[tag=NNS] | [lemma=the] □
[tag=NNS] | [lemma=the] □ □
[tag=NNS] | [lemma=the] □?
It also appears that the plaintiff was trying to stand on two grounds ; first , privity , as descendant and assign of the covenantee ; second , that the service was attached to the manor by covenant or by prescription , and that he could maintain covenant as tenant of the manor , from whichever source the duty arose . The grounds for this opinion are , firstly , that the King and the two Houses acting together can most certainly enact or repeal any law whatever without in any way contravening the Parliament Act ; and , secondly , that the House of Lords , while it cannot prevent the House of Commons from , in effect , passing under the Parliament Act any change of the constitution , provided always that the requirements of the Parliament Act are complied with , nevertheless can , as long as that Act remains in force , prohibit the passing of any Act the effectiveness of which depends upon its being passed without delay . The blackleg may be , and one may suspect often is , a mean fellow who , to put money into his own pocket , breaks rules which his fellow-workers hold to be just and beneficial to the trade generally . Hence , on the whole , the correct legal statement of the actual condition of things is that sovereignty still resides in Parliament , i.e. in the King and the two Houses acting together , but that the Parliament Act has greatly increased the share of sovereignty possessed by the House of Commons and has greatly diminished the share thereof belonging to the House of Lords . When we contemplate the theory of the British government , we see the King invested with the most absolute personal impunity ; with a power of rejecting laws , which have been resolved upon by both Houses of Parliament ; of conferring by his charter , upon any set or succession of men he pleases , the privilege of sending representatives into one House of Parliament , as by his immediate appointment he can place whom he will in the other . In each instance , and in many other cases which will occur to any intelligent reader , English democrats entertain a considerable difficulty in opposing claims with which they might possibly on grounds of expediency or of common sense have no particular sympathy . These facts may rekindle among the youth of England as of France the sense that to be young is very heaven ; these facts may console old men whom political disillusion and disappointment which they deem undeserved may have tempted towards despair , and enable them to rejoice with calmness and gravity that they have lived long enough to see the day when the solemn call to the performance of a grave national duty has united every man and every class of our common country in the determination to defy the strength , the delusions , and the arrogance of a militarised nation , and at all costs to secure for the civilised world the triumph of freedom , of humanity , and of justice . This topic is one on which I have no wish to dwell , but it cannot be forgotten by any sensible observer who reflects upon the history of secession in the United States , or of the Sonderbund in Switzerland , or who refuses to forget the preeminently uneasy connection between the different parts of the Austrian Empire and the deliberate determination of Norway to sever at all costs the union with Sweden . If the true meaning had been that a way or other easement admits of possession , and is taken possession of with the land to which it runs , and that its enjoyment is protected on the same grounds as possession in other cases , the thought could have been understood . The constitution was marked by more than one transcendent quality which in the eyes of our fathers raised it far above the imitations , counterfeits , or , parodies , which have been set up during the last hundred years throughout the civilised world ; no precise date could be named as the day of its birth ; no definite body of persons could claim to be its creators , no one could point to the document which contained its clauses ; it was in short a thing by itself , which Englishmen and foreigners alike should " venerate , where they are not able presently to comprehend . The power of an elector to elect is as completely abolished by constitutional understandings in America as is the royal right of dissent from bills passed by both Houses by the same force in England . Queen Elizabeth at a time when the King or Queen of England was not indeed the absolute sovereign of the country , but was certainly the most important part of the sovereign power , namely Parliament.110 In this Introduction the referendum , or the people 's veto , is considered simply with reference to Bills passed by the Houses of Parliament but which have not received the royal assent . The thirty-one peers who protested against the Bill because ( among other grounds ) it is agreed , that the House of Commons must be chosen by the people , and when so chosen , they are truly the representatives of the people , which they cannot be so properly said to be , when continued for a longer time than that for which they were chosen ; for after that time they are chosen by the Parliament , and not the people , who are thereby deprived of the only remedy which they have against those , who either do not understand , or through corruption , do wilfully betray the trust reposed in them ; which remedy is , to choose better men in their places ,9 hit exactly the theoretical objection to it . It is supposed , lastly , though the grounds for the supposition are not very evident , that the federalisation of the United Kingdom is necessary for , or conducive to , the development of Imperial federalism .