The Sun. — London, England, 1860-07-06 00:00:00

MOM Dooms e and ir, be of ad- rticu st sal leman =Hon ment, lly to st sat oralso a first reso- se re ot re .. ;they .ntire roved Lin, at 31ara clara- I the r said aim. in view, which was to constrain and coerce this house to give its attention to matters of supply before matters of grievance, and it was in order to carry that point that they made this large admission, that they would not so much as advise in matter of supply. The House of Lords failed in carrying their point, and they never repeated that ad mission. On the contrary, they entirely withdrew it, and in the year 1671, as well as upon subsequent occasions, they asserted largely their right to deal with matter of supply, sometimes in broader terms, sometimes in narrower terms. Sometimes they said generally that they could not be ousted of that right ; sometimes they claimed merely a right to abate a tax; sometimes they referred in particular to those cases in which considerations of trade were involved and said that at any rate they were as good judges of the in terests of trade as were the House of Commons, bat since 1640 they never made any admission —on the contrary, in 1671 they entirely withdrew the admission which they had mr.de—of the privileges and rights of the House of Com mons. Therefore, if we look at the theory of this case, the two houses are absolutely at variance, (Hear, hear.) With limitedexceptions, introduced into the case by recent modi fications of our own standing oriers, which have taken place within the memory of some n's, the two houses are, if we look at the question abstractedly, at absolute variance. The Mouse of Commons claims, by it; privilege, every thing wherein money is mentio - aed the House of Lords recog nising by no act of its o- iftnr'nydistinction, but also claim ing a legislative power 'Without limits. It is quite a mistake to suppose that the Finuse of Lords has ever made the ad mission that a mor .ear bill cannot originate there. By prac tice a money bill d oes not originate in, the House of Lords, but there is no admission that a money bill cannot originate there. Just, in the same way, there is no admission on the part of the I - louse of Lords that a money bill cannot be amender?, t 3 ore. Strange to say, some great doctors of the censtPairton are reported to have stated on a recent occasion that it, was a principle admitted on all hands that no money lAl'could be amended in the House of Lords. Why, sir, on the contrary, not only is there nothing in the rules of the 'House of Lords, so far, at least, as the researches of the commiatee have gone, to prevent such amendment, but it is actually the fact that the eases of amending money bills in the House of Lords are more frequent than those in which such bills have been rejected by that house. (Hear, hear.) The truth is, I apprehend, that under cover of these broad and, in themselves, perhaps, untenable and extravagant doctrines of privilege, the House of Commons formally claiming everything, and the House of Lords formally con ceding nothing—ur.aler cover of that apparent conflict, there has been a real, and until the present time an un broken, harmony for 200 years. The secret of that har mony is that both houses by these claims, apparently so conflicting, have meant the same thing. The House of Common s by its privileges with respect to Money Bills has meant to reserve to itself the integrity of tht taxing power, and the House of Lords, by declining to %draft the claim of the House of Commons, has intended to Ipreserve to itself an effective means of preventing the House of Commons from forcing upon it other matters of general i legislation under cover of Money Bills. (Hear, hear.) I have just made a statement wifich sounds like an authorita tive exposition of the practice of the constitution; but, of course, I mean it only as an assertion which is'to be tested by the evidence of facts and documents. Let any gentle- Irian review the entire list of these precedents, and see whether every one of them does not completely coincide with the principles I have laid down. There is not, so far as I know, a single case upon record since the present sys tem of taxation was established until the Paper Duties Repeal Bill of 1860, in which the House of Lords has attempted to interfere with the taxing function of the House of Commons. (Cheers.) Therefore, when it is said that we sire to maintain our essential privileges inviolate, what I ask myself, and what I ask myself in vain, is what are ibis essential privileges of the House of Commons which it is intended to maintain inviolate, and which are not violated by the rejection of the Paper Duties Repeal Bill? (Cheers.) It appears to me that the origination of a bill Tor the imposition of a tax, or the amendment of a money bill, is a slight thing compared to the claim to prevent the repeal of a tax. (Cheers,) I have said that the precedents are entirely adverse to the step which has been taken. The mode in which many of these pretended precedents have exploded has really been almost ludicrous. I may refer to one case, and it will be the only one with which I shall trouble the house. It is the case of the Excise duty upon stone bottles. A bill was introduced to " Repeal the Duty upon Stone Bottles, and to grant other duties in lieu thereof." Such was the title of the bill. It was quoted as an instance of the House of Lords interfering to arrest the repeal of a tax. What did that bill do ? In the first place, it was a bill which had not a fiscal, but a political object, that object being protection. But, besides that, though it is true that it repealed the duty upon stone bottles—as whenever we alter duties we always begin with repealing them—yet it imposed upon stone bottles a duty double that which it repealed. (Hear, hear.) It was not a bill of repeal at all in any intelligible sense of the term, but a bill to double the duties upon stone bottles. (Cheers.) The precedents, I repeat, are entirely to the effect which has been substantially stated by my noble friend ; that is to say, they do not cover, in the substantial and es seutial points, the act that has now been done, because none of them were interferences with the taxing power of this house. Some of them were interferences with bills that had a preamble of supply ; but these were bills which were pre pared for objects other than those of taxation. Taxation was incidental; those other objects were the main pur poses; and the House of Lords justly declined to part with its jurisdiction over matters of legislation and policy, on account of the privileges of this house with respect to money. But I am bound to say that, even if the precedents were otherwise than they are, it seriously requires the considera tion of this house, whether its own essential functions are to be maintained or not. (Cheers.) I do not deny, as re sponsible for the finances of the country, that the sum of perhaps £700,000 which will be brought into the Exche quer by the continuance of the paper duty between the 15th of August and the Ist of April is exceedingly acceptible, provided it be honestly obtained. (Hear, hear, and a laugh.) But I must confess that, although no person is more likely than myself to be liable to the influence and seductions of money, yet there are other things that are more valuable even than £700,000. (Cheers.) I believe that the ques tion, whether the exclusive power of taxation is to rest with the House of Commons, is a question of ten—nay, a hun dred—times greater importance and value than the confirm ante of the paper duty. (Cheers.) I have said, that there is no instance in which, when this house has intended the repeal of a tax, the House of Lords has interfered to arrest it. Some gentlemen have said, that on the present occa sion the House of Commons was very foolish, and the House of Lords very wise ; that the House of Commons had made a great and undue sacrifice of public revenue, and the House of Lords interposed to arrest the House of Commons in its career of extravagance and improvidence. That is the alle gation. But, without entering at this moment into the argument, with respect to which, however, I am prepared to maintain all that I have maintained on previous occasions —(cheers)—l want to know whether that really is the constitution under which we live ? (Continued cheer ing.) The House of Commons cannot be infallible in matters of finance any more than in other matters. No doubt the House of Commons may make errors, of which I shall give you an instance presently, but I wish to know whether those errors in matters of finance are or are not to be liable to correction by the House of Lords? (Cheers.) If they are, what becomes of your privileges ? (Cheers.) Why does the House of Lords ever differ from us ? No doubt be cause it thinks we have committed an error, and it can sug gest an improvement. That is perfectly legitimate, but the question now raised is whether they have the power of re view which is exercised by the House of Lords in all mat tars of general legislation is likewise to be extended to finance, and whether the function of the House of Commons in imposing and repealing taxes is to be divided as to its exercise and the responsibility which it involves with the House of Lords ? (Cheers.) I think this case, besides the positive illustration of precedents, is susceptible likewise of negative illustration. The argument is that the House of Lords has interfered to correct the folly of the Commons in giving away revenue which was supposed to be required for the purposes of the year, or, rather, for the purposes of future years, because, in point of fact, it does not seem to have been stated that the revenue was required for the pur poses of the present year. It will be required, or other money in lieu of it will be required, for the purposes of the year, and I do not at all disguise the difficulty in which this house is placed when it has to vindicate its privileges and insist upon its vote on the one hand, and to receive a considerable addition to the income of the year on the other. But what I want to say is, that the ll:use of Lords has not upon former occasions considered itself to be charged with this re sponsibility. In 1853 a bill for the repeal of the soap duties Was passed at a considerably later period of the see. 510 U than the d ay on which the Paper Dut i es Bill was re jected. That bill was passed at a time when undoubtedly the prospe c t, of the co of war with Russia had become with respect to the probability such that there was very serious alarm, and a very general belief that war would be encountered, and that a great increase would be made to the burdens of the country. I who recollect the eircumstan a e ni es es r t u e h e t h monthat t, h o o s f e j gentlemen , will concur in the statement I have just made. If I re member aright, the Emperor of Russia had already occupied the Principalities ; sev era l debates had taken place in this house ; considerable excitement prevailed in the üblic m i n d ; various peers in anoth er place actually urged th e pro bability of war as a reason why the soap duties should not be w t h h i e ch soa th p e duties uti feltes re pealed. I think I may say th a t t h e Gov ment of the d a y would not have proposed the repeal of in July had it not been a propo sa l to themselves pledged by their previous proceedings, and by the sanction which the House of Commons had given to it by its vote. But the House of Lords at that period passed the bill for the repeal of the soap duties, and entirely de - alined the plea which was urged even for a short delay i n the consideration of the measure. Why did the House of Lords do that ? If I remember rightly, the right hon. gentleman the member for Droitwich and other s , exerc i sing the privilege of fair criticism on the acts of the Gov ernment, comp l a i ne d greatly at the time of the loss of revenue. They used just the same epithets then that we hear now. They asked what could be more unwise, more reckless, more im provident, more profligate, than to part with the revenue from the soap duties at the opening of a probable war in Europe. Yet, although a war with Russia was likely, I true, to /Mpg, much haaybr burdens Wm war with THE SUN, LONDON FRIDAY EVENING, JULY China, the House of Lords entirely declined to meddle with a matter - ih - reg — Wd to which they felt they had no responsi bility. In accordance with the sound doctrine laid down by the Prime Minister of the day, they declared that it was the act of the House of Commons, and if ways and means were wanted to carry on the service of the country, on that house would rest the responsibility of providing them. (Hear.) There i= a view of the matter which I should have thought 3vould have suggested itself to those who have directed the councils of the House of Lords. When the House of Com mons entertains financial proposals it must hereafter look not only to their merits, but to their probable popularity. (Hear.) They must recollect that there are those lying in ambush for them—(hear) —who will be ready to interfere at the proper moment. .If it chance that in considering the claims of various to es for reduction they make that choice which, according to their judgment and conscience, they believe to be for the good of the country rather than that which will probably meet the popular view, the must bear in mind that there aro those who will take advantage of their having acted on their conscientious convictions, and who will use the opportunity to reject the repeal of the tax. (Hear, hear.) That is the very case which has hap pened this year. (Hear, hear.) After it had been deter mined that a certain amount of taxation should be remit ted, the question, in the first place for the Government, and in the second place for the House of Commons, was whether the paper duties should be repealed, or whether a reduction should be made in the duties on sugar or tea. The Govern. meat certainly were well aware that the paper duties con stituted an impost which had no great hold on the mind of the general mass of the consumers of the country; and I believe the House of Commons was perfectly aware of that too. (Hear.) But the Government, and as I apprehend the House of Commons, thought that, under the circum stances, probably greater good would be derived from the repeal of the paper duties than from the reduction of the sugar duties, because though it would less commend itself to the popular mind, the benefit which, through the medium of an extended trade, it would confer on the population of the country would be greater. (Hear.) The hon. member for Liskeard (Mr. B. Osborne) says he thinks the repeal of the paper duties a very bad measure, though, I believe, he did not vote against it. Now, I doubt very much whether he would have ventured to say that of the reduction of the sugar duties. No man would have ventured to offer any strong opposition to the reduction of the sugar duties. (Hear.) But our proposal of that measure which, though less popular, we deemed more beneficial, was strongly re sisted, and led the House of Lords to device c from ihe course it had pursued without interruption for nearly 200 years. (Hear.) I want to know what is to be the influence of this Consideration upon those who are hereafter to frame the financial proposals of the country? (Hear.) Surely it was for the interest of the House of Lords to give us every en couragement to avoid that temptation to which, being under the influence of popular feeling, we are naturally exposed, to choose not the best but the most popular measure. We did resist that temptation, and what is the lesson the House of Lords has taught us ? Did it not at once seize the op portunity of resisting our proposal, under shelter of the po pular feeling. (Hear.) I said this case was capable of negative as well as of positive illustration ; and I have shown in the case of the soap duties in 1853, which was in most respects a parallel, and where not a parallel a still stronger case, the House of Lords wisely left to us the responsibility of providing the ways and means to meet the necessities of the year. I will show you another instance by travelling a little further back. In 1839 the budget was presented at the usual period of the year in which the expenditure and revenue of the country were as nearly as possible balanced. At a later period a measure was proposed, which I regard as one of the happiest and most advantageous measures that has marked the happy reign of her Majesty Queen Victoria —I mean the measure for reducing the postage duties to a uniform rate of a single penny. (Hear.) The Post-office at that time returned a clear net revenue of £1,400,000 or £1,500,000 a-year; and it was perfectly obvious that the reduction of the rate of postage to ld., whatever might be its ultimate results, would have the immediate effect of sweeping away the whole of that net revenue from the country ; and so it proved. Although that beneficial repeal has been worth five times over the revenue we lost, yet at this day, after 21 years, our revenue has not been entirely replaced. In that year (1839) the House of Lords, almost for the first time in its history, succeeded in obtaining a copy of the estimates with the help of a compliant Chan cellor of the Exchequer; and much good it did them, as you will 'say when you hear the result. That estimate showed them there was no surplus. In sending up the bill to the Lords the Commons distinctly acknowledged that it would create a deficiency in the revenue, and by a special resolution pledged themselves to provide for that deficiency in the following year. There was therefore no dispute whatever that this measure would produce a deficiency. Why, then, did not the House of Lords interfere upon that occasion ? (Hear, hear.) They passed that bill without difficulty or dispute, without raising the financial question at all. (Hear, hear.) And, strangest of all the strange occurrences of that remarkable year, the man who sent up to the House of Lords that bill for creating a deficiency in the revenue of the year, was Mr. Thomas Spring Rice, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer. (Cheers and laughter.) The very same gentleman, unless the almanacks deceive us, who, having since obtained the title of Lord Monteagle, is reported to have played a leading part in advising the House of Lords to take upon itself those functions which, if ever they were to be used at all, ought to have been used in 1839. (Hear, hear.) I keep to my pledge, and will not enter into the details of the precedents. If a challenge proceeds from_ the _ other side if it is contended that in the catalogue before us there aro cases analo gous to the present, and that the House of Lords have ever before attempted to exercise the functions of the House of Commons, we shall have other opportunities of meeting and contesting these allegations. For the present I content myself with stating that there is no colour of precedent for such proceedings. (Hear, hear.) I beg the house to believe that this is really a matter of great importance. (Hear, hear.) Since the peace of 1815 £78,000,000 of taxes have been repealed. All the bills that have repealed that amount of taxation have been accepted by the House of Lords from the House of Commons upon the responsibility of the lat ter. (Cheers.) And only now when we come to the 79th million, has the House of Lords thought fit to interfere, and establish a new precedent. (Cheers.) For my part, I cannot but feel that this is a time when men are little apt and disposed to deal with abstract principles; and those assertions which our forefathers made of their rights we now think-of little value or consequence compared with ob taining a few hundred thousand pounds. (Hear, hear.) It may be that my views on this subject are littlecompatible with the tendencies of the age, but I confess I cannot bring my mind to take that view. I do regard the whole rights of the House, of Commons as they have been handed down to us as constituting a sacred inheritance upon which I, for my part, will never voluntarily permit any intrusion or plunder to be made. (Cheers.) I think that the very first of our duties—anterior to the duty of dealing with any le gislative measure, and higher and more sacred than any such duties, high and sacred though they may be—is to maintain intact that precious deposit. I concur in every word of the resolution proposed by my noble friend which we have in our hands. But I respectfully reserve to myself the freedom of acting in such a way as shall appear—if any such way should appear—to offer any hope of success in giving effect by a practical measure to the priuCiple con tained in that resolution. (fiend cheers, chiefly from hon. members below the gangway.) Mr. WHITESIDE—I am at a loss to know why the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer has directed his attack against members on the Opposition benches instead of against the members of his own administration. (Cheers.) I invite the attention of the house to the course which this debate has taken—(cheers and counter cheers) — in vindication of those with whom I have the honour to act, who have been observed upon because they have not stood up to resist the speech or the motion of the noble viscount. I am myself as ready to enter into debate as any hon. gentleman. (Laughter and cheers.) I came down to the house expecting to find the opposite benches filled with sincere men, with uncompromising patriots, who would not be content with mere speeches, but who wore prepared to follow up words with action. What was the first thing that took place this evening? The noble lord the member for Marylebone, a stern assertor of the privileges of this house, stooa up, amid the derision and jeers of this house, to desire the hon. member for Finsbury to withdraw his amendment, lest the happy unanimity of the independent Liberals should be disturbed. And then the hon. gentleman the member for Finsbury, with his inimitable wit, exposed the folly and inconsistency of this course, but finding that he had no support, yielded to the soft eloquence of the noble lord the member for Marylebone, and gracefully withdrew his amendment. That was the first scene in the drama. The noble viscount then rose, and I must do him the justice to say that his speech was everythingthat could be desired. I never heard the noble viscount speak more satisfacto.ily, and I only regret that his arguments did not make more im pression on the mind of his refractory Chancellor of the Ex chequer. (Cheers and laughter.) The noble viscount put the .question in a fair, a temperate, and a satisfactory manner before the house. He spoke as the First Minister of this country ought to speak—he spoke in the spirit of the consti tution. His speech was in favour of peace, and while he as sorted the rights of this house he declared with great good sense and truth that the conduct of the House of Lords for the last.ls or 20 years proved that they were not actuated by an unpatriotic spirit—that their conduct need not provoke the conduct of this house—that the precedents in favour of their interference were too many, though they might not, perhaps, satisfy in point of logic the mind of a special p p l u e g a n d o e n n t to His n and yet hon. gentlemen opposite pers isted in askin g this the speech,sp e c fact,tl ie C w h a a s n c e e v l e l r o y r t o hl f h g e that c h w e a q s u e r r e -; side of the house, " Why don't you get up and attack the noble viscount ? why • don't you argue the question ?" when, in fact, there was nothing to argue about. The noble viscount unequivocally admitted the right of the House of Lords to do what they had done. (No, no.) He made a distinct and emphatic declaration of the right of the House of Lords, according both to the law and the constitution; and the exclamations of hon. gentlemen opposite are of no avail, for they will not alter the truth. (C heers.) The noble lord admitted, as he was bound to do —lllllll 4 'he were a rabid- revolutionist—he admitted the right of the House of Lords to take the course they did; • a l 4 . AlMort that it waa a moderate 43%4 WWI MIMI The speech of the noble viscount was satisfactory to us ; and, what is more, I venture to say it will be satisfactory to the country. The speech was becoming one in the high posi tion of the noble lord, though it seems to have mightily in censed the Chancellor of the Exchequer. (Laughter.) What followed ? After the noble lord sat down, I had still hopes that we should have a real debate, because I felt that speech without action would be despicable. I had hopes from the hon. member for Plymouth, whom I saw preparing himself with oranges. (Laughter.) I had hopes that he would proceed with his amendmant ; and I could not believe the whispers that the amendment was about to be withdrawn, surrounded as that hon. member was by so many cham pions of popular rights, and backed up by the hon. member for Birmingham and the noble lord the member for Mary lebone. But the hon. member did withdraw his amend - ment, thereby virtually admitting—my speech will not cover the amendment lam about to propose. I cannot expect that my arguments will convince the house. But though the hon. member withdrew his amendment he persisted in making his speech. I did not pay that attention to his speech which I would have done if I lead thought him in earnest. But I pass it by for the moment to revert to the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Without any disturbance from any speeches on this side of the house, without a word said to excite his irritable temper, the right hon. gentleman sprung from his seat to attack these Opposition benches as partisans of a gigantic innovation on the constitution. (Cheers.) Oh, yes, I shall put his argument as fully and fairly as you can desire, and I will contrast his speech with the speech of the noble viscount ; and what is more, I shall confront his speech with the miserable resolution he supports. If the right hon. gentleman believes the tenth part of what ho has stated — if this be a gigantic innovation on the constitution—if the functions of the House of Commons be invaded—if this be a time not for speech but for action, why does the right hon. gentleman content himself with words ?—why does he turn round and say " I cordially approve the speech of the noble viscount; I cordially approve of his resolution ?" a resolu tion which all who have spoken from those benches have pronounced to be worthless, pitiful, contemptible, as one gentleman expressed it, covering the House of Commons with contempt. The right hon. the Chancellor of the Ex- chequer, in a tone of the most virtuous indignation—l hope it is not assumed—(laughter)—declares that the dearest rights of the House of Commons are attacked—that it is the duty of the house to be jealous in the assertion of its privileges; and then—oh, most lame and impotent conclu sion, which, to my astonishment, was received with cheers —he turns round and says, "I approve of every word the noble viscount has spoken." (No, no.) I say yes, yes. Is there no incongruity between the two grounds which the right hon. gentleman has taken up. Are you satisfied with the speech of the right hon. gentleman ? If you approve what he said why do you not act in the spirit which he evinced I' I can respect a Radical who acts out his Radical opinions. I value a Conservative who stands up for his principles. I have a sincere respect for a constitutional Whig like the noble viscount, who temperately and calmly asserts his opinions. But I have no respect for a politician who pretends to believe that the great interests of the coun try are at stake—who asserts that the House of Lords has not the power which it has assumed ; and then says, I am satisfied with the resolution which the noble lord has proposed. What is that resolution ? It is—" That although the Lords have exercised the power of rejecting bills of se veral descriptions relating to taxation, by negativing the whole, yet the exercise of that power by them has not been frequent, and is justly regarded by this house with peculiar jealousy as affecting the right of the Commons to grant the supplies and to provide the ways and means for the service of the year." What is this but fairly to imply all that the Lords claim ? It admits in the most unequivocal manner that the power is vested in the House of Lords ; it acknow ledges that they have exercised those rights, and that this house has not complained of their exercise ; but then it says that the exercise of this power has always been viewed with jealousy by this house. Contrast that resolution with the speech of the right hon. gentleman who has followed up on this occasion the whole course he has pursued through this session by a fresh attack on the constitution of this country. He tells us that the time for action has come. But why does he not act ? (Hear, hear.) What is the use of this vague threat? If we are to have a struggle for the main tenance of the well-beloved constitution of this country the sooner it begins the better; and I admit that the cause of the assailants could not be in better hands than those of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. (Hear, hear.) He asks how it has happened that the Lords so seldom exercised the power which they claimed ? and my answer is, because they have rarely had to deal with such a financial Minister and with such a financial condition as those which they have at present to encounter. The right hon. gentleman alarmed the country by his financial schemes, and he sought further to diminish the national resources by a proposal for the abolition of the paper duty. The House of Lords rejected that proposal. I believe that in doing so they meant to rebuke the policy of the right honourable gentleman, and I feel persuaded that in the present aspect of affairs in this country and out of this country they acted wisely—they acted from the highest sense of duty and the loftiest patriot ism. The right hon. gentleman says that there is no prece dent in this case to justify the House of Lords in the course they have adopted. In considering that statement of the right hon. gentleman, I ask hon. gentlemen to bear in mind that in that house sit the men who built up the fabric—the noble fabric of our jurisprudence, the work of whose lives has been to examine precedents, and to apply them justly —the ablest thinkers, the most consummate lawyers, the most successful men of business, and some of the very best writers and speakers this kingdoni can produce. These have all joined in condemning the policy of the right hon. gentleman, and have felt themselves justified in opposing it by the rejection of the bill which he introduced. The noble lord, who addressed the house in a tone very different from that of his colleague, justly directed the at tention of the house to the language held by the Attorney- General in the year 1671. But I must observe that that language was not an admission, but a statement of the rights of the House of Lords. The Lords asked, if you do not allow us to initiate or to alter bills, where, then, are our privileges ? And what could be more emphatic, concise, or conclusive than the answer given to that question by the Commons ? That answer was that the Lords had still a right to negative the whole of a bill. (" Read on," from Mr. Bright.) I will read on, but you will find that that will only make the matter worse. The Lords asked, if they could reject the whole, why could not they reject a part of a bill ? And the answer of the Commons was that the King might reject the whole of a bill, but that he could not re • ject a portion of it, and that did not take away his negative voice. • I believe that the House of Commons by degrees deprived the House of Lords of the rights they had anciently possessed. The Commons stripped them of the right of altering or amending bills ; but they were told that they had their remedy, inasmuch as they might negative the whole of a measure. That is the result of the matter. I think I can show that must have been the opinion held by the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself when he wrote his well-known work on the relations of the Church and the State. In that work I find the following passage : "The members of the House of Commons have the exclu: sive right of passing money resolutions and introducing and altering money bills. But no such resolution can be passed—that is to say, no money can be given by the House of Commons, except on the motion of the Crown, to which the initiative is reserved ; and no moneybill becomes law unless it receives the assent of the Upper House and the Crown in its legislative capacity." We are now told by the right hon. gentleman, as well as by the hon, mem ber for Birmingham and the noble lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, that there is no instance in which the Lords rejected a bill which would repeal so largo an amount of taxation as that raised by means of the present paper duty. But I would ask the noble lord, whom we all know to be a high authority upon constitutional questions, whether the truth of a principle must not be tested upon its own merits, and not by the amount of money which may be involved in its application at any particular time. I believe this country attaches very little value to that sup posed privilege which some hon. members would now en force. I like to quote a Whig to a Whig, and I will now remind the noble lord the Foreign Secretary that Lord Macaulay, in his valuable essay on Mr. Hallam's Consti tutional History of England, states that " the privileges of the House of Commons have now become nearly as odious as the rigours of martial law," and goes on to say that " if the Commons were to allow the Lords to amend money bills he does not believe the people would care one straw about the matter." So much for the value of the privilege; and then as to the legality of the claim now put forward by some hon. gentlemen opposite, what is the argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer ? The right hon. gentleman says that a bill to repeal taxes is to be regarded in a diffe rent light from any other. But where is his authority for that statement ? The Lords upon a former occasion op posed a bill dealing with the question of lotteries sent by them from the Commons ; and will any one contend that the Lords would not now have a right to reject a bill for the renewal of lotteries if it should go up to them from this house ? lion. gentlemen opposite proposed no amendment upon this occasion. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer rose in furore to demolish the noble viscount at the head of the Government ; and certainly if this is to be taken as a ds family.pi s e c c u i specimen (nA f I hlaue e ag nh s n p . )0 i r it The n ho ineng rr i ghta which tulahtoe n t the hon. g e nt l eman e Ca nint o b l en i Cabinet forming s o ia n ny d gs u at c h t haa t t hcir p. the time for action is come—(hear, hear, from a number of members on the Ministerial side of the house.) But if it is, why do not you act ? (Cheers and laughter) If you say that you are anxious to produce an impression on the people, pardon me for saying that unless you do something nobody will believe you. (Renewed laughter.) If you with draw all your amendments in succession the public out of doors is too discriminating to be deceived by so tran sparent device. I am ready to admit that before the Chancellor of the Exchequer rose there was a general de sire on the part of the house that these resolutions should be passed unanimously. The noble viscount at the head of the Government had produced that feeling of unanimity by the good sense which he displayed in his speech; but the right hon. gentleman, smarting, as I believe, under the rebuke which he received from the House of Lords, and under the defeat of his rash and unlucky policy, had intro duced into his discussion an element of unexpected bitter ness. I am not surprised, however, at any course which he may pursne. I remember that he denounced the income tax, and that he afterwards doubled it ; that he condemned the QhhieNt war, and that laesnctions one M this moment, that he sits in a Cabinet whose members opposed the con tinuance of church rates, and that he represents the ancient University of Oxford ; and I cannot therefore wonder at the attack which he made to-night on the constitution of this country, for it is clear that by that constitution the House of Lords had as good a right to reject the bill in question as that the Commons had a right to propose it. In the United States of America the Senate have the power of opposing money bills. (" They are elected" from Mr. Bright.) The members of the Senate are elected, but that hits nothing to do with the matter. The wise men who framed the Ameri can constitution placed that power in the hands of the Se nate for the purpose of guarding against the rash legislation of the lower house. Do you mean to say that the power which the Senate exercises in America is not to be exer cised by the House of Peers in this country. In that case I recommend hon. gentlemen opposite to enter into deep con ference with the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the pur pose of producing the measure that is to revolutionise the British empire. The resolutions proposed by the noble vis count are, I admit, nothing more than platitudes, but there is nothing harsh or offensive in them, and have been proposed in a temperate and an agreeable manner. If, however, there aro men who seek to strip the House of Lords of a power they have hitherto exercised, let them reduce their inten tions to action, and let us have a frank discussion—a final I discussion, whether wo are to live under the ancient consti tution of these realms, or whether that constitution is now to be revolutionised. (Cheers ) Lord FERMOY said the Liberal party, reserving to themselves the right to take other steps, thought they were not abandoning their principles in allowing these resolutions to pass. But he did not approve the speech of Lord Palmer ston, to which that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was, he thought, a complete and convincing answer. Ho denied that there was a single case in which the Lords had rejected a bill purely financial sent to them by the Commons. Mr. DILLWYN believed that the object of the Lords in what they had done was to dictate to the country who should govern it. Sir J. TRELAWNY said he would not support the re solutions. If there had been an invasion of their privileges the house ought to vindicate them by action. Mr. RICARDO did not accept the resolutions as a settle ment of this question, and hoped the house would have an opportunity to express an opinion upon the constitutional point. Sir C. DOUGLAS considered that if these resolutions were adopted it would be beneath the dignity of the house not to take the action which ought to follow, and which had been indicated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Mr. BUTT said in voting for tho resolutions he did not consider them as conclusive and the third resolution pledged the house to further action, " to guard for the future against an undue exercise of the power exercised by the Lords." He should vote for the present resolution because he be lieved the Lords had infringed the privileges of the C=- 12101113. Sir J. SHELLEY thought that if the house stopped at the resolutions, which were weak and impotent, it would disappoint the just expectations of persons out of doors. Mr. STANSFELD said the only fault he found with the resolutions was that the concluding one did not explicitly point the moral of the tale, but he objected to the speech of Lord Palmerston, who, he thought had abandoned the con slitutional right of that house. There was no doubt of the legal technical right of the Lords to refuse their assent to any bill ; the only question was as to the constitutional exercise of the right, and he denied their constitutional right to refase their assent to a money bill part of a budget. The rejection of the Paper Duty Repeal Bill was a claim to revise the budget, to perpetuate a tax against the assent of the representatives of the people, and thereby to increase the supply asked by the Crown. The question was whether the house would consent to such a claim. Mr. DISRAELI—I am unwilling that the house should come to a vote upon this subject without my expressing to the noble lord the First Minister of the Crown, both on my own part, and I am sure on the part of hon. gentlemen who sit on this side of the house, our sense of the patriotic speech with which he has introduced the resolutions now under our consideration. (Cheers.) The hon. gentleman calls upon us not to consider this question in a party spirit ; and when he adjures us to rise to the " height of this great argument," and divest ourselves of all party considerations in its discussion, I am gratified that it falls to me in the first sentence which I shall presume to utter, to offer to the First Minister of the Crown, whose general policy I oppose, the sincere tribute of my adhesion on this occasion. (Cheers.) When the real privileges of the House of Commons are assailed or questioned, I can tell the noble lord, if he be then the leader of this house, that ho will not appeal in vain to us to uphold those privileges, or to support him in their vindication; as ,I can with equal sincerity assure him that if there be an attempt in the course of the proceedings of the two Houses of Parliament to raise some artificial agitation—(cheers)—occasioned, perhaps, by the necessity of satisfying the wounded vanity or gratifying the distem pered ambition of some individual—(loud cheers)—he may with as great success appeal to us to support him in the adoption of that course which we believe to be necessary to the welfare of the country. (Hear, hear.) The noble lord has to-night acknowledged--had it not been for circumstances which have since occurred I should have said on the part of the Government—that the course taken by the House of Lords with reference to the bill for the Repeal of the Paper Duties was one which the state of the law, justified and authorised them to adopt. If the law of the country justified and authorised such conduct on the part of the other House of Parliament, there is at once an end to any question of the priv loges of this house. A privi lege that cannot be asserted ceases to be a privilege, and is only a pretence—(hear, hear)—and those who remember what occurred only 20 years ago, when this house attempted to assert a privilege which was contrary to the law of the country, will not, I think, with any hope of success, counsel the house again to adopt a course which was replete with so much disaster, and so humiliating to the dignity of this assembly. (Hear, hear.) But the noble lord was not content with simply acknowledging:that the conduct of the:House of Lords was justified by law. He as manfully confessed that it was sanctioned by policy. (Hear.) What, then, is con duct justified by law and sanctioned by policy—is that con duct which you are compelled to admit is the observance of the law, and tho pursuit of a course which policy approves, to be made the ground and basis of your calling upon us to assert that our privileges have been violated, and our due authority questioned ? (Hear, hear.) If the privileges of the House of Commons can oily be vindicated by opposing that which law justifies and policy sanctions, I fear that we shall hardly be able to recommend to our constituents the character of those privileges, or to indace them to support them with the spirit which the hon. member who has just sat down contemplates. It may bo said, "If the conduct of the House of Lords in this respect be such as the chief of the Government h as th us pu bl ic l y announce d, w h a t neces sity is there for the resolutions which we are called upon to vote to-night ?" (H ear, hear.) If, when this misunderstand ing was first noticed in the HMSO, some one in authority had come forward, hid before us the nature of the case, indicated to us the state of the precedents and those former proceedings which might illustrate the present position, and recommended to us the course whi c h the facts and arguments might have justified and illustrated, I doubt whether there would have been any necessity for the house to have come to these resolutions. I think that if the question had then been de bated with sufficient learning and sufficient calmness, we might perhaps have avoided a state of affairs which all must admit not to be satisfactory. But when a perplexed House of Commons, I thick rashly and hastily, determined to appoint a solemn committee to search for precedents, when you placed upon that committee the most consider able members of the ho use, when they devoted to that pur pose all their energies and attention for a considerable period of time, and when they reported the result of their investigations, it seemed to me impossible that this house could escape from formally expressing the conclusions to which that inquiry had led them. Therefore, Sir, I think it was impossible, after appointing that committee, that re solutions for the acceptance of this house should not be laid on the table. (Hear, hear.) And what are these resolu tions ? Under other circumstances I might cavil at some of the expressions. A word here and there might, I think, be critically noticed. The composition, which has attracted the attention of some members, might be dwelt upon in the spirit of Aristarchus ; but after the speech of the noble lord at the head of the Government, and after the large view he has taken of the whole question, it would be quite unbe coming on my part to enter Upon such verbal trifling. (Cheers.) There are three resolutions before us, each, I doubt not, with a distinct purpose. The first is an assertion of our privileges, copied from ancient precedents in our journals, and claims the sole right of supply to her Majesty. That resolution has been criticised by the highest constitu tional authorities. Mr. Hallam, himself a high Whig, has noticed in his " Constitutional History" the very language we have adopted,in our first resolution, and he notices it as one that cannot be precisely vindicated or proved. That we have the " sole right of granting aids and supplies to the Crown"—which is the language, I think, of the origi nal resolution, and which is here equivalently expressed—is an assertion that cannot be maintained by a house which, when it carries a bill of supply, in that very bill states that the supply can only be granted with the assent of the House of Lords. (Hear, hear.) But it w ou ld b e unw i se at a moment like the present, when, although our privileges may really not be assailed, many think from the represen tations that have been made that they are endangered, to make use of language which might be more accurately precise, but which, to the vulgar ear, might seem to make a modified claim of privilege compared with that put forth by our predecessors. Therefore I think, on the whole, although precisely and critically y ou cou ld not word for word vindicate the assertion embodied in the first resolu tion, it is proper we should adhere to th a t o ld l anguage which was used on g reat, critical, and solemn occasions by OUT predecessors, and not seem to bate o ne s i ng l e i nc h o f the ground always taken by this house upon the subject. In short, the first resolution, as far as the constitutional, and I would say the classical assertion of our privileges is concerned, is one with which I cannot in any way find fault. (Hear.) The second resolution is an admission—to my mind a proper, legal, acid constitutional admission--of the right of the Lords to reject bills of supply; and although there may be expressions in it which some may feel disposed to criticise, such as the statement that the exercise of the right on their part has not been frequent, as if in the nature of thine it could be frequent, and that on all occasions 6, 1860. such an exercise would be viewed with jealousy by this house, as if it ought not to be viewed with jealousy, still it appears to me that the second resolution is one, containing ac it does not a qualified but an absolute acknowledgment of the right of the Lords to reject bills "on the whole," the propriety of which could not, by any one sitting on this side of the house, for a moment be questioned. (Hear, hear.) I now come to the third resolution—(cheers) — which seems to give such consolation to hon. gentlemen opposite, below the gangway. (Laughter.) I have read it with the attention it deserves, and I find it embodies a suggestion made in the last two paragraphs of the draught report of the chairman of the late committee upon precedents—that chairman whose ability the noble lord at the head of the Government has candidly acknowledged— (hear, hear)—and whose moderate and safe opinions upon all political subjects must be admired. I think, even by those who do not agree with him. (Cheers.) If hon. gentle men will only look at the two last paragraphs in the draught report of the chairman—paragraphs that were not admitted into the report that was presented to the house— they will find the suggestions that form the gist and mar row of the third resolution. We threw them out in the committee generally upon the ground that our expression of opinion should sot be admitted into our report, and those paragraphs expressed an opinion. There were',some members of the committee, to whom I shall not particularly refer, who were opposed to the admission of these paragraphs upon other, and perhaps higher grounds. They thought they took too low and desponding a view of the privileges of this house. So, what with the general desire not to ad mit an expression of opinion upon the subject, and the ob jection of some members who thought that the view of those two paragraphs of the privileges of this house was of too de sponding a character, these as I thought at the time unhappy paragraphs of the chairman were omitted. But little did I think that they would be so elevated in public and even Ministerial estimation that they would become the basis of that third resolution which has to-night been the source of so much solace, under circumstances, I admit, of some ad - versity to hon. gentlemen opposite. (Cheers and laughter.) The house will see that I may be able, from my knowledge of the two paragraphs in question, to throw some light on those mysterious modes by which in the third resolution we are told that we have it in our power to vindicate our privi leges, and that, in fact, it will be our own fault if they are ever successfully assailed. I may say in passing that it is rather unfortunate, considering the tone taken by hon. gen tlemen below the gangway, that they should find their only satisfaction to-night in a resolution which, in vindicating their privileges against the rude assault of the Lords, admits that those privileges have been endangered by the lathes and negligence of the House of Commons itself. (Hear.) The chairman of the late committee in those omitted paragraphs, the only paragraphs of his draught report which expressed an opinion and offered remedial counsel, showed that this house had unwisely parted with its due command over the annual taxation of the year, by converting annual taxes into taxes for a term ; and he indicated that there were modes by which we might vindicate our ancient privileges, by including the whole financial scheme for the year in one bill. But it is not the House of Lords that has converted our annual taxation into a permanent taxation. (Hear, hear.) It is not the House of Lords that has made that dangerous assault upon the privileges of the House of Commons. It is Ministers in the House of Commons that have made these proposals. and it is a willing House of Commons that has sanctioned them. (Cheers.) Probably it may be said that they were Tory Ministers who presumed to propose and who dared to accomplish such " gigantic innovations." Nothing of the kind. The last and greatest innovation of the kind occurred under a Whig Ministry, presided over by a statesman who had the honour and, as 1 think, the high privilege of sitting in the House of Commons. The Chief Minister in 1846-7 sat in this Heuse as the Chief Minister does now, and it was the noble lord the member for the City of London—whose devotion to the privileges of this house is not questioned, and whose reputation for constitutional learning and constitutional spirit all will ad mit—who, in proposing that our annual sugar taxes, to the amount of more than £5,000,000, should become perpetual, himself by that proposition lessened our command over the resources of the country, and diminished proportionately our ability to vindicate our privileges. (Cheers.) I shall do the noble lord the justice to admit that, when he made that proposition, he accompanied it by a distinct statement that ho acknowledged the importance and absolute necessity of the House of Commons exercising a due and efficient con trol over the annual taxation of the country, though he thought there were peculiar reasons—and I admit them—in the state of the sugar trade at that moment—it was a moment when great changes were taking place in our colonies, and when the question of protection to those colonies had as sumed a character that demanded the attention of this house—why the sugar duties should become a source of per manent taxation ; and he added the declaration, if not the pledge, that he would substitute for that branch of taxation annual taxes to an equivalent amount over which the House of Commons should exercise its accustomed and beneficial control. The noble lord, however, though he was a Minis ter for six years, was never able to fulfil that pledge. It has been my lot on more than one occasion to call on the noble lord to redeem his pledge, but I have called in vain. Ido not impute to the noble lord any negligence in this matter. He yielded to the insuperable difficulties of the case. We must remember there are not only constitutional Liberals but commercial Liberals. The constitutional Liberals may really be anxious to have control over the annual revenue of the country ; but the commercial Liberals, and many of those who now call most loudly for the vindication of the privileges of the house on this occasion, exercised such a pressure on the Minister of the day that, for commercial purposes, the control of the house over its annual taxation was lost. This, is one of the mysterious modes in which we are for the future to vindicate our privileges when they are assailed ; but I ask the commercial Liberals whether they are prepared to allow the sugar duties, the tea duties, or the malt duties to become a source of annual taxation. I have no doubt the noble lord and many of his colleagues, who love commerce well, but who love the Constitution more—(a laugh)—may be disposed, if the house would en courage them, to restore to it its ancient control over the revenue. But I doubt very much whether the gentlemen who have spoken so loudly this evening in favour of our privileges would be prepared to support a Minister who should propose this important change in the mode of levy ing the taxation of the country. (Hear, hear.) I now come to the second method of defending our rights sug gested by my right' honourable friend, and, I take it adopted in the resolution—that - is, by insisting that the whole of our financial scheme shall be embodied in one bill. We do not—at least I for one, and the Prime Minister for another—do not question the right of the House of Lords to reject such a bill; but of course the responsi • bility of such a step would, under there circumstances, be greatly enhanced, and the difficulty of disturbing the finan cial arrangements of the House of Commons proportionately increased. (Hear.) For my own part, I have no objection to such a course. I should have liked, for example, that that course had been pursued this year. I should have liked to have the whole scheme of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in one bill. I should like to have seen the addi tional 2d. of income tax set down in the same bill that was to repeal the duties on paper. (Cheers.) Such a prqceeding would have afforded us, no doubt, an opportunity for deli beration very different from the manner in which the finan cial measures of the Government were carried in that un happy first month of the present session —(hear, hear) — which we all now so deeply and bitterly repent. (Cheers.) Is there any one present who believes that the scheme of the Minister, if embodied in one comprehensive measure, would have met with success ? No. (Hear.) Not even in the frenzy of March, when we were as mad as individuals sometimes are in that month—as mad as March hares—not even then would the scheme have been passed. (Cheers and laughter.) There are the constitutional methods pointed out in this somewhat mysterious third resolution, which were copied from the draught report of our right hon. chairman. There are the two constitutional methods which afford such relief to the perplexed Liberal party. You want action—this is the action that awaits you. (A laugh.) Of these two courses, one at least must be repugnant to your great principles, and the other destroys all the schemes of the Minister whom you particularly support. (Cheers.) I see nothing to object to in that third resolution, end for an additional reason. The principles and policy which I strove to assert during the whole course of the committee are embodied and expressed in this resolution. I tried with, I am glad to say, a majority of the committee, to vin dicate the just privileges of the House of Commons. I tried to uphold the constitutional truths which rendered tbem in dependent of the other House of Parliament. (Hear, hear.) I tried to recal to the attention of the committee that in our modern practice the House of Commons had, unfortunately, lost its ancient and due control over the annual taxation of the country. (Hear.) Well, then, if I find that this third resolution expresses my views, why am I not at liberty to support it ? It appears, however, we are not to enjoy this privilege. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has made a violent attack upon us because we support the Go vernment. (Laughter, and hear.) " It is outrageous," said the right hon. gentleman—" What, does a party that calls itself Conservative presume to support a Government of which I am a member I" (Cheers and laughter.) " I call upon you," exclaimed the Chancellor of the Exche quer, " to interfere in this matter, because a gigantic in novation has been perpetrated." Now, I listened with great attention, and with the utmost gratification, to the mature speech of the head of the Government, which com menced these proceedings, and which I accepted as the wise, calm, and ample declaration of a Cabinet that had carefully and deliberately considered this important subject. (Hear, hear.) I heard from the noble lord that the House of Lords had in the opinion of the Government not only acted in a manner by law permitted and justified, but in ac cord and consonance with no less than thirty-six precedents. It seems extraordinary to me that a body that acted in ac• cordance with the authority of no less than thirty-six pre cedents that that conduct should be described very shortly after bs , the colleague of the First Minister as a gigantic in novation. But the noble lord did more than this. He made this most important communication to the house, which I believe will be a source of great satisfaction and comfort to the country to-morrow, that it was not the intention of the Government to attempt to reverse the decision of the House of Lords respecting the paper duty. But what says the Chan cellor of the Exchequer? Ho says, "I am going to support the resolutions which in my opinion are utterly unfit and inade quate, because I take them as I have taken other things be fore, in a non-natural sense, and because, inasmuch as they are utterly passive, it necessarily ensues that they are to be followed by action." Now, sir, I should like to know from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or if not from him, net from some of his colleagues, because it is possible they may not agree with him, but from some more sympathising member of the house who may follow in this debate—l should like to knew of what the action is to consist. What is the course contemplated, and what are the views to be accomplished? Because I myself, though I am entirely ap proving of the course which the Government pursued, although I think the statement of the noble lord was digni fied. impartial, and statesmanlike, and equal to the occasion, end one which will give satisfaction to the country, still I have that respectful sympathy for hon. gentlemen opposite which one cannot help feeling for men you are in the habit of airing with, although you may not share their opinions and.agree with them exactly in the case under our consideration. I want to know what balm there is fur their tortured feelings. I want to ascertain whether they inay not all this time be labouring under some temporary hallucit,a don. (Cheers and laughter.) I want to spare them the re morse of to-morrow, when, after having summed up the wonderful experience of this night, they discover that they have received only a word and not a remedy, and that ac tion like the action of Demosthenes thrice repeated, may mean nothing more than what I believe the correct Greek version expresses, namely, a skilful gesture. (Ch eers and laughter.) Well, sir, I maintain that the charge of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is utterly untenable and has no foundation, I say, with the views which we entertain, and the entire approval that we give to the course of the noble lord, it was not our duty t • oppose the resolu tion which we wish to support. Leaving, then, the right hon. gentleman, I think answeredsatiseactorily upon that point, let me for a moment contemplate the position of those whom I suppose I may still, if only in courtesy, calli the great Liberal party. Now, sir, their conduct to-night, especially in the attacks they made on this side of the house —the repeated wonderment which they have expressed at our taking no part in the debate, when really we thought it might have been closed hours ago with the unanimous feel ing of the house—seems to me very extraordinary, even if. they themselves had been prepared to second their speeches by actions so much wanted. But that does not appear to be the case. I remember very often in old days the ridicule that has been thrown on some unhappy member who, on an important occasion, has given notice of an amendment, and who, when the house was full. and its pulse beat high, and the atmosphere was loaded with rhe toric and excitement, surprised tale house by withdrawing his amendment. I have always considered that one of the most perilous, and perhaps one of themost absurd positions in which an hon. member can be placed. But now there is not one but three. (Cheers.) There are three Richmonds in the field. There are three amendments, and, strange to say, the same sad destiny of suicide which awaited them all. (Cheers and laughter.) These three rash gentlemen proposed three amendments; and that those three gentle men having determined to take that course, should follow it by one which necessarily covers gentlemen with absurdity seems to me to be one of the strangest events which ever occurred in the House of Commons. (Cheers and laughter.) But what is more wonderful is, that the three amendments are the reasons which are given for their withdrawal. There are amendments to the resolutions upon the table of the house, and because, to use the language of hon. gen tlemen opposite, the great Liberal party, these amendments express nothing, and are totally inadequate to the occasion, they will render it necessary that the great Liberal party should meet early to-morrow morning to consider them, therefore they were going to vote for the resolutions. (Cheers and laughter.) That does appear to me to be a course which is perplexing to comprehend. But see the aggregate of circumstances which renders the present position of those gentlemen still more contradictory, incon sistent, incoherent, and I may even say absurd. It is that they have had the whole of the debate to themselves. (Cheers and laughter.) It is not that they have not en joy° 1 the opportunity—that they have not availed them selves of the occasion to vindicate that course—to make it clear, and, as the hon. gentleman has just said, to give it "absolute lucidity," for every advantage that men can have either in exposition, or demonstration, or repetition, they have had, and the only consequence of the monopoly of de bate which the party devoted to those peculiarly free prin ciples that they have always supported, may, perhaps, ac count for their confusion. Unaccustomed to monopoly, as they are, they know not how to deal with that porten tous implement, but in consequence of having had the whole night to themselves, having carried on the debate with a knowledge and unvaried ability still more remarkable be cause they had not the advantage of replying to any person, they have so managed affairs that they have brought forward three amendments—not less than three amendments to the Ministerial resolutions, and they have withdrawn those resolutions, because those resolutions, in their opinion, were inadequate to the occasion. (Cheers and laughter.) I for got one hon. gentleman, and I should wish to do him jus tice, the hon. member for Banbury. Besides, the three re solutions of which we had formal notice, with an ingenuous ness, which, considering the circumstances, appeared to be marvellous, the hon. member for Banbury informed us that he also had prepared an amendment, but had not thought fit to place it on the table of the house. I think the hon. member must have blessed his stars—(cheers and laughter) —for his prudence, and I think he had very good cause. (Renewed laughter.) Now, sir, I have touched with. th e impartiality which the noble lord claimed to-night for him self, on the unjust remarks on the conduct of her Majesty's Opposition. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, not satis fied with answering the Prime Minister, fell foul of the Opposition—(cheers and laughter)—because they did not follow him and assist him in the unseemly fray. (Cheers.) The organised Opposition below the gangway, apparently not yet experienced in opposition, trembling over their own amendments—(cheers and laughter)—and getting up successfully answers to themselves, not satisfied with the result of the debate, can do nothing else to get themselves out of the scrape but turn round and abuse the Opposition on account of their silence. There are moments when si lence is, I think, the better part of valour. (Cheers and counter cheers.) Fine things might be said of the virtue of silence, and I recommend hon. gentlemen to consult the G-reek sages and Greek poets, and they will find how incon sistent is the course pursued by hon. gentlemen opposite. But that attack never, in my mind, assumed a form of grosser injustice than in the speech of the hon. member who pre ceded me. That hon. gentleman deplored the loss of the Reform Bill, and attributed it entirely either to the silence or the speeches—for the cause was somewhat ambiguous— ' of the Opposition; and the hon. gentleman read us a great lecture, dealing with the future with all that liberality which distinguishes the prophets of the new school, and fastened en us the high responsibility of the defeat of that measure, for the discomfiture of which he said that the noble lord the Secretary of State was quite blameless. But it is true that the bill was defeated—whether defeated by si lence or by speeches—was it defeated only by the Opposition, or mainly by the Opposition? Why, there was a troop of orators opposite more anxious, not less eloquent, than our selves, who distinguished themselves on that occasion, and among them was a young knight who won his spurs, and that with great distinction, and who to-night has maintained his reputation with an ability I am only too glad to acknow ledge. And no ene opposed that measure with a more un compromising spirit I believe than the hon. gentleman who has just sat down. (Cries of "No no.") Well, I believe the hon. gentleman expressed his determination to vote for the Government, and made a most able speech, proving iu every detail that it was a most inadequate measure. (Cheers and laughter.) I believe he took the same course with re spect to the Reform Bill as he has taken on the present re solutions. What he wanted in both instances was a mea sure which would lead to action, and I suspect there will be as much action on these resolutions as on the late Reform Bill. Mr. STANSFELD said he was a sincere supporter of the Government measure of reform, but he said his views went further. He had not attributed its defeat mainly to the opposition. Mr‘.DISRAELL—It is not very material to the case. Well, sir, I venture to hope that I have stated the reasons whiCh induce myself, and I believe those who are sitting on this side of the house, to give a cordial support to her Ma jesty's Government on this occasion. I think it would have been just as well if there had been no committee of prece dents, and then there would have been no need of resolu tions; but as a committee was appointed they have given us a report of great value. It is an addition to our library of great value, and we cannot too highly estimate it. Re solutions were the necessary consequence of that report. I think those resolutions express a temperate and wise course on the part of this house. If they vindicate the privileges of this house, though in language which may be criticised for its precision, it is still language that has been used by our predecessors on memorable occasions ; and if they as sert the rights of this house, where they can be practically maintained, I think it would be unwise to alter language the popular interpretation of which is one favourable to the maintenance and the just privileges of the House of Com mons. I think the second resolution admits—and admits in the clearest terms—distinctly admits—the power of the. House of Lords to reject money bills ; and no other power have I for one moment claimed for that house. They have not the power to originate—they have not the power to alter or amend a money bill ; but they have the power to reject money bills ; and should that power be withdrawn, then the constitution of England, 'of which we hear so much, would be instantly changed. (Hear, hear.) We have heard during this session very much as to new principles of taxa tion. New principles of taxation hare been recommended which are, to my mind, of very dangerous import— (hear)—but which, fortunately for the house and the coun try, will no longer be submitted to a new parliament elected by inexperienced constituents. But, if new principles of taxation came into fashion I could suppose a case of the House of Commons passing a money bill that would fix a very high rate of taxation upon the estates of men of the House of Lords. Are we to contend that the House of Lords cannot reject a bill which they cannot amend or alter ? Such bills have passed this house before, and we are now told that we are to lay it down as our privilege tkat the House of Lords is deprived of the last defence for property. (Hear.) I think that resolutions distinctly acknowledging the right of the House of Lords to reject a money bill are resolutions which we, as a Conservative body, cannot reject and ought to support ; and the third resolution, though it may be vague, and from the nature of the subject it is necessarily vaguely expressed, I see in it only a recurrence of those constitutional courses as the fiscal subjects which I think it would well become this house to consider if they might not adopt. If any proposition of that kind were made to the house, I should anticipate for it more opposition from the other side of the house than from this side. I ask the house whether it is not our duty to cheerfully support the Minister who has proposed these resolutions, and who has made the proposition in a spirit equal to the occasion, and free from all party and petty considerations ? (Cheers.) If the policy of many hon. gentlemen opposite were pur sued the critical iufluenc,e of the senate on the subject of the finances would entirely cease, and it would become a great question whether the absence of such control is in harmony with the other parts of the constitution, and might not be a. great detriment to the public welfare. It has been said that the Senate of America has the power of rejecting money bills, and not only that, it possesses the power of altering and amending them, and the hon. member for Bir mingham said. " but that is an elective bed):." A very im portant consideration of course. If it be advisable that there should be some control, wisely modified and fenced about, as it is, exercised by what we may call the senate of this country, if it be, as I think, the essence of wisdom that there should be some check on intemperate and unjust reso lutions in matters of taxation, are we to conclude that that senate should be elective. The hon. gentleman and his friends, I suppose, are changing the issue, and what we really have to consider is, if we have a senate, whether it should be elective. lam in favour of maintaining the here ditary legislature of this country. (Cheers.) I would not entrust the large powers which the Senate of America has to an elective body. What control the House of Lords have in matters of finance I wish them to have as an hereditary body, guarding ourselves against any exclusive and unwise exercise of this power by the privileges of the House of Commons—privileges that have been acknowledged for centuries, and which, whenever they are assailed, we find ourselves able to uphold and vindicate. The test of oar privileges is, that they can be asserted. The hon. member for Birmingham will pardon me, for he said the other night that he had been accused of a wish to Americanise this country, and now he has explained that what he meant was, that the senate should be elective. I trust that that house, by supporting the Government resolutions, will show that it is prepared to uphold the privileges not only of this house, but of all the estates of the realm which the constitution has hitherto acknowledged, and under which this country has so eminently flourished. (The right hon. gentleman resumed his seat amid loud and pro longed cheering.) Lord J. Russell and Mr. Bright rose together, and neither of them seemed inclined to give way. The SPEAKER declared that Lord J. Russell had pos session of the house. Mr. BRIGHT attempted to make some observation, but was called to order. Lord J. RUSSELL said—l must express my gratitude for the speech that the right hon. gentleman has just made in support of the resolutions of my noble friend, and of the speech of my noble friend ; but while I express my grati tude, I must at the same time vindicate my noble friend's resolutions, and also his speech from the interpretation that has been placed upon them. (Hear, beer.) The right hen. gentleman is in a position of considerable difficulty, no doubt. He is the leader of a great number of gentlemen who are proud of being members of this house. H e can therefore hardly abandon any of the ancient rights and privileges of this house; and the right hon. gentleman on the other hand can hardly abandon Lord Derby and cen sure what he has done. (Question and order.) The con sequencePeed]. of the gent l eman , and I must claim t o b e allowed to is, that the house has heard t he s right hon. reply to him. The right hon. gentleman has placed an interpretation on the speech of my noble friend that his words do not bear. He said that my noble friend had ad mitted that the act of the House of Lords in rejecting the Paper Duty Bill was not only justified by the law but by policy. My noble friend's case is an example v.. 1 the danger of candour exercised towards an adversary. My n ,.lble friend said that technically they could not say that the Lort, lB were wrong in rejecting the bill, for you could not ask them t t i say " content" or " not content" to a bill without allowing theft to say what they pleased. (Hear, hear.) My noble friend made that admission. But with regard to the policy, my noble friend said that he did not believe that the majority of the Lords had defeated that bill because they wished to have a general power over finances, but that they conceived themselves in this particular case justified in policy. (Hear, hear.) That was giving to them the utmost credit for their motives—(hear, hear)—but itwas very different from saying that policy justified the course they had taken. The right hon. gentleman takes advantage of this statement and con tends that the Lords have done not only that which is within the technical confines of the law, but which is justified by policy. I must say, what cannot be denied on either hand, that, for the last 200 years the House of Lords have never exercised their power of rejecting a financial bill of this kind. The House of Lords have never rejected a bill which was part of the financial scheme of the year, and which was to remove from industry a very great burden ; for such an act there was no precedent. The right hon. gentleman also spoke of the resolutions. The first resolution asserts in the terms of the resolution of 1692, that to grant supplies is an essential part of our constitution, because they are not in the form of imposing a tax, but are grants of the Commons. There is no power in the Crown or in the House of Lords to impose a tax, but the Commons have the power to grant a part of that which is their own. If that is the case, what a strange anomaly it must be that from the 15th of August next a tax of £1,000,000 a year shall continue imposed not by the authority of the House of Commons, or the assent of the Crown, but simply by a vote of the House of Lords alone. The right hon. gentleman said that the second resolution admitted the power of the Lords, but at the same time states that the exercise of this power is justly regarded by the House of Commons with peculiar jealousy. But why with peculiar jealousy ? If the House of Lords has done what is quite right and usual, and for which there are many prece dents, there is no necessity for jealousy. An act of this kind is regarded with peculiar jealousy, because it is not the proper right of the Lords. We have the Mutiny Bill pro posed to us every year, and 'we could reject it; but that would be most indiscreet, unless some very great danger arose of an attack on the liberties of England by the Crown through the agency of a standing army. The postage was reduced to Id. in the face of a deficient revenue; but the difference was, that then the Duke of Wellington was the leader of the House of Lords, and that accounted for a dif ferent course being taken to that which was pursued on the present occasion. But as the House of Commons is now led I have no such confidence. (Oh, oh.) I believe that, however rash and unjustifiable their present • conduct may be, it will be followed up by other steps more un justifiable still, unless this house shall assert its rights. The right honourable gentleman says we did a rash thing in appointing a committee of precedents. Why, then, did not the right hon. gentleman oppose that committee ? (Hear, hear.) The appointment of that com mittee was of itself an announcement that the House of Lords had stepped out of the paths of the constitution--(no, no)—and the right hon. gentleman, whodid not oppose the appointment of that committee at the time, new says that it was rashly and hastily done. Certainly, if it be true, as hon. gentlemen opposite by their cheers seem to intimate, that this was nothing out of the usual course of the consti tution, then it would be rash to appoint a committee of pre cedents. The right hon. gentleman the member for the University of Dublin is surprised at my laying so much stress on the amount of the tax which the Lords have re fused to repeal, but I do consider the amount a very material point in this question, because the House of Com mons, enjoying the privilege of taxation, feeling secure that its right of taxation was not contradicted by any one, easily allowed such bills as those for the repeal of the duty on stone bottles, or for salt used in manure, to be rejected with comparative indifference. But it is a very different thing when the House of Lords rejects a bill for the repeal of up wards of a million ; a man then asks himself where is this to stop—will the Lords reject a bill for the repeal of taxes amounting to 10 millions, would they have had the right of rejecting the whole 78 millions to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred ? The hon. and learned mem ber for the University says boldly that they have that right, and that they would have been justified by the constitution in rejecting the whole seventy-eight millions that had been repealed since 1815. But that would be a total change in our constitution. (Cheers.) It would be a new form of government—not that under which we have been accustomed to live, but a form of government under which the House of Lords, that has no representa tive character, would have the right of taxing the people, contrary to all the doctrines that have been held, not for 200, but for 400 years. (Cheers.) Then I come to the last and the most important of these resolutions. The right hon. gentleman says that it is little more than the last paragraph of the report which was drawn up by the chairman of the committee. But there is this great distinction, that whereas it appeared from the last paragraph of our chairman's re port that he gave up all our powers, and left, the House of Commons in a state of despondency and confusion, this re solution properly and ti uly affirms that this house has power to guard itself against any undue exercise of the power of the Lords. This of course means a great deal. (Laughter.) It means that the House of Lords may at some future time resort to an undue exercise of its powers, and that if they do this house has means of preventing any such exercise of its powers. I think it would he unwise to state in detail what those means are. Some gentlemen may be of opinion that the roost effectual means would be to propose that the taxes should be voted annually; but it is quite clear that in one way or another, and in other ways than that to which I halve just alluded, the House of Commons has the means of vindicating its rights and of maintaining its power of taxation. I must ,say a few words on the ques tion first, whether the Hem e of Commons has the right to control the taxation ; and, second, how that right may be maintained. With regard to the first question, I must say that the proposition which the hon. member for Birmingham maintained in committee embraces the usual practice of the constitution. The Queen addresses the House of Commons for the supplies—the House of Commons grants them ; the Speaker carries up the bill of appropriation by which these supplies are distributed, and if the House of Lords were to demand to see the estimates we should refuse to give them. There was a remarkable case in the year 1786, in which Mr. Pitt proposed a scheme for reducing the National Debt by the payment of a quarter of a million every three months. It was stated in the House of Lords that the real surplus did not exceed £25,000 a year ; and to clear up the matter they sent to the House of Commons for the documents which would show both the expenditure and the revenue. But Mr. Pitt proposed that the house should refuse information to that house .(Cheers.) He said, therefore, that the old practice of the constitution was for the House of Commons to grant supplies—to give and grant that which was their own, as Lord Chatham said : and it was their duty to balance the deficiency in the revenue with additional taxes. That might be a matter of difficulty for the House of Commons, but it was not for the House of Lords to attempt to supply the deficiencies of re venue. It will hardly be denied, I suppose, that we have at least a concurrent power in the taxation of the country; but if the House of Lords are admitted to be concurrent in, their jurisdiction with us—if they are to be admitted our partners in taxation, the consequence will be utter confusion in our finances, and each house will endeavour to take off that which is most unpopular at the moment, or which will gain them the most of the popular sympathies of the coun try. Then, as to the question of the indifference of public feeling on this question, I say it is because our powers and functions are considered settled and safe that se little alarm is felt as to our maintaining our rights against the Lords. I was reading the other day that on the question of the privileges of this house in the time of Charles 1., in the case of the five members, 5,000 men came up from Buckingham shire to defend their member against any breach of the pri vileges of the house in his person. The right hon. gentle man needs no such escort—(laughter)—he and the other members of this house are quite seeure. (Cheers.) The difference is this, that then the privileges of this house were believed to be in danger; now they are considered safe. (Cheers.) But though that is the case it is our business to see that there is net a change in the constitution, according to which the power of the House of Commons to give, and grant, and regulate the finances of the country, should be transferred from the House of Commons to the Senate. It is not the same as the Senate in America, because there the right is exercised by those who are indirectly the represen • tatives of the people. The only similarity to such a case is in Russia, because there the estimates and the expendi ture are laid before the Senate, and are voted by them. (Cheers.) The right hon. gentleman opposite alluded to some new plan of taxation which was to be laid on pro perty. But that has not been the case of late years, for we have diminished the taxes on Customs and Excise, and we have provided otherwise for the service of the year to allow time for those sources of revenue to recover. But the indi rect taxation so far from diminishing had considerably in creased, and the amount of that taxation, which some years ago was only £33,000,000 a year, is now £44,000,000. The result, therefore, shows the wisdom of the financial policy which we have of late years pursued. We have abolished the duties on salt, on glass, and on various articles of ge neral consumption, and we have increased not only the ge neral productiveness of the revenue, but the productiveness of that portion of it in particular which is raised by .P 1, 1 1: rest taxation. I believe that the proposed abolition of the paper duty was conceived in the general spirit of our recent_, financial policy, and that if it had passed into law it would have been productive of the same happy The Lords cannot have rejected the bill on at ad ° at the time general deficiency in the revenue, they h ount of either no means of knowing what was to be the B ut they may un? of any the estimates or the supplies for the yea financeuoth at they desired sir jealousye d to have given their vote in this sense, which we have put a stop to that wise system of r u e n h u s o u t c h ee e s t s .e , li a e n v d ed to th de a - t c f° la r r n e ' athnaytyfoearrtshefoflul ion shall continue to be the great h If that was the upon Landed _ intention taxed at the fullest amount, while the national charge with landed property is dim an i i t o u w r e e d industry 6° of the Lords it forms :mild" of co a n d s d u i m tio p n t al fof this house of the powe r w hi ch t h ey on the par t present resolutio ns state moderately urn*ghts. The r i g h t hon. gentleman sa ys that the speech d i gnified of my noble friend was impartial, buthav ofirmuselyd. what the are sta t es manlike, and gmfied ; and I believe that it is en titled to that praise, but it is entitled to it because it met the occasion, but did not go farther the occasion. My noble friend proposed a remedy for the evil we have suffered and a security against the danger of its recurrence ; but the mo tion does not enter into any empty defiance of the House of Lords. I think that however indiscreet may have been the conduct of the House of Lords upon this occasion it will be , our duty to continue in a calm and even course; and I should be very sorry that their act should at all weaken or cndangi r the authority of that house as one great branch of our national legislature. (Cheers.) On the motion of Mr. Dimly Seymour, the debate was adjourned to this day. The Leith Harbour and Docks bill passed through com mittee. REFRESHMENT HOUSES AND WINE LICENCES (SCOTLAND) BILL. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER postponed the further discussion of the measure till next Monday. The Heritable Securities (Scotland) Bill was read a second time. The Burial Grounds (Ireland) Act Amendment Bill passed through committee. The Felony and Misdemeanor Bill passed thro ugh com miThe ttee Bproleac form a. hing and Dyeing Works Bill passed through committee. The house adjourned at a quarter past two o'clock. Ivor not try. p in lOU. Lone Inks If to iven x re- , USO. t e-- rtent i:.111- ,ador ided, ward Pitt :dale rindi are to Rear, ed by ound L. and e has T