2 vols 3^ 2.50

G. P. Putnam's Sons, New York and London.

*American Citizen's Manual, Ford $ 1.25

Unwritten Constitution of the U. S.. Tiedeman . 1.00

History of Political Economy, Blanqui 3.00

Introduction to Eng. Econom. Hist, and Theory

Ashley : 1.50

Indust. and Com. Supremacy of Eng.. Rogers 3.00

Economic Interpretations of History, Rogers 3.00

Constitutional History of the U.S., Sterne 1.25

*Tariff History of the United States, Tavissig 1.35

The Story of Nations, 34 vols., each 1..50

Heroes of the Nations, 13 vols., each 1..50

American Orations, ed. by Johnston, 3 vols., each 1.25

Callaghan & Co., Chicago.
Constitutional History of U. S., Von Hoist, 8 vol $3.5.00

Constitutional Law of U. S., Von Hoist 3.00'

Political Economy, Roscher, 2 vols 6.00

Cro"well, New York.

*History of France, Duruy $ 3.00

Labor Movement in America, Ely 1.50

Life of Washington, pop. ed., Irving, 3 vols 3..50

Problems of To-day, Ely 1..tO

Little, Brown & Co., Boston.

History of Greece, Grote, 10 vols $17.. 50

Parkman's Works, per vol 1.50

Rise of the Republic, Frothingham 3.50

Longmans, Green & Co., Ne"wr York.

Epochs of Ancient History, each vol $ l.Ofl

Epochs of Modern History, each vol. 1.00

Political Economy, pop. ed., Mill 1.75k

The Crusades, Cox 1.00

Scribners, Ne"w York.

♦American Diplomacy, Schuyler $ 3.ii0

History of Rome. Mommsen, 4 vols 8.00

Lombard Street. Bagehot... _ _ 1.35

Silent South, Cable .. 1.00

Silver Burdett & Co., Boston.

♦Historical Atlas, Labberton .._ *1..50or!F 2.00

*Historical Geography of U. S., MacCoun 1.00

♦Institutes of Economics, Andrews 1..50

lustitues of General History, Andrews 3.00

Dodd, Mead & Co., New York.

History of Ui\ited States, Schouler, 5 vols $11. .50

D. C. Heath & Co., Boston.

♦The State, Woodrow Wilstm $ 2.00

Principles of Political Economy, Gide 2.00

Methods of Teaching Hi.story, Hall 1.50

General History. Sheldon 1.60

♦Old South Leaflets, 22 Nos., each

History Topics, Allen

.State and Fed. Governments of the U. S., Wilson

The American Citizen, Dole

Comparative View of Governments, Wenzel

Studies in American History, Sheldon— Barnes...



State University — Lawrence, Kansas.

Vol. II.

APRIL, 1893.

No. 6.


All students connected with the department!
of History and Sociology are, by virtue of such |
connection, members of the Seminary. All
students are expected to attend the Seminarj'
unless excused by the instructors of the depart-
ment. Students are credited with the time
spent in Seminary work.

The meetings of the Seminary are held every
Friday, in Room 15, University Building. Pub-
lic meetings will be held from time to time, after
due announcement.

The work of the Seminary consists of special
papers and discussions, on topics connected
with the Department mentioned ; prepared as
far as possible from consultation of original
sources and from practical investigation of
existing conditions, under the personal direction
of the officers of the Seminary

Special assistance in choice of themes, author-
ities, etc., is given members of the Seminary
who have written work due in the department
of History and Sociology, or in the department
of English, or in anj^ of the literary societies or
other similar organizations in the Universit.y ;
on condition that the results of such work shall
be presented to the Seminarj' if so required.

In connection with the work of the Seminary,
a Newspaper bureau is maintained. In this the
leading cities of the United States are repre-
sented by some twenty daily and weekly news-
papers. The principal object of the Bureau is
to enable students to form habits of sj^stematic
reading, to keep informed (m the current topics
of the day, to study the best types of modern
journalism, to learn to discriminate between
articles of temporary value only and those of
more permanent worth, to make a comparative
study of editorial work, to master for the time
being the current thought on any particular
subject, and to preserve by clippings properlj^
filed and indexed, important materials for the
study of current history and public life — to
make history by the arrangement and classifica-
tion of present historical matter.

Special investigation and study will be under-
taken during each year, bearing on some one or
more phases of the administration of public
affairs in this state ; the purpose being to com-
bine service to the state with the regular work

|of professional and student life. In this special
(work the advice and co-operation of state and
local officials and of prominent men of affairs is
constantly sought, thus bringing to students the
experience and judgment of the world about

Graduates of our own University, or other
persons of known scholarh- habits, who have
more than a passing interest in such work as
the Seminar}' undertakes, and who are willing
to contribute some time and thought to its suc-
cess, are invited to become corresponding mem-
bers of the Seminary. The only condition
attached to such membership is, that each cor-
responding member shall prepare during each
University year one paper, of not less than two
thousand five hundred words, on some subject
within the scope of the Seminary ; and present
the same in person at such time as may be
mutually agreed upon by the writer and the
officers of the Seminary, or in writing if it be
found impossible to attend a meeting of the

The library of the University and the time of
the officers of the Seminary are at the service
of corresponding members, in connection with
Seminary work — within reasonable limits.

More than twenty gentlemen, prominent in
official and professional circles, have already
connected themselves with the Seminary, and
have rendered very acceptable service during
past years.

The officei's and members of the" Seminary
will gladly render all possible assistance to any
public officials who may desire to collect spe-
cial statistics or secure definite information on
such lines of public work as are properly with-
in the sphere of the Seminary.

Any citizen of Kansas interested in this work
is invited to correspond with the Seminary, and
to be present at its meetings when possible.










■sn^HE class in English constitutional
^^ history has been organized for study
somewhat after the manner of a seminary,
that is, each member has chosen some
special feature in the development of the
English constitution and makes reports
upon the topic selected. The member
reporting becomes the teacher of the class
for the day upon which he makes his
reports. These reports are to be followed
by theses. As a sample of the work being
done, and because of its merit as a con-
densed statement of an interesting topic,
the following paper is published in the
Notes. The purpose of this paper is to
give a synopsis of the main steps by which
budgetary legislation came under the con-
trol, first, of Parliament, and second, of
the House of Commons. The Notes
hopes to publish similar papers on other
topics in English constitutional history, at
a later date.

The history of the budget in England
must necessarily begin with the year 1066,
for the Norman conquest marks a great
change in the social and political relations
of ruler and people. The records of the
system of taxation, previous to this time,
are vague and indistinct, and it is impos-
sible to assert with certainty that the early
Norman kings accepted any of the funda-
mental customs of the conquered nation.
But whether or not the old customs influ-
enced the new methods of government, is
of little importance, for it is in the time
of William I, that we notice the opening
of that long series of events which finally
led to the realization of the principle of
self-taxatien, and to the establishment of
constitutional government.

The early Norman kings had little or
no necessity for resorting to oppressive
taxation. The conquest of England threw
into the hands of the crown a vast amount

of land which could be divided among the
nobles upon condition of feudal aids or
services, and in this way the king had lit-
tle difficulty in collecting sufficient reve-
nue for the support of the crown. Such
taxation as did exist did not fall directly
from king to people, but from king to
baron, and the baron must obtain these
taxes by a further extension of the feudal
system from baron to people, so that the
natural opposition seemed to be between
the king and the barons. . As long as the
feudal system was in full force, as long as
the nobility were imbued with the spirit of
factional rather than of national interest,
just so long was the king looked upon by
the people as the representative of safe
and stable government. His rule might
be arbitrary, but it was preferable to the
uncertain rule of the feudal nobles.

But when the danger of petty feudal
government had passed away, the extreme
power of the crown became more evident-
ly burdensome, and the barons and the
people gradually learned to unite their
interests in opposition to those of the
king. Magna Charta is the result of this
union of interests. In it the barons de-
mand the recognition of their old right to
a share in the government of the nation,
and, together with the people assert the
great principle of self-taxation, not, how-
ever, as a new principle, but as an ancient

Magna Charta is justly regarded as the
bulwark of English liberty, but its accept-
ance by King John did not insure the
observance, by future kings, of the right
of the great council to assent to taxation,
for a changed condition of affairs soon led
to the disappearance of that unity of inter-
est between barons and people which was
necessary for the maintenance of rights
against a despotically minded king. Hen-



ry III continually violated the charter,
and it was not until the reign of Edward I
that the principles of government which
had been assented to by John, were fully
recognized by the royal power.

Edward came to the throne with the
firm determination to make England a
great nation, and he saw that the first part
of his work must be to solidify the inter-
ests of the people so that England would
not be disturbed by intestine quarrels. He
proposed, first of all, to carry into effect
the great constitutional principles of Mag-
na Charta, but he was not willing to give
effective force to the articles which pro-
vided that the right of taxation should be
dependent upon the consent of the great
council. Ultimately he was compelled to
acknowledge this right, and in the Con-
firmatio Chartarum the constitutional prin-
ciple of taxation is again asserted and
defined. More than this, by the Statuto
de Talligio, the king renounces the right,
which he had formerly possessd, of col-
lecting dues from towns in his capacity of
feudal landlord, and thus becomes more
dependent upon the good will of his par-
liament for the supply of money.

The reign of Edward I marks the organ-
ization of the English form of government.
Up to this time the struggle had been con-
cerning the part to be played by the vari-
ous estates in the government of the
nation, but now the question was decided
once for all, and later controversies always
turned upon the interpretation to be placed
upon the powers of the crown, of the
nobility, or of the commons, during the
reign of Edward I. At one time the
crown may be all powerful, at another the
parliament, but the basis of the correct
form of government, and of the principle
of self-taxation, which so surely serves as
an index of the realization of constitu-
tional government at any given period, is
to .be found in the reign of Edward I.

But the assertion that this reign con-
tained the basis of all subsequent consti-
tutional government, does not imply that
it is also the limit of such irovernment.

By a wide interpretation of the provisions
of Edward I, parliament could greatly
extend its powers. Thus, under Richard
II, an important restriction was placed
upon the power of the crown over the
budget, in that the principle was estab-
lished that parliament may limit the extent
of the grant, in other words, may deter-
mine that a grant shall be used for a par-
ticular purpose, and for no other. This
restriction, vague and indefinite though it
may be, is an instance of the' ever growing
power of the commons over matters of
taxation. It is the first evidence of a be-
lief on the part of parliament that it was
of the utmost importance to determine,
not only the amount, but also the purpose,
of taxation.

The influence of the commons steadily
continued to increase during the reign of
Henry IV, whose hatred of the power of
the nobles led him to favor the lower
house of parliament, but with the advent
of Henry VI, the reaction against the
commons began. The almost total sup-
pression of the influence of the commons
was finally accomplished by the same
series of events which overthrew the bar-
ons. The wars of the Roses swept away
the last remnant of feudal power, and at
the same time raised to the throne a king",
in the person of Edward IV, whose power
was too strong for any opposition on the
part of the commons.

The rulers of England from Edward IV
to Elizabeth took upon themselves a large
part of the duty of government, and would
permit but little interference on the part
of parliament. Frequently, if they were
in need of money, they secured it by
means of forced loans, of benevolences,
or of arbitrary taxation, although Henry
VIII felt himself so secure in his position
that he was able to use his parliament as
a convenient medium for the registration
of royal decrees. Henry's ability to man-
age his parliament arose mainly from the
decay of the old nobility and from the
creation by the King of a new nobility,
who would of necessity simply be follow-



ers of the royal will. Besides this, the
sudden advancement of industrial life and
the religious impulses of the nation served
to turn attention away from the arbitrary
exercise of power by the king. But under
Elizabeth, protestantism became the estab-
lished religion of England, and men found
time to turn their thoughts to other ques-
tions than those of belief. Elizabeth
levied taxes arbitrarily, collected benevo-
lencies, and granted monopolies for a
money consideration, but when her par-
liaments met she found herself opposed by
a bold spirit, which had not existed for a
hundred years. Parliaments insisted on
their right to take part in the government
of the nation. They compelled the queen
to give up the granting of monopolies, but
they could not regain the measure of lib-
erty enjoyed under Edward I. Preroga-
tive was safe with Elizabeth, but it only
needed a less capable monarch to provide
the opportunity for the regaining of
ancient liberties. Yet something more
than this was now demanded by the
commoners. They were no longer con-
tent to determine merely the amount and
purpose of taxation, but in addition to
claiming that right they were prepared to
attempt to control the policy of the gov-
ernment in all matters whatsoever, and
sought to make the right of self-taxation
the means by which such further control
should be secured. The fact that the
central point of the controversy between
James I and Charles I, on one side, and
the conjmoners on the other, seemed to
be the question of arbitrary taxation, does
not mean that it comprised the whole of
the question at issue. If parliament and
the king had been in harmony as to the
policy of the government the king would
have found little difficulty in procuring
regular supplies. The refusal of the
king to permit parliament to have a share
in the control of the policy of the nation
led to the refusal of parliament to grant
supplies, and forced the king to appeal to
prerogative and the use of arbitrary tax-
ation. This is the importance of the

struggle over the principle of self-taxation
which resulted in the war for the com-
monwealth. That war decided that the
right of self-government belonged to the
people, but it was not until 1688 that the
contest was closed and the principle fully
realized. The Bill of Rights finally es-
tablished the constitutional principle of
self-taxation. Chapter 2, after asserting
that James II had levied subsidies with-
out the consent of parliament, declares
"that levying money for or to the use of
the crown by pretense of prerogative with-
out grant of parliament, or for longer time
or in other manner than the same is or
shall be granted is illegal." Parliament
never again found it necessary to assert by
statute the right of self-taxation. The long
struggle beginning with Magna Charta*
in i2i5,and continuing until the Bill of
Rights in 1688, was ended at last, and
the principle upon which rests all the lib-
erties of England to-day, the principle
that the people have a right to determine
through their representatives the amount
and purpose of taxation, was firmly estab-
lisehd. Up to the time of Charles II the
struggle had been between the crown and
parliament, but now the nature of the
contest was changed. The royal prerog-
ative had been limited and parliament
had become the real ruler of the nation,
but the contest now arose as to the rights
of the commons in parliament over mat-
ters of taxation. The Lords could not
claim to represent the nation in parlia-
ment as thoroughly as did the commons,
and it seemed but a new phase of an old
principle that the commons should pos-
sess the sole right of initiative in matters
of taxation. Under Charles II the com-
mons made a formal assertion of such a

*Feilden in his Constitutional History of England,
page 195, gives the following statutes as being the
most important in limiting arbitrary taxation:

Magna Charta, 1215; Uonflrmatio Uhartarum, 1397;
Ordinances of 1311; Right of Tallage abolished, -1340
and 1348 ; King forbidden to tax wool, 136'J ; 1371;
Benevolences declared illegal, 1481; Monopolies sur-
rendered, 1601, 1624, 1639; Petition of Right. 1628; Ship
Money and distraint of Knighthood abolished, 1641;
Feudal incidents surrendered, 1660; Bill of Rights,



right, although it had undoubtedly been
an active principle of government for a
long time. A resolution of the House of
Commons in 1678 declares that "all aids
and supplies and aids to His Majesty in
parliament are the sole gifts of the com-
mons; and all bills for th.e granting of
any such aids and supplies ought to begin
with the commons; and that it is the
undoubted and sole right of the commons
to direct, limit and appoint in such bills,
the ends, purposes, considerations, con-
ditions, limitations and qualifications of
such grants which ought not to be changed
or altered by the House of Lords-"*

This resolution was at once a protest
against the rejection, or more strictly in
this case, the amendment, of money bills
by the House of Lords, and an assertion
of the principle that aids to the Crown are
the sole gift of the Commons. The Lords
did not deny the principle asserted by
the Commons, and the right has long been
recognized by the speech from the throne
at the opening of Parliament, for that por-
tion of the speech which refers to the
general condition of the nation is ad-
dressed to "my Lords and gentlemen,"
while the portion referring to supplies is
addressed to "gentlemen of the House of
Commons, "t But although the Lords
readily assented to the principle that aids
to the Crown are the sole gift of the Com-
mons, they have never formally renounced
their right of the amendment or rejection
of money bills. The two houses did not
come into serious conflict on this point
until i860, when the Lords rejected a bill
sent up by the commons;}; which provided
for a repeal of the paper duties and an
increase of the property tax. The atti-
tude of the Commons is well summarized
by Anson: § "The Commons met this
action on the part of the Lords by resolu-
tions which set forth the privileges of the
House in matters of taxation, and while

*Anson, Law and Custom of the Conststution, Vol.
I»p. 331.

t Chicago Tribune, Feb. 18, 1890, p. 5.

:;:May, Parliamentary Practice, p. 649.

§ AnBon. Law and Custom of the Constintion, Vol. I.
p. 833,

they did not deny that the Lords might
have the power of rejecting money bills,
intimated that the Commons had it always
in their power so to frame money bills as
to make the right of rejection nugatory.
The resolutions were three in number.
The first recites that the right of granting

Online LibraryKansas. UniversitySeminary notes published by the Seminary of historical and political science → online text (page 55 of 62)